Thursday, May 1, 2008

Legal Pub Exclusive Interview With Attorney Joel A. Brodsky, Drew Peterson's Lawyer With 5-3-08 Follow Up ~ by Legal Pub



Legal Pub is a firm believer in our Constitution and our system of justice's fundamental principle that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Legal Pub has been granted an exclusive interview with Attorney, Joel A. Brodsky, a creative criminal defense attorney. Joel is a partner with Brodsky & Odeh located at 8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 3200 in Chicago, Illinois. Joel's recent publicity has come as being the lead defense attorney for Drew Peterson. Joel has, in our observation, been treated unfairly by the Nancy Grace Show by interrupting him without allowing him to fully answer questions. Joel took the time on 4-30-08 to answer the following exclusive Legal Pub Questions:
Legal Pub: Joel, we welcome your contribution to a balanced presentation of the facts. I think this forum provides an opportunity for the balance our system of justice contemplates. How about answering a few questions for our readers. First, How is Drew holding up under all the intense scrutiny?
Joel: It’s getting better over time. Initially the stress caused him to loose 30 pounds. Now that he knows that his children are safe and secure and are doing well, and the media trucks are no longer in front of his house from 4am to 10pm, he is pretty much back to a tolerable state of mind. Of course he is still concerned about possible charges and the threat of a civil suit adds to that stress, but the knowledge that he didn’t do anything wrong is comforting.

Legal Pub: Does the prosecution have any record that Drew ever purchased one or more containers?

Joel: No. The whole blue barrel / blue container is a fiction. It never existed.

Legal Pub: Has their been any communication from Stacy, telephone calls, post cards etc? Joel: None.

Legal Pub: Have their been any claimed sightings of Stacy?
Joel: Many. I am attaching the Thailand sighting which has pictures. Your readers can make up their own mind on that sighting. (Editor's notes photos are above.)

Legal Pub: How are the children doing?
Joel: Great. The high school freshman is 1st in his class of 2000, he is in senior level band and also is involved in sport. His 8th grader brother is also #1 in his class. They are bright and well adjusted. The younger kids, 2 and 4, and very happy and well adjusted. Drew is a great dad. Nobody can legitimately say he is not.

Legal Pub: What was the basis for the judge not returning Drew's guns?
Joel: The judge did order the guns returned to Drew, but the State Police then revoked his Illinois gun permit, so the return was put on hold.

Legal Pub: John Darwin was missing for several years and presumed dead. He turned up alive having assumed another identity. Is Drew still confident that she ran off with another man?Joel: Yes he is. That’s what Stacy told him.

Legal Pub: Did Drew know the man whom she thinks Stacy ran off with?
Joel: He doesn’t know who she ran off with, so he doesn’t know if he ever met the person or not.

Legal Pub: What made Drew suspect that Stacy was seeing someone else?
Joel: After she ran off we discovered racy (very sexual) text messages on Stacy’s old cell phone. Also, the State Police also disclosed that they discovered a sexual e-mail on another cell phone which Stacy had from yet another man. However, prior to Stacy leaving Drew did not suspect that there was another man. The text messages discovered after she left came as a shock to him.



Legal Pub: Is there any background of Stacy having a head injury, amnesia or stroke? Anything like that run in the family.

Joel: No. But Stacy’s mother also ran off and disappeared while Stacy was a child. She has never been found.

Legal Pub: While many of us assume that Kathy S. died accidentally as the original coroner concluded, what physical evidence does the prosecution think is contrary to the opinion of an accidental death.

Joel: We know of no new or additional physical evidence. We believe the coroner changes his finding based on the same evidence that earlier warranted an accidental finding because of politics. The coroner is an elected county position and there is an election coming up in a few months.

Legal Pub: Has Drew received death threats? How many?

Joel: Yes. Dozens.

Legal Pub: Did the grand jury finally reach a conclusion as to whether to indict? If not, when might they make a final decision?

Joel: The grand jury lasts 18 months and then a new one can be convened for another 18 months. The investigation can go on for years. So far there has not been a vote by the grand jury either way.

Legal Pub: Has Drew received unfair publicity?

Joel: Yes. Just watch Nancy Grace as an example.

Legal Pub: Thanks for your time.

Joel: Thanks again for a balanced coverage.

5-3-08 In response to readers questioning Joel Brodsky's handling of the case, Joel provides an exclusive Legal Pub Update.

Joel: I wish to address the person who says my peers are questioning my handling of the case. So far, in court, I have been successful, getting my client the property taken by the state back (police had to resort to illegally revoking the gun permit to keep Drew from getting the guns). The only criticism I get, and the criminal defense bar is split on this issue, is that I let my client give a total of four (4) controlled interviews, and make a number of sound bite comments on certain issues. The “rule book” in criminal cases is for the client to say nothing. This is what I call the “standard model”. I have given this a great deal of thought, and talked to many other lawyers about this, (including my excellent co-counsel, Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm of East Lansing Michigan, and my partner the very sharp Reem Odeh). My conclusion is (and its my decision), that the standard model does not apply in extremely high profile cases in the post O.J. world. The O.J. Simpson trial changed everything. It made and broke big time media careers, and consequentially made the media, and by extension public perception, an additional party in extreme high profile cases. Now, in these rare cases, the media and its influence is in the courtroom and jury room. Therefore, the media must be addressed and engaged in these extreme cases. Examples: (1) Scott Peterson did 3 short tv appearances (I wouldn’t call them interviews) before he was named a suspect and then he remained totally silent. He was convicted. (2) Robert Blake and Michael Jackson both did media interviews. Michael Jackson even produced a TV special on his case to counter some bad publicity, and Blake did an interview from his jail cell without his lawyer present as well as other interviews. Both these men were acquitted. I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.

137 comments:

blond bombshell said...

If I am ever charged with a crime, I want Joel! You sound like you have really done your home work and believe in your client. That is admirable. (Not to say imply that your are a specialist in Admiral law...)

Keep up the hard work in the search for justice.

Shell

Anonymous said...

There is some new stuff here that I had not heard, like reports of sitings. Photo in Thailand may be her. No record of blue barrel purchase.

Didn't think about the coroner worrying about reelection.

Anonymous said...

Big thing for me was not knowing that Stacy's mom had run off and disappeared when Stacy was a child.

Anonymous said...

While I thought he was all but hung from the media, I now think that he may be innocent. Believe me that is a huge change in my personal position.

Anonymous said...

Guess this is why there are trials. If Stacy is alive, I would think an investigator will find her.

Jill said...

If she was in Thailand, maybe she was hanging out with the Pony tail bandit before she (Morgan Michelle Hoke) got busted in Thailand?
http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/search?q=morgan+michelle+hoke

Jill

Anonymous said...

Now I see why Nancy did not want him to answer all of the questions. When you hear both sides, you realize it is not an open and shut case. She could have run off. Until a court says otherwise, people need to treat him like an innocent man.

This is not ancient Salem where people are burnt at the stakes without a fair trial.

Anonymous said...

REally enjoyed this even though I am not a Drew Peterson fan.

Viper said...

While our legal system is built upon the fundamental truth that you are innocent until proven guilty, everyone has a right to an opinion. The media has sensationalize this story and caused collateral damage. In all sincerity, a fair investigation and/or trial ought to be the goal in all cases.

Anonymous said...

This seems one sided. Only the other side. Did Glenn S. write the script?

Anonymous said...

Maybe a better idea than a reward offer, would be an offer to talk to the Grand Jury, without pleading the 5th? Nothing to hide??

Legal Pub said...

To last two posts. We asked 14 questons and got 14 answers. Much of this information has not been in the main stream media. Opposing view points are offered here and will be given equal time.

Quite simply, the interview was done because there has not been an update of new information and a recent perception that Peterson has been harrassed by the public.

Death threats etc. are not what our country is about. Freedom of press means access by both sides to the media.

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub, the questions you asked were ones I wanted to know the answer to. I was surprised by some of the answers. If the answers are accurate, I think there may be two sides to this story.

Anonymous said...

If a woman truely wanted to get even with her husband, why not run off and let him face the scrutiny of the media and the court system.

If the stuff about the text information is true, then Stacy may not come across as the naive victim that the media has portrayed her to be. I realize we have not heard all of the facts. I am now more anxious then ever to hear evidence on this case.

Anonymous said...

You might run away because of fear too...

Legal Pub said...

Let's start by saying the editors of Legal Pub do not know whether Drew Peterson is innocent or guilty. But to be fair, statements about the 5th Ammendment need to be put in context. Peterson has not been silent. He has given more statements in the media then any suspect in a major crime in recent memory. Many of us suspect that if he is ever charged, he will testify at trial and be an effective witness.

