7/22 - 7/31

[margaritaville]

CNN's Larry King will be the host of a comedy show in Modesto in October to raise money for a fund established by the mother of murder victim Laci Peterson.

"Laughing for Laci" will feature TV improv experts Colin Mochrie and Brad Sherwood and stand-up comic Wendy Liebman, according to a Web site run by Peterson's survivors.

"It will be my honor" to serve as host of the event, the talk show giant said last week on his show, "Larry King Live," while interviewing Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha of Modesto.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/367704.html

[Shells2]

That is very cool of him to do - and he is right - it IS an honor!

Originally posted by Shells2 [*]That is very cool of him to do - and he is right - it IS an honor!

[/*]

ITA. Good job, Larry. Wish I could go, I'd love to see LK in person.

Peterson was arrested on April 18, 2003 in La Jolla, California in the parking lot of a golf course, where he claimed to be meeting his father and brother for a game of golf. At the time of his arrest, Peterson was carrying $15,000 in cash, had four cell phones, multiple credit cards belonging to various family members, a vast array of camping equipment, including knives, implements for warming food, tents, tarps, a dozen pairs of shoes, several changes of clothes, a gun, a map to Frey's workplace that had been printed that same day, a shovel, rope, 24 blister packs of sleeping pills, Viagra, and his brother's driver's license.

Scott Peterson ~ Answers.com

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]What evidence do you think should be entered into the Civil Trial? [/*]

I believe there is limited resources for a full presentation of many unresolved issues and testimony in the criminal trial. Because of lack of resources I think the defense should focus on hard evidence.

Hard or direct evidence, IMO, is the scientific and medical autopsy evidence. Calling Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gallowway as a defense witness. If they are called under subpoena I don't think they are required to paid as an independent expert witness. Also I would subpeona the old prosecution witness that gave the tide/currents testimony.(Sorry have forgotten his name) Again making him the defense witness. Have him explain why he couldn't put Conner on that shore from the area where Scott was fishing.

I would directly examine them for explanation and layman understanding of their documented reports and ask for clarification of their medical statements. I would also ask the unasked questions pertaining to prenatal and post natal characteristics of a premature versus mature fetus.

After their testimony I would have one paid expert to refute or agree with their testimony. If direct evidence from the baby clearly supports he lived longer than 32-32 weeks based on known and accept medical data, I wold rest my case.

The plaintiff can be expected to bring forth their case of the usual
non direct evidence that got Scott convicted in the criminial trial. The defense has the privlege to cross examine them and that doesn't cost the defense any addition money.

I would like to see the defense obtain pics of dead fetus in the womb of a dead mother for any period of time. Let the jury see first hand how much a dead fetus remains intact in a dead and decompositing body. I would think research with pics on a dead pregnant animal with fetus still inside the uterus would also work.

That would give real meaning to a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by caphill [*]
Hard or direct evidence, IMO, is the scientific and medical autopsy evidence. Calling Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gallowway as a defense witness. If they are called under subpoena I don't think they are required to paid as an independent expert witness.
[/*]

If Scott's lawyer subpoenas Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway then they would have to pay them and expert witnesses don't come cheap.

Does Scott Peterson have the funds to pay for expert witnesses like the two mentioned about? I really don't think so.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy [*]

If Scott's lawyer subpoenas Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway then they would have to pay them and expert witnesses don't come cheap.

Does Scott Peterson have the funds to pay for expert witnesses like the two mentioned about? I really don't think so. [/*]

I don't believe if the two witnesses from the criminal trial were under subpoena as material witnesses that would get or expect to be paid fees.

I don't think Scott Peterson has money to pay and develope a real defense for the civil trial. On the other hand I doubt Shanon Rocha is going to spend big dollars to mount a case against Scott. I think Sharon and her attorney will just try to get their verdict on the coat tails of the criminal verdict. I would guess Sharon et al never expected the legal decision that this case would ever come to a jury trial.

