People v.

Drew Peterson - In Session facebook updates 8/15/12 Prosecution PIO just came into the overflow room to give us the list of todays witnesses. Assuming the mistrial motion is denied, first up will be retired Bolingbrook police lieutenant Teresa Kernc, who will return to the stand to complete her testimony. Following Kernc, the prosecution expects to call Dr. Larry Blum (who performed Kathleen Savios second autopsy). The defendant and his attorneys are now in the courtroom. We should be starting soon. Judge Burmila takes the bench. Good morning, everyone . . . when last we were on the record, the defendant had made a motion for a mistrial. Joseph Lopez: If it pleases the Court, the defendant wants this jury to decide this case, a jury of his peers. He does not want to hide beyond any legal technicality. But he requests that the State does not violate any more of the Courts orders . . . he does not want to start over . . . he wants to keep this jury, in this composition . . . however, we would ask, besides the curative instruction, we believe the only way to make sure the State will follow the orders of the Court is to strike all the hearsay testimony already entered . . . and to bar further hearsay testimony . . . its the third time that its happened,and we dont want to see it again. So we are ready to proceed. Judge Burmila then personally questions the defendant, who affirms that this is indeed his wish. Prosecutor Chris Koch responds: Its the States position that two times now with its request for a mistrial the defense has included quotes from a case they call the Grace case . . . we were finally able to go back and look at that case, and Mr. Brodsky says the Grace instruction was approved by the appellate court; thats just not true . . . in fact, when that case went to trial, the defendants were acquitted, so it never went up on appeal . . . that instruction they continually submit to the Court is not an instruction that was taken up on appeal . . . the instruction Your Honor has proposed, the issue with regards to the court order . . . Your Honor, in your ruling, talked about the context of the order of protection . . . Judge: Mr. Koch, stop! My order yesterday was crystal clear . . . were not going to revisit the Courts order. Koch: The reason I bring it up is the instruction youre proposing to give today . . . the purpose is to give an instruction to the jury that clears any prejudice that might have been committed . . . we would ask that not be submitted; again, this is to cure what, if any, prejudice was put onto the defendant . . . Judge: If you dont want me to express the Courts displeasure with the States flagrant ignoring of my ruling, what sanction do you think I should impose? Koch: Im going to leave that to the Courts discretion. Judge: Well, Im asking you. Koch: The alternative would be to impose a sanction outside the presence of the jury . . . if Your Honor is not inclined to do it, then were ready to proceed with the trial this morning. And Ms. Kernc will be on the stand momentarily. Joe Lopez suggests a final alternation to the proposed instruction Judge Burmila may give. There was never any order of protection, and there has to be a way to say that to the jury. There has to be a way to add that. Judge: Well, Ive included the word alleged in the first paragraph . . . your suggested alteration of the order is denied. The defendants request that I strike all the hearsay testimony, thats denied . . . can you bring the jury in, please? Steve Greenberg: When I now cross her, theres sort of that, why didnt the judge want us to hear about the order of protection? out there . . . it leaves them to speculate that we werent supposed to hear about it . . . its something, frankly, that I would then have to go into on cross, to show that she didnt do anything about the incident. And since it was mentioned, we are dealing with human beings, with their minds . . . I think the Court can communicate that in its instruction. The prosecution suggests a stipulation that would point out that no order of protection was sought. Judge: Can you agree on one? Greenberg suggests that this should be part of the judges

instructions; Koch says that it should be two separate things. Judge: Well take a brief recess . . . let me know when you have the stipulation prepared. He calls a brief recess, so that the prosecution can type up the proposed stipulation. Judge Burmila has left the bench. The trial is in a brief recess, awaiting a copy of the stipulation in question. The jurors are now in the courtroom. Judge Burmila: Good morning, everyone. Before we proceed, I have two matters that I need to bring to your attention. The first is an instruction: You are now going to hear the continued direct examination of Ms. Kernc. But you cannot consider any issue pertaining to an order of protection . . . the States Attorney violated an order of the Court . . . you are not to consider, confer, or ponder an order of protection . . . it remains your duty to give dispassionate consideration to the proof in the record, within the confines of my instructions. Then the judge moves to the matter of stipulation: Kathleen Savio did not seek an order of protection regarding the July 5, 2002 incident. Prosecutor Kathy Patton resumes her direct examination of retired Bolingbrook police lieutenant Teresa Kernc. Did you ask Kathleen Savio to make a written statement? Yes, I did . . . this is the written statement that she provided me. Is this a true and accurate copy? Yes. Did anyone sign that report? Yes . . . Kathleen Savio . . . .[and] I did on the bottom, and also put my badge number. After that report was written, did you read the statement? Yes. And after reading the statement, did you ask her to add anything? I realized that she had neglected to put something in, and I brought that to her attention. She did, as a result of that, put it into the report . . . the knife. What, if anything, did she do? I watched her write it . . . and a short time later, she actually scribbled the portion about the knife out . . . it mentioned the knife; it said he pulled the knife out. Did you ask her why she did? Objection/Sustained. The prosecutor asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. Did Kathleen Savio Peterson tell you why she crossed out the word knife? After she crossed it out, she said quite a bit . . . she said specifically that she did not want him to lose his job; she did not want him to be arrested. Prosecutor Patton asks for a moment. The jurors are then excused from the courtroom. The judge instructs the witness not to refer to any part of the document being missing (or redacted) she previously mentioned that something was missing when she identified the report. Kenrc: I understand completely. With that, the jurors reenter the courtroom. Kerncs report is admitted into evidence, and published for the jury. The witness is then asked to read the report out loud. On July 5, I left my home at 8:45 to take my children to day camp. At 9:00 I went to pick up some items I needed from the market, and arrived home around 9:45 am . . . I walked upstairs . . . my room, to collect my dirty laundry. I started down the stair, only to be knocked down by my husband, Drew Peterson. At that time, Drew demanded that I sit down on the stairs and not get up . . . he proceeded to go over how awful and bitchy I was, and I should stop being so terrible to him. I dont talk to him over the phone, or I never talk at the door when I pick up the kids. He made a statement how he did nothing wrong, and how he had to leave me. He wanted to be my friend . . . he wanted me to admit that it was all my fault . . . he looked very tired and upset, so I thought I would be wise not to make angry . . . I got very tired of the abuse, and not being able to go anywhere, and told him to go home or do what he came to do. If he wanted to kill me, to do it. He was dressed in his SWAT uniform, and he had black leather gloves on . . . I got up and told him to leave; he said that hed go when he wanted . . . he looked out the window, took out his ear piece, and threw down my garage

