Monday, August 4, 2008

Does Darrell Johnson Turning Up Alive 30 Years After Being Presumed Dead Provide Hope That Stacy Peterson Is Still Alive?

For those believing that Stacy Peterson is still alive, another example of why society should not rush to conclusions may have surfaced. Specifically, a man, presumed to have been dead for thirty years, has turned up a live. No, this is not the story of John Darwin who turned up five years after he was thought to have died. Rather, this is Darrell Johnson, a man believed to have died in a Colorado flood in 1976. Johnson has turned up alive and well in Oklahoma.

The 63 year-old Johnson did not know he had been counted among the 144 victims of the 1976 Big Thompson Canyon flood. Apparently, Johnson and his family had left their cabin just a few hours before the resort was washed away. How Johnson actually ended up on the victims list remains a mystery. Ironically, Johnson now directs funerals in Oklahoma City.

As for the latest in the Drew Peterson saga, Peterson's attorney had a partial victory on the gun charge. See 7-31-08 update In essence, it appears attorney Brodsky was apparently correct when he argued that federal law protected Drew against the weapons charge. While charges remain, the court's findings make it seem improbable that the State can maintain its burden of proof at trial. As for the telephone taping of Peterson, Legal Pub has been attempting to get the defenses side of the recordings. From what was shared, it is clear that Joel Brodsky is not pleased with how the recordings were created.

L.P.: How about a status report on the so called confidential informants?

Brodsky: If in fact Len Wawczak and Paula Stark are undercover informants who wore an eavesdropping device on Drew Peterson with the approval of the Illinois State Police (ISP), there is one thing that is unforgivably outrageous about this. I am not worried about the contents of the recordings because (A) Drew is innocent and therefore has nothing incriminating to say, and (B) I suspected Wawczak and Stark were working for the ISP for some time, (especially after the revolver Drew legally transferred to them turned up in the hands of the ISP). What is highly disturbing is how the ISP has allowed Drew's children to be severely damaged by the behavior of these informants.

Wire wearing undercover informants are typically closely monitored. Their tapes are reviewed constantly, and they are debriefed on a regular basis so the police can know what they are doing, approve, correct, and direct their behavior. The ISP knowingly allowed, or perhaps even directed, Wawczak and Stark to become close with the Peterson children; Tom (15), Chris (13), Anthony (4) and Lacy (3). These innocent children became very attached to Wawczak and Stark. Lacy, who needs female attention, became particularly attached to, and even loved, Paula Stark. The boys also became quite close with Len Wawczak, whose immature and sophomoric behavior is particularly appealing to the teenage boys. Now these children have to be told that it was all an act. Wawczak and Stark really didn't love them, they were pretending. Worse they were pretending in order to trap their father, who they dearly love, in order to take him away from them. When Lacy, the beautiful 3 year old, asks for Paula, what can Drew tell her? When he tells Lacy that she won't be able to see Stark again, what will happen to that little girl? Her heart will break. When she learns that Stark was only around to work with the police to try to take her daddy away, what will she think? What about the boys. How will they ever be able to trust anyone again when they discover that Wawczak was not really interested in them, but only came around so often to work for the police who are after their dad. The children will be psychologically scarred for life because of what Wawczak and Stark did, apparently with the blessing, support, help, and encouragement of the Illinois State Police. What happened here is nothing less than the state sponsored psychological torture of these children.

By law Drew has to be notified that he was being recorded shortly after the eavesdropping ends. Therefore the ISP had to know that the relationship that they were allowing, and encouraging, Wawczak and Stark to establish with the Peterson children would end in this manner. Yet they allowed this to continue, and made no provision to minimize the extreme collateral damage to the children psychological health. What were they thinking? And the question has to be asked, are there any limits to what is acceptable in the Drew Peterson investigation? Are there any limits, no matter who is hurt and what means are used? Do the ends always justify the means, even when the means leave small children with permanent psychological scars? ...

143 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joel is a much better lawyer than I originally thought. He was right on the gun charge. I also work with kids. I am offended that they have become involved in the investigation. That just is not right. If there is evidence against Peterson, charge him. Indict him. If not, leave him alone. But in either case, leave the kids out of it!

Anonymous said...

I agree. If the state police knew about this wire tapping, to use the kids is not right!

Anonymous said...

Using people, especially children, is wrong on so many different levels. I hope this is not true!

Anonymous said...

I don't like Peterson or his attorney, but it looks like they are right on this issue too...

blond bombshell said...

I don't like this idea that the ends justify the means. While I am not a supporter of D.P., I have to question any system that exploits kids. Come on people, this is the U.S.! We don't need to trap people by manipulating children.

Let's get the facts on the table. If you got the goods on D.P. then try him by jury. If you don't, let it go. If you got Stacy in protective custody (like apparently you do with T.M.), then let it be known to the public. If you don't have her, then release a public statement explaining that. This shroud of mystery and innuendo gets old real fast even with a pro prosectution person such as myself.

Shell

Anonymous said...

Only L.P. could find a common link between the Johnson case and Drew Peterson!

Anonymous said...

No way she is in protective custody.

Anonymous said...

Well, was Darrell Johnson the husband of a woman whose last spouse was a victim of homicide? Did he write a letter saying that the wife was going to kill him and make it look like an accident?

Shortly before the flood did Darrell Johnson tell his sister "If something happens to me, she did it. Find me!"?

Did Darrell's wife immediately begin pursuing young men in real life and on the Internet and tell the press that "Darrell is where he wants to be"?

No?

Then, I don't think it's a very sound comparison.

Anonymous said...

LP, what telephone taping are you referencing here? I wasn't aware that there was any done.

"As for the telephone taping of Peterson, Legal Pub has been attempting to get the defenses side of the recordings."

NoWay said...

Darrell Johnson was not a victim of the flood and he had contact with his friends and family so I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection between him and Stacy Peterson.

Was it actually necessary to tell the kids that Lenny and Paula only pretended to like them? Especially since you know that wasn't true.

Was that on the same advice from the child counselor who said it was age appropriate for Drew to tell the kids that Stacy was on vacation?

Shouldn't Drew be grateful to Lenny and Paula because according to him, the tapes will prove he had nothing to do with Stacy's disappearance or Kathleen's murder.

I'm not sure how that will happen since Drew saying he had nothing to do with either isn't exactly proof that he didn't.

But we'll wait and see what happens next. ;)

Anonymous said...

The hearsay statements of Stacy are not admissible. Such statements by family members are self serving. Now don't get me wrong, I think Peterson will struggle if indicted, but the stuff you mention is not reliable. There is a reason why the Supreme Court has said no to such evidence.

Anonymous said...

So, 10:51, it is clear you think D.P. is guilty. So do you think any means justify the end? If so, how about torture? Where do you draw the line? How about if someone accuses you of a murder and some family victims come up with some hearsay statements about you. You could be totally innocent, but how do you explain that the victim told her sister that YOU were going to kill her?

There is a reason such crap is not usually admissible. Those pushing for changes in the law in this regard are walking a dangerous line in a day and age when everyone should be presumed innocent.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't Drew simply tell the kids that Lenny and Paula are on vacation? That's what he says about their mom, and it was on the advice of a child psychologist, or so we're told?

No one is forcing him to tell the children anything of a painful nature. If he chooses to do that, then the responsibility is soley his.

Anonymous said...

I guess it's common knowledge by now tha Drew spent the last four days on a fishing trip in Florida in the company of his atty, Joel Brodsky.

He left his two oldest children in the care of a man named Mike Robinson. This is how much Drew worries about the welfare of his precious children:

August 5, 2008 9:00 AM Court Appearance:
ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 5 8 900 08LM001968 Alias Summons


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


August 21, 2008 9:30 AM Court Appearance:
ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 21 8 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Final
ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 21 8 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Final
ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 21 8 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Final

August 11, 2008 Court Appearance:

ROBINSON PAUL J 8 11 8 304 900 07TR134505 2319321 OPERATE UNINSURED MTR 4 Sentencing
ROBINSON PAUL J 8 11 8 304 900 07TR134504 2319323 DRIVING ON SUSPENDED 3 Sentencing
ROBINSON PAUL J 8 11 8 304 900 07DT002024 2319322 DRVG UNDER INFLU OF 1 Sentencing
ROBINSON PAUL J 8 11 8 304 900 07TR134506 2319319 DISREGARD STOP SIGN 5 Sentencing
ROBINSON PAUL J 8 11 8 304 900 07TR134503 2319320 IMPROPER USE OF 2 Sentencing

Anonymous said...

ROBINSON MICHAEL 7 22 8 304 900 08CM002310 0 POSS CANNABIS/10-30 1 Pretrial

Anonymous said...

