Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Scrutinizing The Microscopic View of Drew Peterson. Update Time Line & Gun Arrest Update 7-16-09 Update 11-4-2011: Detention


Drew Peterson lives under a microscope, perhaps unlike any one else. Whenever Peterson opens his mouth, it hits the media. Now, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant who is a suspect in the disappearance of his wife makes the news for a traffic stop. Peterson was apparently stopped in Naperville, Illinois for speeding early Saturday morning. Drew was apparently on the way to meet a young woman (she apparently works at a tanning salon and may have needed a ride.) Peterson apparently was stopped at 2:30 a.m. on his way to help the 22-year-old damsel in distress according to the Sun-Times. Peterson did not get a ticket. He did; however, get a warning.

While Peterson remains a suspected in the October 2007 disappearance of his wife, Stacy, he has not been officially charged. Why? Perhaps one reason is that the prosecution's case may rest in large part on the testimony of Tom Morphy, Peterson's step brother. Apparently, Illinois State Police hypothesize that Tom Morphey may have helped Peterson load a blue barrel into a vehicle on October 28th. (This is believed to be a day after Stacy is last seen. The very next day, apparently Thomas Morphy overdoses on three anti-depressants and alcohol. The drugs are believed to be Zoloft and Xanax. (Others, in the comments, speculate it is because Stacy Peterson is not dead. They opine that she may be in protective custody or well hidden away from Drew. Again, this is pure speculation and assumes she is a key witness in Kathleen Savio's death.)
As the story goes, Tom Morphy is taken by paramedics to Edwards Hospital. Rumors continue to fly as to whether or not Tom Morphy is a credible witness for the prosecution. Joel Brodsky, in an exclusive interview with Legal Pub, apparently denies that a blue barrel was ever in Peterson's possession. Apparently, there are no receipts documenting the acquisition of the "blue barrel." Joel Brodsky goes on to add that "Morphy" may have a drug problem and may be in rehab. Attorney Brodsky has supplied some photos to Legal Pub which could be Tom Morphy. One of the photos is displayed above. (There does not appear to be anything particularly unusual about the photo in and of itself.)

The other photo is less clear and is not published at this time. It looks to be a man similar in appearance to Morphy with what appears to be a pipe. There is no way to tell what is in the pipe. The authenticity and dates of the photos are not verified by Legal Pub. The photos in and of themselves appear to offer little evidential value without corroborating testimony. Nevertheless, if in fact Morphy is to be the star witness of the prosecution, it may be understandable why they have yet to file formal charges against Peterson.
Update 5-13-08: Is it possible that Stacy Peterson is in protective custody as some posters have suggested? Will she be a surprise witness in a trial involving the murder of Kathleen Savio whose death has been ruled a homicide?
Comment 168 has a Drew Peterson Timeline!
Update 5-20-08: Is grand jury testimony nearing its end? Some expect a decision soon. Others say, no body no indictment as to Stacy. See comments 200-230.
Update 5-21-08: Peterson is arrested for having an illegal weapon. The barrel was too short. D.P. claims is was a gun he owned when he was a police officer. His son posts $7,500 and Peterson is bonded out of jail.
Update 5-22-08: Joel Brodsky shared his press release concerning the gun charge. "The allegation is that Drew Peterson had in his possession an AR-15 assault rifle that had too short of a barrel. According to Illinois law, the barrel of a rifle may not be shorter than 16 inches. State police say this particular weapon had a barrel that was 3/8 of an inch too short. This weapon in question was used by Drew while he was a Bolingbrook, Ill. police officer. Under Illinois state law, police officers are exempt from barrel length requirements for duty weapons. And this particular gun was registered as one of Drew's SWAT duty weapons.
Authorities seized the weapon in question while Drew was a sergeant and a member of the SWAT team in the Bolingbrook Police Dept. He did not resign until after the weapons were seized by authorities. This is nothing more than an attempt by state police to avoid returning guns to Drew that had been seized as evidence."
Update 3-6-09: Drew Peterson best be careful. Christina Raines is his 24-year-old " fiance." She reportedly has moved back in with Peterson. Previously, Christina Raines told CBS’ “The Early Show” that her engagement to the 55-year-old former Bolingbrook police sergeant had been a publicity stunt. But now that they are back together, she has retracted her statement and said that she was engaged to Peterson. But what assurance does Peterson or his attorney, Joel Brodsky have that Raines is not working with the authorities as an informant?
It makes sense that this could at least be a possibility. Afterall, what beautiful 24 year old lady is going to agree to be Peterson's 6th fiancee? No offense to Drew as he has not been convicted of any crime at this point, but he is 55 and has been married four times. That alone would put most women on guard. Perhaps love is the sole motivation for Christina Raines. But if you were a suspect under police scrutiny, wouldn't you at least consider some other possibilities?
Update 4-24-09: Attorneys for the family of Kathleen Savio have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit Tuesday against Drew Peterson. A grand jury has been investigating the death of Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, since November 2007. Savio's family apparently grew impatient and filed the civil case despite the fact that Peterson has not been charged in either case. For some, this may be seen as an example of greed and interference with our criminal court system of justice. For others, it may be seen as a quest to take control or to gain notoriety. Peterson's kids were on the Today Show. And guess what, they apparently do not approve of the civil suit!
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!
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 indicated that Michelle Williams previously discovered a blue barrel in Channahon, Illinois, along the river. Conflicting reports have surfaced as to whether the barrel 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!
Update 5-29-09: The remains found last week near a blue barrel are not those of Stacy Peterson or Lisa Stebic. Testing done on the remains showed they belonged to a male.
Update 7-16-09: A comment of this date addresses the waiver of a "speedy jury trial" by both sides and the defendant and his attorney's relationship with author Derek Armstrong.
Update 9-9-09: Peterson remains in jail with an astronomical bail. State's Attorney James Glasgow apparently said during the May bail reduction hearing that Peterson tried to solicit a hit man for $25,000 to kill Kathleen Savio. 12th Circuit Judge Carla J. Alessio-Policandriotes denied Peterson's request to reduce his $20 million dollar bail. Joel Brodsky dismissed the prosecutor's allegation saying it was one of many claims to come out of the hearing that he would disprove.
Update January 19, 2010: Is Kathleen Savio finally getting her day in court? Due to a change in the law, the judge in essence will allow Savio to testify from the grave through witnesses who will be allowed to give hearsay testimony. A witness will apparently be allowed to testify how Savio discussed and wrote about her fears that her ex-husband, Sgt. Drew Peterson, would kill her. The judge can admit such hearsay evidence in a first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove a defendant killed a witness to prevent her from testifying. The Illinois Legislature passed the law after Peterson was named a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. Subsequently, Savio was exhumed and an investigation into her death reopened. The new law has been referred to as "Drew's Law."
The hearing is expected to last three weeks with Will County Judge Stephen White presiding. 60 witnesses may testify as to 15 alleged hearsay statements. Judge White will then decide if the jury will hear any or all of those statements when Peterson stands trial for murder. Peterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering Savio and must be presumed innocent of all charges. A trial date has yet to be set.

Update 1-20-10: Was the relationship between Drew Peterson and Savio violent?According to the A.P. Eighteen times in two years, police were called to the couple's Bolingbrook home. Savio allegedly told officers that her husband had beaten her and threatened to kill her; however, Peterson was never charged. However, Savio was charged with domestic battery. (She was acquitted.) There was a 2002 order of protection in which Savio alleges that Peterson knocked her down, ripped off her necklace and left marks on her body."He wants me dead, and if he has to, he will burn the house down just to shut me up," she apparently wrote. Can a member of the clergy at a Bolingbrook church attended by Stacy Peterson testify? In the days after her disappearance, some members of the media allged that a clergyman allegedly said that Drew Peterson had confessed to her that he killed Savio. Peterson's attorneys will attack the credibility of some if not all of the witnesses offered by the prosecution. "All it is, is rumor, innuendo and gossip," says defense attorney Joel Brodsky.
Do witnesses have an ulterior motive for their testimony? Are they unreliable people as the defense suggests? Stay tuned for the results of the hearing and the eventual trial. Again, keep in mind, Peterson is innocent until proven otherwise.
Update 2-26-10: Steve Maniaci, the boyfriend, and sisters of Savio all testified at the pretrial hearing how she feared for her life and predicted Peterson would kill her. The testimony was mostly cumulative of the 42 witnesses, saying Kathleen Savio, correctly guessed she would die under suspicious circumstances.
A pathologist called by Peterson's attorneys testified Wednesday that in his opinion evidence surrounding Savio's death points to an accident
. Drew Peterson Case. State police originally thought her death was an accident. They apparently changed their minds three and a half years later when Peterson's next wife, Stacy Peterson vanished. (Peterson faces no criminal charges in connection with Stacy's disappearance.) Maniaci told of battery and how Peterson allegedly cut his way through a garage wall into Savio's living room, disabled a deadbolt and broke into her house to pin her to the floor.
Maniaci said he originally told all of this to state police during his interviews with their investigators. But state police investigators didn't include any of it in their reports on Savio's death.

Savio's sisters, Susan and Anna Doman, told how Savio expected Peterson to kill her and disguise her death as an accident. One of Peterson's lawyers, George Lenard, revealed that Susan Doman had signed a contract for a book and movie project with media consultant Larry Garrison and writer Stephanie Good. Lenard said the contract called for Susan Doman, Garrison and Good to split the profits equally, and for Susan Doman to be paid at least $30,000 if the book was made into a movie.
Assistant State's Attorney John Connor pointed out that Susan Doman gave similar statements during a May 2004 coroner's inquest before any book deals.
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.
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.
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.
Update 11-4-11: The court's most recent rulings should trouble any citizen who believes that our system of justice presumes innocence. Recently the Illinois Supreme Court denied Peterson's request to be released from jail
while prosecutors appeal a critical evidential ruling.
No one can deny that the proprietorial appeals have delayed Peterson's trial for more than a year while he sits in jail subject to 20 million dollar bond.

The trial was suppose to start 14 months ago but Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow decided to appeal a judge's ruling barring several hearsay statements allegedly made by Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio. Peterson is charged with killing Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. The death was initially ruled an accidental drowning, but authorities reopened the case after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in October 2007. Drew Peterson has not been charged in Stacy's disappearance and he denies wrongdoing in both cases.

"A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the state ... unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail." Despite this law, Peterson is held in Jail all this time because he is allegedly a "threat to society." The Supreme court has yet to rule on the hearsay statements; however, an appellate court ruled that Glasgow missed the 30-day appeal deadline to try to overturn a trial court's decision barring 8 of 14 hearsay statements. In the mean time, Peterson has been in jail since his May 2009 arrest. Does there still exist a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in Illinois? I submit even those most staunch in their beliefs that Peterson should be held accountable recognize the need for a presumption of innocence. Keep in mind, another convicted man was recently freed on DNA testing. Michael Morton; Raymond Towler ; James Bain

Mistakes need to be made in favor of liberty and not detention.


346 comments:

1 – 200 of 346   Newer›   Newest»
Joel A. Brodsky said...