The press has been mostly one sided. How fair is it to reopen his third wife's death so many years later and in essence try the man in the media?

For those questioning the timing of the reward, that is a red herring. $25,000 is likely a lot of money to Drew Peterson. To most others, it is not much of a reward. Even without the reward, there has been claimed sightings. How credible the sightings remain unknown.

This forum offers equal time to both sides. The only request is that while stating opinions, clearly delineate that it is an opinion. When it is a fact, state the basis of the fact.

Anonymous said...

Mary Winkler shoots her husband in bed and the majority of the world sympathizes with the abuse she took leading up to the shooting.She is free after only a few months of treatment and jail.

Drew Peterson's wife is missing and the media leads a crucifiction prior to all the evidence being known and before any trial. He appears to be a near prisoner in his own notoriety.

What's the difference?

Winkle is a woman v. and Drew is a man.

Anonymous said...

I still think he acts guilty, but maybe he's not. I would be a good juror because I think I could base a decision soley on the evidence and not the crap that is out there in the media.


Penny

Secrets said...

Joel is reminiscent of the late Johnnie Cochran, without the charisma. He created reasonable doubt.

I'm still not convinced. There's something about Drew that doesnt seem right. Its the same feeling I got with Susan Smith when she claimed a black guy car jacked her kids.

One wife dead and the other missing. I dont believe in coinsidence.

Secrets said...

oops
"carjacked"

Ms Calabaza said...

Wow! Great interview LP.

I have to agree with Secrets, I'll give Drew his right to be innocent until proven guilty but this whole things smells to me. I don't believe in many coincidences either.

Anonymous said...

All of these questions here have been asked and answered many times. There is nothing new here. Anyone following the case would know that.
FACT - Peterson took the 5th when asked questions by the GJ about the events around the time his wife went missing.
FACT - Brodsky said Peterson WILL take the 5th in the expected Savio case. Peterson said he would follow Brodsky's wishes.
For balanced coverage I think "why the 5th" should have been asked. (I know, I heard Brodsky's lame attempt of an answer to that before, but I would like to hear another one) It is my opinion that if he had nothing to do with Stacy missing, has told the truth from the beginning, and has nothing to hide, he would do all he could to find out what happened. That is why him taking the 5th is so relevant. Also the fact that he will not discuss the time line is ridiculous, in my opinion, if he is innocent, and wants to prove it! That right there takes away any reasonable doubt in my mind.
Johnnie Cochran/Joel Brodsky? Not even close. Don't go there!

Legal Pub said...

Above poster:

Your comments are appreciated and welcomed. However, on the Fifth Ammendment, in my opinion, you are not being fair. Every one has the right to the Fifth. Almost every attorney advises his client to take the fifth and not testify at a grand jury investigation.

No way any one knows for sure if Drew will testify at his own jury trial. If the prosectution's case is weak, common legal thought is to recommend that your client not testify.Innocent men have been convicted in part by not being good witnesses. I suspect Peterson makes a better witness then most people think.

Even though I hear that Drew wants to take a polygraph, most lawyers advise against it because they are not reliable. And yes, I have personally seen polygraphs consistent with a lie when the person being examined was telling the truth.

A lot of what was said is new to most of us. The benefit of the interview was to allow Joel to answer questions that some of us wanted to hear answered, but were not able to listen to because Nancy Grace kept interrupting him.

Whether Drew Peterson is innocent or guilty, only time and a fair and impartial investigation will determine. If the case is tried, then a fair and impartial jury needs to hear the case and decide it on the evidence not on the media accounts or on speculation why someone did or did not testify.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Adam Reposa will join the defense team. That guy may have questionable tactics, but he is very successful.

Viper said...

To 11:52

Do you think Peterson should not be presumed innocent?

Do you think to satisfy the media or people's curiosity to testify before a grand jury when conventional wisdom is that no defendant should do so?

Do you think he is not entitled to a trial on the evidence?

Did you know the blue barrel testimony was all fabricated?

Did you know Peterson's kid is so bright and doing so well in school?

Did you know about the text messages.

I admit I did not but am looking forward to hearing your responses and how you knew so I can decide how it is that I am so uninformed.

Thanks in advance.

Viper said...

Oh, 11:52 if you question whether the Legal Pub editors try to be balanced, first read the story
Why would any one named Laci or Stacy marry a Peterson.

http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-would-any-woman-named-lacy-or-stacy.html

I have come to realize over the years that both sides are presented by the editors whenever practical.

Anonymous said...

re: VIPER from 11:52
Do you think Peterson should not be presumed innocent?
He should be and is presumed innocent by anyone that matters. All else is opinion.

Do you think to satisfy the media or people's curiosity to testify before a grand jury when conventional wisdom is that no defendant should do so?
All I know, if the Mother of my Children was missing, and I was completely innocent, and nothing to hide, I would do all I could to get her back, GJ et all. If I was telling the truth, it would not be a problem

Do you think he is not entitled to a trial on the evidence?
When he is arrested, he will be entitled to a trial on the evidence

Did you know the blue barrel testimony was all fabricated?
Legal Pub: Does the prosecution have any record that Drew ever purchased one or more containers?
Joel: No. The whole blue barrel / blue container is a fiction. It never existed.


I hope this question is not asked because of the above question and answer, if so, you should do a lot more reading up on this case.

I don't know about a "purchased blue barrel", but Drew Peterson's stepbrother, who says he helped "move a large blue container" the night Stacy went missing, as I write this, is in protective custody. He told 2 people (one of them his brother), that he "thought he may have inadvertently helped dispose of Stacy's body", before Stacy was even reported missing.

Did you know about the text messages.
If you are talking about the one the SunTimes stated "Joel Brodsky, Peterson's attorney, said the message may be the break Brodsky needs to clear his client's name." The same one Drew "found" mid December when he was "fiddling" with the phone....... There is a lot of controversy on that one. Could have been sent by anyone, anytime. It came from a Sprint website.
Or the one when Police contacted Scott Rossetto, a registered nurse from Shorewood, after finding phone records that connected him to Stacy Peterson. Rossetto’s brother dated her briefly in 2001.
Rossetto told reporters after his testimony that he and the now-missing woman exchanged racy text messages that could have been misinterpreted by her husband before she disappeared more than three weeks ago.
Rossetto told reporters that he and Stacy were not having an affair. He said they traded flirtatious text messages and e-mails.
"Some of the messages were quite perverted and flirty in nature, but they were all meant in fun," Rossetto told the Chicago Sun-Times. "(Was I) Interested in dating? No. Flirting? Yes."

Take it anyway you want, but the actual person who was involved said "they were all meant in fun, and he told reporters that "he and Stacy were not having an affair"

Yes, there is a lot to this case.


Blogger Viper said...

Oh, 11:52 if you question whether the Legal Pub editors try to be balanced, first read the story
Why would any one named Laci or Stacy marry a Peterson.

http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-would-any-woman-named-lacy-or-stacy.html

I have come to realize over the years that both sides are presented by the editors whenever practical.
point taken

Anonymous said...

Rosetta sent racy texts? Where there is smoke there may be fire. Flirting is usually done with a goal in mind. If Drew did discover the texts, Stacy might have reason to hide in fear. If he were convicted of K.S. death, I would not be the least bit surprised if she came out of hiding.

But, I will wait for the evidence before I decide if he did anything to either of them.

Anonymous said...

L.P. Thanks for presenting both sides! That is why this site is number one!

The Bodem thread is a perfect example!

Anonymous said...

Joel Brodsky is the type of lawyer that I would want if I was in trouble. He believes in his client. That is so rare these days.

Don't knock the man for doing his job.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, Brodsky has a job to do and he apparently does it well.

Anonymous said...

Balanced coverage? I bet you will delete this:

The Chicago Battered Women's Network say that half of female homicide and manslaughter victims in the country are killed by an "intimate male partner." An estimated 3 million U.S. women are abused by their partners each year.

Angie Jiminez, CBWN's Domestic Violence Court Policy Coordinator told AHN, "It's when women try to leave the relationship that they are at a greater risk, because at that point, the abuser sees a loss of power and control, and really a domestic homicide is the ultimate tool to exert that power."

Lets see how long this post stays up!

Legal Pub said...

You lose the bet!

Anonymous said...

LOL. That poster does not know L.P.

Anonymous said...

A couple more views
Another View
And another

Anonymous said...

The above web sites are opinions with no facts. There is an assumption that Peterson is not telling the truth. That begs the question.

One needs facts to support his guilt not just accusations, assumptions and conclusions based without facts.

I got to admit yesterday I was convinced he did it. Twice. Now, after reading this interview and just concentrating on the facts, I got major reasonable doubt.