Should some one be impressed that the Robinson has had traffic offenses?

What year was the cannibus charge? Do you think Peterson should not be able to take a vacation? Do you think he should not be able to meet with his lawyer?

Some of the anti Peterson crowd is so transparent. I suspect the worse about D.P. but I do not jump to conclusions and try to make him sound bad because of trivial things. I bet it is true that D.P. is out of friends. Why should that shock any one? If you even so much as say he has a right to be treated innocent until otherwise proven, people try to bite your head off.

I would not be a good juror because I have been so sickened by the anti Peterson folks that I would probably find in his favor just because I think the anti-Peterson crowd has made way too much out of very little.

Anonymous said...

Don't teachers also get close to kids for about 9 months and then exit from the kid's lives?

If this is psychological torture, then we need to pull our kids out of school immediatley!

Anonymous said...

From what I understand, for all the potential entrapment, the informants got nothing! What is even further B.S. is suggesting that D.P.'s comment that he should have had her cremated somehow infers he is guilty.

Fact is, if he had cremated K.S., then I might have thought he was guilty. But he did not do so. This is significant since he had the chance to cremate her after the initial autopsy did not say she was murdered. Yet he didn't. Doesn't sound like a guilty guy to me.

Now I find out this so called wire was apparently obtained at the cost of these children's well being. Well I for one am outraged.

If you got the goods on Peterson, let the grand jury indict him. If you don't, stop the b.s. of trying to trap him at the expense of his kids and at the expense of the reputation of our legal system.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Should some one be impressed that the Robinson has had traffic offenses?
******************

Did you just skip over the battery and domestic abuse charges? I wouldn't consider a DUI exactly a 'traffic' offense, would you?

Now who's transparent? ;)

greg said...

These same jerks were saying (me included) that Peterson's argument on the gun charges was a crock. Now it turns out Brodsky and Peterson were right about the gun charges. I am starting to lose faith in the credibility of those wanting a conviction at all costs.

Greg

Anonymous said...

Fact is, if he had cremated K.S., then I might have thought he was guilty. But he did not do so. This is significant since he had the chance to cremate her after the initial autopsy did not say she was murdered. Yet he didn't. Doesn't sound like a guilty guy to me.
*************************

He tried to cremate her at the time of her death, but since he was no longer married to Kathleen, her family was able to override his attempt.

Anonymous said...

IF the divorce was not final (as I remember but could be wrong), then he could have had her cremated despite the families objections.

Anonymous said...

If drew killed K.S., then why no evidence of his finger prints or DNA?

If he killed Stacy, why change the alleged motis operanda? I find it almost impossible to believe he could kill her at home and not leave DNA evidence all over. Trust me, i would love to have this case add up and result in a conviction. But the DNA evidence does not at this time add up to a conviction. Something important (besides Stacy) is missing.

Anonymous said...

DUI has become trivialized. Perhaps it should not. But when they lowered the limits to .08, it made having two drinks potentially an offense.

My bet is if he was convicted, it was a misdemeanor. And no, if it is not a crime of dishonesty, it has no place in a legal discussion about an individual's credibility.

What you are trying to do is say this baby sitter is a bad person because he has a domestic battery or abuse charge. Well, that may be something as minor as swearing at a girl friend or wife (or pushing an enraged spouse away in self defense) or as major as severely beating someone. Point is you are trying to say it makes this person a bad babysitter and that is really making a lot of assumptions about things that most of us do not know first hand.

ThinkAboutIt said...

I don't get the comparative link between Darrell Johnson and Stacy Peterson. Seems like a stretch to me. Seems like there could be so many other ones to have selected that would have been better.

Darrell's family never thought he was missing - they left with him according to the story. He may have been on some LE list as being missing but no one was looking for him. If his name was called out on Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and all of these other channels I'm sure he'd have cleared it up much sooner.

Don't get me wrong - there is certainly a possibility that she left (as they haven't found a body or DNA evidence indicating death)but this comparison doesn't work for me.

I pray she is found alive but my hopes of that really happening are slim to none.

Anonymous said...

DWI is never trivial, but if he wasn't drinking around the kids even I don't think that is relevant.


Mary

Anonymous said...

Good point 12:08. I think L.P. was just using a current story to say that hope is not over, until it is over. In otherwords, unless a body is found, it remains possible that she is alive.

That is my best guess. I do find the using a wire to talk to the children disturbing. And I AM NOT a D.P. fan!

Anonymous said...

I got the analogy, and I hope Stacy does turn up alive.

ThinkAboutIt said...

Anony - You write:

"What you are trying to do is say this baby sitter is a bad person because he has a domestic battery or abuse charge. Well, that may be something as minor as swearing at a girl friend or wife (or pushing an enraged spouse away in self defense) or as major as severely beating someone. "

Maybe you didn't see the report but Mike is being charged with a felony assault.

Here is what was in the Chicago Tribune back in January.

"Michael J. Robinson, 34, of Bolingbrook was charged with felony intimidation, misdemeanor battery and domestic battery, according to police and court documents.

Robinson was with the two women in an apartment complex elevator about 3:30 a.m. Monday when he quarreled with his ex-girlfriend, 32, over a phone call and began choking her, said Bolingbrook police Lt. Ken Teppel. When her friend, age 40, tried to intervene, Robinson allegedly punched her in the face, authorities said.

Robinson dragged his ex-girlfriend and the friend into the apartment of a third woman and again tried to choke the ex-girlfriend, Teppel said, and when the friend tried to separate them, Robinson punched her in the face several times, knocking her to the floor. Robinson left, and when police arrived, they saw bruises and cuts on the friend’s face, Teppel said."

So there allegedly is dragging, choking, punching in the face, pushing to the floor that resulted in bruises and cuts. Doesn't sound as minor as you say - pushing and swearing.

I don't have the direct Tribune link but here is a link that originally cited the article:

http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/your-thread-june-3-20/

Bottom line - the courts will be where this is all sorted out and it is quite possible that Drew could live out the rest of his life under the cloud of suspicion and never be charged nor have his name cleared (like what happened to Patsy Ramsey).

ThinkAboutIt said...

Anony wrote:

"I do find the using a wire to talk to the children disturbing. And I AM NOT a D.P. fan!"

***

Well if I were a betting woman, I'd put money on Drew having been an advocate for and probably even utilized) eavesdropping while he was on the force especially in a potential murder case.

It just really sucks when the tables are turned.

I do agree that these tactics should not be used when children are around and they should not be part of the plan if at all possible.

ThinkAboutIt said...

Correction to my post at 12:28pm. i guess Mike wasn't charged with felony assault according to the article I quoted. It was felony intimidation.

Guess a man punching a woman in the face multiple times is still only misdemeanor battery. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how this attorney can state that the informants are responsible for harming 4 innocent children. Drew Peterson told his children that their mom left them on vacation but that didn't seem to harm them in anyway???? The attorney seems to lash out at everyone 'connected' to this case in an (unsuccessful) attempt to make his client 'look' good. In my opinion, these attempts have done more harm than good. His client is the only one he has to defend. Then defend him - tell us why all this negativity seems to surround and latch on to this good man. He blasts the credibility/ lifestyle of all of the so-called friends of Drew - yet prior to his missing wife - these people were good enough to be called his friends. Now everyone but Drew Peterson is a low-life, loser. It doesn't look good and I feel a jury would be insulted that this attorney would stoop so low and insult our intelligence to think that EVERYONE else is 'bad' and his client is the "good' one - yet he has 1 dead wife and 1 missing wife?????
Keep this b.s. out of the media, don't try to make your client look like a saint...let the facts speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

He's worried about what to tell his kids about the bottom feeding low life trailer trash banckruptcy filing FRIENDS of his? How about trying the T R U T H - Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson come across as the biggest liars and bad mouth everyone else. The only ones confusing and messing up the kids' minds are their father and his lawyer. One day these people are the greatest friends and the next they are evil and corrupt. That doesn't sound like a very stable and safe environment for those children.

ThinkAboutIt said...

I do agree that people need to think of the kids first. This goes for Drew too though. Many single parents choose not to bring women they are dating home right away to meet the kids. It's not fair for them to keep seeing people come in and out of their life and they shouldn't be introduced until the relationship becomes serious.

Although I've just realized that must be the issue - Drew seems to get serious rather quickly. I'm sure it is hard being alone and being with the kids. Ask any single parent and they will tell you that is part of the territory.

Anonymous said...

Someone asked how old Robinson's possession charge was:

2008-03-18

Anonymous said...

Robinson being charged with felony intimidation does not mean he was convicted of it.

Second intimidation means threat. there may have been no physical contact that was proved.

You got to be careful what you say about folks if you don't know all the facts. Papers are not always right!