The whole event with the traffic stop is amazing. Every paper wants to put a sinister spin on it because a 22 year old girl is involved. (Sinister sells) What truly happened is not sinister and therefore will not sell newspapers. There is a young woman who knew Drew because he goes to a tanning salon where she works. They were never really friendly until they met once outside work through a mutual acquaintance (a neighbor in his mid 30's). She has a boyfriend of her own age, by the way. Because they met outside work once, they became a bit more talkative when Drew went the store. She had Drew’s phone numbers from work, and Drew told her, (as is his common practice - wait and read the whole post), that if she ever needed a hand that she should give him a call. The girl was out with her boyfriend when he was arrested for DUI at 2:30 a.m., not too far from Drew’s home. The police took the boyfriend into custody and towed the car. The girl was left stranded and alone at 2:30 a.m. She decided to call Drew and ask him for a lift home. He agreed, and was in a hurry to get to the young girl who was alone and on the street at 2:30 a.m., (and obviously in an unsafe situation), when he was stopped. Drew was stopped by the police, and when he told them what he was doing, helping someone out, they gave him a pass on the speeding ticket.
If you know Drew then you know that this is what he does. For example on Friday evening he was out for dinner with a friend and his wife, (both in there 50's). While having dinner a women in the restaurant, a stranger to Drew, had a seizure. Drew administered first aid to the woman, (32 years of law enforcement training), and stayed with her until the paramedics arrived. This didn’t make the news. It would have if the woman was 22, but because she was elderly there was no way to make it sinister, and therefore it would not sell papers.
Another example. When Drew and I were in Los Angeles for the Larry King interview, there was a traffic accident outside the hotel while we were in the lobby. A passenger in one of the cars (an African-American woman in her 40's), was badly shaken up in he collision and was shaking. While everyone else (including me) just stood there not knowing what to do, Drew went right up to the car, got the women out, sat her down on the curb, gave her a quick once over to see if she was injured, and sat with her and calmed her down (soothing talk and telling jokes), until the police arrived.
Ask any neighbor of Drew (except next door neighbor Sharon Bychowski who will never admit it), and they will tell you that Drew was the neighbor who would give them a hand when they needed it. Ask any Bolingbrook cop and they will tell you that Drew would always help when they asked (lend a few bucks, help drive someone who’s car is in the shop, watch the kids when there was no sitter, etc.). Ask yourself, why is none of this in the news? We try to get this out but nobody publishes it. Is that fair? Ask yourself, is Drew being railroaded because it sells newspapers and increases cable TV ratings? If your answer is yes, then ask is there something you can do about it. Yes there is. Go on the blogs and newspapers article comment sections and complain and post. Tell them you want the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but he truth.

Anonymous said...

Joel, Joel, Joel. Pathetic. You said "Tell them you want the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but he truth." How about you advise your client to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

How DARE you attempt, once AGAIN, to intimidate this witness by posting his photo. HE IS IN PROTECTIVE CUSTODY FOR A REASON. You keep showing his photo, hoping someone will leak TO YOU where he is, so your client can make him disappear too. So what if he appeared to be smoking a pipe. Seems Drew was right there with him smoking whatever it was in the pipe. It is so obvious that your client was trying to set Tom up for the murder of Stacy. Now you two are trying to track him down to get rid of him before this goes to trial.

Your career is over. You are the sorriest excuse of an attorney that exists.

I hope that young girl actually made it home that night. She needs to be very careful. Drew is setting up his tried & true rescue routine to gain a young naive girl's affection, so he can use her up, then erase her too.

You two aren't fooling anyone.

Anonymous said...

Joel:
If your client is soo helpful to a friend who he barely knows, why is it that he has not tried to look for his Loving Wife Stacy(you know the mother of his children) ONCE???

P.S.
Where is Stacy???

Laura said...

All these acts of kindness by Drew took place AFTER his wife went missing?

Why aren't there stories of Drew rescuting damsels in distress, administering first aid to car accident victims and seizure victims BEFORE his wife went missing?

And According to Drew, not one member of the Bolingbrook police department speaks to him now. And these are guys he was willing to take a bullet for.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that the press isn't reporting the good side of Drew.

He had them in his house. Where were the friends and neighbors then? Why didn't he bring someone on camera when he was in control of what was reported?

Anonymous said...

I don't believe your client knows the truth because truth equals light and the only thing that comes from your client is darkness. Darkness runs from Truth and your client seems afraind of being friends with Truth.

Anonymous said...

I was once in a hurry to get home after I got a call that my mother was choking on a turkey bone. I got stopped for speeding, so I explained why I was in a hurry, but the officer wrote me a ticket anyway. (my mom ended up o.k. as my brother quickly arrived to help)

Anonymous said...

he may be a helpful person or he could just be a person that likes to put himself in the limelight all the time.

Anonymous said...

I've never heard of a person giving CPR to a seizure victim?? doesnt make sense to me - I have seizures regularly and ive never been given CPR.

Anonymous said...

It is too bad that he had to kill both of his wives. Wake up and smell the coffee you poor old fool!

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected - Drew administered first aid it didnt say CRP!! He's still GUILTY!

Anonymous said...

Street unsafe at 2:30a.m b/c of dirty cops out there like Drew Peterson himself ~GUILTY~

Anonymous said...

Wow! First Drew is surrounded by bad luck--a wife who disappears and a wife who drowns in a empty bath tub and--according to him--a bunch of liars and spiteful people. Poor Drew.

The next thing we know people are collapsing right in front of him, car accidents happen just a few feet away and a call for help at 2:30 a.m. All within a few weeks time. Drew is a HERO! Good thing you were around Drew.

I have never heard such a crock of crap in my whole life. I cannot believe that they (JB & DP) actually think that people are that stupid.

I have a question...Seriously, would the police actually leave a 22 year old girl...or anyone for that matter...stranded in the dark and alone at 2:30 a.m.? If so, that is just wrong!

Ms Calabaza said...

Tom Morphy is NOT the only person who has mentioned the blue container, one of Drew's neighbors saw it in his garage days before it went missing. More smoke and mirrors from Drew and his spotlight loving attorney, joel brodsky.

Ms Calabaza said...

"The girl was left stranded and alone at 2:30 a.m. She decided to call Drew and ask him for a lift home." . . . too funny!

Let's see, she thought of calling Charlie Manson but he's still in prison and Jeffrey Dahmer is dead, so . . . there's always Drew.

Anonymous said...

If Drew is such a great guy why is it that he has alienated everyone close to him, leaving only his lawyer to say a kind word about him?

There isn't a Bolingbrook cop who will speak to him, neither will his grown son, nor will his former best friend who believes that Drew killed his wife.

I guess paying your step-brother hush money to help with some dirty work, threatening him in his hospital bed and then selling him out to the media isn't the kind of thing that makes a man well-liked.

You can keep spinning the "good Deeds of Drew" all you want. Tell us that he flosses twice daily, mows his lawn and says his prayers.

It won't change the real truth of this story. That he is the only suspect in the disappearance of his wife.

Anonymous said...

To Joel Brosky
Just by your comment "wait and read the whole post" is amazing in itself. You knew people would be rolling their eyes already. Sub-consciously or not.

I think the “pulled over” story was written so you and DB could get your "I was just being a good Samaritan" "Let's call her a friend" and "That's just the type of guy he is," quotes in the press. Then that allowed you to "sneak" the "if you know Drew then you know that this is what he does" good Samaritan stories. I wish you knew that most people with an education higher than fifth grade ltfao, when they come across most of your “stories”

Joe Hosey who "broke" this story, (which should NOT even be a story) wrote a book on the KS murder, and on the possible murder of SP, which will be for sale soon. He wrote the “pulled over story” in which the only comments in it were from you and DP.

Your own partner Reem Odeh is quoted as saying
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."... “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."
Source

It is clear you are spreading this propaganda to get famous and for a book deal. It seems you are not being a responsible attorney, and doing what is best for your client.

Ya, right. I'm going to "Go on the blogs and newspapers article comment sections and complain and post" to help you sell books and get famous.
And you keep saying "Sinister sells" You really seem to know and believe that.

Come on JB, tell us the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but he truth!

Oh, and the Naperville police left a 22 year old girl "alone and on the street at 2:30 am." ?? I see why DP did not get a ticket, the cops involved evidently were not there to "Protect and Serve" just like DP did not seem to "Protect and Serve" most of his career.
(except his own interests)
I'm not sayin", I'm just sayin'

Anonymous said...

Well, let's see, Mr. Brodsky. First of all, who refers to a woman in her 50's as being elderly? Are you kidding me? Is that the mentality of you and your client?

What is the purpose of bringing into your heroic descriptions of Peterson the fact that he helped an "African American" woman. Are you kidding me, once again? Does that mean he is a better human being because he helped an "African American" woman, even though he is "caucasian?" You really messed up with this one, Mr. Brodsky. Come back here, would you, and tell us why you felt the need to describe the race of a woman Drew Peterson helped that didn't get in the news, okay? I'd really like to see that explanation.

And, by reading this, you want people to get on blogs and defend your client, because he helped a 50-ish elderly woman, and an African American woman?

You are a piece of work. If I were you, I'd warn anyone with a daughter in the age range of 17-23 to stay in the house when your client is around. That's what I'd rather spread on the blogs. Not this garbage.

Anonymous said...

The very idea that you would put Toms picture out in public to have dres mob friends find him........ who do you think you are ? You will get your payback joel hopefully will loose your license forever.

Anonymous said...

My mistake, Mr. Brodsky. The seizure victim wasn't referred to in age by you, only as being "elderly."

Must've been that "African American" woman thing that got me all hotted up!

Quit referring to Drew with that "if you know Drew." You've known him for six months, give us a break. He pays you to know him. Get off your high horse with that bull crap. You're trying to convince people his supporters are being hushed and turned away from talking about the real Drew, when you haven't a clue who or what he is? You're his attorney, not his BFF, Mr. Brodsky. We didn't fall off the same pumpkin truck you did.

Why don't you listen to your partner and quit stirring up the pot every time the news about your media hungry client dies down, taking you right down with him.

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting and anticipating your response, Mr. Brodsky. Why did you feel the need to bring up the race of a woman your client helped out of a car in a traffic incident?

You opened your big mouth, now be a man and answer the question. Obviously, you were more concerned about that woman's race and getting that incident over here on this blog. I think it would be just peachy if you got your wish, and all of the talking heads on tv quoted your remark, so everyone knows that your client EVEN helps "African American women" in their 40's, not just 22 year olds in the middle of the night.

I want to be sure and repeat it here:

A passenger in one of the cars (an African-American woman in her 40's), was badly shaken up in he collision and was shaking. While everyone else (including me) just stood there not knowing what to do, Drew went right up to the car, got the women out, sat her down on the curb, gave her a quick once over to see if she was injured, and sat with her and calmed her down (soothing talk and telling jokes), until the police arrived.

Anonymous said...

The Daily Show should have that on with their "Senior Black Correspondent"
Also, notice how "telling jokes" was stuck in that story.
*rolls eyes*

Anonymous said...

Is it normal for a witness who is supposedly in protective custody to be passing messages on to his family to have posted on an internet forum, ie findstacypeterson.com

the other report of a neighbor seeing a blue container loaded by drew and tom according to all new articles was not a FACT from LE it came from a "family source" meaning Stacy's family.
so much misinformation being touted as FACTS, shame shame.

now legal pub has been invaded by the lynch mob, doubt your tatics will work here have fun you haters!!

Anonymous said...

The girl was out with her boyfriend when he was arrested for DUI at 2:30 a.m

The girl was left stranded and alone at 2:30 a.m.