opener on the stairs. He waited until no one was around, and then left. I called my attorney . . . and Steve Maniaci . . . and my sister . . . and Mary Pontarelli. I was afraid to file anything; he was very unstable . . . and I thought he would deny it . . . I told him Id wait a few days until we could talk. Hopefully, by then, hed get help . . . so that we could get the divorce quicker . . . I said, Go ahead, just kill me. He said where do you want it, and I said in the head. He said, OK, then turn our head, and I did it. And then he said that he would never be able to hurt me. And then he left. This concludes the direct examination of this witness. Attorney Greenberg begins his cross-examination of Officer Kernc. Attorney Greenberg begins his cross. The witness acknowledges that she personally has been through three divorces (it may have been two divorces at the time she interviewed Savio). She started at the Bolingbrook P.D. in 1983 (but cant remember when Drew started.) You led the day team, and he led the night team? Yes. It was very competitive, wasnt it? No. You talked to the State Police at some point, and to the FBI? Yes. I would imagine you werent interviewed as a witness by the FBI too often? When they spoke to me, I considered it an interview, not talking. Were you interviewed by the FBI and the State Police? Yes. And did you tell either of those agencies that it was very competitive? Ever tell them that? If I may speak more than a yes or no . . . I believe when I spoke to them it was in relation to when I originally started. At that time, we were very competitive . . . I dont think I ever told them that my day shift was competitive with his night shift . . . it would be a fair statement that we never were friends, but were co-workers. You talked to Ms. Savio, and took as long as you needed to talk to her? Yes. She wrote out this statement for you? Yes. Could have written as long or as much as she wanted? Yes. You got called out there on July 18th? Yes. You knew before you went out there that it was a call about something that happened on July 5th? Yes. Were you aware that Ms. Savio had had contact with the Bolingbrook Police for . . . Objection/Overruled. Where you aware that Ms. Savio had spoken to the police on July 11 about some visitation issues? No . . . I did not know that. You did have the ability to run a search for other information? Absolutely. You guys just didnt do that? I did not. When you talked to her, you didnt observe any injuries? No. She didnt tell you she had been injured at all? Correct. Did she tell you she didnt want to file a police report? Yes. But she called the police, right? Yes . . . I told her I have to file a police report. Did you tell her you were going to investigate? Basically. Did you tell her these were serious allegations? Im sure I did,. She was making allegations of very serious criminal conduct, right? Yes. A whole litany of felonies? Right. You cant have a policeman or any citizen going around and doing this kind of conduct? No police department can. Prior to her testimony, she spoke to prosecutor Patton. Once before the hearing, once before this, and then one conversation on the phone. Did you have a chance to review any of your police reports? Yes. Have a chance to review the report the FBI prepared? I may have heard about it when I sat down with the States Attorney, but I dont have access to it. The same is true for the Illinois State Police report. When you spoke to the Illinois State Police, they made notes, didnt they? Correct. The witness is then shown a copy of this report. Objection/Sustained. I asked you if youd told the state police that you didnt care for Mr. Peterson? Right. And you said you didnt care for him? I considered him a co-worker; I didnt consider him a friend. The witness says that she doesnt think she said that to the ISP. You can show me the notes, but they may have misconstrued what I said at that time. The witness is directed to a specific part of the state police report. It says teams were very competitive; each though they were best, and didnt care for each other . . . I believe when they wrote

that, it was about my early days at the police department, and sometimes they didnt care for the opposite team. When you spoke to Ms. Savio, she told you that earlier that day she had been served with a summons? No . . . she did not specifically tell me that anything had occurred that day. You later found out that she had been served with a complaint that day? Drew Peterson told me that. Objection/Overruled. You then learned that she had been served with a criminal complaint that day? From Mr. Peterson. Are you telling me that Miss Savio didnt tell you that she called the police ten or fifteen minutes after being served with that complaint? You are correct. When Mr. Peterson told you that, you didnt go out and check it? You are correct. You just took him at his word? I wrote down what he reported to me. The sidebar ends. The jurors and the witness are then excused from the courtroom. Judge: There are two issues with this witness, whether shes believable and whether what she was told by Miss Savio was believable. Greenberg: She was not certain it actually happened. Patton: Your Honor, there are several statements . . .Im looking at the FBI report . . . she talks about Savio wavering back and forth . . . but the reason she was vacillating was because she was concerned about Peterson losing his job. So she never said that she believed the defendants side of the story. She also said at the hearing that she didnt know whether it happened or not. Judge: OK . . . the objection is sustained. The judge then sends for the witness and the jury. The witness and the jurors are now back inside the courtroom. You said that you werent aware or dont recall Ms. Savio mentioning she had been served with any papers that day? Not that particular day, no. I knew she had two batteries that were pending, but she did not say anything about that particular day. Did you interview her on other occasions, or just that particular day? Just that day. The witness is presented with a transcript of her testimony at the hearsay hearing. You had a chance to review this before you testified in court today? Not today . . . the Assistant States Attorney referred to it when she spoke to me, but Ive never had an opportunity to read it. But you were sworn to tell the truth when you testified? Yes. According to the witness earlier testimony, Savio had been served earlier that day. Im not going to dispute you . . .apparently, if thats what the transcript says. The transcript also indicates that Kernc testified that Savio was upset on the day she interviewed her. Greenberg then asks Kernc about the report she completed on the July 18, 2002 incident. Its five pages, single spaced? Correct. Its the report you prepared of this incident, summarizing all of your interviews, and from your notes? Yes. And you made sure it was accurate? Yes. And then you forwarded it to the States Attorneys office? Yes. The witness is directed to a specific paragraph of the report, and asked to read it silently to herself. In fact, you wrote she mentioned that he had filed complaints against her . . .she had a job opportunity at a hospital, but feels that due to her battery complaints she had lost that opportunity? Correct. So she told you she had been served with battery complaints, and she was mad about it? Yes. And she had been served with those complaints that morning? Yes. And she called the police shortly afterward? Drew Peterson told me that she had been served that day . . . I did not know that day . . . I did not know that day that she had been served that day. And that is my error. She told you Drew Peterson was dressed in a SWAT uniform? Yes. She describes what a SWAT uniform looks like (its mostly black). Some officers carry knives? Some do. In fact, didnt she tell you that Sgt. Peterson was in a black sweatshirt and blue jeans, not a SWAT uniform? No. Well, again, you testified previously? Yes. And didnt you answer, I think the pants she said were blue jeans, but black shoes . . . she said he had black gloves Didnt you answer that under oath?

