Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

[Shelby1]

FWIW, I tweeted Vinnie during his show on IS this morning and asked if the first medical examiner--Dr. Mitchell--is on the witness list. I never got an answer. Sigh.

So, I went to the Willis Co. courts online site and looked up the case. It lists all of the documents (witness lists etc.) but you can't see them. It says some of them are sealed.

 

[sweets]

IF and when you get a chance, awesome commentary and discussion of the Drew Peterson case and trial.

JMHO
fran


Justice with Judge Jeanine

Who Speaks for the victims?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/justice-jeanine/index.html/

Thanks fran. I was just fixing to post about this as I had not seen anyone mention it. Her show was on Saturday night in my area and it tickled me to no end. She publically told that judge off on national tv. I sure hope he was watching or reads about it and take into account that his behaviour is noticed by his own peers, other judges, cops, and lawyers. We will see if this public repremind (s) makes him step back and take a look at his behaviour and sees that he really is not being neutal in this case. jmo..sweets

 

[CarolinaMoon]

FWIW, I tweeted Vinnie during his show on IS this morning and asked if the first medical examiner--Dr. Mitchell--is on the witness list. I never got an answer. Sigh.

So, I went to the Willis Co. courts online site and looked up the case. It lists all of the documents (witness lists etc.) but you can't see them. It says some of them are sealed.

I believe Dr. Mitchell is deceased. He was 44 when he died IIRC.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...bit-20100314_1_autopsies-pathologist-forensic

Bryan Mitchell, 1965-2010: Forensic pathologist handled high-profile cases in Illinois

Dr. Bryan R. Mitchell performed autopsies for some of Illinois' biggest cases.

The forensic pathologist handled the first autopsy on Kathleen Savio, Drew Peterson's third wife.

Dr. Mitchell, 44, died of complications from cancer surgery on Thursday, March 11, at Loyola University Medical Center, said his wife, Mary Uckerman Mitchell, also a pathologist. A resident of Burr Ridge, he had been diagnosed with cancer in January.

More at link.

 

[Cubby]

Two coroner's have reruled her death a homicide. I just don't think they have enough evidence to say that it was DP that did it. I think he did, everyone else thinks he did, but what actual physical evidence do they have? jmo

I think this is where the heresay comes in. I don't know what has been officially ruled out, but I think Pastor Neil stating that Stacy, a now missing/deceased witness, lied to the authorities about DP's alibi is in fact relevant. See, this is where I am confused regarding what is allowed and what isn't. If the defendent disappeared or murdered a second person to keep this witness from testifying, how is that not applicable or not relevant? And why would the court reward DP for doing so? none of it makes sense to me. :sigh:

 

[Cubby]

I believe Dr. Mitchell is deceased. He was 44 when he died IIRC.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...bit-20100314_1_autopsies-pathologist-forensic



More at link.

Good thing they can verify his COD. Because when I first read that he died and was only 44, I immediately wondered if DP had something to do with it.

 

[Madeleine74]

If the defendent disappeared or murdered a second person to keep this witness from testifying, how is that not applicable or not relevant? And why would the court reward DP for doing so? none of it makes sense to me.

It might be considered double hearsay (the pastor confession). But that's just my wild guess.

 

[ohiogirl]

I think this is where the heresay comes in. I don't know what has been officially ruled out, but I think Pastor Neil stating that Stacy, a now missing/deceased witness, lied to the authorities about DP's alibi is in fact relevant. See, this is where I am confused regarding what is allowed and what isn't. If the defendent disappeared or murdered a second person to keep this witness from testifying, how is that not applicable or not relevant? And why would the court reward DP for doing so? none of it makes sense to me. :sigh:

I hope this is allowed in, but I guess I will believe it when I see it. Eagerly awaiting tomorrow's testimony. :seeya:

 

[Cubby]

It might be considered double hearsay (the pastor confession). But that's just my wild guess.

What is double hearsay? I'm so confused. If Drew disappeared or murdered ANY potential witness to Kathleens murder, I have no clue how the court can rule that irrelevant. It just does not make any sense to me. None.

 

[Madeleine74]

What is double hearsay? I'm so confused. If Drew disappeared or murdered ANY potential witness to Kathleens murder, I have no clue how the court can rule that irrelevant. It just does not make any sense to me. None.

Double Hearsay Definition:

Recitals of statements of others within a statement that is itself hearsay; an out-of-court declaration containing another out-of-court declaration.

-------------

I don't know if it qualifies or not, but I was thinking SP telling the pastor what DP said is hearsay and the pastor then repeating what SP said that DP told SP might be considered double hearsay.

 

[Cubby]

Double Hearsay Definition:

Recitals of statements of others within a statement that is itself hearsay; an out-of-court declaration containing another out-of-court declaration.

-------------

I don't know if it qualifies or not, but I was thinking SP telling the pastor what DP said is hearsay and the pastor then repeating what SP said that DP told SP might be considered double hearsay.

Thank you. I understand what you mean about the pastor repeating what Stacy said Drew said.

What about what Stacy said to the pastor about her OWN involvement, her own lie for Drew, and iirc - Stacy witnessing Drew carrying and disposing? of a bag of woman's clothing believed to belong to Kathleen?