That's very scary. I don't mean being alone at 2:30 a.m., stranded in Naperville. I mean that she got in a car with a drunk driver, putting her life in danger, as well as allowing him to put other lives in danger by allowing him to drive.

Ah, thanks for bringing that out Mr. Brodsky. Good analogy to use here. She was stupid enough to get in a car with a drunk driver, but smart enough to call your client, and you say there's nothing sinister going on here?

I can't stop laughing.

Anonymous said...

May 7, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
the other report of a neighbor seeing a blue container loaded by drew and tom according to all new articles was not a FACT from LE it came from a "family source" meaning Stacy's family.
so much misinformation being touted as FACTS, shame shame.
*****************

You should have your story straight before you type.

from The Herald News:
A neighbor told >police< he spotted Drew Peterson and a mystery man loading a large blue barrel into the disgraced cop's GMC Denali hours after his young wife was last seen alive, sources said.

The identity of the man accompanying Peterson was not known, a pair of >police sources< said.

"That's who we're looking for," one of the sources said, describing the barrel as blue and large.


The key words here are POLICE and POLICE SOURCES.

Source
no shame

Anonymous said...

Aww, anonymous above, I feel your pain. That's just one of the Brodettes talking. One of them wandered off another blog. A blog dedicated solely to the idea of hating Stacy Peterson, and everyone she loved and knew. It consumes them.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, I stand corrected the articles I read said family sources.
Now your articles show police sources so just who are these police sources? What verification can you give that this report infact does come from LE as an official statement.
I see no offical LE statement concerning this. Matter of fact the same article you posted shows their so called police sources conflict each other.

A police source said tests conducted on the Denali at the State Police laboratory have not been completed. But another source said police located pieces of blue plastic on the back end of the Denali.

Anonymous said...

Aww, anonymous above, I feel your pain. That's just one of the Brodettes talking. One of them wandered off another blog. A blog dedicated solely to the idea of hating Stacy Peterson, and everyone she loved and knew. It consumes them.

----

and the cat drug you in from where?
Please provide some FACTS to back up your deliusional false allegations.
Thank you for proving to all how correct the assesment is of the lynch mob mentality fueled by the media is spot on!

Anonymous said...

May 7, 2008 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...
and the cat drug you in from where?
Please provide some FACTS to back up your deliusional false allegations.
Thank you for proving to all how correct the assesment is of the lynch mob mentality fueled by the media is spot on!
--------------------------------------
You seem angry.

Anonymous said...

May 7, 2008 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...

I see no offical (sic) LE statement concerning this. ...Matter of fact the same article you posted shows their so called police sources conflict each other.

A police source said tests conducted on the Denali at the State Police laboratory have not been completed. But another source said police located pieces of blue plastic on the back end of the Denali.
**************************
Let me try to explain the context of that paragraph.

They found some blue plastic on the back end of the Denali, but tests have not yet been completed.

I hope that makes it easier to comprehend.

Anonymous said...

I believe the paragraph speaks for itself without you giving your interpretation.
thank you very much!

Anonymous said...

so no facts to back up the false allegations!
thank you very much I will ignore your ignorance!

Anonymous said...

LOL "white noise" user. I see you.

Isn't it funny that the term "white noise effect" is used by a certain poster on a certain we love Brodsky blog, which is also a term Brodsky used here

(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.

Anonymous said...

Brodsky, your hate monger grasshoppers learn well. You should be proud.

Anonymous said...

I'll bet that the title of your new book is going to be "Sinister Sells"... You're already promoting the tag line over and over and over.

Anonymous said...

Joel, your client & yourself have some pretty serious issues.............. JMO

Anonymous said...

Joel,
If I may ask...how did the media even get a hold of this story?? I have a hard time believing the Naperville PD contacted the media to be sure it hit the papers? Did the 22 yr old report it? or did you and DP call them in for the info?
Just curious, no mob ties here honest.

Anonymous said...

Hate Brodsky if you want, but what he is doing is what he believes will counter act all the negativity.

No one here knows all of the evidence. No one here knows whether Peterson did or did not do it. But what is clear, is that there are lynch mobs already convicting him without a trial.

Ok, Petersons did some good deeds. Leave it alone. You lose credibility when your try to pick apart the good deeds. (It just shows your blind hatred.)

Everytime I think Peterson may have done it, I read a bunch of posts which show such blatant lack of objectivity that I gravitate back towards Peterson's corner. Get rid of the prejudice, the opinions and focus on the facts.

If the blue barrel ever existed, it should be able to be located. Plastic does not decompose! All those Peterson haters, if there was a blue barrel find it, then the rest of us will believe.

Anonymous said...

When Legal Pub gets out of trial, he is going to wonder how this thread ever went off on such a tangent. Either you believe in innocent until proven guilty or you don't. A local paper reported the traffic stop. The purpose of the L.P. article was apparently two fold:
1. Look at what scrutiny Peterson is under (even a ticket makes the news.) 2. To point out that perhaps the reason for the delay in charging Peterson is that the prosectution is waiting on Mr. Morphy to get grounded before he testifies.

I am certain that L.P. would not promote or allow any intimidation of any witness, and I see none here. The picture of Morphy is completely benign.

Finally, I can find no objective evidence that Morphy has been threatened or is in protective custody. If you have facts to back this up or proof he is in jeopardy, please share them.

Anonymous said...

Okay, okay, Legal Pub is going to be not liking the fact that we've chosen to try and convict Brodsky's client based solely on media exposure.

Now, I'm thinking Legal Pub is a trial lawyer, and possibly a friend of Mr. Brodsky.

Come on, read that post of his. What in the world kind of favor did he do his client with that little story? African-American woman, having dinner with a couple in their 50's, helping an elderly woman having a seizure.

That's a "good" lawyer? Hey, Joel, next time an African-American woman gets in a car accident, call 1-800-NEWSPAPER, and maybe you can get them to come out asap and take pictures.

Funny.

Anonymous said...

May 7, 2008 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...The purpose of the L.P. article was apparently two fold:

Me thinks it was many more fold.

May 7, 2008 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...
2. To point out that perhaps the reason for the delay in charging Peterson is that the prosectution(sic) is waiting on Mr. Morphy to get grounded before he testifies.

Or maybe the children's testimony before the GJ, and the "hearsay" law to pass. And a lot of other things you or I don't know about. The "blue barrel" will come out at trial. Brodsky cannot get disclosure. Yet.

May 7, 2008 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...
When Legal Pub gets out of trial, he is going to wonder how this thread ever went off on such a tangent. Either you believe in innocent until proven guilty or you don't.

If that was the case, LP would have just put up a poll, and no comment section.

Anonymous said...

Reem Odeh is quoted as saying:

"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."... “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."

Now,I don't know about the rest of you lawyers, but, I'm thinking when your LAW PARTNER gets quoted in the press with this kind of stuff, you're looking pretty stupid!!!

Legal Pub said...

Legal Pub is a firm believer in freedom of the press and freedom of speech. While stories could be published without the ability to comment, comments allow interaction unlike any magazine.

To answer a few questions:

1. No one affiliated with this blog is a friend or even an acquaintance of Joel Brodsky.

2. The questions asked of Attorney Brodsky were not picked by him.

3. Legal Pub takes pride in allowing both sides of a story to be presented. Like it or not, with Drew Peterson, most of the stories appeared to be slanted.

4. Peterson may be one of the most unpopular suspects in history. That alone does not make him guilty nor does it mean that he should not get a fair trial. A good suggestion is to reserve judgment until all of the evidence has been admitted in a court of law.

5. No one other than Peterson knows right now if Peterson is innocent or guilty. Furthermore, no one knows for sure if Stacy was murdered. We do know that K.S. died and there are apparently conflicting opinions of forenzic specialists as to the cause of her death.

6. If Peterson is ultimately convicted of murder after a fair trial, this forum will be strong advocates for the most stringent penalties available under the law based on past experience.

7. As for Joel Brodsky,his tactics in this case are truely unconventional. But this appears to be an unconventional case. The final judgment on Brodsky and his tactics will only come when we know the final decision of a jury.

Anonymous said...

3. Legal Pub takes pride in allowing both sides of a story to be presented. Like it or not, with Drew Peterson, most of the stories appeared to be slanted.

With all due respect, sir, how can you justify that remark when, for every news article that is printed outlining unfavorable tidbits about Drew Peterson, he and Brodsky have been on numerous and countless news shows. The Today Show (twice, at least), Larry King Live, On The Record, and Dan Abrams. I've seen Brodsky on John Gibson's show, Nancy Grace, and OTR. Peterson was freely allowed to say as he pleased on LKL and The Today Show. Where else would we have learned about his wife's menstrual cycles and mood swings?

So, I do not see your point about feeling pride about allowing him yet another forum to get his same old line out. Drew is good?

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub I am in awe of this site and thank you for your dedication to our constitutional rights.
Your responses alone is are what I know our constitution provides for all.
I totally agree that if an arrest, fair trial and conviction of Drew Peterson happens I also advocate the most stringent penalties available under the law.

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub rocks! I have been a reader since the beginning and if I learned nothing else, I can get both sides here.

I am also a Stacy Peterson supporter. But I must admit, I do not know that Drew is responsible for her disappearance. I read the stories in mainstream press and they usually end up with Peterson sounding real bad. Maybe they are right. But I for one appreciate hearing about the other side. I also like reading others comments.

Even though I support and will help anyway that I can find Stacy, I will, do to sites like Legal Pub, keep an open mind until after a trial.

Lavanda Dolce said...

Ted Bundy was a good samaritan too. He used to work in a phone crisis center.

Anonymous said...

lol
How many years did it take LE to even consider Ted Bundy a suspect?
Funny drew is now as diabolical as Ted Bundy?
What's next?
He's Charles Manson?

Anonymous said...

I have a question that maybe a legal expert could shed some light on.
If there was evidence of a crime scene in Drew's home would that home become a crime scene?
If it is in fact a crime scene could Drew still live in it?
The reason I ask is the media has report early on in the case the cadaver dogs hit in Drew and Stacy's bedroom.
This has turned into proof for many that Drew killed Stacy in the bedroom.
I don't feel it is proof since he was not arrested nor was the house a crime scene that I know of.
TIA

Anonymous said...

The dogs alone would not usually, by themselves, warrant declaring the house a crime scene. The house has apparently been scoured by forenzic investigators. I do not believe their results (including any DNA) have been released to the public yet. Furthermore, since the media has entered the house as well as numerous other people, the home is no longer considered a secure crime scene.

In sum, the man has a right to live in his home until he is arrested.

Anonymous said...

If I were a juror, I might discount any cadaver hits in the Peterson home or cars if they were mentioned as possible evidence. The reason is, Peterson was a police officer and it's possible that the death scent could be on his shoes or other possessions acquired during his line of duty. Cadaver dogs can detect the death scent for years; not only recent deaths. I don't find this kind of evidence to be worth much, unless there's a body discovered upon scent detection. (Put this one in your pocket, Mr. Brodsky. LOL)

Anonymous said...

In sum, the man has a right to live peacefullyin his home until he is arrested.

I added a word. I hope you don't mind. :)

Anonymous said...

Well, so, pocket man, how do the handlers keep the scent of death off themselves and not have it drive the dogs crazy? What, they are immune from catching the death scent on them, but Peterson isn't?

Gagging on that one. If I were a juror, I would certainly wonder how that death scent idea fits Drew's shoes, but none of the other officers around the dogs?????????

Anonymous said...

