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:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 346 of 346
Anonymous said...

D.P. A NEW HAYNES UNDERWEAR MODEL!

Anonymous said...

Legalpub,

The bloggers are demanding to see the photo of Drew half naked!

Why won't you post it?

Anonymous said...

Forget the half naked picture of Drew, which Cassandra caused to be posted (she really takes the situation seriously, right?) Check out the pictures of Cassandra in a bikini posted yesterday. Now that WILL cause you to be ill.

Anonymous said...

Looks like JB is giving up on this blog. Crazy bloggers not sympathetic to his plight have taken over. He's in his element now, his fan club.

wespeakourmind.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=stacy

I was sent an e-mail to check out your board. It seems very fair minded. However, I fear that if I start posting I will attract the FSP fourm posters who will overwhelm this board with their unthinking comments. They stalk the internet and did this on another board I did some posting on. Lets see what happens.

Joel A. Brodsky

PS. Looks like we will be getting Drew's guns turned over to his son Stephen next week.

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

Dadelion,
I have never seen the picture of Drew you are reffering to. I have seen (and have in my very large file) alot of pictures of Stacy and Drew on vacation and some pictures of Stacy and Casandra posing for pictures with Drew's swat outfit and AR-15. There are some levels of nudity in these pictures, but nothing obscene or exposing of "private" parts. I would be interested in seeing the picture you are referring to. Where can I see it?

Joel A. Brodsky
----------------------------
To the board members,

If you have questions, post them and I will try to answer. The only subject that I can't go into is the timelines for October 28. 2007 and the weekend Kathy died. (there are some decent timelines on the internet that you can look at, but it can't come from me for legal reasons) Lets see how this goes and see if the FSP fourm crazies don't jump in.

Joel A. Brodsky



Way to go, Joel. You are a classy guy. Bet Nancy Grace would love this kind of stuff.

Anonymous said...

Here, let me just fix that address.

wespeakourmind.proboards50.com/index.
cgi?board=stacy

Anonymous said...

To those who said I have abandoned this board, you are wrong. I have just been posting on the other very interesting legal issues that LP has been blogging. Unlike the FSP crazies, my entire life does not revolve around Drew Peterson and Stacy's dissapearance. You guy's really need to get a life.

Anonymous said...

Oh, how sad. We guys have a life. Stacy and Kathleen were robbed of theirs.

But, you have to have compassion to know what I'm talking about.

We collective guys should get a life? What, and not be able to find the time to throw our shoes at the tv when you and your client are on it? Which is quite often, I might add.

You are just a special kind of person. You really are.

Anonymous said...

Drew is probably just upset that we saw the picture of his belly.... He spends so much time pointing out other people's faults that I got a good laugh from that photo.

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.

# 1 Stacy's Dad did not just Buy a motorcycle with or without the donated monies! He had his motorcycle for quite some time and it happened to be stored at Drews house, and if you researched this subject at all you would find
there is actual video footage of a Wrecker Truck going to Drew's a picking this Cycle up for Stacy's Dad after Stacy had disappeared.

2nd the house burning and the child that died happened before Christina Cales disappeared several years ago.

Just wanted to straighten out this misunderstanding.

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?

May 13, 2008 9:20 AM

I believe that it is very improbable that this would be the case. Why? Because the Professional Search teams and Divers in the canal, not to mention the countless man hours of the BB Police Dept., State Police, and FBI collectively just to name a few would have cost the Tax Payers an awful lot of cash unnecessarily to have Stacy's disappearance be nothing but a sham. Also I do not think the Grand Jury would still be active if this were the case. JMO

Anonymous said...

Why aren't you posters checking out the other interesting blog issues on this site? LP obviously does alot of work to give those interested in law and legal issues interesting cases to comment on. Don't get fixated on the Peterson case. Check out the other posts and make comments. Maybe you can even argue points of law with me and the others who are not fixated with just one case.

Anonymous said...

I don't care what you all say, D.P. is looking innocent of S.P. murder! Now as for the death of K.S., he may be in trouble...

Anonymous said...

Got to agree with you Joel, the other articles on Legal Pub are good. I even agree with most of your comments on non Drew Peterson topics.

Nancy

Anonymous said...

Got to agree with you Joel, the other articles on Legal Pub are good. I even agree with most of your comments on non Drew Peterson topics.

Nancy

Anonymous said...

Joel you need to tell Joe Hosey to tell the truth about the article in todays paper. Considering he has made up part of the real story about Drew and the girl.Just because he is writing a book does not mean that he can put lies in the news. The public needs to know that she did not stay over night and they have not been on the phone while she was with her boyfriend the night they were stopped.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hosey did not have mush to say tonight on CNN with Nancy Grace. Interesting. He probally knows hes been caught in his lies about Drew & the girl. Its about time he gets trapped in the corner.

Anonymous said...

I don't want to get into a p-ssing match with Joe Hosey, but we did have words yesterday. (5/16/08) Bottom line is this: He chose to write a book, and the more a book sells the more the author makes. Therefore (unless he has a very unusual deal) Hosey appears to have a financial interest in keeping the Drew Peterson case in the public eye since if the story dies out the book won't sell as much. (Is this why his paper is the only one that seems to be pursuing the story of the 22 year old girl?) This creates a potential for conflict of interest. I think that if Hosey is going to continue to write for the suntimes group on the Peterson story then full disclosure of his book deal needs to be made.

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

LOL ... stone ... glass ... house ... LOL ... "site" versus "?"
LOL


"I can site MANY cases in which the amount of evidence was overwhelming and the person was convicted"

Anonymous said...