Anonymous said...

from 11:52
LP said........
This forum offers equal time to both sides. The only request is that while stating opinions, clearly delineate that it is an opinion. When it is a fact, state the basis of the fact.
Legal Pub is a firm believer in our Constitution and our system of justice's fundamental principle that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Legal Pub has been granted an exclusive interview with Attorney, Joel A. Brodsky, an excellent criminal defense attorney. Joel is a partner with Brodsky & Odeh located at 8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 3200 in Chicago, Illinois.

Is this fact or opinion? It seems more like an advertisement. It is not in the interest of truth, when you start out with an advertisement.
If you think he is an excellent attorney, why are a lot of his peers question his handling of the case.
I think "excellent criminal defense attorney" is an opinion that you used to manipulate your readers.

Anonymous said...

questioning :-)

Anonymous said...

Joel has tried to counter balance the negative media portrayal of Drew Peterson. Even if you think Peterson is guilty, you have to hand it to L.P. for letting Brodsky say his piece uninterrupted. I disliked Brodsky as much as Peterson when I saw him on T.V. but never knew why.

After reading the interview, I realized that it may have been that Brodsky has seldom been able to answer a question without interruption. I have displaced my dislike for Peterson on Brodsky. I dislike Peterson because I think he is guilty. But I also realize that I have heard no evidence and now realize that there are two sides to the story that may create reasonable doubt.

Peterson has been treated like a dog in the media. If he is convicted, then it may be appropriate. Brodsky has been criticized for doing his job. I got to agree with L.P., he had done an excellent (although perhaps unconventional) job of keeping Peterson out of jail as of this date.

Because Brodsky is disliked by association to Peterson, few lawyers are going to publically say that Brodsky is doing a good job. (Why project the hatred and disapproval on yourself?) But I sincerely doubt that many lawyers could have kept Peterson out of jail this long. Thus I have to reluctantly agree with L.P.that Brodsky must be an excellent criminal attorney (even though I still do not like him much.)


Pete

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I wish to address the person who says my peers are questioning my handling of the case. So far, in court, I have been successful, getting my client the property taken by the state back (police had to resort to illegally revoking the gun permit to keep Drew from getting the guns). The only criticism I get, and the criminal defense bar is split on this issue, is that I let my client give a total of four (4) controlled interviews, and make a number of sound bite comments on certain issues. The “rule book” in criminal cases is for the client to say nothing. This is what I call the “standard model”. I have given this a great deal of thought, and talked to many other lawyers about this, (including my excellent co-counsel, Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm of East Lansing Michigan, and my partner the very sharp Reem Odeh). My conclusion is (and its my decision), that the standard model does not apply in extremely high profile cases in the post O.J. world. The O.J. Simpson trial changed everything. It made and broke big time media careers, and consequentially made the media, and by extension public perception, an additional party in extreme high profile cases. Now, in these rare cases, the media and its influence is in the courtroom and jury room. Therefore, the media must be addressed and engaged in these extreme cases. Examples: (1) Scott Peterson did 3 short tv appearances (I wouldn’t call them interviews) before he was named a suspect and then he remained totally silent. He was convicted. (2) Robert Blake and Michael Jackson both did media interviews. Michael Jackson even produced a TV special on his case to counter some bad publicity, and Blake did an interview from his jail cell without his lawyer present as well as other interviews. Both these men were acquitted. I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.

Legal Pub said...

5-3-08 In response to readers questioning Joel Brodsky's handling of the case, Joel provides an exclusive Legal Pub Update.

Anonymous said...

L.P. pretty clear Brodsky is trying to counter act the negative press. I never thought about it before, but in light of all the negative publicity, who could ever get a fair trial. Trying to get the other facts out is a risky business, but in this day and age, it probably takes a special approach.

Trying cases in a vacume would be best. But if you got the negative publicity you might as well try to do something to balance it.

Anonymous said...

If it were a chess game, I think Peterson looks most like the Bishop on my set.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that if Joel would not bash so many people all the time, he would get more respect. I know a lot of people in my line of work, and a lot of friends and family, and most of them lost respect for Joel because of the "people bashing", and some of his unthoughtful comments and actions.
If that above comment was in fact JB, would you mind commenting on some of your recent quotes.


"We don't care if she comes back," he said. "We just want to find her." Sun-Times (about the reward money)
"We don't care if she comes back............." ?? I find that highly disturbing.


""Really?" he said. "It's been that long?" Sun-Times (about the 6th month anniversary of Stacy's disappearance)

""They'll just keep going until the case goes cold," Brodsky said. "And it will eventually, and that's that." Sun-Times (why would it go cold if she is alive "dancing" somewhere, and even John Darwin turned up)

""There's been a few disturbing incidents from female prosecutors, which I just find unprofessional," he said. "It's just their whole attitude" Sun-Times (what attitude?)

"The whole blue barrel / blue container is a fiction. It never existed." (this is an outright lie, the witness to this is the same guy whose picture you tried to show on Dan Abrams)
and....why did you try to sneak in a picture of a witness in protective custody on the Dan Abrams interview?




This is when I lost all respect
""Win a date with Drew" Steve Dahl Radio Show (WHY?)


and... your partner seems to have some concerns
from the Chicago Tribune February 28, 2008
"Meanwhile, while Brodsky and Peterson flew to New York for his third appearance on the NBC show, Brodsky's law partner, Reem Odeh, questioned the way the case was being managed.

"I'm concerned that there's more emphasis and more of an effort to cater to the media frenzy than there is to looking into the issues surrounding the investigations," Odeh said. "It just seems to me that when there's nothing going on with the investigation and things are quiet in the media, it seems like sometimes either Joel or Drew says something to start the media frenzy all over again."

Brodsky has mounted an aggressive campaign for media coverage.

Asked whether she discussed those issues with Brodsky, Odeh said, "Absolutely. I don't think it's appropriate. I think it is in the client's best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we're all going to get book deals."

Odeh said she plans to meet with Peterson and tell him that she believes he should behave in a more professional manner, and if that doesn't happen, she will push to have him dropped as a client.

source

the case is going to make us famous and we're all going to get book deals. WTF... THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM JOEL BRODSKY'S LAW PARTNER REEM ODEH. (Yes I was yelling). I think this speaks volumes about the direction of this case. (unless they did this on purpose so Drew can file an appeal on "inadequate counsel") Now, which is it? Defending your client to the best of your abilities, or create a frenzy, and anaggressive campaign for media coverage, so you can get famous and make money off "book deals"?
Also it puts your comment “but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard,(sic) or done for publicity“ into question.

Joel, I look forward to your reply to these things on your next exclusive Legal Pub Update.

Thank You

Anonymous said...

Poster above, decent comments and observations. But one fact remains. Not many lawyers could have kept Peterson from being charged this long. I am not a suppoprter of Joel's tactics. But I am not naive enough to question that they have worked so far. Fact is I hate the fight fire with fire mentality. But the truth is, Joel may be right that it has become necessary in high publicity cases.

Anonymous said...

Two observations:

1. L.P. would not put the post on the main page unless it was from Joel Brodsky.

2. Peterson is probably like most men whose wife supposedly cheated on him and was being honest when he said that he didn't care if she came back. (Very poor taste, yes. Honest probably.)

3. Just because a witness claims that he helped move a blue barrel does not mean it is true. I got to wait on this one. If the prosecutors had a receipt or some proof he purchased a blue barrel, that might be important collaborating evidence.

4. Since no body has been found, I am going to assume she is alive until it is proved otherwise. I don't think Peterson or anyone else is smart enough to kill someone and get rid of all the DNA evidence. (I hope I am not proved wrong on this one.)

5. Peterson is appears arrogant, cocky and uncaring. I do not like him and I bet most of America does not either. But that does not make him guilty. O.J. appeared very sad at his wife's funeral was that a convincing act? Not in my opinion.

6. The longer this thing drags on, the more doubt I have. But everytime Peterson does something stupid such as the radio show, it just increases my doubt that any one that stupid could get away with murder.

Anonymous said...

4:20 PM SAID: Not many lawyers could have kept Peterson from being charged this long.

Someone else mentioned this also. The antics of JB have nothing to do with DP not being charged. If a public defender was on the case, he would still not be charged yet. I think the DA wants all their ducks in a row, so to speak, before they make an arrest. I think they do not want to rush into it like the DA did in the OJ trial. (if they had "all their ducks in a row" I think OJ would be sitting in prison now)

This case is very complicated, could be two related or unrelated murders, SP could have been killed to keep her from telling all she knew about the KS murder...