Who says the dogs don't smell it on other officers? Perhaps they're trained to ignore their living, breathing handlers. The point is, that scent could be picked up somewhere and be meaningless. If cadaver dogs came into my home, they'd have a hit. Does that mean someone was murdered here? No. It means my mom passed away here last year.

Anonymous said...

Ignore the scent of death on their living, breathing handlers, all of the police officers in and around the area, and assume because he's a police officer, that's why the scent of death is in his house?

So, if they get a scent of death in the bedroom, it's because the shoes Drew Peterson wore as a police officer are smelling up the place with death, as long as Drew Peterson isn't in them?

Or, assume the cadaver dogs are a useless tool used in police work, because the occupant's elderly relative died in the house?

Now, that's a stretch of the imagination.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
May 7, 2008 9:47 PM
The reason I ask is the media has report early on in the case the cadaver dogs hit in Drew and Stacy's bedroom.
++++++++++++++++++++++

I think it can be used as a (small) part of compelling circumstantial evidence.

Anonymous said...

ps NOTE TO JOEL BRODSKY FROM A FORMER CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER (ME) -Never get quoted saying things that a DA could quote back to you in a closing argument….”…that’s just the type of guy he is…”

Greta Van Susteren

Anonymous said...

Greta, good suggestion. I think the quote is out of context in the article. If I remember correctly, the he was referring to Peterson in the middle of the night going to help this girl. (But I know what you mean about a quote later being used against you.)As a reader, I really welcome input from experienced lawyers like you and the lawyers who contribute to Legal Pub.

The dogs scenting death would be significant if they found a body. With no body, it is hard to say the dogs are credible evidence in my opinion. In fact, without proof of a death, I think most courts would not admit the evidence to a jury based on my observation and experience. I would welcome others thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to those who answered resonably my questions concerning the cadaver dogs.
I agree all the research I have done on cadaver says that a hit without a body in not a reliable hit and is normally not used in a court of law.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case. I don’t ever recall seeing a dog on any of the video tape of the police coming in and out of searches of Drew’s house. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up this rumor?
As to admissibility of a “hit” by a cadaver dog, I don’t believe it would be admissible. Under the Daubert standard I don’t think that the State would be able to establish the scientific basis that a dog performing the acts that constitute a “hit” (barking, clawing at the ground, ect), mean that a ded body was present at a certain location within a specified period of time. Does anyone have any examples of cadaver dogs being used in a criminal court, and for what purpose?

Finally, just so its clear. Tom Morphy is not in protective custody. He is in rehab for severe drug, and alcohol problems and for his mental illness that cause him to be suicidally depressed. If the state police did not cause his brother to put out a false statement that Tom was clean since the mid 90's we would not have released the pictures we did which show him doing drugs last year. Drew has to counter false evidence planted in the media by the state police. We cannot let the state police plant a false rumor that Tom has been clean for a decade.

Land Shark® said...

We cannot let Joel Brodsky plant a false rumor that Drew Peterson is a good person.

Anonymous said...

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case.
____________________________
It was reported on Nov. 2 from a police source.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brodsky,

How can you be so clueless about how you are perceived on television? The way you and your client behave is unbelievable to me. I have worked in the law profession for years and I can honestly say I have never seen anything like this.

Is this case nothing more than notoriety and fame to you? Granted, I think Drew Peterson is guilty as sin - so the more you talk, the more you dig his grave - which is fine by me. But, as a legal professional I find it mind boggling the charades and antics that you (and your client) continually display for the press.

Don't you realize that everyone thinks you're a big joke, as well as your client. You're are morphing into something just as bad as your possible/alleged double murderer client (IMO).

May I suggest that you repress your need to jump in front of a camera with Drew and continue your dog and pony show? I don't think a lot of people are buying it.

Land Shark® said...

Hey Joel, how about Drew's timeline? When will we be privy to Drew's timeline?

Will it be covered during Drew's trial lawyer's opening statement?

Drew was sleeping when Stacy ran off with the mythical *other man*?

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, Mr. Brodsky, but you are saying that the picture you allowed to be posted here SHOWS him doing drugs last year?

Can any lawyer here, with all due respect, describe to me how in heaven's name that posted picture "SHOWS him doing drugs last year." Mr. Brodsky gleaned all of that information from that one photo, which he says was taken of him last year?

You were compelled to have that picture published, as an ethical and moral responsibility to your client, to counteract his brother saying he has been "clean" since the mid-90's? So, you are now trashing a man who hasn't spoken a word in public, to you, to Mr. Peterson, to a Grand Jury, soley because you want all to know you are holding a picture that speaks a million words?

Oh, and just so I have this straight, you are now saying that the ISP is planting false evidence in the media? Can you come back here, please, Mr. Brodsky, and show us all where you have the statement from the State Police that Mr. Morphey has been "clean" for a decade? Because, I am an intelligent person, and I read the same forums you do, Mr. Brodsky, and it was HIS BROTHER that made that statement, not the State Police.

Ah, but I see. Apparently, it is your insight that the State Police planted false rumors in the media through this man's family that he is in protective custody, and that he has been clean for a decade.

You say he used drugs as so blatantly shown in that picture, and he is battling substance abuse in a rehab facility.

And we should believe YOU why?

Anonymous said...

Imho, there is no way this is Joel Brodsky writing these comments. It is easy to use any screen name. For one, an "excellent attorney" would NEVER even think of posting some of these ridiculous statements.
Also, check out the spelling and grammar. An "excellent attorney" so skilled would at least check spelling and grammar, and know, while not that relevant, it shows lack of attention to detail.
LP, can you verify that this is, in fact, THE Joel Brodsky making these comments?

Anonymous said...

I just noticed LP has replaced "excellent" with "creative" in the interview title. Good job LP.
So then the above post may not be all that relevant.

Anonymous said...

What kind of a 'lawyer'engages anonymous posters on a blog to provide proof or facts? This investigation is a joke to Mr. Brodsky....a forum to degrade everyone except his client. You are the one putting your client on trial in the public. No one would care if your client was stopped for speeding - however, you or your client chose to announce the reasoning why he was out. The police do not publish the reasons behind why a citizen is out - they publish the reason for the traffic stop...end of discussion. What made you and your client feel the need to announce the explanation for him being out and about? Who really cares? Well, now the whole world does because that was a very poor decision that you or your client made.....not the media. Jeeze, what journalist wouldn't run wild with that story? It is just a mockery of your client nothing else. The good samaritan schtick, is even more entertaining and substantiates that this was a publicity tactic that once again has backfired. That is not 'good lawyering'
Could you also provide proof that Mr. Morphey is in rehab? Who are your sources? Do you seriously think this statement "Drew has to counter false evidence planted in the media by the state police. We cannot let the state police plant a false rumor that Tom has been clean for a decade" is more 'good lawyering'......are you just going through the motions so that a mistrial can be declared? Do you think statements like this will endear you and your client to the state police? I certainly wouldn't jump to aid your client after you continue to belittle the police.
There is an old saying....You can catch more flies with honey. This public berating, belittling and criticizing by you and your client of anyone involved has formed the opinions of the public - not the media.

Anakerie said...

I can think of a whole lot of questions that I believe would never be answered by Mr. Brodsky, so I'll ask another and hopefully someone from law enforcement will answer. Is it common practice when arresting someone for a DUI to impound the car and then leave any passengers in that car stranded by the side of the road to fend for themselves?

Anonymous said...

Joel A. Brodsky said...
May 8, 2008 7:47 AM
I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case. I don’t ever recall seeing a dog on any of the video tape of the police coming in and out of searches of Drew’s house. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up this rumor?

It is a bummer that you do not have disclosure (YET) in this case.
Well, here is a picture of your "rumored" State Police cadaver dog.
I am out of work, would you like to hire me as an investigator. It appears that you need one.

Click here for picture of State Police with cadaver dog at the Peterson home.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Anakerie said...
May 8, 2008 9:52 AM
I can think of a whole lot of questions that I believe would never be answered by Mr. Brodsky, so I'll ask another and hopefully someone from law enforcement will answer. Is it common practice when arresting someone for a DUI to impound the car and then leave any passengers in that car stranded by the side of the road to fend for themselves?

Good question! I just can't believe they would do that! A 22 year old "girl" at 2:30 A.M. with the type of people we have in this world running around loose!

Does anyone know if that actually happened?

Anonymous said...

Well, thank you for pointing that out, anon, at 9:17am. "excellent" has been changed to "creative" in the interview heading.

I hope a lot more things get pointed out here. If this is a blog for legal minds, I certainly look forward to seeing their opinions about this method of "lawyering." I expect that any potential juror in a criminal case would welcome intelligent, thought provoking defenses a lawyer has to offer when defending his client.

I must say, though, that I would be highly insulted if I was expected to buy into this picture theory Peterson's lawyer is touting, only to find out later the lawyer holding it misrepresented the truth. Along with the photographed "sightings" of Ms. Peterson.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Peterson's attorney is standing by this Morphey picture's authenticity and worth now, and it's later determined to be unfounded, that's not exactly putting him in a spotlight of brilliance. Seems to me he's sticking his neck way out on the line, solely to bat down rumors in the media pertaining to his client.

Don't you care about your reputation, Mr. Brodsky? Unless you took that picture yourself, you're relying on a pretty shaky source, I'd say. You're the messenger, and what you're conveying is paving the way for future doubt about anything you say!

Anonymous said...

Apparently the writer apparently does not apparently own an apparent thesaurus.

Anonymous said...

LOL. This 22 year old woman got in a car with a drunk driver, who was taken into custody after drawing attention to himself because of his condition, and people are concerned that she was possibly left stranded at 2:30am? That is for to laugh!

Anonymous said...

May 8, 2008 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...

Apparently the writer apparently does not apparently own an apparent thesaurus.

I think that was on purpose, so as not to confuse with facts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
May 8, 2008 10:20 AM
LOL. This 22 year old woman got in a car with a drunk driver, who was taken into custody after drawing attention to himself because of his condition, and people are concerned that she was possibly left stranded at 2:30am? That is for to laugh!

Maybe the person got pulled over for no taillight, and blew a .081.
The average person would not think he was "drunk".
You would not be "LOL..ing" if that was your daughter left out there.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

LP. The bloggers are demanding to look at the other picure of Tom Morphy I sent you. The one where he is smoking the crack pipe. Please post that picture so they can be satisfied.
We know what Tom Morphy is doing because he calls his family members, who tell us what he says. (Drew is Tom Morphy's step brother).

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brodsky - where is the bloggers demand you refer to here? Are you kidding? You are asking LP to publish a picture THEY are uncomfortable with doing, merely because you have delusions of people demanding it? You're losing it Mr. Brodsky. In fact, I'm wondering if you are, in fact, a fake.

I think you're losing credibility second by second!!! If they did what you asked merely based on your post, I would lose any respect for them, and their credibility.

It's Morphey, not Morphy.

Anonymous said...

May 8, 2008 11:32 AM
Joel A. Brodsky said...
LP. The bloggers are demanding to look at the other picure of Tom Morphy I sent you. The one where he is smoking the crack pipe. Please post that picture so they can be satisfied.
We know what Tom Morphy is doing because he calls his family members, who tell us what he says. (Drew is Tom Morphy's step brother).

Wow. If this is JB, I think he is the one smoking crack.
>picure, Morphy< ?
It can't be JB.
If you want it up so bad, put it on freakin' youtube (with some cool music) and a link here. sheesh

Anonymous said...