Well, if its in that deposition, I obviously did . . .Ill take your word for it that thats what it says. And you were asked some follow-up questions about his clothing by Ms. Patton? Yes. And Mr. Peterson told you what he was wearing that day? Objection/Sustained. Well, you had a conversation about this with Mr. Peterson, didnt you? Objection/Sustained. The defense then asks for a sidebar. After a moment, the judge asks to have the jurors removed from the courtroom. The jurors and the witness are now gone. Judge: Were in a brief recess, while the State needs to locate some case law. As soon as you find that, let me know. With that, Judge Burmila leaves the bench, and the trial is in a brief recess. The parties are reassembling inside the courtroom. The trial should be resuming shortly. Judge Burmila is back on the bench. State, do you have your case law? Prosecutor Connor replies that he has two cases for the judge to consider one of which, coincidentally, is a case attorney Greenberg says the defense is also relying on. Copies of the case law are handed up to the judge, who reads them. Greenberg: When you present hearsay evidence, you are then allowed to bring in hearsay to attack that testimony . . . we can attack it in any way, shape, or form that we want, basically, as long as its otherwise admissible evidence. They brought in the statements of Mr. Peterson through Miss Savio. Were now trying to impeach that by bringing in what Mr. Peterson actually said . . . its not being offered for the truth; its being offered for impeachment purposes. So we should be able to do it. Judge; How does the defendants self-serving statements to the police officer impeach Miss Savio? Greenberg: He gives a written statement and speaks to the officer. It totally contradicts her description of what happened that day. It is one thousand percent consistent with what Miss Savio told her friends. She talks to Mary Pontarelli later that day, and tells her that she had Drew had a nice conversation, and never says anything about a confrontation or a knife. And thats consistent with what Mr. Peterson said . . . its not hearsay; its impeachment. Judge: The defendant cannot normally use his self-serving statements to avoid taking the witness stand . . . is there a distinction between [another witness] statement as impeachment, as opposed to using the defendants statement? Greenberg: Were putting it in for impeachment, which is entirely different. Its not a self-serving statement; it attacks the credibility of Ms. Savio. We should not be denied the opportunity to show that this did not happen . . . I dont think they should be able to call a witness to testify to this kind of evidence and force the defendant to take the stand to rebut it. Prosecutor Patton responds: The defendant cannot bring in his statement through someone else . . . I think its important to remember that in the hearsay hearing, that hearing is allowed because it is to benefit, to allow the State to put on hearsay testimony because the defendant forfeited his rights to do so. Judge: If there were nine or ten people that Ms. Savio testified to, and she told one person the defendant said he was going to kill her, and she told the other nine that she made it up to get even, are you saying that those other nine people could not be called to testify? Patton: It sounds like the defense wants to challenge Kathleen Savios statement by putting in Mary Pontarellis hearsay statement. They want to do something thats never allowed: to bring in the hearsay statement of another to impeach. Greenberg: These are not defendants statements about the crime he is charged with. I think thats a very big distinction . . . its not hearsay, because were trying to bring it to attack her credibility. Judge: This case the State has just given me, from Colorado, seems to say exactly what counsel has just said . . . this is a case that you gave me, isnt it exactly what they said? Is there a distinction? Patton: Im not familiar with the case youre referring to; Ill have to talk to Mr. Connor. I beg the Courts indulgence in that . . . the State believes, as I said, that neither the federal rules nor our