Sharon stands to gain no monetary benefit. Even if she won a large monetary award, she would likely never collect a dime. If Scott wanted to profit from telling his story he could tell it to his family and they write a book or sell rights to their story.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bookie [*]I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to put that woman on the witness stand. She's be impeached in record time. She's a full blown quack. [/*]

LOL. Guess it doesn't matter what evidence or witnesses the defense can use. The tabloid witness for the plaintiff will carry the day with her confession fron death row.

I bet the Enquirer will sell lots of copies and promote this woman's book before the trial. Surely Sharon Roch el al would never consider allowing that kind of garbage on the stand.

[bookie]

Originally posted by caphill [*]


LOL. Guess it doesn't matter what evidence or witnesses the defense can use. The tabloid witness for the plaintiff will carry the day with her confession fron death row.

I bet the Enquirer will sell lots of copies and promote this woman's book before the trial. Surely Sharon Roch el al would never consider allowing that kind of garbage on the stand. [/*]

You notice she didn't call Sharon's attorney and offer to testify? That's because Adam Stewart has her number. He said she is tabloid material. How would it look if he put her on the stand after that comment.


"The marketplace for her book seems to be the tabloids," said Adam Stewart, attorney for Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson's mother.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/172377-p2.html

[Stuy]

Originally posted by caphill [*]


I don't believe if the two witnesses from the criminal trial were under subpoena as material witnesses that would get or expect to be paid fees.
[/*]

Do you think if Scott Peterson's lawyer subpoenaed Cyril Wecht or Henry Lee that they wouldn't expect to be paid? If you do then you better tyink again.

If either side calls in expert witnesses then that side will have to a pay what that expert witness charges and I can tell you it's not cheap.

Originally posted by Land Shark® [*]Peterson was arrested on April 18, 2003 in La Jolla, California in the parking lot of a golf course, where he claimed to be meeting his father and brother for a game of golf. At the time of his arrest, Peterson was carrying $15,000 in cash, had four cell phones, multiple credit cards belonging to various family members, a vast array of camping equipment, including knives, implements for warming food, tents, tarps, a dozen pairs of shoes, several changes of clothes, a gun, a map to Frey's workplace that had been printed that same day, a shovel, rope, 24 blister packs of sleeping pills, Viagra, and his brother's driver's license.

Scott Peterson ~ Answers.com [/*]

Is it your position that all that will be allowed in as evidence in the civil trial?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy [*]

Do you think if Scott Peterson's lawyer subpoenaed Cyril Wecht or Henry Lee that they wouldn't expect to be paid? If you do then you better tyink again.

If either side calls in expert witnesses then that side will have to a pay what that expert witness charges and I can tell you it's not cheap. [/*]

I think you should back and read my original post. Why challenge me for a discussion that is not relevant to what I posted.

For your info Dr. Peterson was the pathologist that performed the autopsy and Dr Galloway hired by the State to examine some bones of the baby. Their reasons on the stand was to testify to the info in their reports.

They can be subpoenaed to testify again to the contents in their report. I would think ignoring a subpoena for court as a witness could lead to a bench warrant. That how it works in my part of the country.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by caphill [*]
For your info Dr. Peterson was the pathologist that performed the autopsy and Dr Galloway hired by the State to examine some bones of the baby. Their reasons on the stand was to testify to the info in their reports.

They can be subpoenaed to testify again to the contents in their report. I would think ignoring a subpoena for court as a witness could lead to a bench warrant. That how it works in my part of the country. [/*]

If Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway are subpoenaed to testify then of course they would have to but the party that does that is reasonable for paying them their expert witness fees.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy [*]

If Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway are subpoenaed to testify then of course they would have to but the party that does that is reasonable for paying them their expert witness fees. [/*]

Dr Peterson isn't an expert witness though. He is the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsies. The judge has ruled the criminal conviction won't stand on it's own and that the Rochas have to prove Scott killed Laci. If Dr peterson is called it will be as a material witness, not expert.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie [*]


Dr Peterson isn't an expert witness though. He is the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsies. The judge has ruled the criminal conviction won't stand on it's own and that the Rochas have to prove Scott killed Laci. If Dr peterson is called it will be as a material witness, not expert. [/*]

You need to read Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony where he said he has testified at numerous trials as an expert witness.