To Joel,
When you post "anonymous" quotes to yourself, like "You are a classy guy", you really should use a different I.P. address.

Similar to Drew P's quote "I (kind of) challenge you to find anyone who has seen me angry".

I really think, not only in these United States, but in the whole world, that it would be a challenge to find anyone who would say you were "classy", except yourself. And yes, I am being TOTALLY serious!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
May 17, 2008 2:15 PM
LOL ... stone ... glass ... house ... LOL ... "site" versus "?"
LOL


"I can site MANY cases in which the amount of evidence was overwhelming and the person was convicted"

Well spell checker does not catch everything LOL At least those words are in a dictionary!!!!!!!

Like I said in the other post, (grammar) I live in a trailer and work at Burger King.
I would say I do pretty good for that.
It does prove the point on how silly that lawyer looks for his posts though. You can LOL, and I will LOL.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
To Joel,
When you post "anonymous" quotes to yourself, like "You are a classy guy", you really should use a different I.P. address."

Excuse me, but you're an idiot! Assumptions got you this middle name.
I'm not Brodsky and if you're smarter would have noticed it yourself.
That illiterate dude that picked at brodsky's wrong spelling made lots of mistakes in his posts.
If I were Brodsky, the first mistake I would have pointed out the misspelled last name " Joel A. Brossky".
I'm just a jokester laughing at others stupidity; not that I’m not stupid LOL ... if I weren't, I wouldn't have answered you here.
Mods here can confirm my IP! (forget about proxy, I’m using a well known ISP)
Spelling ... misspelling... doesn't matter! The message is what counts! lol
PS shame on you fsp clowns, you had the greatest misspeller of all times Anthony the Admin ...lol and don't forget Stacy's/Stacey's spelling too ....

Anonymous said...

not that I’m not stupid LOL ... if I weren't, I wouldn't have answered you here.
---------
Oh, I see whut you meen about stupid now. Makes cense.

Anonymous said...

What is fsp?

Anonymous said...

"Oh, I see whut you meen about stupid now. Makes cense."


Anthony Laatz!
What the heck happened with your toy? (fsp)Is it true Big Boys took it away? lol

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
What is fsp?"

Good one, Tony!

Legal Pub said...

Folks, be nice. The spell check function does not always work for every one. Let's focus on the issues and attack them instead of spelling and punctuation. Best I can tell, Joel does not post comments to himself. Posters are allowed to post anonymously and that will not change. But I suspect you would be shocked at some of our visitors.

I do think that Joe Hosey, like any other journalist, should try to verify his facts. I don't know whether his recent article is factual or not. But for his sake, I hope he has done some verification. Otherwise, a few more "apparently" words might be beneficial.

Anonymous said...

Fact remains, there is no evidence revealed to date that S.P. is dead!

No body.

No blood.

No murder!

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

Dan Rozek was present during Joe Hosey's interview of the 22-year-old and can verify the quotes that were presented in his story.

As for Brodsky stating he was quoted out of context, I'd advise him to be more careful when speaking to the press. Just make sure not to feed them with tid-bits like "That's just the kind of guy Drew is".

Brodsky would do well to make use of his self-touted media savvy.

Anonymous said...

Always good to have a back up. LOL

Anonymous said...

I have listened to a lot of garbage on both sides. The more I hear, the less I think D.P. murdered Stacy. I would not be surprised if she turns up somewhere laughing her ass off at D.P.

As for K.S., she obviously died. Was it an accident? W/o Stacy's comments and her ultimate disappearance, causation of her death would never have been questioned.

Finally, D.P. may be dumb, but he is not stupid. he would not have killed S.P. because he knew he would have been the prime suspect..

Nope, I am convinced that base on what has been said so far, D.P. did not kill stacy.

Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure about that. If he killed Kathleen and 4 years went by and he thought he'd gotten away with it, why not do away with another wife? They were at the same point, about to divorce and the threat of alimony and child support over his head.

Anonymous said...

If Dp would have killed Kathleen then he would have make sure when found she had no jewelry on and her hair tied up. This is the way KS always took her bath. She was found with her hair down and jewelry on. Who ever killed KS didn't know these details. KS’ sister has disclosed these details and I found it hard to believe that dp went through his 10 years marriage with Kathy not noticing this.
IMO it was not dp who killed KS and it was not dp who "cleaned" the murder scene before they force-entered the house.

Anonymous said...

No one is stupid enough to kill two estranged spouses and think he would get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Did Tom Morphey have a cell phone call on his records from Stacy Peterson? If so, did it originate from a place near Rosetta's residence? If D.P. wanted to frame someone, why would he not put the body some where near Rosetta's residence or Morphey's residence?

Why still no body?

Anonymous said...

Could it be that Peterson is the one who has been set up? Set up by someone who thinks he killed Kathleen Savio?

Anonymous said...

Weapons charge seems bogus! I will bet that was an attempt to put Peterson behind bars so that cell mates would later be used to testify he confessed behind bars to murdering his wife and ex-wife.

To me, this appears to be dirty pool. Both sides need to play fair.

Anonymous said...

To above:
There are four (4) excellent reasons for the gun charge. You will see soon. You heard (read) it here first.

Anonymous said...

You know, I just can’t tell.

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

Reverse psychology?

Anonymous said...

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

Legal Pub said...

Hold on, Joel Brodsky is not posting his own questions. It is not all one sided. Right or wrong, there are quite a few posters in the D.P. camp. Please keep fyour criticism of Mr. Brodsky on a factual basis. Because when you make comments that he is posting certain questions or comments and I have knowledge to the contrary, that bring your credibility into focus. There are plenty of facts to attack D.P. or J.B. without making any up! Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Um, Joel Brodsky IS posting his own questions, just not on this blog.