rules allow for this procedure . . . and we have a reliability issue. Judge: I said it was self-serving. Greenberg: We can do it. The rules say we can do it. And I should be able to do it. Judge: If Kathleen Savio was here testifying, and said those things, how would it impeach her testimony if you said, Didnt the defendant deny saying these things? How does that impeach her testimony? Greenberg: I would like to go through his statement of what he said, that contradicts what Miss Savio said. Judge: Even if its admissible, it has to be impeaching in some manner. You want to impeach what Kathleen Savio told this officer. And you say the defendants self-serving statement accomplishes that? Judge: I dont know how it is that that statement impeaches Kathleen Savios statement to the officer. I understand the argument the defendant is making . . . but I dont find the defendants statement to be relevant, because I dont think it impeaches the statement. Greenberg mentions another statement hed also like to bring in, which prosecutor Patton objects to. Judge: I think the States objection will be sustained; you wont be able to go into that with the defendants statement, either. The fact that he made a statement, you can ask her that. With that, the judge sends for the jury and the witness The jurors and the witness are now back in the courtroom, and Greenberg continues his crossexamination. You went over there that day, and took this statement from Miss Savio-Peterson? Yes. The statement that she hand wrote is three pages? Yes. You talked to her orally also for about an hour? Yes. She was upset with being served with papers that day for battery? She was upset that she had been arrested for batteries. She told you that she was upset that Mr. Peterson, the whole time he was in the house, never spoke about their property? No. His pension? No . . .she did not tell me that they discussed those issues. She said he told her that she was behaving awfully? Yes . . . that she didnt talk to him. And that she should just admit that it was all her fault? Yes. Youve been through some divorces; thats not unusual behavior? Objection/Sustained. He wasnt angry; he was tired and upset? According to what she said, yes. Did you ever contact [divorce attorney] Harry Smith? No. Are you aware that Mr. Smiths records do not reflect speaking to her? Objection/Sustained. She told you that Mr. Peterson said he would deny being there? He said that if she called he would deny it . . . yes. And when he left, he actually left the garage door opener there? Yes. And you then spoke to Sgt. Peterson, that same day? Yes. And he did not deny going over to the house . . .? Objection. The parties approach the bench for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The witness and the jurors are then excused from the courtroom. Patton: The defendant is not allowed to impeach the statement of Ms. Savio by bringing in a self-serving statement. I thought thats what you just ruled. Judge: If Kathleen Savio were on the witness stand and were here, she said the defendant said, If you tell the police about this, Im going to deny it. And he didnt deny it. And this particular statement does impeach Kathleen Savios statement, and you [the State] presented it. Patton: It would impeach, but it would be improper impeachment. Judge: The States objection is overruled . . . Ive made a ruling, Mr. Glasgow. You can have a seat. The judge then sends for the witness and the jury. The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Greenberg continues his cross-examination. Ms. Kernc, after you left Ms. Savios house, you then went and spoke to Sgt. Peterson? Yes. As an investigator, not as a co-worker? Yes. Did you give him an opportunity to review anything Ms. Savio said or wrote? No, I dont believe I did. And you advised him he didnt need to speak to you? Im sure I did. And Ms. Savio said that he would deny being at the house that day? Yes. And he didnt deny it, and in fact told you he went over to the house that day? Yes. And after speaking to him, you continued your investigation, and spoke to Mary Pontarelli? Yes. And Ms.

Savio had told you she had called Mary Pontarelli immediately after this incident? I know she called her after; I dont recall her saying immediately. Did Mary Pontarelli tell you that Kathleen Savio had described the incident? Objection/Sustained. The defense asks for a sidebar. The sidebar has now ended. Did Kathy tell you that when she spoke to Mary Pontarelli she never told her anything about pulling a knife? No. Did she describe the conversation as Kathy and Drew having a nice conversation? No . . . she did not tell me the contents of her conversation. Did she tell you that she told Mary Pontarelli that she told Drew to get out of the house if he wasnt going to help? The witness asks to look at her report before answering, then asks to see the written statement written by Kathleen Savio. Greenberg: Is your recollection now refreshed? It is. Do you recall that Kathleen told Mary Pontarelli that Kathleen and Drew had a nice conversation? She did not tell me what her conversation entailed at all, other than theyd had a conversation. Are you aware that Kathleen told Mary Pontarelli that she wanted Drew to drop the battery case? When I talked to Kathleen, she did not tell me the contents of her conversation with Mary Pontarelli. Kernc denies that Savio went back and forth about Drews having had a knife. She did not vacillate about the knife . . . not in conversation. She vacillated by scribbling it out [of the written statement]. But not in conversation about it. After his training was completed in 1980, he began to practice as a pathologist. In 1984, he decided to go into forensic pathology full time. So since 1984, Ive been involved full time in the practice of forensic pathology. Since becoming a doctor, hes performed over 10,000 autopsies. Not counting today, hes been qualified as an expert 587 times. The witness is now qualified as an expert, without defense objection. The witness knew Dr. Bryan Mitchell, who passed away in 2010. Were you asked to review a case that Dr. Mitchell had done the original autopsy on, in 2004 . . . the autopsy of Kathleen Savio? Yes. And did you review Dr. Mitchells autopsy protocol? Yes, I did. The witness identifies Dr. Mitchells 3/20/04 autopsy protocol of Kathleen Savios autopsy. Did Dr. Mitchell examine the gross body of Kathleen Savio? Yes, he began with an external examination, noting what she was wearing, a necklace about her neck . . . she weighed 154 pounds, 55 in length . . . Did he make a notation as to the development of the body? Yes . . . normal development. Was she in good physical condition? Yes . . . adequately nourished and hydrated, which means well-fed and did not appear to be dehydrated. Did he make a note as to any fingerprint blanching? Yes . . . over the right medial breast, there were some markings on that that were consistent with her fingers being up against the body before she was found. This is a pattern that can be made with things pressing on the body. He did mention that in his report . . . he said the eyes were initially closed . . .they were brown, and the outer covering of the eyes was cloudy . . . the eyes, being cloudy, would be considered a defect. But it is a common post-mortem defect. The nose was intact . . . pulmonary edema fluid had collected at the nose, a small bubbly area . . . he noted that the lips and the frenulum were intact; neither were torn, and otherwise normal. The teeth were intact and in good repair. The tongue was partially clenched between the teeth. Did he examine her chest area? Yes, he noted the chest was symmetrical, and the breasts were of normal development, without tumors. Savios upper extremities, the arms, were symmetrical, with short, clean fingernails, with water wrinkling, like pruning on the surface of her left hand . . . he notes the external genitalia is that of a normal, adult female, with no signs of injury. The lower extremities were noted again to be symmetrical, with toenails being short and clean . . . the back and the buttocks area