About two months ago, DP hired a lawyer (not JB) for his kids after they were served with a subpoena to appear before the GJ (with immunity from prosecution) DP does not want the kids to testify (that is one reason he hired another lawyer)
Come up with your own reasons DP does not want his kids to testify.

There is only one in my mind. They were home the night SP "disappeared", and over the years, may have heard DP and SP say something about the KS murder.
I think once the GJ hears from the kids, they will have their "ducks in a row."
If DP is innocent, and really wants to find Stacy, he could let the kids talk to the GJ, and then give THEM the "25 grand"!

Anonymous said...

No competent lawyer would want his client to testify before a grand jury no matter how innocent. Similarly, no competent lawyer would want his client to take a lie detector test.

As for the children, I believe at least one son has testified before the grand jury. Any young minor,should not be subjeced to such examination if possible.

It is clear that some of you are open minded and some are just 100% convinced D.P. is guilty. For those already decided, you look for everything to reinforce your decision and ignore evidence to the contrary.

Above poster 7;35, I have seen in my years some innocent people convicted by vigorous cross exam. Later DNA evidence or a confession by someone else exposes the mistake. There is a reason in law school that they teach you, "It is better for 99 guilty people to go free then for 1 innocent man to go to jail." The defense lawyers have a job to do. Dislike Brodsky if you wish, but so far he is doing a good job. Finally, no slam on Public Defenders, but they are busy, under paid and over worked. No way a P.D. would have been able to keep Peterson out of jail.Most would be begging for their client to take a plea after the first visit. That is my real life observations.

Joel Brodsky said...

To address briefly the post of May 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM., let me start by saying that you are obviously unfamiliar (as I was at the start) with the games the media, especially the cable media, play. You would be totally amazed.
But I want to first address the quote attributed to my partner, Reem Odeh. She never said those things. What occurred was that she engaged in a long conversation with a reporter in which they discussed many subjects, including the media, the Today Show interview (which occurred the next day but which had been promoted by NBC), and if we had been approached by book publishers. The reporter then cobbled together the quotes and the story which you have now quoted from. It is extremely inaccurate, (made out of “whole cloth” as they say), and out of context, and we complained to the reporter. You will notice that the story has not been repeated or quoted in any other papers. That is because Reem told everyone it was not accurate.
In fact many of the quotes in the newspapers are inaccurate or out of context, (though not as badly done as the quote from Reem) I would say they get a quote right and in context about 50% of the time, or less. It is not that they are bad intentioned, but that is just the nature of print journalism. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video. And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read.
As to the blue barrel and Dan Abrams, this is a good example. Actually Dan Abrams people had a copy of the pictures via e-mail a week before we went on. Then they took grapic scans while we were in the studio so they could put the pictures on the screen. (The pictures are recent pictures of Tom Morphey smoking a crack pipe and stoned out of his mind) We wanted to put these out to counter a recent news article that portrayed Morphy as clean and sober since the mid-90's. (in fact he was fired from his last job in September of 07 because he kept showing up for work drunk). Abrams people agreed to show the pictures on the condition that Drew also come on the show. We agreed because the pictures are important on the issue of Morphy’s credibility. (By the way he is not in protective custody, he is in rehab because the State is trying to clean him up, but its not working. He still is not clean enough to go before the grand jury after 5 months of rehab, thats how messed up he is. Not a credible witness I say.) When I realized that Abrams was not going to show the pictures, as his producer had agreed, then I decided to try to show them to the camera, but Abrams cut away and just described the pictures verbally, which did not do them justice. (So what appears like me trying to sneak a picture on tv is not what occurred. The bottom line is that there is no evidence (receipts, credit card records, forensic traces, etc.) what so ever that a blue barrel / container ever existed. Morphy was so horribly messed up on drugs and alcohol at that time you cannot rely on anything he as to say. (Webmaster - the pictures are on my office computer and if you want I can e-mail them to you so your bloggers can make up their own minds about Morphy.)
Finally, the Steve Dahl “Date With Drew” thing, was both intentional and a mistake. Dahl’s people knew we were going to call in, and we new in advance that he was going to address the fact that for some reason Drew is hit on by women because of the publicity. Dahl is a radio comedy legend in Chicago for over 20 years and he had been doing a Drew parody (including songs) every day on his show for from a half hour to an hour. He had been very hard on Drew, and we thought if we joined in his comedy bit we could take some wind out of his sails, and maybe even change the slant of his comedy. (Kind of like when politicians go on comedy shows to laugh at their campaign mistakes) It was going well until Dahl suggested the dating contest. I mistakenly ok’d it. We approved because of what we have latter come to understand is an inappropriate sense of humor that cops, defense lawyers, prosecutors, develop to deal with the daily tragedy and stress they deal with. We all tell tasteless jokes about some very tragic situations to psychologically deal with the situations. I just did it in public which was the mistake.
I hope this adds to your understanding of the media issues in the Peterson case.

Anonymous said...

Excellent explanation Mr. Brodsky. Now to the critical poster, I was leaning your way until Brodsky just laid down the facts.

How can somebody wacked out on drugs be a good witness. Rehab is not protective custody.

Peterson may still be a jerk. He may still use horrible judgment but I think his lawyer is just trying to help him. Until there is proof, lets lay off Peterson and let the investigators do their job.

Anonymous said...

Brodsky is a lot better then some of you think.

Peterson is still free...

Anonymous said...

Got to tip my hat to Brodsky for now...

but not even he can control the Peterson factor...

Legal Pub said...

New Peterson story will be up tomorrow morning as it was just approved.

Anonymous said...

wow finally a site that looks at the whole picture and stands up for our constitutional rights.
Glad I found this site am really tired of the show by the media and the lynch mobs mentality of those that have tunnel vision and no facts to back up their hang em high stance.
Thanks this is refreshing.
also I highly doubt Tom Morphey is in protective custody since the website Findstacypeterson has morphey's family posting message's from Tom, supposedly.
My understand of protective custody is that not even family members have contact with the person in potective custody. If that is wrong I would think that LE would not want any communications from the person they are protecting to be posted on internet websites by family members.

Anonymous said...

ROTFLMAO.

To get respect and an ear, you have to give respect. In the media, all you, Mr. Brodsky, and your client have done is masacred his missing wife's life, her friends, her family. With all due respect, sirs, she has not had the luxury of being here to downplay or dispute any of it. Mr. Brodsky claims to "know" Mr. Peterson, yet, he has only been acquainted with him for six months, as a paid legal advisor. That hardly makes him knowledgeable about his client's 54 years of life, and what he is or is not capable of doing. You might have us all believe he didn't have a hand in her disappearance, but I would have to rely on the news and media to come to that conclusion. The same news and media that I would have to rely on to convince me he DID have a hand in her disappearance. Works both ways.

Peterson has been tried in the public forum because he threw out the first ball. Starting with Ms. Peterson's menstrual cycles.

Might I just add that, as long as your allowing opinions here, it is my opinion two people wrote over 50 posts. The Joel Brodsky fan club.

And throwing in there that he never got a chance to speak on Nancy Grace is even more laughable. What in your "exclusive" interview hasn't been put out there already, ad nauseum? The only "exclusive" about this whole interview, and the posts that follow, is that it bows to the king.

Anonymous said...

There may be no physical evidence of a blue barrel but there are eye witnesses, an eye witness is very valuable in any case. I would think more than one eye witness will be a very difficult hurdle to over come in any case.

Anonymous said...

With no barrel and no body, a conviction will be real tough. Even if Morphy and a neighbor can establish the existence of the barrel, that still does not place Stacy in the barrel. Quite frankly, Morphy's credibility will be suspect. The neighbor will have more credibility provided it is not one of the neighbors posting anti- Peterson signs.

In the end, they really need a body...

Anonymous said...

Anon said: To get respect and an ear, you have to give respect. In the media, all you, Mr. Brodsky, and your client have done is masacred his missing wife's life, her friends, her family. With all due respect, sirs, she has not had the luxury of being here to downplay or dispute any of it. Mr. Brodsky claims to "know" Mr. Peterson, yet, he has only been acquainted with him for six months, as a paid legal advisor. That hardly makes him knowledgeable about his client's 54 years of life, and what he is or is not capable of doing.

And you personally know Stacy Peterson for how long? Oh wait. You don't know Stacy Peterson. You never heard of her until 6 months ago, just like the rest of us. ROFLMFAO, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anon said: To get respect and an ear, you have to give respect. In the media, all you, Mr. Brodsky, and your client have done is masacred his missing wife's life, her friends, her family. With all due respect, sirs, she has not had the luxury of being here to downplay or dispute any of it. Mr. Brodsky claims to "know" Mr. Peterson, yet, he has only been acquainted with him for six months, as a paid legal advisor. That hardly makes him knowledgeable about his client's 54 years of life, and what he is or is not capable of doing.