He has an ongoing daily Q&A going on at another forum as well as his own hypotheticals he is using as preliminary polls.

And those are the facts. Ask him yourself.

Anonymous said...

"Um, Joel Brodsky IS posting his own questions, just not on this blog."


Sorry your tense is wrong.

Joel Brodsy POSTED two question on Speak Your Mind forum.
I agree with Legal Pub, we have plenty of things we can pick at DP & Joel B. Why make up new ones?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm sure there'll be more. He's still asking for answers to the first two.

Too bad he can't rely on his crack legal team.

Anonymous said...

FYI potential prosecutors, here are the last two questions that Joel Brodsky is desperate to have answered.

(1) If there was a “no body” prosecution of Drew for the murder of Stacy, what would you consider to be the one essential piece of evidence you would need to convict, and without which you would acquit?

(2) If Drew was charged with the murder of Kathleen Savio, and you believed her death was a homicide, and a lot of the so called hearsay statements were allowed into evidence, but the State could not produce any evidence that would put Drew inside Kathleen’s home at or near the time of her death would you convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Oh, I'm sure there'll be more. He's still asking for answers to the first two.

Too bad he can't rely on his crack legal team."


You saying "he IS posting", is an overkill. Overkill made OJ free. Overkill gags me and others to criticize Joel and DP. I do believe dp has a guilt in Kathy's murder (need more info to say how much guilt) but I can't criticize them too much because I don't want to belong to the "over killers" flock.

Anonymous said...

Brodsky posts daily and sometimes twice daily on this particular forum. It is ongoing.

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha now you know why I don't like your flock!


"Um, Joel Brodsky IS posting his own questions"

Anonymous said...

For a about 5 days he was begging for information about why the forum at findstacypeterson.com was dissolved.

And by that I mean he asked repeatedly, daily.

He was terribly concerned, and yet knew nothing.

I thought he had hired a private investigator. Tsk. You can't get good help these days.

Anonymous said...

Supposedly he gave up on LegalPub because he didn't like the comments people were making. I think they were too critical.

http://wespeakourmind.proboards50.com/

This is where he is asking questions now.

Anonymous said...

"I do believe dp has a guilt in Kathy's murder"

Heh, it's LOLlaw!

I can has a guilt?

Anonymous said...

I REALLY respect LP for NOT censoring, and banning people, (like that other site, which is NOT for free speach AT ALL!) just for their questions or comments! Kudos LP!

Anonymous said...

speech

Anonymous said...

I just copied this from the same forum where Joel Brodsky is now blogging. This is what passes as humor there. Racist much?

------------------------------
David Letterman's Top 10 reasons why there are no black NASCAR drivers:

# 10 - Have to sit upright while driving.

# 9 - Pistol won't stay under front seat.

# 8 - Engine noise drowns out the rap music.

# 7 - Pit crew can't work on car while holding up pants at the same time.

# 6 - They keep trying to carjack Dale Earnhardt Jr.

# 5 - Police cars on track inte rfere with race.

# 4 - No passenger seat for the Ho.

# 3 - No Cadillacs approved for competition.

# 2 - When they crash their cars, they bail out & run.

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY BLACKS CAN'T BE IN
NASCAR..............

#1 -They can't wear their helmets sideways.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I find the public plea for answers interesting because it betrays that Joel is expecting his client to be charged...soon?

Anonymous said...

Have any of you thought that he's checking to see how the jury pool is thinking?
What's wrong with this?
On the other hand he's "clearing" the misinformation with what FSP tormented the little brains of the cat ladies for over 6 months. I noticed lots of lies were coming from FSP; this explains why FoSP is FRIENDS of SP! If later they will be asked why so many lies, they'll tell "we were just her friends so no way of knowing those were lies". This is why Cass was keeping away from FSP forum. She was not reading there ... lol (another one)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Have any of you thought that he's checking to see how the jury pool is thinking?
What's wrong with this?
----------------

The only thing wrong with it is that he's asking for input on a site that has about 30 members in total, 20 of which are Peterson supporters.

Whatever he finds out there will be pretty useless.

Anonymous said...

Which forum are you talking about?

SYM has almost 200 members.

"Total Members: 175
Newest Member: seekingjustice"
as of today

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant to say that he has only 16 responses to his entreaty and that 10 of those are from Drew supporters.

Anonymous said...

So what's wrong that Joel gets feedback from his supporters? I think he has a valid point wanting to know those supporters way of thinking.
If Stacy's supporters don't want to answer those two questions they just miss an opportunity to bring up logical reasons why they think Drew is guilty of two murders.
I think Joel benefits more from his supporters’ feedback.

Anonymous said...

This is becoming a more popular way to see what people are thinking about high profile cases. Legal Pub is a real well known forum among lawyers, judges and entertainers. Most of us read the articles daily and never post! L.P. does monitor the number of readers and has not given in to pressure to accept advertising.

If you read some of the back threads, like Emery K. death, Harold Braddy death sentence, Earl Berry execution, etc., you will get a feel for how this site grew to be what it is today. While I can't speak for all readers, I can take this opportunity to say thanks L.P.


Tom R.

Anonymous said...

I for one, would not convict without a body. No body, no murder. Unless there is an eye witness who saw a killing, the missing body is a deal breaker for me.

H.J.

Anonymous said...

If this were my case, I would not charge D.P. until there was a body.This assumes that a judge would exclude the heresay statements by the victim of being scared for her life... I may, however, charge his with Kathleen Savio murder. Again, not my case. Not my jurisdiction. But that is my input, for Mr. Brodsky.