were described as being symmetrical, and free of significant injury. Did he note any injury on the left buttocks? Yes, he did . . . that injury was described as a three inch by one inch abrasion an abrasion is a scrape or scratch caused by surfaces rubbing together . . . medically, its a form of blunt trauma. Lay people call them scratches or scrapes . . . body cavities appeared to be normal; there were no adhesions. Savios airway and vocal cords were free of injury. The heart was a normal weight . . . there was a small amount of fat on the surface of the heart, and thats perfectly normal . . . no signs of a previous heart attack, or any scarring in the heart . . . the valves were intact and unremarkable, except for a slight thickening of the mitral valve . . . often times, with wear and tear, you can start seeing these valves becoming a little more thickened than a younger valve would be . . . it was loose and floppy, where it would be functionally significant. Should that present a problem of any kind? No. Dr. Blum continues to describe the results of Dr. Mitchells 2004 autopsy of Kathleen Savio. The inner lining of the aorta was very smooth . . . all smooth and normal. What did the examination of the respiratory system show? The trachea and bronchi were patent, which means open . . . the lungs were a little heavier than normal, a little on the heavy side. The inner portion of the lung showed mild congestion, and moderate edema. The defense interrupts, and asks for a brief sidebar. The sidebar ends. Did he continue his examination of the respiratory system? Yes, areas of pneumonia were looked for . . . or fibrosis or scarring. All of those were negative; there was no lung damage. Finally, did he find any thromboid emboli? No, he did . . . those can cause sudden death; he found none . . . the esophagus is without special note; the lining of it was gray-white, which is normal. Did he look at the stomach? Yes, less than a teaspoon of fluid was present in her stomach at the time of autopsy . . . the stomachs inner lining has folds; nothing remarkable was found . . . normal stomach. Savios bowel and colon were also described as normal. The appendix? Weve all heard of the appendix. She had hers, and it was normal. Savios endocrine and adrenal glands were also normal. Her skeletal system and her kidneys were also found to be normal. No chronic diseases . . . again, a normal finding. Savios bladder was also normal, as was her spleen. Her lymph nodes throughout the body were also normal. And Savios bone marrow was described as normal, as was her reproductive system. No sign of pregnancy. Savios brain showed some mild swelling . . . there were no hemorrhages, or other pathological abnormalities of the brain, other than the swelling . . . the brain has a very limited capacity or options when it comes to reacting to any kind of injury. One of the most common things it does is swell . . . its fairly common. Its a non-specific symptom . . . it can, however, be seen with drownings . . . the skull is intact. Could you review what diagnosis Dr. Mitchell made? The diagnosis included cerebral edema; thats the brain swelling we just talked about . . . some moderate pulmonary edema . . . water in the sinuses . . . Objection/Overruled. Congestion is seen in virtually all deaths . . . again, a very non-specific, general finding . . . the laceration to the scalp, the back of the head . . . the mild mitral valve thickening . . . and toxicology is negative. The witness notes that the toxicology screening was done at St. Louis University, by Christopher Long.

Could you go through the drugs listed by Dr. Longs toxicology report? Yes, Sir . . . the first paragraph is an examination of the vitreous . . . all the alcohols were negative; none were found. The second test was of the liver . . . all negative. Theres no indicated of any unknown drugs? Correct. Dr. Mitchell . . . you had an opportunity to examine some of his other autopsy reports? Yes . . . because Dr. Mitchell passed away. He was a board-certified forensic pathologist? Yes. You were hired by the Will County States Attorneys Office to review this case . . . remember when that was? 2007 . . . there was an exhumation. Of whom? Kathleen Savio. And did you have occasion to perform a second autopsy? Yes, Sir . . . that was at the Will Country Coroners facility. Also present was coroner Pat ONeil, and your assistants? Yes . . . and Dr. Mitchell . . . the body was brought in . . . we opened the casket, and observed the body lying in there . . . we at that point took some pictures, and started taking samples from the area. There was a lot of water in the casket as well, which marked the deterioration of the tissues of her body. Did you remove any fingernails? Yes, those were obtained right away, before they were subject to being lost. I took ten fingernails, and submitted them to the Illinois State Police. And head hairs, also . . . once the body had been removed from the casket, we had it X-rayed fro head to toe. Some of Savios remains were skeletonized. Other portions were mummified. The X-rays were largely unremarkable; we noted some funeral embalming techniques had been done, with some wires in the mouth . . . but this was all done by the funeral home, to prepare her for visitation. Other than that, the X-rays were pretty unremarkable. In the spine, there was no evidence or fracture or dislocation . . . the sternum had been removed during the first autopsy, but it was back in place, so we got a good look at that . . . no fractures. The witness stands, and demonstrates the location of the right lower quadrant of the body. Objection/Sustained. Did you make an incision in that area? Yes, I did. What did you find? A deep bruise . .. hemorrhage into the tissues, which we call a bruise or a contusion. Could you tell how severe the bruise was? It went all the way down to the bone, so it was classified as a deep contusion . . . I saw one large area. The original photographs, showed three separate bruises . . . it had more or less coalesced into one large one. The tongue was examined under a microscope, and it appeared normal. No bruising was located in Savios arms. Did you have a chance to also make similar incisions into the upper back area? Yes, looking for deep bruises. And what did you find? Nothing, of a bruise nature . . . I made my incisions down to the bone, deep incisions, looking for deep bruises. Do you feel you made the appropriate number of incisions to find any bruising that might have been there? Yes. And did you find any? No. The examination of Savios spine revealed no deep bruising. The original autopsy showed bruising to the left buttocks; that was not apparent at the second autopsy. I made incisions, looking for deep bruises. And did you find any? No. You had a chance to look at the original organs? Yes, those organs were preserved in a viscera bag within the body cavity . . . I removed the bag in one swoop and set it aside. And later on in the day, I went and opened the bag, and each organ came out. Those were in remarkable condition, and could be examined even three years later . . . they all looked very normal . . . they were unremarkable, other than the effects of being interred for that amount of time. Dr. Blum continues to go over the portions of Kathleen Savios body that he examined during his 2007 autopsy. He found nothing that didnt appear to be normal. You made slides during that process? Yes. Did you look at those under the microscope? Yes . . . there was no evidence of hemorrhage. I thought possibly there was something in there, but when I looked under the microscope there was not.