And you personally know Stacy Peterson for how long? Oh wait. You don't know Stacy Peterson. You never heard of her until 6 months ago, just like the rest of us. ROFLMFAO, indeed.
Listen....
It doesn't take a personal friend of Stacy Peterson's to recognize the fact that she hasn't had the opportunity to defend herself. If someone chooses to talk crap about a missing person, that person needs to be prepared for the back lash. dp made his bed, thorns and all.

Anonymous said...

I feel you're chasing your tail on this one. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Who drew first blood? (Good pun, I know, thanks.) Seriously -- the man's story is that his wife LEFT HIM. Why should he have anything good to say about her? He has, however, been quoted as saying she was a good mother and always made Xmas very nice - remember? If she received racy text messages from men during her marriage, she deserves the same respect she gave that marriage. Buck it up! You can't have it both ways. :)

Anonymous said...

There is evidence on both sides. Witnessed domestic abuse...anonymous text message. Hmmm tough call, I think throwing someone across the room MIGHT be worse. Like I said, she is not here to defend herself but dp has had ample opportunity to do so. It's his fault he didn't do a good job.

Anonymous said...

"witnessed domestic abuse"

Please post your source in fact for the witnessed domestic abuse. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

There is evidence on both sides. Witnessed domestic abuse...anonymous text message. Hmmm tough call, I think throwing someone across the room MIGHT be worse.

Where is it stated the text message is anonymous? The judge ordered a warrant for Verizon's records, as well as the cell phone itself - specifically for the date of September 20, 2007 when a text message was noted as being received on that phone. NOBODY has said it was anonymous.

Where is domestic abuse documented between Drew and Stacy Peterson?

What does your reference to throwing someone across a room imply?

The No.1 fact in this case so far, is that there are no facts indicative of Stacy Peterson being deceased. And even if she was found dead, there'd have to be evidence linking Drew to her murder. You think there's a shot in hell of any of these two things happening? I don't. I think that people really WANT it to be true and I don't understand why. The only conclusion I can come up with for wishing a man guilty of a crime that hasn't happened, is that you're mean.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...May 8, 2008 9:54 AM
Where is it stated the text message is anonymous? The judge ordered a warrant for Verizon's records, as well as the cell phone itself - specifically for the date of September 20, 2007 when a text message was noted as being received on that phone. NOBODY has said it was anonymous.

There are two sets of text messages. The ones from Scott R. and the anonymous, "hottest b ---- in the world" one, sent Sept. 20th, that always gets quoted.
//////////////////////////////////

Anonymous said...May 8, 2008 9:54 AM
I think that people really WANT it to be true and I don't understand why.
//////////////////////////////////

Imho, it is because his life was opened to the public, and they do not like the idea of a person like that walking the streets.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
May 8, 2008 9:54 AM
What does your reference to throwing someone across a room imply?
////////////////////////////////

Stacy's sister saw DP throw Stacy across the room.
You should really read up on this, and the KS case. (police reports, witnesses, hospital records, restraining orders, etc.) It may answer most of your questions.

Anonymous said...

Imho, it is because his life was opened to the public, and they do not like the idea of a person like that walking the streets.

... a person like WHO? like WHAT? Where's the body? Where's the crime? Where's ANY evidence of ANYTHING? As I said, it's because people are simply mean and it should only happen to them and then watch them all cry, "I'm being unfairly persecuted!" This whole thing is really disgusting. Leave that man alone unless it's proven that the woman is dead AND that he killed her!

Anonymous said...

Stacy's sister saw this and did nothing about it?
I don't feel Stacy's sister is very creditable. She can't even get the paint story with Bruce to sound creditable.
So again no facts only conjucture based on hate by famous internet posters who swamn any board that dares allows conversations that don't include taking a bat and hitting a drew pinata.
What kind of show is that from the family of a missing person? Drewbuster bats at fundraisers, very first vigil bring a drew pinata and smash away at it.
Yes I see so much concern for Stacy's children from these haters.

Anonymous said...

Stacy's sister saw DP throw Stacy across the room.

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

And you believe everything that Cass says?

Anonymous said...

They won't leave him alone. They spend 7/24 on any website they can trashing and spitting on our constitution.

Anonymous said...

Stacy's sister saw DP throw Stacy across the room.
You should really read up on this, and the KS case. (police reports, witnesses, hospital records, restraining orders, etc.) It may answer most of your questions.


First, I've read plenty on this case and have read all the b.s. and slanderous, ugly and threatening statements made on various blogs and websites, as well as media junk.

I totally discount the KS stories of abuse. I don't believe for a moment that she was victimized in any of the ways she claimed. Drew also called the police on HER, too, if you recall. Why? They were going through a divorce and that's what happens when people don't have the maturity to communicate. It happens everyday.

I have formed my own opinion of Stacy's sister and her level of credibility, too. I've read her writings and have heard her speak. I don't believe a word she says. If DP threw Stacy across a room, are you trying to tell me that this family wouldn't have taken action? Oh but wait ... maybe they did. Maybe they worked out the perfect plan to frame Stacy's husband for murder(s) he didn't commit. The sweet kind pastor Neil was the perfect patsy for the plan, too.

Isn't it funny how she confided in the pastor about Savio's alleged murder, but NOT her own sister?

I believe the sister could know exactly where Stacy is and this whole thing could be a big charade.

Anonymous said...

They won't leave him alone. They spend 7/24 on any website they can trashing and spitting on our constitution.

You are SO right! It's appauling behavior, but then you must remember these are all "helpless" women who have made all the wrong choices in life, who wish to blame all the men on the face of this good planet for their own lousy choices.... imo, of course! :)

Anonymous said...

I think there is a very good possibility of this all being once big Cales family charade to get control of ALL of Drew's asset's.
It's obvious Stacy was a gold digger if her words to the pastor are true. Cover for murder and enjoy all the benefits from Kathleen's estate, adopt Kathleen's children and on and on.

Anonymous said...

You are SO right! It's appauling behavior, but then you must remember these are all "helpless" women who have made all the wrong choices in life, who wish to blame all the men on the face of this good planet for their own lousy choices.... imo, of course! :)
------


That really does seem to be the case from what I'm seeing. All sense of logic thrown out the window because of their emtional issues with their BAD CHOICES.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
May 8, 2008 11:26 AM
.. a person like WHO? like WHAT? Where's the body? Where's the crime? Where's ANY evidence of ANYTHING? As I said, it's because people are simply mean and it should only happen to them and then watch them all cry, "I'm being unfairly persecuted!" This whole thing is really disgusting. Leave that man alone unless it's proven that the woman is dead AND that he killed her!


There is a body, and a crime in the KS murder. Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Wonder why there has been no suspect named in Kathleen's death? It's been over 2 months since it was ruled a homicide?
Sounds to me like LE doesn't have squat.

Anonymous said...

May 8, 2008 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...
I think there is a very good possibility of this all being once big Cales family charade to get control of ALL of Drew's asset's.
It's obvious Stacy was a gold digger if her words to the pastor are true. Cover for murder and enjoy all the benefits from Kathleen's estate, adopt Kathleen's children and on and on.

If her words to the pastor are true, like you say, then DP murdered Kathleen, and has a motive for the "disappearance" of SP.

Anonymous said...

Maybe and maybe not. Remember you have two partners in crime if her words are true. Stacy gave an alibi for drew which makes her an accessory to murder. She held this info for almost four years and in no way sought justice for Kathleens death. Even her confession to the pastor was not to seek justice for Kathleen!
So I see two criminals having a falling and one trying to bet them to the punch if her story is true.
Or she killed Kathleen and is trying to frame Drew.
After all one of Kathleen's friends is quoted as stating that Kathleen thought stacy was trying to take over her life.
and guess what stacy did adopted the kids and all.
after all Cassandra sent a bulletin out to her followers stating how stacy at 11 years old stomped her stepmothers a*** in the living room. Stacy and kathleen did have violent encounters and stacy did taunt kathleen. Kathleen even had to put her kids in counseling because of not only drew but also STACY.
so as you can see there are many theories that can come from the pastors statement when you think outside of the box!

Anonymous said...

May 8, 2008 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...
First, I've read plenty on this case and have read all the b.s. and slanderous, ugly and threatening statements made on various blogs and websites, as well as media junk.

I totally discount the KS stories of abuse...

You can't go by "all the b.s. and slanderous, ugly and threatening statements made on various blogs and websites, as well as media junk."

That is like trying to tell if a can of beer is cold enough to drink, by feeling the outside.