Anonymous said...

Point is don't use kids to try to get information about Dad. Don't do it! That is common decency and if you can't see that, you are too blinded by emotion, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Now let's talk about the media. Most of what is reported in the media is not admissible. So why does the lawyer talk about it? Because he knows the information that the media reports is prejudicing his client. So he has to try to refute the point even if it is an insurmountable task.

Why not just let "the facts" speak for themselves? This shows your naive understanding of the legal system. No offense, but facts are not the same as evidence. Evidence is the facts that are admissible in court. For example, crimes not involving dishonesty or moral turpitude are generally not admissible in court. So why does the media report such information? Again, to get folks fired up about what a bad guy so and so is or to show he has bad friends.

There is a reason why the court system has worked well for over 200 years. It is because there are rules that safeguard our freedoms. The leaking of bad things about Peterson or his friends to the press is not part of our system of justice. Who Peterson dates or associates with has no place in our system of justice.

Anonymous said...

I don't like Peterson. But I too am disgusted that informants were used to get close to the Peterson children. This is inexcusable.

I understand the safe guards in the system. I could say that any one of these posters was the subject of a conversation that I had with a victim. It would not be true. It would be highly prejudicial because even though it would probably never be admissible, in the court of public opinion, you would likely be prejudged as guilty.

I also understand divorce. Divorce is nasty. Estranged spouses rarely have a good word to say about their soon to be ex. Are the negative remarks always true and accurate? We all know that sometimes they are gross exagerations. Without the opportunity to cross examine Stacy, how can we know if she really said what is alleged? How will we be able to verify the context of what was said?

Anonymous said...

Maybe she wrote down a bunch of crap hoping to use it to black mail D.P. into a more favorable divorce settlement or to prevent him from gaining custody of the boys. While I doubt it, we just can't ever know. Siblings, family and friends always tend to take sides in a divorce. And quite frankly, the rift seldom ever heals.

Anonymous said...

Joel B. was right about the gun law. I have to eat crow on this one.


P.J.

Anonymous said...

Also, I think Drew's brother was watching the kids not Mike. You folks jump to too many faulty conclusions!

Anonymous said...

Hey, what is this guilt by association? I know for a fact that Legal Pub himself bought dinner for a home less man in a restaurant last week. The man has had a few run ins with the law. Was it wrong for the legal knight on a crusade for truth and justice to be seen in public with someone with less than a spotless record?

Legal Pub said...

Just read some of the comments. To the comment above, more people should take the homeless up on their signs "will work for food." I always thought those who wanted to work could do so. I no longer believe it is that easy. Once someone falls on hard times, it is not so easy to get back up. Sometimes what is needed is a good grilled chicken sandwich and help with a job application.

Unfortunately, sometimes it requires so much more...

In the mean time, please stick to the wire issue and the Darrell Johnson story and leave Mr. Robinson out of the discussion. Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

I think Mike Robinson is wearing a wire.

Anonymous said...

Why is Drew letting the kids get close to Mike Robinson when Mike is most likely going to be convicted of at least one felony and sent to prison...and then he'll be gone from those kids' lives?

I think that's psychological torture.

Why does Drew allow the children to go to school where they are 'cared' for by a school teacher who then sends them out the door in June? Why allow them to be used by the state in such a manner?

More pyschological torture.

Brodsky's assertion is ridiculous. Lenny and Paula were wearing wires in order to gather evidence from Drew. I honestly can't believe that this is the first time in history that a police informant has not been a friend of the suspect or spent time with the suspect's children.

Joel's claim of pyschological torture is no more 'factual' than anything else he has asserted to the media and on the Internet.

I've got pages and pages of the contradictory statements he has made in the last 9 months.

Remember, LegalPub, he calls it his 'white noise' approach? I means he releases multiple versions of the truth so that he can never be held accountable for any of it. What he posts on your blog is just as much part of the shitstorm as anything else he has posted.

Could we see a report from a psychologist showing some evidence that these kids were damaged due to the fact that their babysitters quit? Until I do it's just more white noise...

Anonymous said...

I do understand the law. I believe that the most insignificant and unrelevant statements in this case have come from Joel Brodsky, which in turn stirs up the media feeding frenzy. Now if Joel chose to defend his client, in a professional manner, it would be done in a courtroom. I would be most interested to know how the defense in this case is being viewed by his legal peers. I think it would be telling and others would recognize that this is not the norm but very far from it. And that the Public is doing nothing wrong by reacting to the absurd behavior of this defense team.

ThinkAboutIt said...

I don't think I'll give to the beggars in Chicago any more after 3 bad results.

1) Bought man who was asking for food 2 Big Macs. He bitched at me and told me he said he wanted a Filet of Fish. I think he just wanted me to give him more money.

2) Bought StreetWise from a vendor and he had a death grip on the copy hoping I'd just give him the buck.

3) Saw a beggar chase a man down asking just for $1 with all kinds of reasons. The next moment the beggar turned around and made a drug sale (I saw drugs pass between them with my own two eyes) and the beggar and dealer went their separate ways.

So you are correct - it isn't as simple as it seems.

ThinkAboutIt said...

LegalPub - I think the relavance of Mike Robinson to the wiring discussion is because Drew seems to have some friends that are questionable characters - most have been people he has been in friendships or business with since long before Stacy disappeared. So why does he condemn some yet still allow the other into his home?

Drew and Joel have gone on public TV and have said how terrible of people that Lenny and Paula are and Drew has even gone as far as to say he had arrested (and then altered the statement to he assisted with the arrest) of Lenny many times in the past. So point is - why is he hanging out with these characters that have criminal records when he is supposed to be a man of the law??

The rest is just concerns some people had about hearing that Drew may have left his children with a man that is accused of battering women and using drugs in light of Joel's accusations that all of these other people are psychologically torturing his children.

Anonymous said...

Thinkaboutit, I can see that you try to put some thought into your posts. As a result, others who read your posts can benefit greatly. But here is the problem that I think Legal Pub is trying to bring about in a subtle way. First of all, in these high profile cases, the defendant is often exonerated or convicted in the media long before a jury ever hears the case. The problem is that the facts that are floated out to the jury rarely are the same as what is allowed into evidence. For example, all these comments allegedly made by Stacy are unlikely to make it into the courtroom. And if they do, it will almost certainly result in a reversal by the Supreme Court based on some recent rulings.

Second, there is a real potential danger in tainting the jury pool so badly that no fair jury can ever be selected. Some of this was seen in the Simpson case. The trial was moved out of county and the jury selected may have bent over backwards to give Simpson the benefit of the doubt.

Third, the rap sheet on M. Robinson is not such that he is a bad guy. He is innocent of the felony intimidation until proven guilty. While never an advocate of domestic violence, the legal community sees it all too often. Sometimes the charges are fabricated. Fourth, even if true, these are not considered admissible crimes involving dishonesty such as fraud, robbery, murder...

In other words, prior bad acts or mistakes does not necessarily make the person "bad" in the eyes of the law.

Finally, Joel Brodsky is doing what he feels best. The majority of the legal community may disagree with his approach. However, the vast majority of the legal community never represents a high profile case. The public can dislike Brodsky as a person, but it should respect the fact that he is doing what he feels is his job. He may be like Christopher Columbus, laughed at for saying the world is round. But when we all said he was wrong about the gun charge (me included), He proved that he was mostly right. So join me in disliking the man and his client, but also join me in respecting D.P.'s constitutional rights and his lawyer's attempt to do what he thinks is right.

H.N. For Justice said...

Above, that is what I wanted to say but could not find the words. I dislike both men but I have come to respect that Brodsky is just doing what he feels is his job.

California Surfer Dude said...

Let's just be thankful D.P. does not have Legal Pub on the defense team. If he did, I doubt this case would have been in the news much after the first 30 days. Rather, D.P. would become the answer to a trivia question like who was that unfortunate police officer that lost two of his wives...

Peace all.

Surfer Dude

Anonymous said...

To the person who mentioned the irrelavance of negative leaks about Drew's friends, you obviously have not followed the case or you would be up to date with the vast amounts of disparaging statements that Joel and company have, well not always leaked but often spoken openly about, as if that would someone refute the evidence that has been captured on tapes.

Drew has gone so far as to allude to having had sex with the female informant and claimed that he arrested the male informant numerous ties (he later backed off on this). He also staged a scene outside a barbershop in an attempt to get the male informant to strike him (people saw him there the day before checking out the scene).

Mr. Brodsky has provided fame-hungry bloggers with pdfs of the informant's financial woes, including their history of bankruptcy claims.

Obviously, the defense appears to believe that there is value in destroying the reputation of the prosectuion's witnesses, so I would venture that what is good for the goose...