Law Man

Viper said...

Not my case either. But I don't care for Peterson's antics. Therefore, if it was my case, I would have to dismiss myself from the case because I would always question whether I was making the decision to pursue charges based on my dislike of his actions in the media lime light.

Anonymous said...

My opinion, guilty as sin!

Anonymous said...

Tom Morphey does not seem right if you ask me. What is he hiding in his past? Nothing? I am not buying it.

Anonymous said...

Since FSP is gone Drew looks guiltier and guiltier!

Anonymous said...

I doubt FSP is a difference maker. Why do you think otherwise?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I doubt FSP is a difference maker. Why do you think otherwise?

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

While FSP were trashing dp and having their "piñata party", I felt sorry for him and I gave him lots of benefit of the doubt.
Now with Joel answering questions and being caught lying I see the things differently. Not only this but Joel is evasive in some subjects, which gives me the impression they have something to hide.
My conclusion: I see dp much more guilty now than I saw him a month ago.

Anonymous said...

Good morning. I would appreciate a response, if possible, from a legal expert.

Mr. Brodsky is seen on a tape, bantering back and forth with Geraldo Rivera, discussing the weapon that is the subject of DP’s arrest.

In that tape, Mr. Brodsky openly admits that the weapon was altered within the last year by his client.

The weapon in the picture with John Travolta, even if it is the weapon in question, regardless of paperwork or not, was legal, then, at the time he was carrying it. Now, it is illegal by law.

Yet, now Mr. Brodsky is saying that, as a police officer, DP is exempt from being in violation of the law.

What are the true facts here regarding DP and this weapon. Does he get a pass or not solely because he’s a police officer (active when it was confiscated), or was he clearly in violation of the law?

TIA.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way, it is my understanding Brodsky said, when Peterson was first arrested, that the gun was purchased the way it is now. If so, seems to me Peterson would have then altered it to make it appear legal IF he used it on duty, and has now returned it to the original state it was when he purchased it, which is back to being an illegal weapon.

Is Brodsky getting caught up in a web of misstatements here or what?

Anonymous said...

LOL
In order to be good liar one needs a HUGE memory! LOL

I think Brodsky is saying that Peterson using the gun at his "mostly a desk job" worn it to the point the gun became 3/8 inches shorter.

I hope the prosecution will be able to keep their things straight; looks like that's all is needed to win a case like this. LOL

Anonymous said...

It is so odd that the GJ wanted to talk with the 22 year old Kim Maruska. She knew Drew for less than a month. What can she tell the GJ? The only thing she can do is, confirm that Drew is a good kisser nothing more. LOL
Is it possible that this 22 year old is in fact Stacy Peterson after other "repairs" that made her unrecognizable?

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that this 22 year old is in fact Stacy Peterson after other "repairs" that made her unrecognizable?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, that was the guy in the pic!
Can't you see his head is leaning on Drew's?

He is the new and improved Stacy.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way, it is my understanding Brodsky said, when Peterson was first arrested, that the gun was purchased the way it is now. If so, seems to me Peterson would have then altered it to make it appear legal IF he used it on duty, and has now returned it to the original state it was when he purchased it, which is back to being an illegal weapon.

Is Brodsky getting caught up in a web of misstatements here or what?
*********************
misstatements???
Listen at 1:14, when asked, ""Did he modify the gun?", Joel says no.
Source

Here he says he altered the gun "about a year ago"
Source

According to JB, video does not lie. Misquotes my as*.

Anonymous said...

Impartial opinion here...

I think the gun charges against Peterson will never be prosecuted in full. The gun appears to be legal when taken. Police officers and ex officers in many states are allowed to keep such guns. An officer's enemies do not stop being enemies once he retires or resigns. Even if there was a technical violation, no one would bring such charges.

It to me is pretty clear that they are going to try to bust Peterson for anything that they can to let him know he is being watched 24 seven.

With regard to J.B.'s inconsistent statements, it is hard for any lawyer not to misspeak once in a while. Sometimes it is getting facts confused, sometimes it is just plain saying the wrong thing. There does not to be a sinister reason or out right lying for anyone to make such a mistake.

Has the gun ever been altered, I really don't think it makes a difference. Did J.B. intentionally lie, I doubt it.

I see this case for what it is... and attempt to get D.P. behind bars until the G.J. makes a decision.

Anonymous said...

It is a well-known fact that at all fun-raisers Avon products were sold or gift baskets were "donated" by the Avon Ladies (Sharon's girls). I found it strange that after the fun-raisers FSP members posted that almost all gift baskets were returned by those who won them. All these Avon stories sound so "fishy"! I wonder if Sharon "asked"/"made it mandatory" that her girls donate those baskets with the promise they will get them back.
Is the Avon Company aware of the way Sharon is using the company and the employees? Is the Avon Company aware that a large number of the so-called "cat ladies" are in fact Avon Ladies? If in the end all these funraisers prove to be a scam/fraud (Stacy being known to be alive at the time the funraisers were held) is Avon Company aware that their name will be drawn in the mud?

Anonymous said...

I don't know about avon, but I do believe Stacy is alive and well. Look for her to pop up after

D.P. is arrested!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ June 3, 2008 1:43 PM

What in the world does Avon and holding fun-raisers have to do with the guilt or non-guilt of Drew Peterson in the disappearance of his present wife, and the death of his ex-third wife??

Why don't you post reasons you may believe Drew Peterson is being wrongfully investigated, or reasons that someone else should be looked at regarding the death of his ex-wife and the presumed death of his present wife.