There are plenty of documented facts to prove the abuse of Kathleen Savio

Anonymous said...

community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/crimestopper

Drew Peterson Dating
Apr 20, 2008 | 10:26 PM
Category: News

Report This Post

Its true, Drew lied on national tv a week ago on Larry King. He is dating Denise Werner from Romeoville since the beginning of March. They met at Tailgators in Bolingbrook. She has two kids and lives with her brother in Lakewood Falls. She has met Drews kids and had dinner at the house. Drew and her were seen at Poms sports bar friday night on Route 30. Drew has told her that he can get a divorce in November when Stacy has been gone a year. So much for telling the truth on the air !

Anonymous said...

That is like trying to tell if a can of beer is cold enough to drink, by feeling the outside.

...or like trying to tell if there's a body in a blue barrel just because it's warm to the touch on the outside? lol

There are plenty of documented facts to prove the abuse of Kathleen Savio

I've read the documents and all the documented calls to police by BOTH she and Drew, on one another. It was nothing more than nasty "I'm gonna get you" stuff while in the midst of splitting up/divorcing. It's all baloney.

I'll ask you again:
Don't you think it's funny that Stacy confided to the pastor that DP killed Savio, yet didn't confide in her own sister?

CLUE: It was a big LIE. That's why!

Anonymous said...

Who are you people that pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe. You choose not to believe Cassandra but condemn people who choose not to believe dp? There is that continuous double standard you keep using. If you believe Stacy covered up KS's murder then you MUST believe dp is a killer. If you believe he is capable or murder then you have to believe it is possible for dp to murder more than once. dp's ex-fiance stated he pushed her over the coffee table. His ex wife said dp told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident. This is information I have gathered from interviews and articles. I don't WANT it to be true, it appears to be true from the evidence I have seen and read. This is not some conspiracy formed to convict some retired cop from IL, it is not some women vs men movement to protect less than perfect women. Let go of the paranoia and look at the facts. I wait with baited breath for the evidence to be presented in a court of law so we can clear up the gray areas making this clear enough to all who WANT the facts rather than mud slinging.

Anonymous said...

May 8, 2008 11:26 AM said:
... a person like WHO? like WHAT? Where's the body? Where's the crime? Where's ANY evidence of ANYTHING? As I said, it's because people are simply mean and it should only happen to them and then watch them all cry, "I'm being unfairly persecuted!" This whole thing is really disgusting. Leave that man alone unless it's proven that the woman is dead AND that he killed her!


Just pretend there was no murder. Considering everything I know (I know things that are not in the media) about this suspect (I can't bring myself to write man) I think he is an evil, child preying, wife beating, narcissistic sociopathic crooked (ex)cop, and something should be done about that!
This is just my opinion, so don't go into a snit.

Anonymous said...

I realize that Brodsky is just doing his job trying to discredit potential witnesses against his client. I also realize that he is employing unconventional defense tactics for an unconventional case.

However, I think that he is possibly at or over the line with some of his comments on this forum and in his interviews on TV about Tom Morphey. Tom has NOT said anything publicly against Drew yet Brodsky is bashing Tom left and right every chance he gets. Tom allegedly confided in two people BEFORE Stacy was reported as missing and then tried to commit suicide right afterwards. This along with Brodsky's mission against Tom just makes people believe that Tom may hold a very large key. And in many people's opinion (contray to Brodsky's), Tom's history would be EXACTLY what would make him the perfect candidate for someone to use to assist because they would know that his drug use would be something that would question his credibility in a court of law.

I believe that the State's Attorney and GJ are doing their job making sure they have enough evidence to charge DP with a crime. Since there is no body and there is no statue of limitation for murder there is no reason to jump the gun. I don't think that Brodky's tactics have anything to do with the this. It has to do with the fact that as soon as someone is charged - the clock for a "speedy trial" starts ticking. They get one shot at it.

I know that news reports can include mistakes and I am certain that there is evidence on both sides that we have heard nothing about in the media. If I were called to be on a jury I would be able to push my gut feelings down and follow the rule of making a decision of guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented at trial and nothing else.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is funny that someone confides something to a pastor that they do not confide to a sibling. I've done that myself. It has to do with shame and not wanting your family to think less of you.

Many people are taught in church that your pastor/priest is someone that can accept your confession and provide you with your penance so that you will be forgiven by God. Many are also taught that a pastor/priest has a religious obligation to keep all of your confessions secret.

Anonymous said...

Here is the problem: The oldest trick in the book to discredit a defendant is to call him a wife beater. There is a reason why they call certain questions "evidentiary harpoons!"

Anonymous said...

Another problem: You are a suspect in your fourth wifes potential homicide, and your third wife, (who was murdered, and it was made to look like an accident) told her sister "He was going to kill her and it was going to look like an accident."
And then your second wife (who is still alive) says "He has the experience, the knowledge, the means, and the mind to do that," explaining about when he told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

I would say that is a problem

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Another problem: You are a suspect in your fourth wifes potential homicide, and your third wife, (who was murdered, and it was made to look like an accident) told her sister "He was going to kill her and it was going to look like an accident."
And then your second wife (who is still alive) says "He has the experience, the knowledge, the means, and the mind to do that," explaining about when he told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

I would say that is a problem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I agree. There have been some very strong reasons to believe dp IS a wife beater. Above someone suggested these comments are false accusations to discredit dp... give me a break! I would consider the accusation as possible if there is one, but three? I do not believe all of these people are lying to ruin the life of dp. The people who think he is being wrongly accused are people who chose to ignore evidence or have not tried to learn all of the facts available to us. I have read and seen many reports, the most damming ones have come from dp himself. "ah...well, maybe she did". He should have used the last 6 months to get his story straight instead of arrogantly going from one tv interview to the next. He should have considered the fact that there are more women than men before he started bashing women with his PMS and plastic surgery BS. Women think they need plastic surgery because of men like dp. All of the bashing aside, I believe the scales of justice are tipped to the side of guilt so far.

Anonymous said...

I think if Joel Brodsky quit wearing those stupid fake handkerchiefs in his suit pocket, he would have more credibility. (also could use a better selection of suits)

Anonymous said...

I for one really appreciated the interview. the comments were also very informative.

I do agree that much of the comments allegedly attributable to the victims will not come into evidence. It is hearsay. We can't cross examine the victims.

Isn't it true you beat your wife?

Isn't it true Stacy said you were going to kill her and make it look like an accident?

Some of these alleged comments are just too prejudicial to ensure a fair trial!


Pete

Anonymous said...

The negative publicity against Peterson is so great, that it seems like he is being framed. It is too much folks. Give the guy the opportunity for a fair trial or he may get off because he can't get one!


Pops.

Anonymous said...

Too much negativity could let him walk? Never thought about that.

Anonymous said...

Too much negativity could let him walk? Never thought about that.
-------------
If that is the case, we need to look at our legal system. It seems the suspect "created" most of it himself, so that is all you have to do to get away with a crime?
--
It is hearsay. We can't cross examine the victims.
---------------
By the time this suspect is arrested, "hearsay" will be allowed.

Anonymous said...

The negative publicity against Peterson is so great, that it seems like he is being framed. It is too much folks. Give the guy the opportunity for a fair trial or he may get off because he can't get one!
----------------------
Did anyone ever "get off" a murder,
solely because of negative publicity?

Anonymous said...

May 12, 2008 7:42 AM Pete said:
I for one really appreciated the interview. the comments were also very informative.

I do agree that much of the comments allegedly attributable to the victims will not come into evidence. It is hearsay. We can't cross examine the victims.

Isn't it true you beat your wife?

Isn't it true Stacy said you were going to kill her and make it look like an accident?

Some of these alleged comments are just too prejudicial to ensure a fair trial!

To Pete:
Besides telling her sister that Drew P. "was going to kill her and it was going to look like an accident", there also exists a letter from Kathleen Savio to the Asst. States Attorney, Elizabeth Fragale, stating Drew P. "knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead."

Also: This is from an interview with Vicki Connolly, Drew P.'s second wife :
"Connolly, 48, said Thursday that during their marriage an increasingly controlling Peterson told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident."
She is still alive (thank God) to tell her story!

imho- There was a HUGE cover up in the murder of Kathleen Savio, and I hope all the guilty parties fry!
I think that is another reason the GJ is taking so long.

Anonymous said...

8:25 pm. Unless Illinois has recently changed its law, the hearsay letter will not become evidence. As for the statements of the victim, they too are likely to be excluded. You need direct testimony from eye witnesses in most cases. (i.e. some one who heard Peterson say it.)

Yes, some of the old cases were mistrials because of unfair publicity.


Harry P.

Anonymous said...

May 12, 2008 9:18 PM
Harry P. said:
Yes, some of the old cases were mistrials because of unfair publicity.