ThinkAboutIt said...

Anonymous 4:46pm:

I can see what you are saying. I do keep an open legal mind. (My gut isn't as open-minded as my brain is.)

I don't know if Mike R has priors. I can't say I've seen anything other than what other people have posted out there. He, like everyone, is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Now my issue is that Drew's team wants us to find others guilty of the sins they tell us about them but want us to believe he is 100% innocent. That is a hard pill for many to swallow. Myself included.

In reality the only thing that truly matters if this ever does go to trial is the evidence that is allowed in at trial and what the jury thinks.

I've said this on SYM and other forums--Joel is handling this in an unconventional manner. The success/failure of his method may not be known for a long, long time.

I also know in my brain that a legal defense team's job is to discredit everyone that is speaking out against his client. But it sure makes them seem pretty heartless sometimes.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (lol) one of the main reasons this has become a high profile case is Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson. These 2 have done nothing to keep quiet; have publicly humiliated everyone remotely connected to this case; have IMO contacted the media to publicize (i.e the Naperville speeding stop)the "Daily Life of Drew Peterson;" etc, etc.
This is a small suburban missing woman case, it should never have reached the high profile status that it has. There are no celebrities involved, there is no billionaire heiress involved, there are no vicious custody battles. I believe that Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson are the ones responsible for the focus of the Nation on this case. And it is interesting that the missing person's husband has done or has not shown proof that he has done anything to find his wife. I know they have no obligation to share this with the public, but it just might help to ease the tension/ frustration/ confusion surrounding this woman's disappearance.

Ms Calabaza said...

IMHO, no. The ends don't justify the means.

ThinkAboutIt said...

Anonymous 4:46pm.

There were actually two celebrities possibly involved in this case - John Travolta (the gun pic) and Brittany Spears (an almost publicity date with Drew).

:<)

With that. I agree that this case would probably not have resulted in the major national media attention if Drew didn't come out with that crazy bandana over his face and didn't go on the Today show and blame PMS for all of his woes. JMO.

I think the case has gotten the attention because everyone is just waiting to see what new crazy stunt will come out of it or what new twist and turn will be next.

Anonymous said...

We don't really know what 'the means' are much less 'the end' so how could anyone possibly haved an opinion? All we have is the suspect's lawyer's personal (and of course biased) speculation as to the some amount of damage done to the suspect's children.

Can we please have some facts before we are asked for an opinion about the actions of the ISP?

What a farce.

LegalPub, will you please stop pandering to Joel? It puts you on the same level as those misguided armchair detectives who let him use their forums to disseminate his media plays.

Anonymous said...

Drewpy has made it quite clear that he is "trollin" for victim {oops} wife #5...if sucessfull then I am sure that he would {a} get her preggers ASAP & {b} be up to his USUAL tricks of "partying" & "sleeping around" as before. Drew wants a "babysitter" whom he can keep "barefoot n preggers" for his convenience! I have yet to find any proof that he loved and cared for any of his wives, his lack of concern about his mising wife Stacy is disgusting! I totally disagree with Brodsky, letting his client talk to the media truly was a bad idea...the public would have felt sorry for him if he at least made an attempt {as Scott Peterson did - but failed}...however DP's arrogance hopefully will be his downfall. My opinion really doesn't matter as I live in Western Australia but perhaps I represent the opinions of many countries who are watching this man who has NO SHAME & NO COMPASSION! He is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law...but he truly deserves the title "D"espicable "P"erson!!!

Legal Pub said...

Legal Pub takes the position that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. The Peterson case is of interest because of the unconventional approach taken by Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky. Ultimately, only time will tell if the uncontentional approach worked.

As for the update, Legal Pub requested the update and Mr. Brodsky complied. Subsequently, portions of the reply were published. Whether appropriate or not, Joel Brodsky was truly offended getting the kids involved in the wire. Unless there is information obtained that was not shared, the results of the wire offered little or no help to the State. Ms. Calabaza is an expert on kids. I see her comment that the means do not justify the ends and that makes sense. (Ms. Calabaza does not like D.P. yet she has a keen sense of fairness and what constitutes appropriate behavior when it comes to children.) Thinkaboutit also stands out as someone who tries to be objective. To the extent posters can make their point with facts instead of speculation, all readers benefit.

Anonymous said...

Stopkillingmymommies said

The only people who are torturing the children are DP and JB. Killing their moms, sliming their moms, lying to them that Lenny and Paula don't care for them. (biggest gasp of disbelief we've heard for a long time followed JB saying that the children "had to be told" that they were used).

What kind of torture to hear on the news that Daddy and Uncle Joel are sorting things out with the court so that Daddy can take them on vacation, and then......Daddy f's off again without them.

It may have been strictly legal if he filed an itinerary before he left, but if I were the judge I would like to wipe the floor with them both for using the children to get permission to travel.

Can you remember everything you might have said in the presence of Lenny/Paula, Joel? Thought not.

Anonymous said...

Stopkilling:

Your agenda is noted. It is clear. You can not see the trees because of the forrest. D.P. is not convicted of anything. He has the same rights as you do. The only exception is that he is on bond for a gun charge that will not likely survive given the judges federal preemption rulings. Yet, you want to mop the ground with him?

What if someone accuses you of murdering S.P.? Guess you should lose all rights just because someone says you are guilty, right? Makes no difference that no charges are filed. Makes no difference that an investigation is not complete, the judge should just the mop the ground with you, right?

You either believe in our constitution and our system of justice or you don't. You can't have it both ways. In this case, entrapping D.P. by using the kids is perceived as wrong by many of us who feel D.P. is guilty. But illogical posters like you make folks like me start thinking that maybe D.P. is getting rail roaded. The improper means never justify the ends of punishing the guilty.



K.K.

Anonymous said...

Stopkillikngmymommies says

It's not just about punishing the guilty. It's about getting killers out of circulation, trying to keep everyone (even you) safe.

no, he hasn't been indicted yet, but it is coming. I have eyes and ears and DP has shown us over and over that he lies. More or less constantly.

Wiping the floor is a procedural matter. Using his children's vacation to get permission to leave the state is...well, a lie. Judges don't like that when lawyers take the piss.

Now, come on. Even DP was beggin' to be arrested the other day. A trial will settle it.

I don't advocate taking the law into our own hands. Due process is what you see going on here, opinions are opinifoundons, and this one honestly come by.

While I'm here...I noticed no one answered Joel when he went on about how nuts it would be to plan to be tried and acquitted before SP's body was found.....No one thinks it's a plan, Stan. It's obvious that such a remark, if true, would simply be him voicing his best-case scenario when he goes to trial.

Anonymous said...

I think D.P. is anxious for a trial. They seem confident that they will win and put an end to the false accusations. I suspect after the trial, there may even be some defamation suits filed. A lot may depend on the time line. If D.P. has an alibi, look out for those who jumped to a conclusion.

I did not see on this forum where Joel Brodsky made any comment on this story or the comments.

Anonymous said...

LegalPub said: "Unless there is information obtained that was not shared, the results of the wire offered little or no help to the State."

Well OF COURSE there was information obtained that was not shared.

The ISP is not going to share ANY of the information that they had obtained prior to a trail, or criminal charges for that matter.

That is an absurd and frankly, ignorant statement.

Again, 'the means' are only what the suspect's lawyer has described (in other words, with no factual basis) and 'the end' is yet to be determined.

As far as we know the kids are happy as pie.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Calabaza may be an "expert on kids" (whatever that is) but unless she has met with, listened to and/or tested the kids, her input is purely speculation.

Until I hear expert testimony to the emotion state of those kids and the reasons...I'm not taking as fact anything that anyone posts on a blog...and certainly not what the suspect's lawyer tries to represent as fact.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... August 4, 2008 2:39 PM

Joel B. was right about the gun law. I have to eat crow on this one.

P.J.

Why do people keep saying this?
"Joel was mostly right"? lol
I think we have to wait for the outcome of the UPCOMING TRIAL, to see who is right!
>

Anonymous said...August 4, 2008 4:46 PM
In other words, prior bad acts or mistakes does not necessarily make the person "bad" in the eyes of the law.

That is crazy talk! Why is there a "points system" for sentencing?
Why do you get in "deep Sh!t" for your 2nd dui, but not your 1st?


Anonymous said...August 5, 2008 2:13 PM

I did not see on this forum where Joel Brodsky made any comment on this story or the comments.

He did on other blogforumboards.

If D.P. has an alibi, look out for those who jumped to a conclusion.

If Drew Peterson would give the time line, and not "plead the 5th" at the Grand Jury, it may clear up this whole mess, one way or another.
Make no mistake, when you are innocent, and then plead the 5th, the overwhelming majority, will know (maybe subliminal) you have something to hide.
I know, I know. You are not supposed to hold that against someone, but be real!