You people who continuously bash a former forum because you have no intelligent, reasonable explanations for the mess Drew Peterson is in are laughable. Drew Peterson's problems should be so easy that he has to have idiots like you post childish gossip about supporters of his missing wife raising money to search for her.

You are about as pathetic as they come. Gee, will that basket of make-up used for a fun-raiser sway a jury to set the man free someday?

Oh, and Stacy alive during the fun-raiser? What the heck kind of drugs are you on?

Oh, puleeeze.

Anonymous said...

Sharon, there are two cases here. More likely a murder and a fraud.

Anonymous said...

I do not conclude that Stacy is dead. Not based on what has been said in the media so far. I would not be surprised to see her turn up. D.P. is just too much of an idiot to have killed her and not left evidence of her death.

Anonymous said...

Well, I conclude Tom Morphey is not dead and he will be the star witness!

Anonymous said...

The DA is in big trouble if Tom Morphey is the star witness.

Anonymous said...

The DA is in big trouble if Cassandra Cales is the star witness.

Anonymous said...

I think Morphey is speculating, but if he is allowed to testify, it is likely to be devistating to D.P.

Anonymous said...

Rumor has it that prosecutors found a bra believed to be Stacy's by the dam. Any truth to the rumor?

Anonymous said...

Bottom line:

No victim = No crime.

Stacy is NOT proven to be dead.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Rumor has it that prosecutors found a bra believed to be Stacy's by the dam. Any truth to the rumor?

June 9, 2008 10:42 AM

Yeah, that's the place of choice for a jelo time ...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Bottom line:

No victim = No crime.

Stacy is NOT proven to be dead.

June 9, 2008 10:43 AM
__________________________
No Stacy.........
but...............
Bottom line:
Victim = crime
Kathleen Savio is PROVEN to be murdered.

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ on Kathleen Savio proven to be dead.

1. original autopsy says accident.

2. Cyril Wecht on Cnn said accident.

3. Prosectutors have subsequent testimony saying murder, but that does not mean it is proved. It means that opinions vary. Prosecutors still must prove she died of murder and that it was Peterson beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Reasonable doubt will be a tough hurdle on Savio given the contrary testimony.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

2. Cyril Wecht on Cnn said accident.

LOL LOL

Anonymous said...

Cyril Wecht was on the Warren Commission. He was one of the first to say that Kennedy was shot by more than one gunman. Most feel now he was correct. My understanding is that he examined the evidence and believes it was most likely an accident. Not what most wanted to hear. I believe it will be tough to prove by admissible evidence that K.S. was murdered by D.P.


Law Man

Anonymous said...

Anonymous law man said... on June 11, 2008 7:36 AM
My understanding is that he examined the evidence and believes it was most likely an accident.
++++++++++++++++++
Understand this......
Contrary to JB comments, Cyril Wecht said, based on what he read, he would have ruled KS death as "inconclusive", called in homicide detectives, and visited the crime scene to do tests himself.
JB has been proven wrong too many times, to take any credence to what he says.

Anonymous said...

Fact is, the autopsy results have been changed. This is not common in my part of the country. Suddenly to say murder, is a little much when four years ago the examiner said otherwise!

Anonymous said...

^ This has happened in thousands of cases throughout the country.

Anonymous said...

That's why thousands of cases are won by the defense!

Anonymous said...

Re: Anonymous at June 22, 2008 9:40 PM

Am I to understand you mean DP will escape any charges because you, as some others do, go along with the idea that the autopsy results were changed?

I don't think that's the case, with all due respect. The manner and cause of death aren't what changed. It's the way the ruling was made, and how the circus was run at the time that has changed. It went from a clown act to a dignified, intelligent fact finding death investigation. Anyone who puts any thought into what previously transpired during the so-called death investigation vs what has transpired now can come to a more reasonable conclusion for KS being found, bruised, bleeding and drowned in a bath tub. Especially, since she was involved in such a volatile relationship with the father of her children.

Anonymous said...

But the divorce was settled. D.P. did not ssem to express much displeasure with the terms. He was getting a pretty good deal. Kind of hard to believe he would kill her at that point in time.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at June 23, 2008 8:57 PM

On the contrary, the divorce settlement was NOT yet finalized prior to KS's death. They were still working that out. In fact, here's an MSNBC quote "Savio, 40, was found dead in her bathtub shortly before her divorce settlement with Peterson was finalized."

Obviously, if he is responsible for her death, he did, in fact, "express displeasure" with the terms.

It seems quite obvious he had the most to gain by her death.

You said: "Kind of hard to believe he would kill her at that point in time." What makes you say this? He gained financially from this, as has been substantially reported.

What I find hard to believe is that the death investigation wasn't much of an investigation at all, but merely a rush to get her buried and forgotten before anyone with authority could scrutinize Drew Peterson's involvement. To me, it's "kind of hard to believe" that KS's cause of death was so blatantly rushed through, without thorough follow-up. Take for example DP's phone records. They were supposed to be looked at to verify that they jived with his rendition of his whereabouts during the presumed time of death. In fact, they were never even subpoenaed. Merely referred to. Only now, since KS's body was exhumed, has a thorough investigation been performed. In fact, the State's Attorney noted that the photos taken at the scene clearly looked as though her death was "staged." Death panel members have since stated they weren't comfortable with the ruling at the time.

What was going on during this investigation and why?

Anonymous said...

"It seems quite obvious he had the most to gain by her death."

Totally agree with you, but don't forget the Cales' clan! They benefited tremendously from KS' death too.

shared said...

True.
DP got millions, the "cast of characters" got a few meals.

Anonymous said...

DP got millions?
Maybe spent millions on boob jobs, tummy tucks, braces, cruises, harley's and diamonds!

