Pathologist: Fox News producer helped with Savio autopsy

[sabra]

Source: Chicago Trib

Drew Peterson's defense today tore into a prominent pathologist who declared that Peterson's third wife was killed, contending he was determined to reach the conclusion to please his bosses at Fox News.

During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body.

"One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available," Baden said under questioning by Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky.

Baden had testified earlier that he believes Savio was beaten up and then placed in the bathtub, where her attacker drowned her. Bruises to her body support his theory, Baden said.


Read more: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/peterson-hearsay-hearing-expected-to-end-today.html

[dsc]

1. good grief

no one else was available so he uses a tv personality who has no training at all. I can't imagine this ending well.

[WriteDown]

2. You need training to move a dead body?

:shrug:

[dsc]

3. ah yeah

remember the simpson trial. chain of custody, contamination etc.

[WriteDown]

5. I think if the dr. is there that anybody can move it and/or take

pics under his direction. I don't think you need a special cert to be a gopher.

[piedmont]

4. You might to take technical illustration photos.

But I'd say the more important concern is that one who assists in obtaining evidence should have no financial or career-advancing interest in the evidence obtained.

[WriteDown]

6. Professional witnesses always have something to gain. nt

[rasputin1952]

24. That is a standard...

the individuals in the room need to be neutral. It is far too easy to skew results. Baseline, regardless of what is found, it should never be obfuscated in any way.

I know such things have happened in the past, and there have been serious ramifications for the accused in a crime, and often insurance claims have been denied because of some altered or "bad" autopsy results. The process has to be free of bias...and thorough. Only the objective aspect should be accepted, there is little, if any, room for the subjective.

[xultar]

8. What do you have against fair and balanced autopsies? Geez!

[BunkerHill24]

10. Well, consider the foremost Surgeon/obstructionism at the time!

on edit: that was the former senate leader, a the time. Just to be clear!

[rasputin1952]

9. I worked in a hospital for many years...

sat in on a lot of autopsies...(some were quite interesting).

Thing that got me was, why would van Susteren even be there? Camera's are a standard part of pathology odds and ends, like scales, rulers and a host of other things...but a lawyer/pundit?

:shrug:

[UpInArms]

11. that sounds pretty weird to me, It reminds me of

the news station that always managed to beat the firetruck to the fire - it was an inside job (inside the news' staff)

[rasputin1952]

12. What I saw w/autopsies, is that it was up to the pathologist to...

decide who would be in the room w/them. On 2 occasions, the bodies I witnessed were of somewhat prominent status locally, there were only 2 of us in the room. On most other occasions, there would be between 4 and 20. The 20 being if there were Med students in during the Summer months, more for training than anything else.

An aside, on one of these, the individual had been admitted because of an unknown fever/infection. Nothing showed up on any test, and the autopsy revealed the cause of death. It was a pinhead sized infection at posterior of the eye, attached to the optic nerve that had burst inward, followed the nerve path and infected the brain. It was a fascinating study, and watching the pathologist at work was an amazing sight. She was incredibly thorough, and it became a "landmark" case that wound up in the Med Assn's Journal.

During this particular autopsy, well over 200 pic's were taken, and I had to move the body well over 30x just to deal with the situation. But there were no lawyers/journalist/pundits to be found...:hi:

[UpInArms]

14. it sounds fascinating -

and that is a real science that is so necessary to understanding much about details that escape many.

Glad to have your knowledge/experience here at DU, rasputin1952!

:hi:

[rasputin1952]

21. It is...

but it can come off as little "abstract" when people don't know what's going on.

I find it fascinating, and not "ghoulish" in the least. Many lives have been saved by this science.

[truedelphi]

16. If we are ever in the same locale, we should meet for lunch

I find this sort of thing dreadfully fascinating. And without too much dread.

Thanks for sharing this tale.

[rasputin1952]

20. Here's a "soil your pantaloons" thing that came up once...

The pt died of severe liver damage, everyone thought it was cirrhosis, as the individual had a long history of alcohol abuse. During the autopsy, when the liver was extracted, the pathologist let out a low whistle and said, "holy shit". He held up the liver to the light and it was translucent! You could actually see through parts of it. Now a liver is pretty dense w/a gazzillion places for blood to go to filter out impurities. It turned out that the alcohol was interacting w/massive doses of acetaminophen (Tylenol), that individual had taken for years. The combination had proven to be disastrous to the liver.

Lot's of really interesting things happened during many an autopsy. It is amazing jut how many things we rarely think of can kill you.

Hope this doesn't sound "ghoulish" for some, it's a science and a darn good one.

[dsc]

18. and that is fine

actually a very necessary thing to do. But this was a criminal case and really should have been treated differently.

[rasputin1952]

19. I would be surprised if any pathologist would allow anyone but

law enforcement personnel in w/o some serious worries in a criminal case. The legal ramifications would be enough to set people on their toes to say the least. Coroners generally handle cases like that, not sure if this was a coroner or a pathologist. In some states/locales, coroners need not be pathologists or even MD's, go figure. But an anatomist, w/the contacts to other resources like a specialists in areas like ballistics are available. I know of one case where a "rope manufacturer" was called in to certify that the cord used was of a specific design, they knew what it was made of, but the deign was "odd". In another, a plumber was called in because some of the pipe used in a killing was in the skull, he identified the manufacturer!

It's an amazing situation and these modern day Sherlocks are incredibly well rounded in many disciplines.

[Clintonista2]

15. It says it was her producer

not Van Susteren herself. It still raises questions as to what her producer was doing in the autopsy room in the first place...

[rasputin1952]

22. My bad...

but yes, it makes one wonder how that individual gained access. The producer had to know someone in the chain...:hi:

[salin]

23. edit

never mind (read to quickly)

[OregonBlue]

7. Wow, not very professional. Financial incentive to get the results they want?

[southernyankeebelle]

13. OMG, Greta what the hell where you thinking? Getting the story at all costs.

What a sleezy bunch.

[Wilms]

17. k&r n/t

:wow:

[Raven]

25. That's the end of that autopsy as evidence, I'd say. Way to go, FOX!

[malaise]

26. This takes reality TV to another level

:puke:

[Bluebear]

27. 'there was no one else available' - yeah uh huh.