Whoever the Rocha's lawyer or Peterson's lawyer call to testify they are responisble for paying them.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy [*]

You need to read Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony where he said he has testified at numerous trials as an expert witness.

Whoever the Rocha's lawyer or Peterson's lawyer call to testify they are responisble for paying them. [/*]

He may have testified in other cases as an expert witness but in this case he isn't an expert witness. Cyril Wecht, Henry Lee, Michael Baden and others have testified at trials as expert witnesses even though they had no connection to that particular case. They testified to their knowledge of their field.


EXPERT WITNESS - When knowledge of a technical subject matter might be helpful to a trier of fact, a person having special training or experience in that technical field, one who is called an expert witness, is permitted to state his or her opinion concerning those technical matters even though he or she was not present at the event. For example, an arson expert could testify about the probable cause of a suspicious fire.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e066.htm

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie [*]


He may have testified in other cases as an expert witness but in this case he isn't an expert witness.
[/*]

Dr. Brian Peterson is an expert in the field of pathology. When he testifies he testifies as an expert in that field.

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Peterson if he were to testify at the civil trial?

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Galloway if he were to testify at the civil trial?

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy [*]

Dr. Brian Peterson is an expert in the field of pathology. When he testifies he testifies as an expert in that field.

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Peterson if he were to testify at the civil trial?

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Galloway if he were to testify at the civil trial? [/*]

When he testifies in cases that he performed the autopsy for he is testifying as a material witness, not an expert witness.

Since he performed the actual autopsies I don't think he'd deserve an expert witness fee in this trial no matter which side calls him.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bookie [*]


When he testifies in cases that he performed the autopsy for he is testifying as a material witness, not an expert witness.

Since he performed the actual autopsies I don't think he'd deserve an expert witness fee in this trial no matter which side calls him. [/*]

Do you ever feel like you beating your head against a brick wall in answering such questions.

I stopped responding when I realized there was no comprehension of what I had posted and no comprehensive of anything else I said.

[bookie]

Originally posted by caphill [*]


Do you ever feel like you beating your head against a brick wall in answering such questions.

I stopped responding when I realized there was no comprehension of what I had posted and no comprehensive of anything else I said. [/*]

It's a wonder I don't have the Dell logo indented in my forehead.

Originally posted by alter ego

Is it your position that all that will be allowed in as evidence in the civil trial?

No no no.

I was responding to mcannie1965's post. This is evidence I think should be entered into evidence at the civil trial.

Originally posted by Land Shark® [*]

No no no.

I was responding to mcannie1965's post. This is evidence I think should be entered into evidence at the civil trial. [/*]

Fair enough....but what element of murder does it prove

Originally posted by alter ego

Fair enough....but what element of murder does it prove

Consciousness of guilt.

[bookie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]

Check your PM box [/*]

Checked and answered.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter [*]

Bookie, just where are you getting your info that Dr. Brian Peterson is testifying as a "material witness" and not an expert witness?

Also, please explain in your own words what a "material witness" is as opposed to what an expert witness. TIA [/*]

From following cases for years. A material witness is someone who can testify to facts involved in the case at hand. An expert witness is someone who can testify to their field of experience. If you don't believe me call a criminal defense attorney, district attorneys officew or even your local court clerk and ask them.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter [*]

Well then, Dr. Brian Peterson would testify as an expert witness and not as a "material witness". Go figure! [/*]

No he wouldn't. He conduted the autopsies. He was testifying to actual facts related to the case.



JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


Notice Judge Delucchi didn't accept him as an expert witness. Then notice what he said when talking about Devore and Galloway. They were acceptable AS EXPERT WITNESSES.

JUDGE: Then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, based on the qualifications of Doctor Devore, the Court will accept Doctor Devore as an expert in maternal-fetal medicine, qualified to give an opinion therein. Go ahead.


JUDGE: Any questions, Mr. Geragos as to her expertise?