Joel, upon reviewing all of the comments posted - you come up with the opinion that the concerned, intelligent people that are taking the time to blog, are insisting on seeing a picture of some guy with a crack pipe?
That is a classic example of why the public is shocked and outraged at the tactics you are using.
You are not reading what is being requested, you are simple fabricating what you yourself think the public wants, based on your statements.
We are intelligent, caring people that are not interested in your 'sinister' spin but rather for the truth to be told. The truth can be told without dragging others in the mud to make yourselves look better.
Joel and LP please provide the actual demands from your bloggers to see this photo.

Anonymous said...

Joel, upon reviewing all of the comments posted - you come up with the opinion that the concerned, intelligent people that are taking the time to blog, are insisting on seeing a picture of some guy with a crack pipe?
That is a classic example of why the public is shocked and outraged at the tactics you are using.
You are not reading what is being requested, you are simple fabricating what you yourself think the public wants, based on your statements.
We are intelligent, caring people that are not interested in your 'sinister' spin but rather for the truth to be told. The truth can be told without dragging others in the mud to make yourselves look better.
Joel and LP please provide the actual demands from your bloggers to see this photo.

----


you should take your own advice!!

Anakerie said...

Who's "demanding" to see this picture of Tom Morphy? I have absolutely NO interest in seeing an old photo of someone with something that looks like a crack pipe.

Where are these so-called "demands" for this photo? In Mr. Brodsky's imagination perhaps?

Anonymous said...

anon at 12:09 ~ quite well articulated.

Is LP going to cave in to the "demands" of the bloggers, or is LP going to give a well thought out explanation as to why they did not publish it in the first place, or why they MAY publish after this.

Either way, I think that is a fair request to know why or why not.

Anonymous said...

you should take your own advice!!

May 8, 2008 12:20 PM

-------------------------
please clarify Joel, what do you mean by this?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

you should take your own advice!!

May 8, 2008 12:20 PM

-------------------------
please clarify Joel, what do you mean by this?

May 8, 2008 12:46 PM
*************************
He was ripping on you, for ripping on someone, who was ripping on someone. ;-)

Anonymous said...

please clarify Joel, what do you mean by this?

---

thanks again for proving my point! I am not Joel but yet you are making things up and saying that I am. Why?? and you wonder why I said take your own advice?
you just fabricated that I was joel something you accused joel of doing fabricating.
you continue to insult intellegent people that don't want to hear your sinister spin.
The truth can be told without dragging others in the mud to make yourself look good. ie lying and callig me joel.
are you paranoid, do you need your meds? maybe you should just take your own advice!!



----
You are not reading what is being requested, you are simple fabricating what you yourself think the public wants, based on your statements.
We are intelligent, caring people that are not interested in your 'sinister' spin but rather for the truth to be told. The truth can be told without dragging others in the mud to make yourselves look better.

Anonymous said...

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 !

I read this on the web today and was wondering if Joel could comment on this?

Anonymous said...

Joel A. Brodsky said...

LP. The bloggers are demanding to look at the other picure of Tom Morphy I sent you. The one where he is smoking the crack pipe. Please post that picture so they can be satisfied.
We know what Tom Morphy is doing because he calls his family members, who tell us what he says. (Drew is Tom Morphy's step brother).
May 8, 2008 11:32 AM

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

On further thought, are you insinuating that Tom Morphey calls his "father" and "stepmother," who, in turn, are giving you this information, or do you have another sympathetic family member who is doing it?

Either way, why be shy now? Why don't you share your big secret with everyone and name your sources? Why would you want to "hide" someone who is so valuable. Seems you have your "proof" now, what with these pictures and "calls" to back your statements.

"That's the name of that tune." Sound familiar, Mr. Brodsky?

Anonymous said...

ofcourse it's true it's on the internet isn't it???
rotflmao

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
of course it's true it's on the internet isn't it???
rotflmao
_____________________

Never said it was true...just ask Joel to comment on it.
Perhaps you should brush up on reading comprehension?

By the way here is the link to foxnewsblog:
community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/crimestopper/2008/04/20/Drew_Peterson_Dating

Anonymous said...

First aid to a seizure victim? Okay, let me tell you something. My husband is an epileptic. Has been for most of his life (head injury in a car crash). The one thing I have learned is there isn't much you can do for someone who is having a seizure. The only thing you can really do is watch after them, make sure they don't slam their head into something sharp, and keep them on their side so that, when their tongue swells from being bitten, it falls to the side, thereby preventing the airway from being blocked. Years of "police training" has nothing to do with it. It's called good old common sense, something the both of you sorely lack. Joel, if this truly is you, there's a fitting title for what you're doing. Does "scraping the bottom of the barrel" mean anything to you? Evidently not.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately, I do not feel the need to make myself look good to anyone. I am quite secure and confident of my opinions. An opinion is a person's thoughts.
Joel stated that the bloggers on this post have demanded a photo be displayed......if that cannot be proven, then that is called a fabrication.
I was not giving Joel advice I was giving my opinion of how I perceived his statements on this blog.

Anonymous said...

http://community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/crimestopper/2008/04/20/Drew_Peterson_Dating

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 !

Please do not remove this post, I am asking that Joel comment?

Anonymous said...

I read this on the web today and BET it is true!!


Rebecca, on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm Said:
For those who wonder why Stacy’s father, Anthony M. Cales, does not show his face much, is not at the searches very often, is not the family spokesman, and does not make a big deal about who he is, I have news for you.

There are many of us who know the Cales family, because we’ve grown up with some of them, lived near enough to them to know some of them. Many of us still live where they lived, back in the days when tradegy struck the family before. Many of us know the truth that Anthony does not want the public to know about, and probably hopes the rest of us do not remember.

But we do.

Ask Cassandra Cales if she remembers her family ever talking about that tragic time her sister died in the fire, and how the town her family lived in poured out their hearts and donations to the family.

Ask Cassandra how much her daddy Anthony liked his motorcycle. The one he bought with all the donated money meant to provide for the Cales family in their time of grief.

Then ask why many people who DO remember all of that, do not donate to the Cales family in their new tragic time of grief. No, Stacy did not deserve to disappear under mysterious circumstances.

Yet, Anthony’s deliberate MISUSE of donated money IS at least one reason he hides his face today, is NOT at the searches very often, is NOT the family spokesman, and does NOT make a big deal about who he is.

Ask Cassandra.

And while you’re at it, ask her how she has the nerve to ask the public to help the Cales family ever again, after what her father did.

Anonymous said...

Rebecca - While I don't agree with what the previous poster did, you are no better. You've just showed you are in the same morally-challenged arena as the poster you are trying to discredit. Congratulations. Fool.

Anonymous said...

http://community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/crimestopper/2008/04/20/Drew_Peterson_Dating

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 !

Please do not remove this post, I am asking that Joel comment?
_______________________

HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF FAIR AND BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY??

Someone has ask JB to comment on this accusation and I'll bet you that will never happen?
Did some further research Dennis Werner does exist, she is a real person...has the GJ ever spoken to her? Why if you loved your wife, mother of your children....you tell them she's on vacation, which means she COULD potentially come home....why would you be entertaining lady friends in Stacy's home??Imagine the scenerio that would unfold if she did walk through the door!
I guess Mr fair and honest JB will just discredit this information. I'm just looking for the facts. JB you really do make it hard to believe your client!

Anonymous said...

Disgusting. Both sides. Let the fighting begin.

Anonymous said...

yes the truth about Anthony Cales is pretty disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Tis is not about Anthony Cales........ Please get off of your high horse, This is about a young missing mother/sister/friend/wife.......... Drew can go and help a damsel in distress, but yet he has never once helped to search for his missing wife....... I hope that he rots in hell.....JMO

Anonymous said...

Good question! I just can't believe they would do that! A 22 year old "girl" at 2:30 A.M. with the type of people we have in this world running around loose!

Does anyone know if that actually happened?


What the HAIL do YOU care? How does this bolster your hatred for an innocent man? Are you attempting to show that ALL police are scum of the earth? There really can't be any other motive. You can't have your cake AND eat it, too. Who do YOU call when you have a problem? Mare Daley? Your MAMA? There's no other motive for this question, IMO, other than to discredit those who serve and protect. If you're so hell-bent on proving them incompetent and uncaring, STOP PAYING TAXES -- and put your money where your mouth used to be!

Anonymous said...

Drew can go and help a damsel in distress, but yet he has never once helped to search for his missing wife....... I hope that he rots in hell.....JMO

Hey JMO! Guess what? The man says his wife LEFT HIM. Are you capable of reading and comprehending the obvious? Why would he LOOK for her? She LEFT! She left after getting DIRTY text messages from some SINGLE MAN! (Are you on the planet, at all?)

You see, this is why there's such a media frenzy (which has been successful.) The media has known (forever) that the majority who inhale their crap are......... dumb. They'll buy into anything.

You can go home and have dinner tonight knowing you're part of that fray and mindset. Yippy! Did you also help re-elect that monkey in the white house? (It's rhetorical; no need to answer.)

Anonymous said...

May 8, 2008 1:33 PM said..
Ask Cassandra how much her daddy Anthony liked his motorcycle. The one he bought with all the donated money meant to provide for the Cales family in their time of grief.

-----
What were they supposed to do with the money?

Anonymous said...

Ask Cassandra how much her daddy Anthony liked his motorcycle. The one he bought with all the donated money meant to provide for the Cales family in their time of grief.

-----
What were they supposed to do with the money?


LOL! I rest my case about ... trailer trash. ;-D Too funny!

What were they SUPPOSED to do with the money???? Oh yah -- they understood it to be a GIFT to buy a freaking MOTORCYCLE to travel the trailer park s'more! LOL!

Hysterical!

Anonymous said...

ANOTHER ONE WHO CANNOT GRASP THE OBVIOUS SAID: Why if you loved your wife, mother of your children....you tell them she's on vacation, which means she COULD potentially come home....why would you be entertaining lady friends in Stacy's home??

For the 108th time:
His story is that she LEFT!
His story is that she left of her OWN accord!
How dim do you have to be to NOT know that it makes sense, in sticking with HIS story, that she COULD come home?

If your spouse leaves you, do you just........die? Or do you carry on with your life and hope to have some semblence of a social situation in SPITE of the fact that there are people LIKE YOU, wishing/wanting/hoping to see you rot in HELL?

It's little wonder that the likes of Nancy Grace have made millions on people like you........ really. I give my kudos to her, as she races --- laughing hysterically --- to the bank every week. You make her fortune SO easy, that it's almost as much a crime as hanging a man withOUT a crime!

Anonymous said...

TO:May 8, 2008 3:10 PM
Are you attempting to show that ALL police are scum of the earth?

Of course not.
I like a good cop, that does his job, which I read on the side of their cars is: "to serve and protect" I do not think leaving a 22 year old girl on the side of the road at 2:30 A.M., with the kind of riff raff we have running around equates "serving and protecting"
But I really, really, dislike the dirty above the law types.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I live in a trailer. Are you saying there is something wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:10/3:17 pm,

You actually believe the BS that Drew is saying which completely contradicts itself many times over......and you call OTHER people dumb? If you believe all the trash that DP and Joel Brodsky are spewing than you are the one who is DUMB, gullible and easily let on.

Anyone with half a brain and some logic knows that Drew did away with Stacy and Kathleen.