----------
As for as the kids, I think that one drug counselor told Drew to tell them Len and Paula went on vacation, (for the young ones because it is "age appropriate") and he forgot.


"carry on"

Anonymous said...

Above should be "presumed" innocent.

interested law man said...

No offense, but any one who tries to refer to the point system for a second DWI does not have a clue about the law. DWI of a witness is not relevant nor admissible in a trial even if it is a 44th offense. I know a lot of you are not lawyers, and that is okay. But come on, don't come on to a legal forum and talk b.s. about legal evidentiary rulings.

Second as to the gun charges. Read the opinion. Legal Pub cited the order. Joel Brodsky won every point on federal preemption except ultimate dismissal. The basis of not dismissing the charges was because AT THIS STAGE the burden was on the defense and there was no case law cited upholding a dismissal at this stage. The prosecution will not be able to sustain their burden at trial on the gun charges, so don't go there! To not admit Brodsky was right on this point is to lose all credibility.

Dislike J.B. and D.P. if you like. (I do.) But give credit where credit is due. If you don't understand evidentiary issues, that is fine. But don't pretend to argue the law out of ignorance.

The point of many of the above posts is that many were offended by the use of the children in the wire. You were not. Good for you. My opinion as a lawyer and someone who deals with children is that it was not a practice that should be encouraged. Ever.

Last, the tapes were released by the ISP. If they are holding back evidence, that could be a real interesting development. What source do you have that they have held back the tape? Please name your sources and let's launch an immediate investigation. I await your response.

Interested Law Man

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Also, I think Drew's brother was watching the kids not Mike. You folks jump to too many faulty conclusions!

August 4, 2008 2:45 PM
---

exactly! The person that posted "it is common knowledge" is WRONG, what is common knowledge is that this rumor that started on geraldo from Sharon the nosey neighbor and intentionally put on the internet was nothing more than the drew haters once again showing their disrepect for our legal system. And yes the make me sick!
What Drew and his children do is none of these internet freaks business, but they don't seem to get that! Why should I be surprised they don't even seem to get the basic foundation of our justice system.
pitiful, these haters want justice but could careless what illegal activities it takes to get what they want. They cheered on Lenny when he assualted drew, they now are cheering on the supposed hacking of Drews computer. But yet they claim they stand for justice?? not a chance!
It sure is odd that no suspect or person of interest has been named in Kathleen's death, but yet the drew haters have him convicted of double murder!! Can anyone explain why there is no suspect in Kathleen's death?
Could it be that LE hasn't named a suspect in Kathleens death because the person that killed kathleen was not Drew and happens to be missing? And why oh why did Cassandra hire a criminal attorney last Nov/Dec right when the canal search was called off? Don't try to hand me that it was because of her dui, assualt, resisting arrest charges those were in 2006 not 2007.
funny most of the criminals are on the Cales side of the house, maybe that's why such a need for the internet propaganda to hide the real truth about Kathleen and why Stacy up and left! At minumum her own words to the pastor if true make stacy an accomplish after the fact to murder! How she could look kathleens boys in the eyes knowing what she did is beyond me, guess I would disapear also!

Anonymous said...

Oh come on the drew haters were slaming and bashing drew long before Joel was his attorney. FSP set the stage for the lynch mob mentality and it has turned into a circus.
How many blogs concerning this case will only allow negative talk about Drew and Joel?? You can't even mention that Stacy according to her words to the pastor covered up the murder of Kathleen for 4 years, did not care about justice for kathleen but loved the repairs the $$$ that came from Kathleen's death bought her.
This whole case if full of criminals on both sides of the house.
So Robinson should not be around the kids? Then using that same logic neither should Cassandra or Yelton both have criminal records.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander but not in the drew haters world!!

Anonymous said...

Interested Law Man, awesome post you rock!!

Anonymous said...

Law man is an awesome poster. Wish he would visit more often. He was real helpful in the surfer death case.

Anonymous said...

Here's the type of justice the drew haters promote on lenny's and paula's bash drew and joel only blog! How sad and to think that this blog was create due to working for the ISP? How can ISP let this type of crap continue? Oh bother this is the same ISP that used the children to get at Drew. The same ISP that investigated Kathleens death 4 years ago and offically declared it an accident.

-----------

Listen you fvck, people are lookin and fatass sits his lil dick @ home, and people fall in creeks, get allergies, spend their time and their gas because they care, and DP twittles his balls.
Go play with a loaded pistol or something, make the world a better place to LIVE, you TWAT!
----
Anonymous:
Leave Len & Paula alone! They have done much more than you for the justice of Kathleen and Stacy. I agree with another Anonymous...go play with a loaded pistol and make the world a better place.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7081036624150822867&postID=5593337363639855463

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Law man is an awesome poster. Wish he would visit more often. He was real helpful in the surfer death case.
--
There are quite a few awesome posters out here. It's refreshing to read a blog where the majority of posts are based on logic and facts instead of emotional outcrying.
good blog LP!

Anonymous said...

Law Man. Well said!

Anonymous said...

interested law man said...

No offense, but any one who tries to refer to the point system for a second DWI does not have a clue about the law. DWI of a witness is not relevant nor (admissible in a trial even if it is a 44th offense. I know a lot of you are not lawyers, and that is okay. But come on, don't come on to a legal forum and talk b.s. about legal evidentiary rulings.

I think you misunderstood. Let me repost that in better context. I should have numbered those 1 & 2 or A & B

Anonymous said...August 4, 2008 4:46 PM
In other words, prior bad acts or mistakes does not necessarily make the person "bad" in the eyes of the law.


1.Why is there a "points system" for sentencing?

2.Why do you get in "deep Sh!t" for your 2nd dui, but not your 1st?
(#2 not related to #1, insofar as "points", just stating your 2nd dui is treated differently (harsher) than your first, because of "prior bad acts"). I hope you see what I was trying to say.


Second as to the gun charges. Read the opinion. Legal Pub cited the order. Joel Brodsky won every point on federal preemption except ultimate dismissal. The basis of not dismissing the charges was because AT THIS STAGE the burden was on the defense and there was no case law cited upholding a dismissal at this stage. The prosecution will not be able to sustain their burden at trial on the gun charges, so don't go there! To not admit Brodsky was right on this point is to lose all credibility.

3 out of 5
Then why waste everyones money and time in court, if it as cut and dried as you say? I will wait for the results of the trial, to see who was right.

Anonymous said...

interested law man said...
August 6, 2008 7:14 AM

Last, the tapes were released by the ISP. If they are holding back evidence, that could be a real interesting development. What source do you have that they have held back the tape? Please name your sources and let's launch an immediate investigation. I await your response.

Interested Law Man
@@@@@@@@@@@

I do not think any tapes were released by the ISP yet! Please name your sources that confirm they were released.

Anonymous said...

You are talking apples and oranges or just use to having it your way burger king!
You appear to be mixing up being charged with a dui that could be your second offense and the pentaltiy being harser due to a prior dui with a witness that has prior dui's testifying at a trial.

Now a witness assualting the defendant might be a different matter and maybe admissable at trial, I'm not a lawyer so I can't say forsure!!

Anonymous said...

Last, the tapes were released by the ISP. If they are holding back evidence, that could be a real interesting development. What source do you have that they have held back the tape? Please name your sources and let's launch an immediate investigation. I await your response.

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

That's completely false information. The ISP have released NONE of the contents of the seven months of recordings. None at all.

What are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

CNN had a story about Drew allegedly recorded by wire about how he should have cremated his third wife...

If you use a confidential informant to secretly tape someone, there needs to be disclosure within a certain time period. I assume this has been complied with and is what Law Man is referring to. Furthermore, I am confident Law Man knows about such things in his line of work. You are way out of your league on this one.

LOL.

leagle eagle 7 said...

Oh, don't bother the masses with the fruit of the poisonous tree line of cases, it will only want them to "change the law."

Legal Eagle 7

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
August 6, 2008 1:51 PM
You are talking apples and oranges or just use to having it your way burger king!
You appear to be mixing up being charged with a dui that could be your second offense and the pentaltiy being harser due to a prior dui with a witness that has prior dui's testifying at a trial.

Now a witness assualting the defendant might be a different matter and maybe admissable at trial, I'm not a lawyer so I can't say forsure!!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Read up-thread and you will see that this was about Mike Robinson, his troubles, watching Drews kids, psychological torture,
and being a "bad" guy.


In other words, prior bad acts or mistakes does not necessarily make the person "bad" in the eyes of the law.

