Drew Peterson's Trial *FOURTH WEEK*

[Jackson44]

:woohoo: I hope that they don't mess up the testimony in any way

I was just going to write the very same thing!

 

[Shelby1]

:waiting: No updates yet.

 

[Livingthedream]

IMO, If the state can present Pachter's and Schori's testimony without any problems, I think DP is toast. Had they been allowed to finish with Rossetto's testimony, he would have been burnt toast.

As many on here have said, this all points to intent and KS then ends up dead/murdered.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The sidebar ends. Defense attorney Darryl Goldberg objects to the publication of two photographs the prosecution hopes to show during the upcoming testimony of Dr. Mary Chase, calling them “gruesome.” Prosecutor Glasgow responds, claims the photos “will show that this was not an accident, but a homicide . . . it’s important that they [the jurors] see it first hand.” Goldberg also rails against “an artist’s rendering of an alleged injury” (this relates to a diaphragm injury). The judge asks to see the actual photograph of this particular injury. Goldberg also complains about “some other illustrative exhibits of some alleged injuries . . . these are in isolation, nothing to do with connecting the dots amongst each other [other injuries] . . . it is completely contrary to what we discussed previously, and it’s clear the only things these things would do are mislead or confuse the jury . . . it would be unfairly prejudicial, even for a demonstrative purpose.” Glasgow withdraws one of the proposed exhibits, but supports the appropriateness of the others. Judge: “The injuries depicted . . . are there actual photographs of those injuries?” Glasgow confirms that there are. Judge: “I understand Mr. Goldberg’s argument . . . I’m going to allow them to use [one], to demonstrate the relationship of the wounds.” Another demonstrative, however, is not allowed.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Goldberg now objects to a video that the State intends to use. The defense and judge say that they haven’t seen the video in its final version, although prosecutor Connor says it has been sent to all parties. The judge asks to see the video in question, which Connor is able to provide.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The judge has now seen the prosecution’s proposed video. Goldberg objects to the video, calls it “cumulative” and – at least in part – “completely misleading and confusing.” Glasgow responds: “The State’s intent is to utilize the video only in conjunction with the head injury . . . I think that would give them [the jury] a nice flow. And I don’t believe the depiction is inaccurate.” Judge: “I’m allowing the State to use the actual photos that were taken during the autopsy . . . the one or two demonstrative exhibits which showed the various layers of the skull, those I believe are admissible, because they show A person’s skull rather than THIS person’s skull . . . as far as the video in general, the problem I have with it is it looks like a movie, and I’m afraid it might confuse the jurors that it’s an actual movie produced as a result of this autopsy . . . I think that’s quite misleading. So given the fact that the State is going to be allowed to use the actual photographs, I don’t see what the video adds. So the video is not going to be admitted.”

In Session The judge gives the attorneys a few minutes to get their exhibits together. He then leaves the bench.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Good morning y'all :coffeecup: ----good to see the hitman is in, and one of the pictures of injuries is in.

 

[Wishbone]

This judge sure leaves the bench alot.

 

[Livingthedream]

Why doesn't the judge just come out and say: "The evidence is potenitally too strong and thus would make it very likely the defendant would be convicted. Because of that, I am not going to allow it into evidence".

:floorlaugh:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Soooooo, the hit man gets in! Good news!

:woohoo: Alleluia ! Alleluia !

But I hope the prosecutor don't mess this up ... it's important !

:moo:

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Prosecutor Glasgow calls Dr. Mary Case to the stand. She identifies herself as “a medical doctor,” and goes over her educational and professional background. She has been a pathologist since 1973, and she is currently a professor of pathology at St. Louis University. She also serves as chief medical examiner for four counties (including St. Louis County).

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Dr. Case explains the role of a medical examiner. “The medical examiner’s office, our mission is to determine the cause of death, and the manner of death . . . and also to answer other forensic issues that arise.” She is board-certified in anatomic, neuro, and forensic pathology.

 

[LambChop]

Why doesn't the judge just come out and say: "The evidence is potenitally too strong and thus would make it very likely the defendant would be convicted. Because of that, I am not going to allow it into evidence".

:floorlaugh:

Essentially that is exactly what he is saying.....:floorlaugh:

I think the judge leaves the bench so often because he has to check his emails. jmo

 

[Shelby1]

In Session According to Dr. Case, neuro-pathology is the study of “disease and injury of the nervous system . . . consciousness is part of the neural system.” She says that “currently, less than 15 people” are board-certified in both neuro and forensic pathology.

In Session Since she started in 1975, Dr. Case has performed “about 11,000” autopsies. She also regularly does “brain cuttings . . . I’ve looked at thousands and thousands of brains.”

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The witness goes over some of the various professional organizations to which she belongs. “Because I work as a medical examiner, I am frequently called by a prosecutor, as opposed to a defense attorney.” However, she has a private consultation business, where she handles cases for either side. In the last few years, she’s looked at “40 or 50” defense cases.

 

[Shelby1]

By the way, I'm reading other comments on IS and the Chicago Tribune is reporting that all of the jurors wore green today. Various shades of it, but all green.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Dr. Case now explains her specialized research into the area of head injuries related to child abuse. She’s been qualified as an expert witness “many hundreds of times.” Her first trial testimony was in 1977.

 

[Shelby1]

***off topic:

UGH, Casey A. gets off probation this Friday.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Why doesn't the judge just come out and say: "The evidence is potenitally too strong and thus would make it very likely the defendant would be convicted. Because of that, I am not going to allow it into evidence".

:floorlaugh:

He might as well say just that!

I have never seen a prosecution so limited in how and what they can present in their case.

The big win today is the picture of the head wound from the actual autopsy and the hit man testimony. I am now more hopeful that just maybe DP will be convicted.

MOO

 

[Shelby1]

In Session The witness is asked about articles she has written in her field (“most of them have to do with head injuries&#8221. She has also given “just under 400” lectures in the same field (“it’s a very common thing that I do&#8221.