What year was the last case? What were (a few) the details?
TIA


(i.e. some one who heard Peterson say it.)

Vicki Connolly is alive, and "heard Peterson say it". Although, it was about herself, not about Savio.


Unless Illinois has recently changed its law, the hearsay letter will not become evidence.

About the letter from K.S. to States Attorney. If they believe she signed the will, why not the letter? If they do not believe she signed the letter, would that not make the will hearsay?

All word is the new Illinois "hearsay law" will pass soon!
Could be another reason the GJ is taking so long.

Anonymous said...

A will is usually self proving and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule. If Illinois changes its hearsay law, it will have to be studied to see if it is retroactive in it's application to Peterson's wives.

As for the live ex wife, probably the potential prejudice of the statement outweighs any probative value. Furthermore, the vast majority of ex wives say bad things about their ex husbands. In general, most non relatives believe very little about what an ex spouse says about a former mate.

Peterson's guilt or innocence will likely rest on DNA evidence as well as forensic reconstruction. A body of Stacy seems essential. With Savio, a body already exists.

Most of the cases of mistrial were in the 60's and 70's. You should be able to do a google search and find some.

Harry P.

Anonymous said...

It came to me last night in a vision. I think Tom Morphey is not the one in protective custody. I think it is Stacy Peterson.

Drew will be tried for the Savio murder. Stacy will come out of protective custody to testify against Drew about that murder.


Seeker

Anonymous said...

I too think Stacy may be in protective custody. Otherwise, why is she not listed as missing!

Anonymous said...

anon at 9:13am.

Because maybe listing a person as missing, with knowledge or evidence regarding that person's disappearance that indicates otherwise, distracts from the purpose that it was meant to serve.

Why would LE encourage her family to do so if they have reason to believe she was dead when she was removed from her home? Why list a dead woman, as perceived by LE, on a website for missing people?

Wouldn't the exposure be better spent on finding a missing child or other person, who's fate is still unknown?

Is Drew Peterson banned from doing so himself? If not, maybe he should look into it. It IS is wife that is "missing," isn't it?

Legal Pub said...

In response to email questions, Legal Pub has put together a tentative chronology of what may have happened. Not all evidence is known. Comments and corrections are welcome. Keep in mind Drew Peterson, like any other suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

2002 to 2004, police were called to the Peterson residence 18 times on domestic disturbance calls, including calls for returning children late after visitation.

2003 Supposedly, Rick Mims, a friend of Peterson claims that Drew Peterson and he bought three blue containers from a cable company, where they both worked part-time in 2003. He allegedly has provided photos of the containers to police.

3-1-2004 Kathleen Savio dies in her bathtub just a few weeks before her divorce with Drew is finalized. Autopsy rules the death an accident.

10-17-07 Stacy left a message on her father's answering machine at 12:37 P.M., 11 days before she disappeared. It said, "Hey dad! It's me, Stacy, I just wanted to call you and tell you I love you."

10-26-07 Ms. Cales apparently claims that she saw a blue barrel or container in the Peterson garage two days before Stacy disappeared.


10-28-07 Stacy apparently disappears.Drew Peterson claims that Stacy called him at 9 p.m. on Sunday to tell him that she had left him for another man. She allegedly left her car at Bolingbrook's Clow International Airport.

10-29-07 Tom Morphy on this day or the next apparently fails in an attempt to commit suicide.


10-29-07 Stacy is reported missing after not showing up at her sisters house.

10-31-07 Drew makes a statement that Stacy had called him on the night she disappeared to say she is leaving him.

10-30-07 States Attorney Jim Glassgow says he wants to review the circumstances of Kathleen Savio's death.

11-1-07 Stacy's family reported that Stacy had told them she was going to divorce Drew and that she was afraid of her safety.

11-1-07 to 11-4-07 Divers search the pond at Clow air port and find nothing.


11-12-07 Search teams searched lakes and waterways around a Chicago suburb and found no trace of 23-year-old Stacy Peterson.

11-14-07 Peterson who by now had already retired a little early from the police force was now a suspect in Stacy's disappearance. Drew Peterson told NBC's "Today" that his wife fell into a deep depression after her sister died of cancer, and had been taking medication. They often had fights after that and Stacy would ask him for divorce.Peterson apparently thought out loud,"It was based on her menstrual cycle." He also asked his wife to return: "Come home... Tell people where you are."

11-15-07 Bollingbrook votes to allow Peterson to collect his $6,067.71 per month pension.

11-18-07 Apparently the Grand Jury heard from Scott Rossetto. Stacy contacted him three weeks before she vanished. Searches conducted in the area around the home of 35-year-old Scott Rossetto fail to turn up any evidence. Stacy Peterson may have been romantically involved with Scott Anthony Rossetto, or his brother Keith Rosetto. Both apparently deny this but there may have been some racy texts exchanged between them...

11-30-07 Tom Morphey (Drews stepbrother) apparently tells a friend that he may have helped dispose of the 23-year-old’s body.(Tom apparently attempted suicide two days after allegedly helping Drew.)


12-5-07 Search warrants seek a GPS system in Peterson's sport-utility vehicle. A search warrant served on Drew Peterson called for, among other things, the seizure of items containing plastic shavings, blood, bodily fluids, fingernail scrapings, chemicals that may alter the decomposition of a body and "biological material that may be evidence of "first-degree murder."
12-6-07 Police divers unsuccessfully search for evidence in the waters of a canal near Lockport.

12-7-07 Authorities determined that a trucker did not see a man believed to be Drew Peterson hours after Stacy disappeared as he initially claimed. “We did look into the tip and it is unfounded,” Illinois State Police Trooper Mark Dorencz.Detectives were still investigating a similar claim made by another trucker.

12-13-07 Drew Peterson's son testifies before the grand jury.

2-21-08 A new autopsy by Larry Blum conducted on Savio concludes her death was no accident. The Will County state's attorney has declared she was the victim of a homicide.

5-8-08 Susan Doman, sister of Kathleen Savio, and her daughter Angela are seen entering the grand jury hearing in Joliet.

Anonymous said...

12-6-07 Police divers unsuccessfully search for evidence in the waters of a canal near Lockport.

*****************************

"unsuccessfully search for evidence."

You base that on what? Evidence meaning body? What if they found a passport thrown in there, a cell phone, a bikini? Do you KNOW that they didn't?

Anonymous said...

You base that on what? Evidence meaning body? What if they found a passport thrown in there, a cell phone, a bikini? Do you KNOW that they didn't?

------


do you KNOW that they did?
why so nasty? who pissed in your corn flakes?

Anonymous said...

anon at 11:57

class act, you are.

Nasty? See above.

I responded to the gentleman's offer for comments/corrections?

I didn't see anything about a head case coming on and replying personally to another blogger. But, then, I see that your head is up your ????????

Anonymous said...

10-29-07 Stacy is reported missing after not showing up at her sisters house.
--

According to Cassandra Cales in an interview with Greta, Stacy was to meet Bruce at Yelton's house to paint. Cassandra did not know about this and went to see her mother.

Anonymous said...

GRETA: Okay. Now did you call her, did she call you? Or was that arranged previously. - CASSANDRA: "It was arranged between her and Bruce, I didn't even know about it. I guess I was suppose to go over there and paint but I blew Bruce off because I wanted to go to my Moms and I was waiting for Stacy to call me Sunday because she said she was going to call me when she woke up." -
GRETA: Did she do that, did she call you when she woke up? - CASSANDRA: "No, I guess Bruce talked to her at 10:15 and I was still sleeping and Bruce said that he would call her back when I woke up."

http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_greta_cales_110107.htm

Anonymous said...

There seems to be some problems with Cass story and her time line.

Anonymous said...

I think Cass may know something. Maybe S.P. is in protective custody. Fund raising money might be donated to another cause. S.P. may very well come out of the shadows to testify against D.P.

Anonymous said...

Just not sure S.P. won't turn up...

Anonymous said...

Joel A. Brossky really has no clue. I can site MANY cases in which the amount of evidence was overwhelming and the person was convicted....from pure motives and circumstantial evidence. Fact is, I think it will be easier for Drew to be convicted of Kathleen's death...than Stacy's, right now. I can tell you right now.......Drew is going to turn on Brodsky so fast when those handcuffs come out and slapped on his wrists. Nobody is ever going to see Brodsky "in action" in a courtroom....because the real reality will set in and Drew will be finding himself a new attorney. If he was smart, that is.
Also...............what's with all the typing / misspellings/grammer? This man PASSED the bar and can't even spell? YIKES!!

Anonymous said...

I think it should have been "grammar", but then again, I live in a trailer, and work at Burger King.