My comment had nothing to do with a witness that has prior dui's testifying at a trial, or legal evidentiary rulings.
I was saying prior bad acts or mistakes do make the person "bad" in the eyes of the law.
I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
Finally, it is hypocritical to go the Burger King route, when you can't even spell your words correctly.


Interested Law Man said...

Last, the tapes were released by the ISP. If they are holding back evidence, that could be a real interesting development. What source do you have that they have held back the tape? Please name your sources and let's launch an immediate investigation. I await your response.

I await your response

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
August 6, 2008 3:26 PM
CNN had a story about Drew allegedly recorded by wire about how he should have cremated his third wife...

If you use a confidential informant to secretly tape someone, there needs to be disclosure within a certain time period. I assume this has been complied with and is what Law Man is referring to. Furthermore, I am confident Law Man knows about such things in his line of work. You are way out of your league on this one.

LOL.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
CNN LOL. There you go believing the "media" again!
The State has 6 months. There has been no tapes released. None. I await Law Man's response.


LOL.

Anonymous said...

Interested Law Man is badly misinformed if he thinks that the "listen in" recordings were released at any point. I don't believe he can be all that 'interested' if he isn't even aware of that most fundamental fact.

Knowledge of the law makes half a conversation here. The other half would be a minimal amount of knowledge about the case.

Anonymous said...

lol, there probably aren't any tapes!! We have only heard about the tapes from the MEDIA!
LE has not backed up what Paula and Lenny have said to the media!!
guess that's why this poster is so hell bent on saying no tapes have been released!

Anonymous said...

7 months of taping?

6 months to disclose?

What are the federal laws on this?

Can't wait to see how this one plays out. Oh and by the way, compliance with the federal law on the phone taps (if there were any.)

The improper means never justify the ends. I bet before this is over there will be a lot of scrutiny and I mean scrutiny that will go beyond the state of Illinois.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous leagle eagle 7 said...
August 6, 2008 3:29 PM
Oh, don't bother the masses with the fruit of the poisonous tree line of cases, it will only want them to "change the law."

Legal Eagle 7
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
If it is the majority that should tell you something.

Anonymous said...

Well, actually, to amend our Constitution it takes more than a majority

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
August 6, 2008 3:44 PM
Interested Law Man is badly misinformed if he thinks that the "listen in" recordings were released at any point. I don't believe he can be all that 'interested' if he isn't even aware of that most fundamental fact.

Knowledge of the law makes half a conversation here. The other half would be a minimal amount of knowledge about the case.
-------------------------------------

Anonymous, awesome post you rock!!

Anonymous said...

In order to protect the integrity of the courts and ensure the privacy of citizens federal law provides a legal framework within which wiretaps and interceptions of communications can be conducted. Federal law requires a court order authorizing the use of such measures against U.S. citizens. In the absence of court authorizations, penalties exist. An exception to requiring an order is outlined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3. This provides relief from the requirement of a court order on wiretaps if the President deems it necessary to protect the U.S. from actual or potential hostile actions from a foreign power. So, President Bush can wiretap Drew if he thinks he is unpatriotic. Otherwise, those involved in wire tap better follow the rules and get a court order.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
August 6, 2008 3:47 PM

7 months of taping?

6 months to disclose?

What are the federal laws on this?

Can't wait to see how this one plays out. Oh and by the way, compliance with the federal law on the phone taps (if there were any.)

The improper means never justify the ends. I bet before this is over there will be a lot of scrutiny and I mean scrutiny that will go beyond the state of Illinois.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There better be A LOT of scrutiny, that will go beyond the state of Illinois, in the ineptness of the investigation of the Kathleen Savio MURDER, since day one!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
In order to protect the integrity of the courts and ensure the privacy of citizens federal law provides a legal framework within which wiretaps and interceptions of communications can be conducted. Federal law requires a court order authorizing the use of such measures against U.S. citizens. In the absence of court authorizations, penalties exist. An exception to requiring an order is outlined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3. This provides relief from the requirement of a court order on wiretaps if the President deems it necessary to protect the U.S. from actual or potential hostile actions from a foreign power. So, President Bush can wiretap Drew if he thinks he is unpatriotic. Otherwise, those involved in wire tap better follow the rules and get a court order.


Did Drew put his flag out on appropriate holidays? Damn Bush.

Anonymous said...

Different case but "fruit of the poisonous tree explained:

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2006/04/will-fruit-of-poisonous-tree-doctrine.html

Anonymous said...

CBS reported that alleged friends of Drew reported wearing a wire.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.friends.2.777644.html

Anonymous said...

Len Wawczak was charged with misdemeanor battery after alleging pushing Drew Peterson. Len was released after posting $100 bond.

Wawczak apparently showed no remorse when he said: "It was the best one hundred dollars I ever spent in my life. ... I'd do it again."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/26/peterson.wire.ap/


Peterson's lawyer, Joel Brodsky, said his client told investigators that Wawczak "ambushed and punched" him and that Peterson tried to "walk away from the confrontation and was punched once in the back."

Wawczak told the station he went to the barber shop after his son called him to say he and Peterson were there at the same time and that Peterson was "staring

Anonymous said...

Also from CNN

Wawczak and his wife, Paula Stark, said they secretly taped Peterson after being contacted by the Illinois State Police in mid-November. They said they continued recording conversations through mid-June.

The informants claimed to CNN that Peterson said that he wished he'd cremated his third wife's remains...

Anonymous said...

MSNBC also has information.

Based on the alleged recordings, The Sun-times allegedly quoted Peterson as saying, "I should have had the (expletive deleted) cremated. It would have cost me less and I wouldn't be going through this trouble."

Peterson also allegedly mocked the police to Stark, saying, "It was in a dry bathtub. What a bunch of idiots."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25807204/

Anonymous said...

According to MNBC, Illinois State Police contacted th informants in November. Supposedly tapings continued recording conversations through mid-June. Joel Brodsky apparently has not seen or heard the tapes and questions whether the tapes' exist. If they do he theorized that Stark and Wawczak may have broken the the law.

A wire tapping or wearing a wire by non authorized people or without a properly obtained court order may be a felony. I think the tapes probably have not yet been disclosed only the comments of the informants to the press. But wait until the discovery on this one folks to see if it was properly authorized and timely disclosed!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
7 months of taping?

6 months to disclose?
*********************

The warrant was renewed every 30 days. The disclosure only needs to be done at the end of the surveillance work (and there is a lengthy grace period).

Seriously, this is the most ignorant and uniformed group I've ever discussed the case with.

People here are tossing about unfounded accusations that even the suspect's lawyer has had the sense not to bother with.

Anonymous said...

Do you have the orders renewing the warrants?

Guess we will all find out when the disclosures are made and the motions to discover and suppress begin.

pro said...

(and there is a lengthy grace period).

60 days-not 6 months

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
7 months of taping?

6 months to disclose?
*********************

The warrant was renewed every 30 days. The disclosure only needs to be done at the end of the surveillance work (and there is a lengthy grace period).

Seriously, this is the most ignorant and uniformed group I've ever discussed the case with.

People here are tossing about unfounded accusations that even the suspect's lawyer has had the sense not to bother with.

August 6, 2008 4:53 PM
_________
You do not appear to be too well informed on this case. Ultimately, after that comment, you are
now a member of the "ignorant and uniformed group"

Anonymous said...

The ISP has never even confirmed that any undercover taping occurred, much less released the tapes.

Let's stick to the facts, kids.

Need Closure said...

This is for Interested Law Man
If you are really an Interested Law Man, and interested in justice, I would really like to read your take on this!! (or any others take)
Unanswered-Cries

We need help in Illinois...sigh
Please, Please, one of you attorneys do something for KATHLEEN!

Anonymous said...

Question for the lawyers reading-
Is it legal for ISP to wire tap a suspect who has lawyered up and stopped talking to LE. According to Lenny & Paula they were working undercover for ISP, would that make them LE agents that also could not legally wire tap Drew?
Hope that makes sense, I do realize the claim is there was a court order but IMO that doesn't mean it was legal.
Thanks in advance for the answer.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Need Closure said...

This is for Interested Law Man
If you are really an Interested Law Man, and interested in justice, I would really like to read your take on this!! (or any others take)
Unanswered-Cries

We need help in Illinois...sigh
Please, Please, one of you attorneys do something for KATHLEEN!
--
Amen! Poor soul and still no suspect has been named in her case.

Anonymous said...

Here is absolute proof that Len Wawczak and Paula Stark are two of the dumbest people on the planet. Wawczak and Stark said that they had Illinois State Police approval to go public with their undercover informant status. So what do they do? They come out through Joe Hosey and the Sun Times for free. My media guru told me that if they had gone to either the National Enquirer or TMZ, and agreed to come out exclusively through one of those outlets, they would have been paid at least $1,000,000.00, (thats one million dollars!!!!) for the exclusive rights to come out with that story! Thats right, Len and Paula just blew a million dollars. But hey, its not about the money right? They got to be friends with Joe Hosey, and that’s worth more than a ton of gold.