I can not imagine being so ignorant to actually fall for Drew's lies. I think I would have to kill myself.

I bet you are somehow related to Drew; otherwise, you wouldn't be shooting out venom to people who obviously aren't looking through foggy, rose colored glasses and actually like in REALITY, not a fairy tale.

Get a grip and take a breath. You're gonna have a heart attack.

By the way, police have deemed Stacy Peterson a potential homicide and she isn't even on the ISP's missing persons website. Why do you suppose she isn't on their missing persons website? Maybe because they realize she isn't ALIVE; therefore, there is no need for it. The searches are searches for her BODY, as in corpse.

Anonymous said...

To: May 8, 2008 3:17 PM

If I decide to kill my wife, I'll just say "she left". Even though there is evidence she may not be alive. (oh, and my last wife was murdered) Then when the police say they do not believe she left on her own, and name me a suspect, I will have comfort in the fact that, without question, you believe me. Thank You

What do comments on this board have to do with Bush in the White House?... Oh... the famous quote when he said, in a serious tone "....there are rumors on the internet..."
(It's rhetorical; no need to answer.)

Anonymous said...

His story is that she LEFT!
His story is that she left of her OWN accord!
How dim do you have to be to NOT know that it makes sense, in sticking with HIS story, that she COULD come home?

If your spouse leaves you, do you just........die?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IRONIC that my spouse did just leave me and my two children...but unlike DP, my children were my world for many years, there was no need to rush someone into their lives to take someones place?

If Stacy was in the process of seeing a divorce lawyer, she would not throw that to the wind and leave, been there done that. It takes tons of energy and determination to just get to that step.
I think for now I'll side with the statements made by ISP, she did not cease all contact with loved ones willingly! The only suspect on their radar is Drew Peteron, is it the ISP that you're angry with? not the media or silly blogs?

Anonymous said...

No need to quarrel folks. If she is really dead, she will be found.

If she turns up alive like John Darwin did, the media is going to owe a huge apology to Peterson.

Frankly, I think he is an ass. But right now, the evidence is not enough to even charge him based on what I have heard so far...

Anonymous said...

Drew, being a pathological narcissist is right in form "helping people out in public"!

All narcissists are perceived to be wonderful people to the outside world.

John Wayne Gacy was a narcisisst, the people in his community loved him & he served on many volunteer committees, but he was still a mass murderer!

Scott Peterson is a narcissist too & he helped an old lady change a flat tire, but he sits in prison guilty of the murder of his wife & child!

Shall I go on, Joel????

Anonymous said...

DP has another alibi besides Stacy for the night Kathleen Savio was killed. Which one is it?

Anonymous said...

"If she turns up alive like John Darwin did, the media is going to owe a huge apology to Peterson."

DP owes everyone an apology for the scam he and sp pulled and on top of it they'll have to pay back the money wasted in this search. IMO the only one who's gonna come out "clean" will be Joel! LOL

justiceprevail said...

Drew CLAIMS that she left on her accord(key word here is 'claims'). He says she called him and told him that she 'found someone else'..LOL..Gimme a break. Would not this 'someone else' have friends/family who would realize tht HE TOO has dissappeared??
So, we should all just believe this, because Drew says it's true, and call it a day??
Do ya' think?
He says she left the house wearing a red jogging suit...but he later says he was sleeping when she left.
Hmmm...which of these is true? If he was sleeping (as he stated on Larry King Live, the nationally broadcasted show that he CHOSE TO APPEAR ON..LOL...idiot)how could he know what she was wearing?
Did he kill her? And then dispose of her body? I guess honestly, I really don't know for sure. But everything he says and does points to his culpability. IMO.
I believe Cassie, Stacys' sister, called Drew around 11p.m. and he asked "Where's your sister?" and went on to say that he had been 'out looking for her'. Why is it that he would be out looking for Stacy either during the day or that evening? As far as Drew was concerned, Stacy left with another man..
Sure she did Drew.

He also during that call told Cassie that he was at home, and yet Cassie could clearly see his house from where she was parked, and he was NOT AT HOME...
Why did he lie to her? Where was he?

Law Enforcement and many others disagree, and LE has stated that it is their belief that Stacy did not leave her home of her own accord. He is a SUSPECT in her disappearance and possible murder.
Who gives a rip what Drew says...He is a SUSPECT in this investigation..Are we to believe that he is telling the truth? If he is 100% telling the truth, I have no doubt that he will not pass a simple lie detector test. I'll bet you that everyone else involved in this case would be willing to take a LD test to add validity to their testimonies (because according to DP and JB, everyone else is fabricating, on drugs, psychopaths, have grudges against Drew, etc)

Have they never heard of the addage "NO COMMENT"...
He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. OUTSIDE OF A COURTROOM is not considered a COURT OF LAW...So if I want to say that I think DP murdered and disposed of Stacey, I am well within my right to do so. He certainly does not appear to CARE
at all what the rest of the world thinks, because if he did .. He would TRY play the part of a jilted husband, who has no idea where his wife is OR if she is safe. He would feign concern for her well being, even if he wants to claim she left with another man...From day one he should have done anything/everything in his power to find her. By doing this, as a former law enforcement officer, he KNOWS that he would be clearing himself of any suspicion of wrongdoing.

The image of him that the public perceives is the one that he has broadcasted every chance he gets. No one has made up lies about him or untruths and reported it in the media..Not to my knowledge anyhow.
The cameras only have to show up..or he can fly across the country and show up IN FRONT of the cameras by choice...either way, every time he does it..His behavior and everything that he says leaves the masses feeling ill. He creates all of his own drama.

He can play the song " the media is making me look sinister" all that he wants. The only one making DP look sinister, is DREW!! SINISTER would NOT SELL if Drew would not act so damn sinister EVERY SINGLE TIME he chooses to put his mug in front of the camera, let a reporter INTO his home, or give interviews to newspaper reporters...LOL
No one is making him go on national television and act like the uncaring, heartless jerk that he is acting like..maybe it just comes NATURALLY.

IDIOTS....

My opinion of Drew is largely based on what I have seen him do and not do. And what I have heard him say and not say...
This article should have been called "Scrutinizing the Microscopic Brain of Drew Peterson and is Idiot Attorney"..LOL
All of the above is JUST MY OPINION

Anonymous said...

What were they supposed to do with the money?
----

Well let's see their house had just burned to the ground and one of the children died in the fire.
So you can't think of anything else to do with the money then to buy a motorcycle.
I'm sure the community that donated this money donated for Anthony Cales to buy a motorcycle instead of providing a home and burial for his child.
I hope you were not for real about your answer.

Anonymous said...

Several people have referred to lie detector tests. They are not reliable folks. That is the reason they are generally not admissible. Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspician that Drew could pass even if he was not telling the truth. Clarence Darrow wrote the book on lie detector tests.

Suffice it to say no lawyer is likely to let his client take one.

Land Shark® said...

Damn. Someone seriously pissed off mcannie1965.

Anonymous said...

Apparently is all so apparent!

Anonymous said...

Really, apparently Legal Pub apparently spends apparent time in the Pub. I mean it's so apparent!
Welcome to the apparent eighth grade. Apparently.

Anonymous said...

Joel Brodsky is being paid for his services, which is to defend his client, Drew Peterson. In this case, it's to be expected that Mr. Brodsky will attempt to discredit anyone who has information that is negative to Drew Peterson's defense.

To date, anyone who has said anything that's not favorable to Drew Peterson's defense, has been branded a liar, an alcoholic, or drug user by Joel Brodsky and/or Drew Peterson.

No clear-thinking person is going to accept statements by Joel Brodsky or Drew Peterson without solid proof to back up their statements.

With this in mind, I question why Joel Brodsky is so desperate to discredit Tom Morphey (note the correct spelling Mr. Brodsky).

Anonymous said...

Time will tell the truth about Morphey.
It sure is more believable that he's in rehab since he is passing letters on to his family to post on
findstacy peterson.com
So the question will become why the big lie about protective custody and no drug problem for 10 years. And what else is being lied about? The warm container?
we shall see

Anonymous said...

oh, pooey, 11:01pm. You should like a mindless Peterson/Brodsky zombie. You are about as stupid sounding as they are. Get in line.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought from an insomniac ol' Jewish mum in AK:

There seems to be a bit of conflict regarding Tom Morphey's whereabouts. He is either:

A. In residential treatment for mental health issues (and/or, according to JB and DiP, drug/alcohol addictions)...

*OR*

B. He is in the protective custody of LE/the FBI, because he is potentially a valuable witness for the prosecution of DiP.

Now, that's just a wee bit confusing, ain't it?

Well, no, it's not really- if you take a step back and look at the whole enchilada, instead of just the beans and rice.

It was reported that Tom tried to kill himself a day after he "helped" DiP with the barrel and cell phone stuff, right?

So, it would stand to reason that Tom would be receiving mandatory mental health care for his suicidal depression/anxiety/PTSD/etc. immediately (which is required in AK for anyone who tries to commit suicide, but ends up at hospital instead- not sure about IL law, sorry!)- right?

And, if LE/the FBI considers Tom to be a valuable prosecution witness, then would they not want to see that he gets the care and help he needs, so that he will be less suicidally traumatized, and more emotionally stable, if and when he is required to give testimony before the Grand Jury, and/or at the criminal trial?

Also, even if Tom is in a "lock down" or medium security mental health hospital, he WOULD be able to contact his loved ones, whilst still remaining safely ensconced and protected by LE as he heals.

Taking this all in, it is my belief that BOTH of these statements are TRUE:

1. Tom Morphey IS in residential treatment for his depression and anxiety about whatever occurred the night he was "helping" his step-brother DiP.

*AND*

2. Tom Morphey IS in the "protective custody" of LE, because whilst he is getting the help he needs, he is also being protected/guarded/monitored as a potentially very valuable witness by LE/the FBI.

And that's all I have to say about that right now...

Basherette

Anonymous said...

LOL at Brodsky. He said in a news article today, when talking about KS's boyfriend and throwing out there that the focus should be on him now,

"I would have a lawyer with me,"

meaning the GJ appearance. LOL, why didn't your client have a lawyer with him at his GJ appearance when he plead the Fifth? He only had YOU. LOL.

Anonymous said...

LP - may I ask, sirs, if you are going to comment on what I believe to be joel a. brodsky's false comments at May 8, 2008 11:32 AM? "The bloggers are demanding to look at the other picure of Tom Morphy I sent you."

Do you have an opinion, one way or the other, knowing that this was posted by a professional, a lawyer, when it is clear it came out of left field and has no truth to it? This is not some raged, run of the mill blogger, this is a man who presents himself to you as someone seeking an opportunity to "speak" without interruption.

How is this fair to allow this, when his comment is blatantly inaccurate?

Anonymous said...

I would love to see the picture of Morphey with his pipe.

Anonymous said...

12:02 - "love to see."

You need to "demand" it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

"That's the name of that tune."

(Brodsky likes Robert Blake for his accomplishments.)

Anonymous said...

I have a picture of me with a pipe!

Anonymous said...

post it

Anonymous said...

Yeah, snap to it. Cuz, if you don't, Brodsky will take it to the next level, and LP will be squashed bugs under his feet. He wants people who respond when he barks!

Anonymous said...