GERAGOS: No. Once I heard Alameda County I knew you will qualify her. Yes, I will accept Doctor Galloway as an expert in forensic anthropology, and competent to give an opinion.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

Brian Peterson testified as the coroner who performed the autopsies, not as an expert witness.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter [*]

MEMO TO BOOKIE:

Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist is an expert witness and not a "material witness."

Please, just trust me when I tell you this.

HTH [/*]

Since you are wrong I can't trust you. He did NOT testify in this trial as an expert witness.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter [*]

Then, what did he testify in this trial as? TIA [/*]

OMG are you serious? He testified as THE person who conducted the autopsies. The term material witness may not be the right one but "expert witness" isn't right either. That's why Judge Delucchi didn't accept him as an expert witness.


JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter [*]

Now you get it bookie! "Material Witness" is not the right term.

BTW--Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, is an expert witness in this case.

HTH [/*]

No he wasn't. But I'll let you pretend he was.

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]Was the substance on Conner's ear "electrical tape," which may have been put on the body to secure and wrap Conner. Whatever the substance was, it couldn't have adhered under water. It is not likely it's "kelp."

It caused the ear to fold over, but the fold couldn't have been due to inappropriate cartilage in his ears, as Dr. Peterson testified he had the "appropriate amount of cartilage.

Testimony Re: suibstance on Conner's ear:

Q. Okay. Now, also on the first picture which we marked -- let me go ahead -- let me make this EE I've marked and FF. Both of those have what appear to be a black substance that's over the left ear that looks like a piece of, to the untrained eye, I suppose, a piece of electrical tape or something, doesn't it?


A. It wasn't tape. I think it was kelp. There's plenty of vegetable material associated with the body, and I believe that was just more vegetable.
Q. You see where the ear is folded over as well? Once the -- whatever that substance was, once it's removed, the ear appears to be folded over.
A. It's the same between the -- well, this is FF.
Q. And then I'll mark this as GG.
A. So the ear hasn't changed position between those two pictures.
Q. That's correct. That's what I'm asking you. It appears that, once whatever that was is removed, that there is a discoloration on the baby's body as well right where it was?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Looks like almost an adhesive substance that's been left there; is that correct?
A. I wouldn't go quite that far. There's certainly a discoloration there, though.
Q. Okay. And the discoloration goes across the side of the head. Now, it appears -- and this is what I was asking you before. It appears that there is, in these pictures, FF, EE and GG, that it was on a white sheet, towel, whatever you want to refer to it; is that correct?
A. That's correct



The material over the ear was noticed by the officers who surveyed the crime scene on April 13th:

Mark Geragos: Okay. You had noticed when you rolled the baby on that there was an item on the ear; isn't that correct? That you saw in the picture?
Chris Martinez: There is something there, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that's the way that you found the baby, correct?
Chris Martinez: Yes.

MHO [/*]

I wasn't aware that electrical tape left a purple stain.

jmo

Originally posted by bookie [*]


No he wasn't. But I'll let you pretend he was. [/*]

I believe as a forensiz pathologist, he is automatically an expert. jmo

[Stuy]

Originally posted by insighter [*]
BTW--Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, is an expert witness in this case.

HTH [/*]

The judge asked Dr. Brian Peterson if he had ever qualified in a court of law as an expert witness in forensic pathology. Dr. Peterson said he qualified as an expert in 100 to 200 court cases.

Dr Peterson can add one more where he testified as an expert witness when he testified at the Scott Peterson trial.

Brian Peterson



Witness for the People: Guilt Phase

September 15 & 16, 2004



Direct Examination by David Harris

CLERK: Be seated. State and spell your name for the record.

PETERSON: My name is Brian Peterson. *-r-i-a-n P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

HARRIS: We are referring to you as doctor. Can you tell us what your profession is?

PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist employed by a company called Forensic Medical Group in Fairfield.

HARRIS: And what is a pathologist?

PETERSON: Well, pathology is a study disease. Pathology is a subspecialty of medicine. And we study disease of various types.