« Last Edit: Today at 11:50am by joelbrodsky »

Anonymous said...

Whether the ISP ordered and/or approved of the wire is a major issue that needs to be disclosed. Thereafter, full discovery will be revealed. Then expect motions to surpress and motions to test the validity of the order for the wire and any renewals, if any.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
August 7, 2008 12:19 AM
Here is absolute proof that Len Wawczak and Paula Stark are two of the dumbest people on the planet. Wawczak and Stark said that they had Illinois State Police approval to go public with their undercover informant status. So what do they do? They come out through Joe Hosey and the Sun Times for free. My media guru told me that if they had gone to either the National Enquirer or TMZ, and agreed to come out exclusively through one of those outlets, they would have been paid at least $1,000,000.00, (thats one million dollars!!!!) for the exclusive rights to come out with that story! Thats right, Len and Paula just blew a million dollars. But hey, its not about the money right? They got to be friends with Joe Hosey, and that’s worth more than a ton of gold.

« Last Edit: Today at 11:50am by joelbrodsky »




Lenny and Paula did not want any money for what they did. They repeatedly stated that they did this "for Stacy and the children", not for any monetary gain.
Your comment "two of the dumbest people on the planet..." proves that point. You just have it backwards.

Now if you want to see some of the "dumbest people on the planet"....


Watch what you blog-you never know who is reading
------------------------------------------

ARTICLE VIII. ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others


In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not:
(a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false.


Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

As Joel says "go video"
Lawyer ethics 101
Abood: "If that is the worst thing he said on these tapes, I'm not too worried about it"

Drew P.: "I still had a gun that they missed when they did the search"


real psychologist on psychological torture of the children


My media guru told me ..........
Media guru
Well my media guru said you should get a new "guru"!

Thats right, Len and Paula just blew a million dollars. But hey, its not about the money right? They got to be friends with Joe Hosey, and that’s worth more than a ton of gold.

As I said they are not looking for money, unlike some other people trying to make money off the murder of Kathleen Savio.
Profit from murder
Trash to make money

Anonymous said...

Well, I am not involved in the Peterson ordeal. But as a disinterested party, I would think Joel Brodsky can make comments until there are charges brought against Peterson in the deaths and a gag order entered. That would go for comments about the wire allegedly approved by the State Police.

It is a different story once the charges are filed and the Judge instructs counsel not to comment on litigation in process. Thats my 2 cents!

Law Dog said...

Hey,

How does any one know the purpose of what Joel B. and D.P.'s trip was to Florida? Was it a working vacation?

Also, it is pretty clear that the kids were with D.P.'s brother. What made some of you think to the contrary?

Why do so many of you dislike J.B. Isn't he just doing his job?

Even if the job is an unpopular one, doesn't someone have to do it?

And if someone does it, don't you as a lawyer have an obligation to do what you think is best?

Finally, why is J.B.'s personal life relevant? He is just the lawyer, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK1W967Zmlw said...

Good questions, Law Dog. I don't have the answers, but would like to hear from others.

I do have a video where they say that stating Len thinks Peterson will be arrested by Sept 10. Also a former judge saying that Len's leaking of the wire violated fed law. (He apparently leaked it because he thougth the wire had been disclosed.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK1W967Zmlw

Anonymous said...

So when will the state notify drew concerning the wire tap or have they already? If Drew does not get any notification does that mean Lenny & Paula are in violation of the law.
Lenny & Paula have stated on their Drew bashing blog that they had unfeathered access to Drews home and computer for 7 months to including access when Drew was not home. On Lenny's blog when he was still posing as a girl he posted a copy of a reciept of Drews that he claimed someone faxed to him. I don't believe that for one minute so my question is if Lenny has taken things off Drew's computer or even out of his house is that not stealing? Does allowing someone to be in your home to watch your children give them the right to take things from your home or off your computer and in this case post it on the internet for the world to see?

Anonymous said...

"...they had unfeathered access ..."

They were allowed access without feathers!? That's criminal! ;)

Anonymous said...

I will give you my take on these questions!!
Law Dog said...
Hey,

How does any one know the purpose of what Joel B. and D.P.'s trip was to Florida? Was it a working vacation?

They don't know and don't care, apparently Drew must ask for permission from these people before he does anything.

Also, it is pretty clear that the kids were with D.P.'s brother. What made some of you think to the contrary?

Drew's neighbor Sharon stated this on Geraldo the day after it was conveniently leaked on Lenny's blog. And once that happens it doesn't matter if it's true or a big fat lie they run with it and even the truth won't change their minds. Matter of fact it's still being talked about and they are wondering why drew hasn't been arrested yet for violation of the judges orders, even though they have no clue as to what the order states.

Why do so many of you dislike J.B. Isn't he just doing his job?

IMO they dislike him because he represents the man they hate with all they have, Drew Peterson. They don't care if it is JB's job. If they could have their way, Drew would not be allowed to have an attorney, trial or conviction. they would send him straight To jail, well actually the death chamber. These people have already convicted Drew and want to enact their own justice.

Even if the job is an unpopular one, doesn't someone have to do it?

they would prefer to bypass the US court system, so no need for an attorney. IMO this case has brought out in many followers something similar to the Salem Witch Trials!!

And if someone does it, don't you as a lawyer have an obligation to do what you think is best?

My answer is yes!!
Their answer I would imagine is for the attorney to do a terrible job to ensure Drew is convicted of double murder.

Finally, why is J.B.'s personal life relevant? He is just the lawyer, right?
August 7, 2008 9:38 AM

They feel entitled to JB's personal life because he represents Drew and in doing that has made comments which they deem negative towards Stacy, Lenny, Paula, Kathleen and any one else involved in the case. It doesn't matter if the comments are true just that they have been made. You have to understand that most of the blogs following this case do not allow freedom of speech or even both sides of the story. You will be told that you can bash Drew and Joel all you want but no bashing or discussions are allowed concerning Stacy and her family that could be negative in any way. Like why Cassandra's timeline makes no sense or why would Stacy as the pastor claims cover up Kathleens murder for Drew? Or why Anthony Cales was in such a rush to get his toolbox and harley out of Drews garage. Did Stacy leave on her own, and on and on!!
Just check out a few of the blogs that these people post on and you will see the whys!!

Anonymous said...

Here is from an article written by Russell Goldman, ABC News on November 21, 2007 as a result of an interview with Drew Peterson:

When asked about his concerns for his two young children, ages 2 and 4, Peterson said, “sure their mom’s missing
and they’re upset but there are more important things to worry about.


Here is a link to the article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=3894833&page=1

Anonymous said...

The thing I don't get about the Drew haters is why they think perceived "wrongs" by D.P. or his lawyer justify wrongs on the part of those wanting to convict D.P. That simply is not our system of justice, folks.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The thing I don't get about the Drew haters is why they think perceived "wrongs" by D.P. or his lawyer justify wrongs on the part of those wanting to convict D.P. That simply is not our system of justice, folks.

August 8, 2008 7:42 AM
----
I don't understand that either, illegal is illegal. That mentalilty along with the witch hunt IMO is the scary part in watching and following this case! Are we going to become a society that convicts citizens in the media and internet then apply our own justice?

Anonymous said...

ABRAMS: All right. Let me ask you about your kids, Mr. Peterson. You said before that everything in your life is now about your kids. How are your kids dealing with, A, the fact that their mom is gone and, B, the fact that you remain a suspect?

PETERSON: Well, the fact that I‘m a suspect isn‘t really an issue for the children right now. I mean it‘s not really something that they‘re thinking about every day. But the children get my full attention every day of every week. So they‘re doing fine.

My 15-year-old is number one in his class in high school, straight A honors, along with my 13-year-old, he‘s straight A honors also. And the little ones are very happy, healthy children. They‘ve been looked at and talked to by psychologists and noted people in the field of child care. And the kids are doing great.

ABRAMS: How could the 14 and 15-year-old not be interested in the fact that their father is a suspect in his wife‘s disappearance and there are now questions about his third wife‘s disappearance? I‘ve got to believe a 14 and 15-year-old are going to kind of get it.

PETERSON: They‘re 13 and 15. But the thing is, they‘re kind of bored with all this. And they -

ABRAMS: Really? I mean they‘re bored? I mean Dad‘s a suspect in Mom‘s disappearance and that‘s a boring story to them?

PETERSON: They‘re bored with it. The story comes on TV these days and they want to watch “Family Guy” or something kid-appropriate.