Dr. Mitchell was present during the autopsy, and helped make some tissue slides. He had his hospital, or lab prepare all the slides . . . they appeared to be as he described them: no disease or injuries. Congestion was found, but Dr. Blum says that is normal. Its just a packing of blood in the blood vessels. The next morning, on November 14, 2007, did you conduct a sexual assault examination? Yes, I did . . .vaginal, rectal, oral [swabs] . . . that had not been done on the 13th. I felt it wise to do that on the following day, so I did. Samples from the second autopsy were also sent out for toxicological testing. You just take a block of liver, package it, and send it to the lab. The witness then goes over the drug screenings that were done in 2007. The results are all negative for drugs, except for salicylates . . . this is an artifact in a decomposed liver. What does that tell you? Very simply, that there was no indication that she had any drugs or alcohol on board at the time this happened. The next photograph shows the head end of the tub . . . again, showing her position in the tub. These toiletries that appear . . . none of them appear to be knocked over? Objection/Sustained. Did you observe any items knocked over? This little duck is on its side. But the other items appear to be upright and standing. Does that give any indication whether there might have been a struggle in that area? Objection/Sustained. In this photograph, do you see any items knocked down? Once again, this little duck. The other items are upright . . . Objection/Sustained. Do you see the abrasion on the buttocks in this photograph? Barely, but Ill point it out. It was on the left side. Did you have occasion to go to the scene of Kathleen Savios passing . . . in her master bathroom? Yes, a week after the autopsy. He then identifies a photograph of the Savio bedroom and bathroom. Did it look a little different than this? The structure looked the same what looked different were some of the items on the walls and on the shelves . . . and, obviously, no body in the tub. Objection/Overruled. This photograph is from 2004 . . . youre indicating the structure of the bathroom was substantially similar to what it is here? Thats correct. In your review of the original autopsy protocol by Dr. Mitchell, you got to review photographs? There were a few. And I did review them, yes. He then identifies one of the 2004 photos. This is a picture of the bathtub and some of the surrounding items . . . the primary focus for me was the body lying face down on her left side, in this position you see in the photograph. Does the tub appear substantially similar as it did in 2007? Yes. The right foot is crossed over into the sole of the left foot . . . the heel is up here, on the right foot. What stands out in the photograph is the very sharp angle the toes are in in relation to the rest of her foot. These are virtually 90 degree angles . . . these toes on her right foot are extremely extended, or bent back . .. even causing prevention of lividity in this area of the body. Does that indicate anything to you? It does, yes . . . in the context of this case, for a foot to just float down after loss of consciousness in the drowning process, I dont believe it could physically do that. The fingers were up against the breast, giving rise to those fingertip marks. The breast is bluish in color, because of blood settling in the body . . . the hair is puffed up, not all water soaked or anything. With regards to the walls of the tub, did you have any observations? Yes, the walls of the tub are smooth, and they are narrow . . . theres no concentrated blunt edge on this; theyre all smooth contours . . . thats for a safetys sake; you dont want a sharp edge in a bathtub. So a very narrow, very small tub . . . you can see she barely fits. Objection/Sustained. I felt the two biggest pieces of evidence in this case were the body and the tub . . . so I felt it was extremely important to examine the scene. What did you determine? Smooth, slippery . . . I did not

put any water in the tub myself, I didnt take a bath or anything, but I crawled in with my regular clothes. Objection/Sustained. The judge calls the attorneys to a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The witness and jurors are now out of the courtroom. The judge says that he denied a State request to have the witness do a demonstration of how he climbed into the tub, and yet it was elicited during the testimony of this witness. Judge: It doesnt appear that any of the orders that Ive made in this case does the State mention with its witnesses prior to testifying. Brodsky: Can I have two minutes? The judge decides to take the afternoon recess at this point. Judge Burmila has left the bench. The court is in a recess for an undetermined length. The judge is back on the stand. The judge is back on the stand (the witness and the jurors are not present). Defense attorney Ralph Meczyk: Its irrelevant whether or not it was an innocent mistake. With all due respect to the Court, you are not a potted plant . . . there has to be an appropriate and reasonable sanction . . .there was a ruling, and [this was] something they were not supposed to touch upon . . . he entered a prohibited realm that you said they couldnt go into. This is an avalanche, a tidal wave, a cascading of missteps. There is only one appropriate sanction in this case, and that is to strike in its entirety the direct testimony of this witness. And any witnesses who relied up on this witness, their testimony should also be stricken. This can not go on and on and on . . . the preparation that was does with these witnesses is not good enough . . . a curative instruction; you cant put the toothpaste back in the tube. The cumulative effect on this jury is devastating; its a violation of Mr. Petersons right to a fair trial. Now there has to be some real meaning to your words. And the only appropriate sanction is to strike the testimony of this witness in its entirety. Prosecutor Glasgow responds, complains about the defense histrionics . . . hes simply looking at the bathtub . . . thats the record, and thats the testimony. What we just heard, it sounded like something entirely different, but it wasnt based on facts. These are the facts . . . that last line about getting into the bathtub happened quickly. But we were not getting into a reenactment . . . I would ask the Court to give me another opportunity to admonish him. And I apologize for any confusion. Meczyk: What inference can the jury possibly draw with his statement that he slipped into that tub? The point is its the harm thats already been done. I think vigorous coaching of the witness is too late. There have to be some teeth to the rulings youve made. I respectfully ask you to strike the testimony of Dr. Blum. Judge: Well there are very few people in this courtroom who remember the person its named after, Judge Angelo Pistilli. . . when hed get frustrated, hed say, I guess theres nothing left for me to do except blow my brains out. I never quite understood that until today . .. were back in another situation where we were earlier today. The circumstances of this case are creating the aura that the Court is somehow toothless, that we just go forward, ignoring the orders that I have entered or Judge White has entered. I dont care for myself personally, but the disrespect to the Court is shocking to the conscious. The remedy Mr. Peterson urges is to strike the testimony of the doctor, and thats denied. When the jury comes back, Im going to instruct them to disregard the last testimony of the witness . . . and we are not going to continue to visit the States disregarding of the Courts orders in this case. The judge then sends for the witness and the jury. The witness and jurors are now back in the courtroom. The judge addresses the jury: Ladies and gentlemen, in the doctors testimony he mentioned that he had climbed into the bathtub. You are to disregard that totally; it is probative of nothing. And it is stricken.