HARRIS: So to go back through this, we're calling you a doctor. Does that mean that you have a medical degree?

PETERSON: I do.

HARRIS: Can you tell the jury what your background and education is?

PETERSON: Following three years of undergraduate education, I entered medical school at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. I attended there from 1976 until my graduation with an M.D. in 1980. I spent the next one year doing a flexible or rotating internship at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo Ohio. That was different specialties, actually taking care of patients for a year. I spent the next two years after that serving as a General Medical Officer with the Marines. I was in the Navy. The Marines don't have their own doctors, so I did that for two years. I then entered a training program in anatomic and clinical pathology at the Naval Hospital in San Diego starting in 1983. That was a four-year program. Anatomic pathology is directed towards performance of autopsies. Also directed towards looking at tissue removed in the operating room, for example, deciding if it's cancer or not. Clinical pathology is directed towards running the clinical lab, analyzing lab specimens, blood, urines, et cetera. That was a four year program. After that I went to a place called the Armed Forces Institute of pathology in Washington D.C. That was for my fellowship in forensic pathology. And that's basically, and additional training in autopsy pathology, now directed towards the medical-legal setting, overlooking a cause of death, manner of death. During and after that training, I took two separate examinations, offered by the American Board of Pathology. That's a group that certifies us. The first was in combined Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. I passed that exam. The second was in forensic pathology. I passed that exam. And back in 2001 I went through a voluntary recertification and passed that. So according to the board, I'm good for ten more years. After all that training, I returned to the Naval Hospital in San Diego and practiced there for about five more years doing all those things. And then left the service and joined my present practice about twelve years ago.

HARRIS: Now, you have used the term forensic pathology. Is that different than anatomic?

JUDGE: Can I interrupt? Are you done with his qualifications? Going to ask him some more before we get into the substance of his testimony? Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed in your career, approximately?

PETERSON: About 5,500, your Honor.

JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: Can you tell us some of the courts that you qualified in?

PETERSON: Most of the courts in the Bay Area. That includes Solano, Yolo, Marin, a number down in San Diego. Recently a court martial. Lot of different courts.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: And do you belong to any boards or any societies that are connected with the field of Forensic Pathology?

PETERSON: I'm a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners. I'm a fellow in the American Academy Forensic Sciences.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, do you have any questions about Doctor Peterson?

GERAGOS: Not of Doctor Peterson, no.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


Well Judge Delucchi accept him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion.


Mark Geragos did not object to it at all.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus [*]Brian Peterson



Witness for the People: Guilt Phase

September 15 & 16, 2004



Direct Examination by David Harris

CLERK: Be seated. State and spell your name for the record.

PETERSON: My name is Brian Peterson. *-r-i-a-n P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

HARRIS: We are referring to you as doctor. Can you tell us what your profession is?

PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist employed by a company called Forensic Medical Group in Fairfield.

HARRIS: And what is a pathologist?

PETERSON: Well, pathology is a study disease. Pathology is a subspecialty of medicine. And we study disease of various types.

HARRIS: So to go back through this, we're calling you a doctor. Does that mean that you have a medical degree?

PETERSON: I do.

HARRIS: Can you tell the jury what your background and education is?

PETERSON: Following three years of undergraduate education, I entered medical school at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. I attended there from 1976 until my graduation with an M.D. in 1980. I spent the next one year doing a flexible or rotating internship at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo Ohio. That was different specialties, actually taking care of patients for a year. I spent the next two years after that serving as a General Medical Officer with the Marines. I was in the Navy. The Marines don't have their own doctors, so I did that for two years. I then entered a training program in anatomic and clinical pathology at the Naval Hospital in San Diego starting in 1983. That was a four-year program. Anatomic pathology is directed towards performance of autopsies. Also directed towards looking at tissue removed in the operating room, for example, deciding if it's cancer or not. Clinical pathology is directed towards running the clinical lab, analyzing lab specimens, blood, urines, et cetera. That was a four year program. After that I went to a place called the Armed Forces Institute of pathology in Washington D.C. That was for my fellowship in forensic pathology. And that's basically, and additional training in autopsy pathology, now directed towards the medical-legal setting, overlooking a cause of death, manner of death. During and after that training, I took two separate examinations, offered by the American Board of Pathology. That's a group that certifies us. The first was in combined Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. I passed that exam. The second was in forensic pathology. I passed that exam. And back in 2001 I went through a voluntary recertification and passed that. So according to the board, I'm good for ten more years. After all that training, I returned to the Naval Hospital in San Diego and practiced there for about five more years doing all those things. And then left the service and joined my present practice about twelve years ago.