Anonymous said...

D.P. is just like any other man trying to get a piece of the action...

Anonymous said...

The Ashley’s blog is in fact January's blog! Here you go January, a message from people that know you:


Shame on you to think that you'll be able to revive Stacy's case with your blog! SP case is dead until she, Stacy Peterson, decides to come back home to the babies she abandoned!

Anonymous said...

Don't know much about all these blogs, but my opinion is that Stacy is alive and will turn up in the future.

Anonymous said...

I too think Stacy is alive. Drew is too dumb to have killed her and a body not turned up by now.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I too think Stacy is alive. Drew is too dumb to have killed her and a body not turned up by now.

July 29, 2008 3:09 PM

Stacy would have been the dumbest of all people to not be alive today!
I mean, she knew for FOUR years what happened with Kathleen Savio for daring to take away dp's house and child support for her two kids. Why would Stacy do the same mistake? C’mon! Stacy had a hard life growing up and she was damn good at finding the way to survive.
For sure she found a way now too. This entire "disappearing act" and the FSP propaganda were well "orchestrated" and prepared well ahead. They even managed to "corrupt" Tom Morphey into going along with their plot to revive Kathy's case. Well, I feel it’s not fair that Stacy will get away with Kathy's murder but if that's what it takes to make Drew pay for it, so be it!

Anonymous said...

Can't say Stacy had anything to do with Kathleens death. But I do think she is alive and hiding.

Anonymous said...

Well, I feel it’s not fair that Stacy will get away with Kathy's murder but if that's what it takes to make Drew pay for it, so be it!

---

I agree, it actually makes me sick after following this witch hunt. Even sicker that many drew haters trying to act like Stacy is a saint for finally doing the right thing concerning Kathleen. That is, if what you are proposing is true.
Seems many of those following this case have Drew convicted in Kathleen's death. So why have LE not declared Drew an official suspect?
It could be very possible that Drew did not kill Kathleen. I see just as much motive for someone with Stacy's background knowing her husband is going to lose 1/2 of his assets and possibly more. It is public knowledge that Drew spent thousand of dollars giving Stacy a good life. Diamonds, cruises, boob job, tummy tuck, braces, Harley. It is also public knowledge that Drew's money helped out Stacy's family when needed.
Two of the 18 police documented police reports from Kathleen were in regards to Stacy not Drew.
According to the drewhaters, Drew can kill without leaving a mark, dna evidence or snap someone's neck in 3 seconds. But yet Kathleen's body was full of bruises and she had a gash on her head.
If it was a homicide as LE claims now, it sounds more like a fight that got out of hand with someone other than a so called trained killer.

Anonymous said...

I think Stacy is alive. Or at least was alive when she disappeared.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Two of the 18 police documented police reports from Kathleen were in regards to Stacy not Drew.
According to the drewhaters, Drew can kill without leaving a mark, dna evidence or snap someone's neck in 3 seconds. But yet Kathleen's body was full of bruises and she had a gash on her head.
If it was a homicide as LE claims now, it sounds more like a fight that got out of hand with someone other than a so called trained killer.

August 21, 2008 10:58 PM


Excellent points! Logic at it's best! Congrats!
To me it seems that Drew buying the house in Stacy's name WITH THE MONEY HE GOT FROM SELLING KATHLEEN'S HOUSE, it was more like a pay off... Too bad for him that Stacy lost her mind (literally) and exposed their crime.

Anonymous said...

From what I think so far, Stacy aint no saint. I think she is or at least was alive. I don't think Drew killed Kathleen but he may have participated with Stacy's help.

No way Stacy was not aware of murder if K.S. was really murdered. The idea that Stacy is just a clueless victim of circumstances does not sit well with me.

Anonymous said...

Here is my 2 cents: Based on my understanding of the polygraph, no way joel killed Kathleen Savio. As to Stacy, if she is dead, then he may very well be responsible. The thing is, without a body, we don't know that she is dead.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Here is my 2 cents: Based on my understanding of the polygraph, no way joel killed Kathleen Savio. As to Stacy, if she is dead, then he may very well be responsible. The thing is, without a body, we don't know that she is dead.

October 18, 2008 9:03 AM



Wouldn't bet my cents on that test. It is my understanding there were only six questions asked. Would like to see the three questions regarding KS. I mean if he hired someone to kill KS and the question askes: Did you kill KS.... sure he passed the test.

Anonymous said...

Give it a rest. Peterson haters screamed for a polygraph and then when he passes as to Savio, they say well it's not reliable.

Face up to the fact that J.B. probably did not kill Savio. Perhaps it was an accident. Or perhaps Stacy did. Or Stacy had it done...

Without proof, you are just making accusations against the man and the majority of the time the accusations are proved wrong.

Anonymous said...

New blog in town!
"HEARYE HEARYE THOSE THAT STEAL FROM A MISSING PERSONS SEARCH FUND TAKE NOTICE!"


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6697000244403005381&postID=201001732451984136


it is hot!

Legal Pub said...

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 finacee? 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 possibilites?

Anonymous said...

Good point on the potential informant/girlfriend. Personally, I think he may be guilty of something, but I am never a fan of entrapment.

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub - Just curiosity on my part.

What do YOU think about Brodsky coming on this blog last year, with what's now been reported to be bought and paid for pictures that are over 10 years old, of Tom Morphey in a state of possible impairment due to drug use or excessive alcohol? If fact, he wanted YOU to publish a picture of Mr. Morphy holding a "pipe" so he could discredit the man to help rehabilitate his own client?