Anonymous said...

Fact is guys:

There is no evidence that S.P. is dead!

No blood.

No body.

No witness.

No evidence of a struggle.


Right now, D.P. walks as to Stacy.

Anonymous said...

Ya, Drew P. is hip that. (about sp)
His buddy has a access to a crematorium. Can not make that mistake twice.
I still think Drew P. will go down for his other wifes murder.
There is a body.
There is blood.

Anonymous said...

You know, I just can’t tell.

Honestly, it seems to me at times that JB is setting things in place so that if DP is convicted, he can request a re-trial on the basis of the incompetency of his legal counsel.

Reverse psychology?

Anonymous said...

I can’t figure out what Brodsky is up to with posting his own questions? Maybe his paralegal quit … and he hasn’t had time to hire anyone else.

Anonymous said...

I can’t figure out what Brodsky is up to with posting his own questions? Maybe his paralegal quit … and he hasn’t had time to hire anyone else.

Anonymous said...

I can’t figure out what Brodsky is up to with posting his own questions? Maybe his paralegal quit … and he hasn’t had time to hire anyone else.

Viper said...

You are being silly. Legal Pub editors know if J.B. is posting his own questions. He is not. J.B. has provided information. If you wish to argue the facts or bring out other facts, (as L.P.) said on another thread, please do so. But don't attack J.B. on issues that you don't know what you are talking about. L.P. encourages anonymous posting so that people can speak their mind. As one of the readers of this forum, I enjoy such view points. But don't make up things like J.B. is posting his own questions because L.P. has said this is not true.

Anonymous said...

Viper said...
May 26, 2008 9:10 AM
But don't make up things like J.B. is posting his own questions because L.P. has said this is not true.
+++++++++++++++++++
LP has NO way of knowing if JB posts from his local library, friends house, or wherever.

Legal Pub said...

Actually, there are ways to verify posts and some have been checked. But even more importantly, I have recieved some emails from posters and am confident of their authenticity. I would say that emails and posts run about 3 to 1 unfavorable to favorable concerning J.B. and D.P. Not surprisingly, J.B. approval rating seems a little higher then D.P. as many realize that he is just doing his job.

J. Brodsky is a controversial attorney. I believe he is trying to do his best with a difficult case. There may be plenty of things that one could criticize J.B. for in the handling of this case. But the best I can tell, making up posts is not one of them.

Anonymous said...

I am just shocked at the antics, tatics and comments that many of the "pro-Stacy" followers post from site to site.
This accusation that Joel is posting to himself is just a mild example. It doesn't matter how many times you state that their claims are incorrect, they won't believe it. Matter of fact Legal Pub is now known in their circle as a shill for Joel and a place you provided for your "Buddy Joel" to post his lies.
This group of "Haters" invades and attacks any site that is not about bashing Drew and Joel. This group will stalk those that don't join the "I hate Drew Club" trying to shut down freedom of speech anyway they can.
They don't seem to understand how the wheels of justice work and it is rather scary to see the public conviction that is taking place before an arrest has ever been made. It is ashame that Legal Pub, an excellent site btw, has been invaded with these silly antics.
I for one am glad to have run upon this site it is an excellent source for a non legal scholar to learn much about how the law works.
Your thread on Drew's weapon charge is very informative and it is refreshing to read legal views that are based on actual law.
Thank you

Legal Pub said...

Legal Pub is as independent as independant can be. Comments are allowed to be posted unedited as long as they do not use profanity. To say our publication is biased in favor or against Peterson is not fair. Articles have both criticized and supported. Comments have been divided on both sides of the issue.

The gun charge is the best example I can think of to date. Even if you think Peterson is guilty of murder, it is hard to argue with a straight face that any other police officer would have been charged with the weapons charge. By all accounts, it is real shaky from a legal stand point. I have yet to read any strong arguments to the contrary. Yet, all of us at Legal Pub welcome such comments.

Anonymous said...

Even if you think Peterson is guilty of murder, it is hard to argue with a straight face that any other police officer would have been charged with the weapons charge.
____________________
He is NOT "any other police officer"
Also, notwithstanding the murder charge, what I know of his history and antics, this guy (with a 12 year old mentality), should not be allowed to have automatic weapons!!

Anonymous said...

or semi, or ANY for that matter!

Anonymous said...

I think pubmeister is right. Even if Peterson only has an IQ of 70, he should not be held to any different standard then anyone else. No other cop likely would have been charged. Just because D.P. is a childish idiot does not mean that he should be charged with a bogus gun charge.

Anonymous said...

L.P. is usually right on about these things...

Anonymous said...

What about Peterson's high profile break up with his new girl friend?

Legal Pub said...

Update 5-7-09: Drew Peterson a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, was charged Thursday with murdering his third wife. Kathleen Savio , died in 2004. Originally her death was ruled an accident. His second wife, Stacy Peterson, has subsequently vanished. According to Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow , Peterson, 55, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the death of Kathleen Savio. The gauntlet has been thrown down!

Legal Pub said...

Update 5-22-09: A preliminary autopsy was unable to identity whether the partial skeletal remains found on the bank of the Des Plaines River, less than 30 miles from the homes of two missing Illinois women, was in fact the body of a woman. Will County Coroner Patrick O'Neil will undoubtedly have to await DNA testing results before the remains will be identified. In the interim, forensic examination was inconclusive as to identity, race or sex. The remains consisted of a rib cage, spinal column and partial left and right femur. Shreds of blue jeans and a small amount of money were also found. DNA results should be available within 15 days. Illinois State Police Sgt. Tom Burek inidicated that Michelle Williams previously discovered a blue barrel in Channahon, Illinois, along the river. Conflicting reports have surfaced as to whether the barrell matches the description of the "blue barrel" Tom Morphy claims he helped moved. Peterson is not alone in the hot spot: Peterson pleads not guilty ; Woman evicting husband also disappeared.


Stacy Peterson disappeared in October 2007 and Peterson claims that he is totally innocent. Drew Peterson has also plead not guilty in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
.
Channahon (where the remains were found) is 15 miles from Plainfield, Illinois, where Lisa Stebic was last seen in April 2007. On the day she went missing, she petitioned to have her husband, Craig, evicted from their home. Craig Stebic is a suspect in his wife's disappearance. Keep in mind all suspects are to be considered innocent unless otherwise proven in court!

Anonymous said...

Change of Venue
Interesting,a snip from this blog

5-3-08 In response to readers questioning Joel Brodsky's handling of the case, Joel provides an exclusive Legal Pub Update.
Joel
I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.

h.P. said...

Got to agree. Joel Brodsky, love em or hate em, you got to admit he is done pretty well with a real hard case!

Legal Pub said...

Update 4-30-10: Lawyering up. Drew Peterson has added Chicago defense attorneys Steven Greenberg, Ralph Meczyk and Darryl Goldberg to his defense team. The three join Joel Brodsky, his partner Reem Odeh and attorney Joseph Lopez. Peterson will be tried in June for the alleged murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio in 2004.

Anonymous said...

Another one bites the dust. Come on, when are the true, honorable, defense attorneys going to admit this guy Brodsky is a disgrace? To his profession and most of all, to his client? Not that his client is any better, but that is, nonetheless, for the jury to figure out. Not the media.

Legal Pub said...

Update 9-30-10: Reem Odeh, one of eight lawyers on the Peterson defense team, filed a motion to withdraw her appearance citing "irreconcilable differences with defense counsel Joel Brodsky." Brodsky told the media: "I guess it's a case of, 'You're fired,' 'No, I quit.' " This is not all that unexpected when you realize that Odeh and Brodsky were law partners for years but ended their partnership in May. Peterson has been in jail since May 2009 while he awaits trial on murder charges concerning his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Legal Pub said...

Update 2-18-11:
Attorneys argued the controversial hearsay law that may allow Peterson's deceased wives to testify from their grave. The Illinois appellate court allowed the oral arguments to be broadcast live for the first time in state history. The Third District Appellate Court allowed WGN-TV to film the arguments of counsel.

Anonymous said...

The Peterson case just keeps dragging along at a snails pace...

Anonymous said...

OH GOOD GOD here it is September 9th,2012, and good old Joel still spewing......What an IDIOT he is.....YOU LOST .....Drew is going to spend the rest of his life behind bars....And my guess is, in the next week or 2, Lopez and Greenberg are going to TRASH YOU chew you up and spit you out. OH YEA thats right, YOur the Captain of the ship. and your ship sank....So sad, np new car for you, not book deal, no parading your chimp in front of the media......BROKE BROKE Joel...If I were you, I would be worried about those borrowed teeth, your gonna have to give them back......BOOO HOOOO