HARRIS: Now, you have used the term forensic pathology. Is that different than anatomic?

JUDGE: Can I interrupt? Are you done with his qualifications? Going to ask him some more before we get into the substance of his testimony? Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed in your career, approximately?

PETERSON: About 5,500, your Honor.

JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: Can you tell us some of the courts that you qualified in?

PETERSON: Most of the courts in the Bay Area. That includes Solano, Yolo, Marin, a number down in San Diego. Recently a court martial. Lot of different courts.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: And do you belong to any boards or any societies that are connected with the field of Forensic Pathology?

PETERSON: I'm a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners. I'm a fellow in the American Academy Forensic Sciences.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, do you have any questions about Doctor Peterson?

GERAGOS: Not of Doctor Peterson, no.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


Well Judge Delucchi accept him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion.


Mark Geragos did not object to it at all. [/*]

Qualified to give an opinion because he conduted the actual autopsies of the victims in the case. Now go read what Judge Delucchi said when he accepted Devore. He accepted him "as an expert witness". He was also on his way to accepting Galloway as "an expert witness" but Geragos beat him to the punch.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by Lexus [*]
JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.
[/*]

The judge asked Dr. Brian Peterson when he testifed in court as an expert witness how many times was he called upon to give an opinion as to cause of death. Dr. Peterson responded by saying he gave his opinion in all of the cases.

So the judge accepted Dr. Peterson as a forensic patholgist qualified to give an opinion as to case of death.

Every time Dr. Peterson gave an opinion as to cause of death he was testifing as an expert witness. So when he gave an opinion in the Scott Peterson trial he testified as an expert witness.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter [*]

Correct. ITA.

Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, who performed the autopsies in this case is a qualified expert witness in this case. Case closed. Now, let us move on to another topic of your choice bookie. [/*]

You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie [*]


You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. [/*]

Every time Dr. Brian Peterson testifies in a court a law and gives his opinion he does so as an expert.

He has given his opinion on cause of death in between 100 and 200 cases. He said in those cases he testfied as an expert witness.

Originally posted by bookie [*]


You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. [/*]

Dr. Peterson is a qualified forensic pathologist. Dr. Baden is a qualified forensic pathologist. Dr. Wecht is a qualified pathologist.
Why would Dr. Peterson be less of an expert than they are?



PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie [*]


You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. [/*]

What do you think the judge said about Dr. Peterson testifing during the preliminary hearing?

I will tell you what he said. He said that Dr. Peterson qualifies to testify as an expert in pathology.

Dr. Peterson gave the same testimony in the preliminary hearing as he did at the court trial.

If he was considered an expert witness during his testimony at the preliminary heaing then he would have been considered an expert at the court trial when he gave the same testimony.

You just can't seem to get it.

Originally posted by Stuy [*]

What do you think the judge said about Dr. Peterson testifing during the preliminary hearing?

I will tell you what he said. He said that Dr. Peterson qualifies to testify as an expert in pathology.

Dr. Peterson gave the same testimony in the preliminary hearing as he did at the court trial.

If he was considered an expert witness during his testimony at the preliminary heaing then he would have been considered an expert at the court trial when he gave the same testimony.

You just can't seem to get it. [/*]

from the preliminary:

19 Q. Have you qualified as an expert in the area of
20 forensic pathology in courts of this State before?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. Can you give the Court an estimate, if you can?
23 A. I'd estimate between 100 and 200 times