I think it's pretty creepy that this "lawyer" will go to lengths such as this, a well established blog of attorneys and interested parties, to do such a low, despicable thing. I understand that a lawyer is an advocate for their client, but this is going beyond the call of duty. This is sickening, disgusting. Who did he think he was going to reach here by doing that?

Just wondering....

Legal Pub said...

Concerning the Photos:

Legal Pub chose not to publish any photo allegedly with a pipe for the reason it was not relevant. A lawyer is an advocate for his client. True. But such photo would not appear relevant to any of the issues involving Mr. Morphy.

As for Joel Brodsky, he appears to be a creative lawyer who truly (rightly or wrongly) believes that his client is innocent. His tactics may be perceived as unorthodox and may be scrutinized by the bar, but in general they seem to be some what successful.

Only time will tell how successful.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Appreciate your response. Yes, only time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Appreciate your response. Yes, only time will tell. However, with all due respect, I'm not quite sure how successful he's been, since the majority of people who either follow this matter, or even slightly know about it, do not take kindly to either Brodsky or Peterson. I'm also not sure that Brodsky is, in fact, in charge, since his client doesn't seem to follow his advice; i.e., don't take a lie detector test, don't talk to the media, keep quiet and lay low. Wouldn't you at least agree on that?

In other words, it appears that Peterson strictly needs Brodsky for his law license to to appear before a judge in a court of law, and for not much of anything else. I think we can agree that he's not taking much in the way of legal advice from Brodsky. Or am I not seeing this in the right light, LOL?

Legal Pub said...

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 set of the Today Show. And guess what, they apparently do not approve of the civil suit!

Legal Pub said...

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

Legal Pub said...

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


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

Legal Pub said...

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. .

Legal Pub said...

Joel Bodsky was unsuccessful in trying to reduce Drew Peterson's bail.

Anonymous said...

Hi Legal Pub. Question for you.

Seeing that Joel Brodsky seems to have this weird kind of love/hate relationship with author Derek Armstrong, and seeing that Armstrong is now putting out press releases as his own, when they're acknowledged and confirmed by Joel Brodsky afterwards, isn't this what a gag order is meant to curtail? Talking here about Armstrong putting out a press release the night before Peterson's last hearing about an alleged unprofessional request on the part of a p.o, and allowing Peterson's gf to read emails and chats that went on during court approved wiretaps. This stirred up interest by the press, which they then used to question Brodsky about, allowing him to elaborate on it and "confirm." Allowed him to get out a nasty-boy idea about the investigators in the case against his client. Not asking for a stance on your part, Legal Pub, just asking if that is a sneaky way of violating a gag order.

BTW,, would enjoy seeing you maybe doing a new thread/post about the current status of this case, say from an outside attorney's view. After all, there are, I assume, various ways of defending one's client, and not all attorneys may agree/disagree on how that should be done.


TIA.

Legal Pub said...

I have virtually no personal knowledge of Derek Armstrong's interaction with Drew Peterson or Joel Brodsky.

I have seen written claims that:
"Drew Peterson gave crime author and journalist Derek Armstrong hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews, in hopes his "full story" would be revealed."

A recent press release apparently claims that Derek Armstrong, author of 'Drew Peterson Exposed,' reports that a detective working on the case allegedly asked Peterson's fiancé out on a date.(No one has confirmed this to be true, thus no Legal Pub update.)

Anderson shares, “This would be improper in most jurisdictions,” according to a high-ranking police commander in a different state.

If true, it is hard not to share Anderson's belief that this goes beyond "over-zealous.”

Last, while Armstrong says that Peterson's fiancee (Raines) said that Illinois State Police investigators allowed her to read some emails and instant messages. This may or may not be correct. Furthermore, if the communication directly involved Raines, it may have been appropriate for her to be able to read the conversation. Electronic surveillance becomes tricky. While Illinois law apparently prohibits disclosure of information gathered from such surveillance, this may have come under an exception. The judge will have to sort this one out.

Whether the disclosure was designed to get Raines to turn on Peterson or whether it was for her own safety, can not be decided without a proper evidentiary hearing.

Raines continues to visit Peterson in jail and she apparently feels he has been unjustly charged.

Both sides have waived a “speedy trial.” This suggests the prosecution is still looking for a body and Peterson's defense team is looking for a big break. In the mean time the potential problem for the defense is alleged "jail house statement" that are often attributed to defendants who are incarcerated for long periods of time before jail.

In sum, Joel Brodsky has apparently taken an unorthodox approach to a very difficult client. It is doubtful that he has intentionally violated any of the judges orders. One can suspect that Peterson does not follow his lawyer's advice. Nevertheless, it takes an innovative lawyer like Brodsky to attempt to defend such cases. For without such advocates, our system of justice's presumption of innocense becomes a mockery.

Anonymous said...

"Nevertheless, it takes an innovative lawyer like Brodsky to attempt to defend such cases. For without such advocates, our system of justice's presumption of innocense becomes a mockery."

No disrespect sir, and I do appreciate your response, but I take exception with this one particular statement by you, only because Mr. Brodsky has himself made a mockery of the system.

In particular, he has used Drew Peterson as a bargaining chip for radio interviews in exchange for promoting his now defunct personal bar/eatery. Please, let's not lose sight of the fact that, while you are right, a client does deserve his attorney's innovative techniques, using a client as a marketing tool for personal gain is as mockery as it gets. It is what it is. I have respect for and understand what an attorney must endure sometimes with a wayward client, but enabling the client and using him in a way that is outside the realm of defending him looks unprofessional and disgusting to us lay people.