ABRAMS: Is that because dad is changing the channel?

PETERSON: No. I let them watch it and make all of them fully abreast of what‘s taking place. And they‘re pretty much bored with it.

Anonymous said...

And there you have it in a nut shell from those that run the bash drew site. Scary the mentality of these vigilantes!
-----
In the meantime you all keep posting your TRIPE! continue making asses out of yourselves because the day of reckoning is coming, oh yes it is and when it comes I'm gonna laugh my ass off at every single one of you that has stroked that sick mans perversive disgusting behavior and who "supported" his "rights" people like him don't deserve to live in our society, they don't deserve freedom, what he deserves is Bubba's BIG MERCY shoved right up his ass without the benefit of lubrication!!
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=5593337363639855463&blogID=7081036624150822867&isPopup=false&page=2

Anonymous said...

In the meantime you all keep posting your TRIPE! continue making asses out of yourselves because the day of reckoning is coming, oh yes it is and when it comes I'm gonna laugh my ass off at every single one of you that has stroked that sick mans perversive disgusting behavior and who "supported" his "rights" people like him don't deserve to live in our society, they don't deserve freedom, what he deserves is Bubba's BIG MERCY shoved right up his ass without the benefit of lubrication!!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this post show your ....

Nevermind

Anonymous said...

Peterson bashers do not want to discuss evidence or law. Instead they want a place like Nazi Germany where there were no civil rights and no right to a defense or trial.

Shame on you and your evil thoughts. Two wrongs never make a right.

Anonymous said...

Kind of like the old kings law. No need for trial, the victim's relative says you are guilty so you are guilty!

Anonymous said...

With anti Peterson crowd, the only law appears to be the linch mob mentality.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:44 PM.

By Godwin's Rule, I declare victory.

Anonymous said...

funny most of the criminals are on the Cales side of the house, maybe that's why such a need for the internet propaganda to hide the real truth about Kathleen and why Stacy up and left!
August 6, 2008 10:07 AM
----
Tipster assists in sex offender notification

Call alerts law enforcement of status of out-of-state sex offender

by Kevin Lilly

With the help of a tipster, an investigator with the Cass County prosecutor’s office learned that an Illinois man who was recently charged with battery is a sexual predator in his home state.

Investigator Pat Shively received information from a member of the public that 29-year-old Yelton Cales of Downers Grove, Ill., is a sexual predator required to register annually for the rest of his life. Shively said the prosecutor’s office was not aware of Cales’ background.

“We really appreciate comments like this,” Shively said.

He encourages others to call as well. Sex offenders must register, but not all do when required. The public can be a big help in compliance with the registry law, Shively said.

Cales was arrested in Logansport on July 24 on charges that he attacked three people with a board. Police responded to the 200 block of West Ottawa Street to find the husband of one of the victims holding Cales to the ground.

According to a police report, Cales had nearly collided with another vehicle. He then put his vehicle in reverse and struck a house. Cales allegedly proceeded to fight with three people, including a woman and a juvenile.

Cales has been charged with three counts of battery resulting in bodily injury and endangering a person while operating while intoxicated. At least one more charge could be filed.
continued
http://www.pharostribune.com/local/local_story_227111306.html

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous 3:44 PM.

By Godwin's Rule, I declare victory.

August 14, 2008 6:44 PM
----

By the US Constitution, I declare victory.

Anonymous said...

First hand observations by someone who knows Drew Peterson and his children:

August 12, 2008 11:20 PM
============================================================

them kids are not allowed to talk about their mothers .. call me a liar but its true ..one time Lil Lacy was talking to Paula about Stacy and when Lacy seen Drew walk in the room she shut up and she shut up fast about Stacy ... FACT

August 12, 2008 11:41 PM
--------------------------------

-not that am a doctor but i think Tom & Kris will be fine once they are away from him ....poor tom already keeps to himself in that house - he never wants to go around Drew and he is a great kid -- we miss all 4 of them but I have to keep thinking that this was all done for them and to try and not be sad which dont really help

Anonymous said...

Sounds like your are trying to rationalize entrapment by saying it was for the good of the kids. That is the whole point that is trying to be made. It is not whether Peterson is innocent or guilty. It is a about doing things the right way. Improper means to trick and entrap a suspect is wrong. There is never a justification for such a wrong as our system of justice is not founded on such trickery.

Anonymous said...

PETERSON: They‘re 13 and 15. But the thing is, they‘re kind of bored with all this. And they -

ABRAMS: Really? I mean they‘re bored? I mean Dad‘s a suspect in Mom‘s disappearance and that‘s a boring story to them?

PETERSON: They‘re bored with it. The story comes on TV these days and they want to watch “Family Guy” or something kid-appropriate.

Anonymous said...

"Peterson bashers do not want to discuss evidence or law. Instead they want a place like Nazi Germany where there were no civil rights and no right to a defense or trial."

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.

Anonymous said...

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.
August 16, 2008 11:34 PM
---
A tradition on internet boards? That is funny and it sounds more like a cop out and way to avoid the truth about those that silence others freedom of expression.
But hey to each their own. If Ashley's blog wants to scream justice by cheering on illegal activity, deleting posts that don't bash Drew or talk about his private parts, then good for them.
They surely aren't a blog about justice or rational discussions concerning this case. They are nothing more than a perverted disgusting blog that thrives off of lynch mob mentality. What really takes the cake is if what Lenny clams is true, that ISP and the State Attorney of Will County approve of their star witnesses behaving in such a manner.
If true it's a sad day for the justice system in IL.

Anonymous said...

I question the ethics of using kids to entrap their dad!

Anonymous said...

An old legal saying:

"You can't pick your witnesses."

Luckily, the jury will by much more interested in Drew's taped statements than in the people who were asked by the State to wear the wires.

Anonymous said...

I am not so sure about that.

Also, the tapes have to get by the judges screening first to make sure they were legally obtained and that there was not entrapment...

Anonymous said...

First there must be an arrest then a trial before anything happens concerning the "tapes". These tapes IMO, would not be admissible in court. IMO no smart DA would put Lenny or Paula on the stand as the star witnesses with the smoking gun.
Now this new information that has been released to the public is something that I hope LE took seriously. I am starting to believe that LE has tunnel vision like much of the public and did not take this seriously and still aren't.

According to an affidavit by the state investigator, Kurdenok told the investigator that he had drinks with Stacy Peterson on Oct. 27, the day before she disappeared.

According to the investigator's statement, Kurdenok suggested to Stacy she should take cash and not use her credit cards - and that she said if she were to leave, she would leave in the morning when Drew was asleep.

Now Kurdenok tellls Newsradio 780, "What's on record is on record."


http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/your-thread-june-1/#comment-15360

Anonymous said...

Wrong answer Cassandra, what you are claiming is not what is shown in the search warrant that Joel has shown from LE. It says nothing even close to what Cassandra is claiming.
Why the need to lie about this FACT Cassandra? No worry the Drew haters will believe this over LE's search warrant. I guess that is the need to lie, since there has not been any evidence produce to show Drew killed Stacy, no crime scene, no arrest and still no suspect in Kathleen's murder. Is the real suspect in Kathleen's murder possibly a missing person?
Is this the reason why this case has become a three ring circus?

---

Everything that Brodsky is reporting is wrong and twisted,” Stacy Peterson’s sister, Cassandra Cales, said in reaction to this latest news.

Cales says she spoke with Mike about his conversation with her sister.

“He had told her to pack a bag. Just to keep it ready so if she needed to leave at a quick time she could be ready,” Cales said.

http://cbs2chicago.com/westsuburbanbureau/drew.peterson.stacy.2.799919.html

Anonymous said...

Hmm wonder if LE or a PI for the defense are searching Cass County IL and the surrounding area for any evidence concerning Stacy's where abouts. Has Yelton been questioned regarding Kathleen's death and Stacy's disappearance?
---
With the help of a tipster, an investigator with the Cass County prosecutor’s office, learned that an Illinois man who was recently charged with battery is a sexual predator in his home state.

According to a police report, Cales had nearly collided with another vehicle. He then put his vehicle in reverse and struck a house. Cales allegedly proceeded to fight with three people, including a woman and a juvenile.

Anonymous said...

The plot just keeps getting thicker!

I have always thought Stacy is out there some where or was at least out there some where.

Anonymous said...

Legal Pub: How are the children doing?


Joel: Great. The high school freshman is 1st in his class of 2000, he is in senior level band and also is involved in sport. His 8th grader brother is also #1 in his class. They are bright and well adjusted. The younger kids, 2 and 4, and very happy and well adjusted.

Anonymous said...

Kids seem to be doing well...

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. .