Just yesterday, Susan Doman the sister of Drew Peterson’s deceased third wife (Kathleen Savio, the one who's death is considered a homicide, who had an order of protection on Drew Peterson) testified before the grand jury.
She is the one who is quoted as saying "Kathleen was just terrified of Drew Peterson.." "He always threatened her. . . . He did many, many things to her. He wished only for her to go away."
and "She told me she felt she was not going to make it. He was going to kill her and it was going to look like an accident." and "You know, from what I know of Drew, Drew puts on a big front. He likes attention. He wants everyone to believe that he is a good guy. And he has a lot of baggage behind him".


Lisa Ward, daughter of Drew Peterson’s second wife Vicki Connolly, also testified. She is the one who is quoted as saying Peterson had threatened to kill her mother and that he had the home’s phones tapped.
Her mother Vicki Connolly is the wife who said Peterson had struck her, and that during their marriage an increasingly controlling Peterson told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident. "the thing with Drew Peterson -- and I'm sure if Kathleen and Stacy were here to comment, they would say the same thing -- when it was good, it was wonderful. But when it was bad, it was really bad.
Also quoted by Vicki Connolly "We had bugs in our house. He put a microphone in our kitchen and taped our conversations. He was cheating so much he wanted to make sure I wasn't," she said. "His whole thing with us is that, 'I need to know my family is safe at home and you're not going to be doing anything you shouldn't be doing' -- and that enabled him to do whatever he wanted."

More proof the quote "That's just the type of guy he is" is, in fact, very accurate.


Add that to the incredibly long list of people who are not telling the truth. (except Drew Peterson)

Steve Maniaci, who was dating Savio at the time of her death, was also in front of the GJ. yesterday.
Brodsky's comment was "If he was smart, he took the Fifth," Brodsky said of Maniaci. "If it was my girlfriend who was found dead, and it was declared a homicide, and I had the code to the alarm system, and there were no signs of forced entry, I would have a lawyer with me."

(Sinister minds think like that)

He does not have anything to hide, so he will not "plead the fifth" There is only ONE person in BOTH cases that will plead the fifth. I think we all know who that is.

The waters are getting "less muddy" for the GJ. There should be an arrest soon, and I also, am not just whistling Dixie.

Anonymous said...

When did Brodsky switch from questioning the official report that went from accident to homicide? Man, I hate when this happens. I can't keep up with him. He's all over the place. One minute he says the first report was right, it was an accident, and the next he's telling a guy to get a lawyer and plead the Fifth. Who's he talking to?

You lawyer people who blog and read here - is this guy for real? This is showcasing your profession, showing us what a "creative" lawyer really is? Wonder if his phone is ringing off the hook with clients now, what with all this brilliant lawyering??

Legal Pub said...

To regular readers, I apologize for not having the time to post a new story. My second of five tightly scheduled jury trials has now concluded. While readers are important, the first priority of all who contribute to this site be to clients. Now that I have time to take a short breath let me respond to some of the comments.

1. The word “apparently” is used for good reason. The information on the traffic ticket came to Legal Pub as a tip originating out of Naperville, Illinois. Joel Brodsky never supplied this information to Legal Pub. The reason the word “apparently” is used on this site to mean the information is not first hand but is believed to be correct.

2. Several people have asked about the other photo of Tom Morphey. Requests come not only in the form of comments, email requests also arrive. The reason to not publish the photo at this time is because the photo is described on the main page. The decision not to publish it at this time is because without corroborating testimony, the photo in and of itself adds little more to the story.

3. The contributors to this site receive no compensation. No advertising revenue is sought. The purpose of this forum is to allow freedom of speech and free flow of information. You don’t have to be a scholar or a famous person to participate, but I can assure you from top to bottom the contributors here tend to be of the highest quality people from all walks of life. Most choose to post anonymously which is acceptable because this site is not about publicity and I doubt that any such person needs any advertising.

4. The cadaver dogs are an interesting subject that perhaps would be more appropriate to discuss in a full article. A short answer is there are probably evidentiary issues which will prevent this evidence under Daubert standards.

5. Joel Brodsky is not personally known by anyone affiliated with this site. He was gracious enough to respond to questions. And yes, gracious is an appropriate word because he, like most attorneys, is a busy man.

6. Now a favor from the recent poster who had information as to Grand Jury testimony. I would appreciate you sharing your source of information. If you prefer, you may send your answer by email.

Anonymous said...

Sir - if "demands" for you to show the other picture JB is referring to came through emails, how would JB know that? I don't understand that comment from you. Are you saying that JB has access to your emails? Can you please clarify that?

TIA

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub said...May 9, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Now a favor from the recent poster who had information as to Grand Jury testimony. I would appreciate you sharing your source of information. If you prefer, you may send your answer by email.

Evidently, I have no information as to the exact testimony that occurred yesterday.
I collected those quotes from various news reports. Do you want me to post the links to those?

Anonymous said...

Joel A. Brodsky said...
LP. The bloggers are demanding to look at the other picure of Tom Morphy I sent you. The one where he is smoking the crack pipe. Please post that picture so they can be satisfied.
We know what Tom Morphy is doing because he calls his family members, who tell us what he says. (Drew is Tom Morphy's step brother).

I think I found that "picure the bloggers are demanding to look at"
The picture "everyone" demanded to see

Anonymous said...

Good one, anon, at 8:23am!

But, in all fairness, when was that taken? Last year? Who took it? How can you make so many observations from one picture?

Ha, ha.

Anonymous said...

It took over 130 posts before some one finally said something funny. That is a new low for humor. Come on folks, certainly you can come up with some other examples of levity?

Jester

Anonymous said...

Why no answer to the email question? If bloggers "demanded" the publishing of Brodsky's other brilliant idea of a picture showing a crack smoker, and you have indicated that many email requests come in, how in the world would Brodsky know you have so many "demands" via email? Did you privately share that with him, after which he came back here to request that you publish it?

Why aren't you answering that? Because, prior to his post about the "demands," I didn't see ANY that demanded anything.

"The bloggers are demanding...."

Huh? I am sorry, sirs, but I am of the opinion that this is merely just another forum for Brodsky to get away with saying anything he wants without "disruption," whether it be true or false, and you have so kindly allowed him to do so. You have allowed him to put it all out there, although, it's all been said and done already. All, except for the non-white woman Drew helped during a traffic incident, which was said to help bolster what a kind and helpful gent he is.

I would never think of saying I helped calm down a white person, so why would he think to elaborate that Drew Peterson helped calm down a black person?

I think, sirs, without having anything close to what resembles a law degree, I have more common sense that Brodsky does. Book smart doesn't make you street smart, and that's who's going to be looking back at him from the jury box.

"Daubert standard?" A lawyer would know that term, but not your average blogger. In that regard, who is Brodsky talking to here? Other lawyers, or bloggers he hopes to draw in? What in the world does another lawyer care about "Daubert standard" in this matter? Are they gonna be on the jury?

Anonymous said...

Why is dp not making an appeal for Stacy to come home in one of his TV appearances? Dp says Stacy run away (I believe him) but why is he not asking her to come back; the children need her. Mr JB, is your client aware that the fundraisers will not bring anymore money so no reason for his wife to hide away?

Anonymous said...

Stacy not run away. Stacy dead.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Stacy not run away. Stacy dead."

You forgot to say "Gimmy money"

Anonymous said...

"Gimmy justice"

Legal Pub said...

To 5-10- 1:11pm. I am not sure what you want to know. Yes there were some requests for the photo. No, Legal Pub did not publish the photo. At Legal Pub both sides of the story are welcome. If they were not, comments could be deleted to achieve any desired result.

As for Daubert, that is the standard which determines whether evidence is reliable enough for it to be admitted (used) in court. So yes, it is a real important issue. This standard will determine what a jury can and can't consider.

Finally, you are welcome to your opinions. But if you think Legal Pub has a dog in this fight, you are mistaken. We don't know if Peterson is innocent or guilty, but we do know that collecting information in one convenient place with the ability to comment should be a win win situation for all those interested in the case.

Anonymous said...

Sir - my point is this.

Brodsky said he wanted you to post the other picture submission because bloggers were "demanding" to see it.

No they were not. Not one. When I questioned this desperate attempt of his to get you to do so by pointing out there were no "demanding" bloggers, you followed up with this:
*************************
2. Several people have asked about the other photo of Tom Morphey. Requests come not only in the form of comments, email requests also arrive. The reason to not publish the photo at this time is because the photo is described on the main page. The decision not to publish it at this time is because without corroborating testimony, the photo in and of itself adds little more to the story.
*************************

So, if Brodsky was referring to emails "demanding" you post the picture, how did he know that? I asked you if you shared your email "demands" with Brodsky. Yes or no? Otherwise, other than the posts on this blog, where did he get the idea that people were "demanding" you post the picture?

There was no demand, only his. But, if you're going to give him the courtesy of allowing him to give his convoluted version of events without disruption, I think he owes you the courtesy of being honest and forthcoming.

He was not honest and he was not forthcoming by his post saying others were "demanding" you post the other submitted picture. He was using this as his spin machine.

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub,
If you could respond to the statement that joel brodsky directed to you regarding posters 'demanding' a photo the 'posters' wanted to see, that would be very helpful.
It appears that LP has not responded to the many inquiries as to where these demands were posted. It is easy to make an assumption that either these 'demands' were filtered directly to joel brodsky or LP is chosing not to acknowledge both 'sides'.
It was a bold statement that brodsky made - that has not been substantiated.
LP has responded to other questions, yet this seems to be a subject that you are not willing to address.
What gives?

Legal Pub said...

Yes. Five or six people did request to see the photos. No, I did not specifically share that information with J.B. But what difference does it make? None to Legal Pub or its editors. A decision was made that the second photo will not be published at this time because it adds nothing to the story.

You have a right to like or dislike J.B. and D.P. That is of no concern to those of us at Legal Pub. In our observation there was a need to have balanced input all in one media source. To the extent you agree, please feel free to contribute. To the extent you don't agree, that is fine too. But please abandon any conspiracy theories that Legal Pub has any interest in being unfair to one side or the other. Please refer to the story "Why would Any one Named Lacy or Staci Marry Someone Named Peterson?"

Have a good week and thanks for your interest.

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...

Thank you for the response regarding the 'demands'. I did not mean to come off as accusatory, but thought it odd that the questions were posed a couple of times and I had not yet seen LP respond.
I am thankful for my rights to have an opinion and state them, if I choose.
Will LP be doing an interview with anyone from Kathleen's family or Stacy's in the near future?

Anonymous said...

DP is as bad as Stacy is!

Legal Pub said...

If anyone from Stacy's family wishes to do an interview, they will need to contact

Legalpub@legalpub.net

Of interest would be Stacy's early childhood years, highschool, dating, dreams, ambitions etc.

Comments on evidence would also be acceptable.

Anonymous said...

Why are you deleting posts now?

Anonymous said...

Very sad that spelling errors include Tom Morphey's name!
Does not speak well for your website? Is there someone who proofs this junk? If Joel Brodsky actually posted on here also, he should be ashamed of grammer and spelling he's a lawyer? Funny,he can't even use spellcheck, makes one wonder about his courtroom skills or lack of!

Legal Pub said...

Legal Pub has not deleted any posts. Certain posters may delete their own posts. With regard to spelling and grammar mistakes, it does happen. It may disappoint you that lawyers working 70 hours a week do not always spell check or proofread. Furthermore, when ever I see someone attack an other's spelling or grammar, I often think that if that is the best criticism that one has of an argument, then the critiquers side may be in serious trouble.