Hypothetically, sir, would you ever consider veering from the attorney/client relationship, especially one that is a suspect in a homicide, by allowing him to be interviewed on a radio show, only if the radio host plugs your chicken wings and your bar? Mancow. Geoff Pinkus.

Legal Pub said...

In a purely hypothetical world, lawyers would only defend an innocent man. Unfortunately, while a lawyer may want to believe the innocence of his client, he never knows in the absence of a confession. In cases of confessions, unless there has been a violation of due process, etc, you seek a mental health evaluation and seek the best plea available.

Peterson is a case where he says he is innocent. Keep in mind that there probably is not too many people who like Drew Peterson. However, as much as he may repulse most people, that does not mean he is guilty.

I don't know Joel Brodsky's motive for going on the radio or television shows. Perhaps it is to deflect some of the resentment potential jurors have from Peterson to him personally.

While that is not a tactic that I would advocate as conventional, how long the jury remains out on this case may be a better measure of whether the strategy had any merrit. If the "stunts" are merely for the lawyers personal gain, then clearly it is not appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Ah, sir, but the question I have, then, is how or why should any of Mr. Brodsky's unconventional tactics have on the jury and how long it deliberates? The main idea of Mr. Brodsky's intent to get an untainted jury pool by going as far from the locals as he can means he wants those who have little to no knowledge of Peterson or himself. Challenging, but not impossible. I say that because of the high profile case we had here in Chicago recently, R. Kelly. While I certainly have heard of him and heard what he was accused of, I had no wish to follow his case or anything about it. I can honestly say that I could have been an impartial juror, one who would have made a decision based on what was presented. Yet, I am a "local."

So, if Mr. Brodsky's unorthodox, innovative tactics are meant to do some of the things you've mentioned, then why the defense's stance that the locals are in no position to be fair and even-handed? If he finds his jury pool, the one that is satisfactory to him in most regards, then, doesn't it say that they have basically no idea who or what a Brodsky is, and about all they know is his client is charged with murder of his ex-wife? I'm just not getting the logic of Mr. Brodsky's defense.

Oh, BTW, yes, sir, he did use his client for his own personal gain. I don't care how innovative he is, that is just plain wrong and it's too bad he's come to the road in his legal career that set him on a distasteful, if not unethical, path!

Legal Pub said...

A proper target is an unbiased jury. That would include one that does not know the parties or the lawyers. The problem is that it becomes next to impossible to accomplish. Some jurors who want to serve will go out of their way to appear unbiased.

Because of the publicity and shows like Nancy Grace, it is hard to find too many folks in the continental U.S. who have not heard of Drew Peterson. this was a national story. Sometimes they confuse the case with Scott Peterson; however after a little more information they pretty much remember that Drew is the "ex cop who..."

I truely don't know Brodsky's intent. I am sure he wants a jury who has not heard of him or Peterson. However, I suspect if he can't get such a jury, he would prefer a jury who hates him instead of Peterson. These are my impressions as an outside trial lawyer looking inward.

I truly believe that all jurors want to be fair. But we know that innocent men have sometimes been convicted despite our safe guards. As a citizen of this great country, what we all should truly want is a fair trial for Drew Peterson. Keep in mind that he currently is facing a trial concerning his third wife's death which was considered an accident. From what I have heard, there is little admissible evidence to directly link Peterson to this alleged murder. If he is guilty, then let such a determination be made fairly based on the evidence admitted by the judge. But don't presume guilt just because of others beliefs or his possible involvement with wife #4.

As for Mr. Brodsky, I would rather comment on his strategy after we see the results. And the length of jury deliberations is something lawyers look at to see how long a jury considered their theories. For example, if a conviction is returned in less then a couple of hours, you can bet that the jury pretty much didn't buy what the defense attorney suggested.

Legal Pub said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub: Can you explain this in layman terms? What Rules is he talking about, and why would Peterson be freed from jail for a ruling that relates to a part of the prosecution's case? Thanks!

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

Could Drew Peterson Go Free?

Steve Miller Reporting
CHICAGO (WBBM) -- The attorney for Drew Peterson says Peterson could be a free man again as soon as next week - depending on what happens in court tomorrow.

Drew Peterson will be in Will County court in connection with charges that he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The judge is expected to rule on a defense motion for a change of venue, and the judge is expected to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the so-called "Drew's Law," hearsay testimony that would allow statements by the missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, into evidence.

Peterson's lawyer Joel Brodsky says odds that the judge will rule in Peterson's favor - and not allow the hearsay testimony - are better than even.

And Brodsky says he expects prosecutors would appeal.

"And if they do appeal, under Illinois State Supreme Court rules, Drew Peterson will get out of jail. And that could happen - if everything goes in our favor - it could happen as early as next week."

A spokesman for Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow says Glasgow is confident the hearsay law will pass constitutional muster.

Contents of this site are Copyright 2009 by WBBM.

Legal Pub said...

Not really an issue at this point. The controversy arises out of whether statements of a victim who is now dead can be used as evidence. Typically this is considered hearsay. Illinios enacted a new law to allow such evidence. There will be a constitutional challenge of this law as it pertains to Peterson. Pending such a challenge, the accused has an argument that he has a right to be bonded out. But the matter has been handled by the judge at this point so as to keep Peterson incarcerated at the present.

Again, you may not like Brodsky, but as a lawyer he is clever and he thinks very much like a chess player.

Legal Pub said...

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.

Legal Pub said...

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. On the other hand, 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.

Anonymous said...

Seems unfair to allow alleged unverified comments from the grave...

Legal Pub said...

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.

Legal Pub said...

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

Legal Pub said...

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

Legal Pub said...

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

Legal Pub said...

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.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 346 of 346   Newer› Newest»