The sidebar ends. The witness points out a red substance on Savios nose and cheek. What would that be? Its blood. From your examination, did she have an injury to her head as she was laying in the bathtub? Yes, she did . . . the wound was in the up position, to the back of the head. After a person passes away, and the wound is not facing downward, what happens? We call these postmortem wounds. If a wound occurs after death, and is in a position that gravity will drain blood from it, blood will continue to drip from that wound . . . it can drip for quite some time. The opposite is true when the wound is in an anti-gravity or up position . . . thats how the position of the body affects postmortem dripping or seeping of blood. The witness is then shown another photo. This is an autopsy picture, depicting the laceration to the back of Kathleen Savios head. It is outlined by the L-shaped ruler you see here. The wound is in the scalp area . . . it is a tearing of the tissue, due to blunt trauma. Is that the wound that was facing upward while she was laying in the tub? Yes, Sir . . . the wound was to the back of the left side of head . . . with the bleeding of that wound, it would produce a trickle of blood that came down the side of her forehead here, and come to rest around this eyebrow region . . . she was face down, making contact with the tub; the blood draining from the wound came down, encountered it, and stopped . . . its a nice stream of blood that had gone down here. Is there also blood heading toward the nose? Yes, we have another gravity flow pattern . . . it went beneath the eye, and accumulated along the nose on the left side and dried some more. A small trickle went over her lips, to the chin. Does that tell you anything about whether her face was in water?: Yes, this gravity flow pattern, it would be impossible for that to occur if her face was down in the water at the time. As blood hits the water, it disperses; it will not make a nice, discreet pattern that we see here. A head wound of this type, what level of bleeding do you get? It will bleed right away, and very profusely. If death occurs, and the heart stops, the blood will stop flowing to that area, and the bleeding will stop. Did you see any blood above her body? No, I did not. The only blood you saw was in the tub, below her body? All the way down to the drain, yes. If her heart had continued to beat, would you have expected to see more blood in the tub? Yes. The defense interrupts, and asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. Once the heart stops, how long would the blood continue to flow out of that wound? Minutes. Just a matter of minutes. So if her face was in water during that time, we would not see the dried blood on her face? Absolutely not. There is an injury to the left breast . . . a bruise . . . I dont see any another particular injuries there. Dr. Mitchell found hemorrhage beneath the skin near the clavicle areas. Is that a painful injury? Objection/Sustained. Could you describe that injury? When a muscle is injured, if its significant there will be bleeding into the muscles . . . what we see typically is the blood, because its very easy to see . . . if the person dies, the blood will just stay in them as a bruise or area of hemorrhages. There are nerve endings in the muscles. When you get an injury, what do those muscles do? Objection/Sustained. The witness identifies a photo of the injury to Savios left breast. Its what weve typically had in our lives, a bruise or contusion. The age of a bruise is very difficult to tell just by looking at the color. However, bruises start out as black and blue . . . Objection/Overruled. After a period of time, weve all observed on our own kids these bruises undergo a color change before they fade away. When we see a black and blue or purple bruise, that tell us that its fresh. Within the confines of a limited ability of anyone to tell an exact age, we can get an idea based on its color. How old would you say this bruise was? The defense asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The witness and jurors have been excused from the courtroom. Attorney Meczyk is

objecting to the testimony regarding the age and color of each bruise . . . its a fresh one? Its an acute one? Prosecutor Connor then refers to the witness grand jury testimony. Judge: Anything else you want me to consider? . . . I dont know what his grand jury testimony was, so I cant take that into account . . . the objection is overruled. With that, Judge Burmila asks to have the witness and the jury brought back into the courtroom (Lets get going!). The witness and jurors are now back in the courtroom. Prosecutor Glasgow resumes his direct examination, and the witness is shown another 2004 autopsy photograph. This is the area of the body called the left lower quadrant, over the hip bone in front. The injuries depicted here are the three bruises originally described by Dr. Mitchell in his report . . . these are also blue, bluish-purple in color . . . these are fresh bruises . . . less than 24 hours [old] . . . there were three described by Dr. Mitchell, and I see them there. In his own 2007 autopsy, he confirmed that there were indeed bruises. The bruise is deep, its to the bone . . . I would say [it would need] a great amount of forced, more than just a slap. And are there three separate points of contact? Yes. The witness is shown another photo. Its another contusion, on the front of the left thigh, a blue-purple contusion . . . it was a fresh bruise, less than 24 hours. The next photograph shows a bruising on both shins . . . they were both blue to purple in color. Do you have an idea how old they are? Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. As far as the color and age, theyre fresh [bruises], within 24 hours. Dr. Blum is shown a document. Is that a demonstrative aid, showing the injuries youve just described? Objection. The defense asks for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. Does that demonstrative [aid] fairly represent injuries youve just finished testifying to? Objection/Sustained. Does that demonstrative aid fairly and accurately portray the injuries you just completed testifying to? Objection/Sustained. Recognize areas 13 and 14? Objection. Once again, the attorneys approach the bench for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. The model that appears in that exhibit, would that assist you in your testimony? Yes, it would assist me. Does that demonstrative [aid] accurately portray the location of the injuries on the body? Yes, it does. The State then asks to publish the exhibit, which the judge allows. Does that accurately portray the locations of the injuries to the body of Kathleen Savio? Yes, Sir . . . the area across the chest demonstrates where the muscular hemorrhage was beneath the skin . . . this is area of the three bruises on the hip bones . . . this is the bruise to the left front of the thigh . . . and these depict the two bruises to the front of the shins, or the front of the lower legs. This shows what we call anterior, or front of the body bruising. Could you describe the extent of that injury? [I believe this is the laceration to Savios head.] I forget how long it was; Dr. Mitchell measured it . . . it was one inch in length. Glasgow then asks to publish a photograph showing this injury, after which the parties approach the bench for a sidebar. The sidebar ends. I ask you to describe the hemorrhaged area on the other side of the scalp? This is an area of discoloration, immediately beneath the laceration to the back of the head . . . showing the accompanying bruising that went around with the actual tearing. The witness goes on to describe the layers of the scalp (including the skull), all the way down to the brain. None of those were injured, except the skin? Correct . . . the laceration did not go through to the bone; it was a partial tear.