The pastor sharing what Stacy said about herself prior to her being 'disappeared' should be admissable, no? Because clearly Stacy's 'disappearance' was to prevent her testimony or telling what she knew about Kathleen's death. The minute she no longer wanted to remain married to Drew, she became a liability which Drew knew he had to eliminate so she would not have the upper hand in custody and divorce proceedings.

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree with you Cubby, but the judge could decide anything SP said is hearsay. Since this trial is about KS (and not SP), the defense could argue that under the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution the defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and in this situation the person allegedly making the statement is SP and since they can't "find" SP to testify in court, those statements should be excluded.

I'm just guessing what the defense team will do and what the judge very well might do. In fact I'll be surprised if he does let any SP statements in.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

How is the prosecution and/or defense going to reconcile the fact that the additional autopsy of Kathleen was a few years after her death? Certainly they are going to have questions about what prompted authorities to order that her body be exhumed and examined again. Is her sister's testimony about frantic,fearful state of Kathleen begging her to take her children going to have to suffice? How can they get around the fact that it was the disappearance of wife #4 that prompted this additional investigation?

 

[Madeleine74]

How is the prosecution and/or defense going to reconcile the fact that the additional autopsy of Kathleen was a few years after her death? Certainly they are going to have questions about what prompted authorities to order that her body be exhumed and examined again.

Question to sister by state: Without telling us why, did there come a time when you were introduced to Dr. Michael Baden in 2007? And did you ask Dr. Baden to do something? What did you ask Dr. Baden to do? And did Dr. Baden agree to perform an autopsy on your sister?

{ sets foundation for Dr. Baden}

Question to Dr. Baden by state: Dr Baden, did there come a time when you performed an autopsy on KS at the request of her family? Dr Baden, KS's death was at first determined to be an accident by the original pathologist (Dr. xyz) correct? And you were asked to determine what? And did you perform an autopsy of KS? Dr, can you tell us the autopsy procedure? And Dr. upon completion of your autopsy what did you determine to be the cause of death? And what was the manner of death? etc, etc, etc.


And that's how they get around the reason of why another autopsy without ever mentioning SP or her disappearance.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

It would be fascinating to read what has been said. I have been taking a lot of notes many of which are about bigger picture issues that people can't see unless they are in the courtroom, but a verbatim transcript would be great

Question to sister by state: Without telling us why, did there come a time when you were introduced to Dr. Michael Baden in 2007? And did you ask Dr. Baden to do something? What did you ask Dr. Baden to do? And did Dr. Baden agree to perform an autopsy on your sister?

{ sets foundation for Dr. Baden}

Question to Dr. Baden by state: Dr Baden, did there come a time when you performed an autopsy on KS at the request of her family? Dr Baden, KS's death was at first determined to be an accident by the original pathologist (Dr. xyz) correct? And you were asked to determine what? And did you perform an autopsy of KS? Dr, can you tell us the autopsy procedure? And Dr. upon completion of your autopsy what did you determine to be the cause of death? And what was the manner of death? etc, etc, etc.


And that's how they get around the reason of why another autopsy without ever mentioning SP or her disappearance.

 

[Cubby]

Next up in Drew Peterson trial: Cops who called Savio death an accident


Two men who played crucial roles in investigating the scene of Kathleen Savio’s death — originally ruled an accident but now considered by authorities to be a homicide — are among the witnesses next expected to take the stand as Drew Peterson’s murder trial enters its second week.

<snip>

Ronald C. Smith, a law professor at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said prosecutors could be employing a &#8220;very dangerous strategy&#8221; by calling the two men to the stand. If they begin to testify they now believe Savio&#8217;s death is a homicide, defense lawyers can use records from 2004 to undermine their credibility.
&#8220;The defense is going to go after them on the previous reports and conclusions,&#8221; Smith said.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/...-cops-who-called-savio-death-an-accident.html

Looks like week 2 is going to be more of a nail biter.

I will ask the mods to open a thread for week 2.

 

[Madeleine74]

It would be fascinating to read what has been said. I have been taking a lot of notes many of which are about bigger picture issues that people can't see unless they are in the courtroom, but a verbatim transcript would be great

I don't have a transcript and only follow along through posts on here. I was just giving an example of how questions could be asked to get around the SP topic...no idea how it will all play out.

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't know about this judge, but I am worried about what hearsay he will let in. The defense dropped their appeals re: hearsay statements, I am thinking this judge isn't inclined to let too much in. We will have to wait and see i guess.

 

[Salem]

Please continue here for the Week of Aug. 6 to Aug. 9, 2012 - Trial of Drew Peterson for the death of Kathleen Savio.

Salem

 

[Cubby]

Each new week of the trial begins on Tuesday. The judge left his calendar open to hear other cases on Monday's.

The new week begins 08/07 so no need to move any posts. I hope you see this soon Salem, before you give yourself more work than necessary.

Thank you for the new thread! If the usual rules apply, this one should stay locked until trial starts at 9am CST Tuesday. hth!

Thanks again! :blowkiss:

 

[mitzi]

I believe Dr. Mitchell is deceased. He was 44 when he died IIRC.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...bit-20100314_1_autopsies-pathologist-forensic



More at link.

I seem to recall, also, that Mitchell had a death-bed statement that he should have ruled Kathleen's death as a homicide. I'll see if I can find a link.

ETA: I see that Mitchell's deathbed statement is 'alleged'. Hope it is true and hope it is allowed in.

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/...chell-speak-from-the-grave-at-peterson-trial/