Legal Pub said...

Oh, and one more thing. Brodsky spelled "Morphy" and the mainstream press spelled it "Morphey." While I presume the latter is correct,the alleged witness has yet to email me personally.

Viper said...

L.P. I suppose you can hire me to clean up everyone's punctuation, grammar and spelling. I work for $500 per hour; however, for you I will do it for $450 per hour.

Viper said...

L.P. I suppose you can hire me to clean up everyone's punctuation, grammar and spelling. I work for $500 per hour; however, for you I will do it for $450 per hour.

Anonymous said...

I think if the man who is in possession of a picture he says shows a possible witness doing drugs as late as last year, then the man should know how to spell the name of the person he's trying to discredit. After all, his client's mother is married to an individual with the the same last name.

Maybe I'm fishing here, but I think the man who claims he holds a picture that speaks a million words should know how to spell the name of the one he's showcasing, heh?

But, then again, this is the same man that imagines he sees bloggers saying things that aren't really there. "Demanding." LOL, LOL.

Anonymous said...

Sir - I thank you also for clarifying the issue regarding where the "demands" came from that Brodsky was referring to.

So that we're all clear here, he fantasized that bloggers were "demanding" you post the picture. You did not post the picture based on his asking you to, nor the "demands" of the bloggers. You did not post the picture because you do not find it to be worthy of posting, based solely on your decision.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

The Cales:
-one child died in the fire; donations followed, daddy cales got himself a bike
-Stacy married a poor man as long as KS was alive; after KS' death, Stacy found herself married to a rich man; once the money were in phenotypic improvements/"repairs" followed.
-Stacy vanished; donations followed, daddy cales and cass got themselves a boat.
-Once Stacy was gone daddy cales got himself time off work to count the money (I guess); he didn't attend any of the searches
Do we see a pattern here? Do we have a serial killer on the loose?

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, one more thing: Daddy's Cales wife vanished too!

Anonymous said...

Ya, "daddy cales" murdered Stacy for "donation money" GTFOOH
You are not too bright, are you?

Anonymous said...

I am interested in information about the disappearance of Stacy's mom. Anyone got the facts on this one?

Anonymous said...

Me too. Any one know the details of Stacy's mom disappearing? If true, this is real important in my view.

Anonymous said...

Legalpub, there's a nice picture floating around of Drew Peterson, naked in his kitchen.

You might want to post that one in the interest of fairness.

It's about as pertinent to the case as the one Brodsky gave you of Tom Morphey.

Anonymous said...

Will any one answer the question?

What were the circumstances of Stacy's mom disappearing?

Did she ever resurface?
etc.

Some one has to know...

Legal Pub said...

Do the above posters know something we do not know? Is it possible that Stacy Peterson is in protective custody? Will she be a surprise witness in a trial involving the murder of Kathleen Savio whose death has been ruled a homocide?

Anonymous said...

Could be. She is not on police missing list. Dr. Larry W. Blum (forensic pathologist) performed the Nov. 13 autopsy. In his opinion "compelling evidence exists to support the conclusions that the cause of death . . . was drowning and further, that the manner of death was homicide."

Kathleen Savio was just 40. She was found dead in a dry bathtub in her Bolingbrook home March 1, 2004

Her death was initially ruled accidental now it appears to be something more...

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...

Legal Pub said...
Do the above posters know something we do not know? Is it possible that Stacy Peterson is in protective custody? Will she be a surprise witness in a trial involving the murder of Kathleen Savio whose death has been ruled a homocide?
---
Pastors have an obligation to come forward to law enforecemnt if they feel there is an immediate threat and even a past crime if that person could be recipiant of violence.
--
Good question on Stacy possibly being in protective custody. If the above statement is true regarding what a pastor is told. Then in August Pastor Schori should have went to the police. If this statement is true and Pastor Schori did not go to the police with this, could he be charged with obstruction of justice?
So if he did go to LE as required then possibly LE could have Stacy in protective custody and trying to get Drew to break by claiming he is a suspect in Stacy's possible homicide. Sounds like the long way to go about this.
Or could Stacy have told the pastor this to set up Drew and get him out of the way since he would not give her a divorce.
so many possibilities and I seriously question why the pastor would not have gone to LE with this information immediately.

That makes no sense unless Stacy's words alone are not enough to convict Drew of Kathleen's murder.

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...

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."
===================================

Cassandra is lying here! Why?
At 10:18 am, that day Cassandra was surfing the net and left a comment on myspace profile of her friend Nader! It is a well known fact.
She was well awake when Stacy called. Why is Cass lying? She didn't try to contact Stacy until in the afternoon. When she couldn't contact Stacy at 4 pm (the time dp was due to work) who was suppose to stay with the kids while dp was working, why Cass didn't get worried? The night before,Stacy told her she's in fear for her life. Why Cass didn't panic at 4 pm? It took Cass another 7 hours to realize something is wrong with Stacy (11 pm) and went to her house to check.
Why?
What Cass is saying doesn't make sense.SHE IS LYING! PERIOD!

Anonymous said...

Yes it appears that something is not right with Cassandra's story.
Maybe she was bush getting Stacy to a safe place so the plan can be set in motion to frame Drew and get him out of the way.

Or maybe her guilt of not reacting soon that day has cause some story telling on her part.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Cass time line is either wrong, distorted or fabricated. It just does not make sense!

Anonymous said...

legalpub, your timeline is a bit picky-choosy and some of it is inaccurate. You have Thomas Morphey telling a friend that he thought he disposed of Stacy's body on 11/30. This actually occured the night of 10/28. The same night she went missing. The next day he attempted suicide.

There are some good timelines already in existance. I suggest checking those out. One is at http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_timeline.htm.

OK, so it's not the most aesthetically pleasing web site, but there is a lot of good info there.

Anonymous said...

Sure are a load of Brodsky sock-puppets posting comments on this blog.

I suggest adding some identicons so you can tell when people are posting as others from the same IP.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Sure are a load of Brodsky sock-puppets posting comments on this blog.

I suggest adding some identicons so you can tell when people are posting as others from the same IP."

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

It would do your cause a lot of good if instead of name calling you would give a LOGICAL explanation why Cassandra's timeline does not make sense.

Anonymous said...

Cassandra's timeline makes perfect sense. Your fraudulent claim about a MySpace post does not.

Anonymous said...

Did Casandra make a post on MySpace?

I really am beginning to think Stacy may be in protective custody. If she is, Drew may go down for Kathleen Savio's death.

Anonymous said...

Cassandra was surfing the net and left a comment on myspace profile of her friend Nader!

What was the comment, and where is there a minute amount of proof??

Anonymous said...

You have Thomas Morphey telling a friend that he thought he disposed of Stacy's body on 11/30. This actually occured the night of 10/28.

Ya the 28th. That makes more than a bit of a difference. He also told his brother the same story on the 29th

Anonymous said...

SEE ABOVE 10/28-29 that is (10 not 11 )

Anonymous said...

I really am beginning to think Stacy may be in protective custody. If she is, Drew may go down for Kathleen Savio's death.

If that were true, that LE fabricated that whole thing, I am going to crawl in a hole, and NEVER come out. Really?? I mean really.

Anonymous said...

Stacy Peterson may have been romantically involved with Scott Rossetto, or his brother

Yes, she did date his brother

Anonymous said...

Peterson who by now had already retired a little early from the police force was now a suspect in Stacy's disappearance.
---------

He was forced to retire :

Police Chief Wanted To Fire Peterson

Bolingbrook's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners announced Tuesday night that because Drew Peterson submitted his unconditional resignation last week, they no longer have the authority to pursue any disciplinary action against him.

Police Chief Wanted To Fire Peterson

Anonymous said...

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=100050027

Here you go, the post Cass made to Nard :
(sorry, I said Nader and is NARD, and I said 10:18 am, in fact was 10:03 am!!! Even worse!! lol


" Stacy Peterson
..
Add to My Profile | More Videos
SmileyGurl2o04





28 Oct 2007 10:03

Haha... Just Stopping In To Say Hey There Nard....Missing Ya.... Cant Wait To See Ya Again..... Love Ya's "


Cassandra LIED TO THE POLICE!! She was awake when SP called Cass home and spoke with Bruce!
Do you think police didn't notice her lying? They know all these and obviously even more.

Anonymous said...

"I really am beginning to think Stacy may be in protective custody. If she is, Drew may go down for Kathleen Savio's death."

Do you think police has SP in their custody and they let this bunch of idiots called FoSP collect money in Fun-raisers?

Anonymous said...

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

..."the board said, by law, they did have to vote to grant him his full pension. One board member said, because of the circumstances, she wasn't comfortable doing so, but the law is the law.
The law is the law
Oh, nice law.

Anonymous said...

28 Oct 2007 10:03

Haha... Just Stopping In To Say Hey There Nard....Missing Ya.... Cant Wait To See Ya Again..... Love Ya's "


Cassandra LIED TO THE POLICE!! She was awake when SP called Cass home and spoke with Bruce!
Do you think police didn't notice her lying? They know all these and obviously even more.
+++++++
I don't get what this means. Please explain for the challenged!
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again:

Cass interview with Greta:
================================
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."

=================================

So, Cassandra said she was asleep when Stacy called her house 28 Oct 2007 at 10:15 am.

If you look at Nard myspace, Cassandra made a comment on this guy profile 28 oct 2007 at 10:03 am.

So Cass was lying she was asleep at that very moment; in fact she was surfing the net.
Cass said the same thing to the police that she was asleep and that's why she didn't speak with SP and she didn't know about the painting job. Cass lied.

Anonymous said...

O.K I am starting to think you mean Cass had something to do with the demise of Stacy? 10:04- 10:16 whatever. That is sreeeetching.

Anonymous said...

"O.K I am starting to think you mean Cass had something to do with the demise of Stacy? 10:04- 10:16 whatever. That is sreeeetching."

Why do you think sp is dead? Have you seen any proof yet? If no, then "probably dead" has "ALIVE" in it too!

Anonymous said...

Do you think police has SP in their custody and they let this bunch of idiots called FoSP collect money in Fun-raisers?

The Police let me collect money for my "Human Fund" !?

Anonymous said...

Why do you think sp is dead? Have you seen any proof yet? If no, then "probably dead" has "ALIVE" in it too!
%%%%%
I'm not stupid.

Anonymous said...

Correction. I'm stupid, but not THAT stupid.

Anonymous said...

"Correction. I'm stupid, but not THAT stupid."


You need eyes and have them open to be "THAT stupid". Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Drew is not a good samaritin. Didn't this girl have family to call?

The new picture floating around the Internet that has Drew Peterson without a shirt is from a very close family member of Stacy Peterson. The poster from Find Stacy Peterson has taken all the heat from postin it when she had nothing to do with it. Ask that question Brodsky, where did that picture come from? Who did it come from?

Anonymous said...

The question is why did Cass tell police she was sleeping when Stacy called if in fact she was posting on a myspace account?

It seems clear that Cass wants to pin this on D.P. Her assumption that he is guilty may be correct. But he is entitled to a fair trial. The truth may not be stretched or distorted on either side in our system of justice.

Anonymous said...

Half naked picture of Drew? Did Cass pass that to her army of drewbusters?

Anonymous said...

The thought of a half naked Drew is too much to stomach even among the fair minded!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 346   Newer› Newest»