what does that tell you about the force that was transmitted to the skin? There was no significant disruption of tearing, and no injury to the other layers, all the way to the brain . . the impact site resulting in the laceration had sufficient force to partially tear the scalp, but no other injuries. So it wouldnt be a great deal of force . . . Id put it more on the lighter end, if you will. What type of object would cause that? Its a laceration, so by definition its blunt trauma. Objection/Overruled. This occurs when an objection, a weapon, a surface, any blunt objection comes into contact with the skin with enough force to cause this injury . . . its rather complex, and hard to say exactly how much force, or how its distributed. Would this require a more concentrated edge? Yes. When you looked around the tub area, did you see such an edge? No, I found no concentrated edges on that tub; they were gentle, contoured, and smooth. Another photograph is published. The area depicted shows some non-specific, non-pattered abrasions or scratches to the left side of the arm . . . the color is reddish, perhaps a little brown. The age, I found no indication . . . Dr. Mitchells report doesnt mention scabs on them, meaning they were in the healing phase. So I would classify them as fresh. The next photo shows two lesions in the area of the left elbow . . . also appearing fresh, and without scabbing. This I would classify as fresh . . . abrasions can scab over and become reddened at least within an hour. So I would say less than an hour. Is this abrasion of a similar type to that you described on the buttocks area? This is not a pattered abrasion; the one on the buttocks is a patterned abrasion. Its a rougher surface, abrading away the top layer of skin? Yes. Another picture shows two linear abrasions, very narrow and elongated. This photograph apparently is of one of Savios hands. The top layer of skin is just abraded off . . . a very distinct abrasion. None of these abrasions on the right hand or wrist region showed any indication of scabbing, so Id say they were fresh . . . again, within an hour or so of death. The photograph shows the right hand . . . at the base of the index finger at the back of the hand, we have a round, oval, almost crater-like abrasion . . . again, theres no redness or scabbing over the surface . . . an hour or less, I would say. The next photograph shows Its an abrasion, the upper part is non-patterned. The lower part has a cylindrical shape to it . . . so we have non-patterned abrasion adjacent to a patterned abrasion. Around the tub, was there anything that could have caused that pattern? Within the tub itself, no . . . [but] where the vertical tiles meet the tub, it was rough and it was linear. Objection/Sustained. Can you describe the tile from the end of the bathtub rim to that tile? The grout, its somewhat roughened . . . and it goes down again to the floor. The bathtub sits in that tile. The tiles themselves had a smooth surface? Yes, they did. The witness says that there was no indication that this particular abrasion was any older than an hour or less, and was caused by something abrasive (Not a smooth bathtub). The witness is shown another photograph. This is an autopsy picture of Kathleen Savios back, going down to about the knee area. It depicts the abrasion to the left buttocks, and some blood smears on her back. Once again, the witness opines that the abrasions to the left hip appear to be fresh . . . less than an hour [old]. The witness, using a model or diagram now points out the locations of some more of the injuries present on Kathleen Savios body. When you analyze injuries from a fall, are circumstances, the autopsy, and the scene things you consider? Yes. Can you discuss how the circumstances come into play? The circumstances that I took into account . . . Objection/Sustained. In accessing whether injuries are consistent on a body from a fall, what are the things you look at? There are three lines of

evidence that lead me to my conclusions: the circumstances, the injuries on the body, and the scene. Those are three standards ones that I use, that forensic pathologists in general use. Did you take into account the injuries we saw, and analyze those? Yes, I did . . . first of all, I noted their location, size, shape, color, age, pattern, lack of a pattern, and number. Then I looked at the constellation of injuries. I saw that all the bruises on that body were in front. Her scalp laceration and her abrasions were all in the back, with the one exception of the one on the side of the arm. Do you take into account alcohol, drugs, and diseases? Yes . . . in assessing the overall mechanism of injury, one looks for risk factors. In this situation . . . one looks for risk factors. And the three risk factors that are published in the literature, I found alcohol, the presence of drugs within the system, and diseases . . . all these risk factors can lead to accidental drownings in healthy females . . . the autopsy showed the distribution of injuries; in my own autopsy, I looked for deep bruises on the back that might go along with a fall, particularly in the buttocks. And I found none there. And the patterned abrasion on the buttocks would not be consistent with someones slip and fall . . . so based on the injuries and the circumstances . . . The judge interrupts, calls the parties to a sidebar. The witness and the jurors are now back in the courtroom. Judge to jurors: The doctor mentioned someone stepping out of a bathtub and slipping on the tile floor. Youre to disregard that entirely. The judge then tells the jurors that the trial will recess at this time, and the State will resume its direct examination in the morning. Judge Burmila has left the bench. The trial is in recess until 9:00 CT/10:00 ET Thursday morning.