The Selling of Drew Peterson, continued


Steph Watts, formerly of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren and now a freelancer, described on Fox News Chicago tonight how Joel Brodsky approached him with an offer: $200,000 for a story about Drew Peterson and Chrissy Raines, complete with the opportunity to videotape the two of them at home.

The figure of $200,000 was arrived at by their belief that is what the family of Casey Anthony was offered for a story.

Watts stated that were Peterson to be acquitted he imagines Drew and Joel Brodsky would simply “Rejoin the media circus” and the two of them would continue to “pimp themselves out for interviews.”

Rumor has it that NBC paid six figures for the collect-call interview granted to Matt Lauer earlier this week.

Fox News Chicago

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

84 thoughts on “The Selling of Drew Peterson, continued

  1. http://www.brianmcdaniel.org/2009/05/18/judges-drew-peterson-could-face/

    Judges Drew Peterson Could Face

    Amy Bertani-Tomczak
    A former Assistant State’s Attorney, former presiding judge of the Civil Law call, and wife of Jeff Tomczak, the man whom Glasgow defeated in 2004 to become the State’s Attorney.

    Bertani-Tomzak recently sentenced a Joliet man to a maximum sentence 60 years in prison for fatally stabbing a woman 20 years ago. This cold case was revived after new DNA evidence became available.

    Elected as a Republican; Retained twice.

    Edward Burmila
    A former State’s Attorney who lost re-election to Glasgow in 1994. Judge Burmila’s knowledge of criminal procedure is very solid despite years in private practice.

    Appointed as an Associate Judge. Burmila is a Republican.

    Carla Policandriotes
    As a private attorney, Policandriotes was a family lawyer. When she was elected to the bench, she was assigned to the criminal call and remains there. She currently manages all Drug Court referrals.

    Elected as a Republican; Retained once.

    Daniel Rozak
    A former public defender that runs a solid felony call, Rozak is as tough on prosecutors as he is on defendants. Judge Rozak, as a condition of probation for a man pleading guilty of animal cruelty, forbid the defendant to own a pet “up to, and including, a goldfish.”

    Elected as a Republican; Retained twice.

    Stephen White
    The former Chief Judge until last fall, White spent his time as a prosecutor before assuming the bench. His retirement will trigger a sub-circuit election in New Lenox, Frankfort and Homer Glen townships.

    Elected as a Republican; Retained twice.

  2. Good morning!
    I wonder of the below info could somehow apply to Drew and him earning money in the way he does for the interviews. I realize the connection is not direct but I think a good question is HOW he got into possesion of the money he has and if the judge can ask him to prove it. Now, he is not only a suspect, he has been accused of murder. I mean, if Drew is able to prove that his money do not come from any criminal activity.

    BTW, Drew Peterson employed a financial manager, not a lawyer in the light of what Watt says.

    What if it is believed that the money to be used to bail someone out is the product of criminal activity?

    The judge or a magistrate may stay the release of a defendant if a peace officer or prosecutor files a sworn declaration demonstrating probable cause to believe the source of the consideration, etc. was feloniously obtained, or the judge or magistrate has probable cause to believe the source was feloniously obtained. This order is commonly known as a Nebbia Hearing or Bail Sufficiency Hearing. If probable cause exists, the defendant then bears the burden by a preponderance of evidence to prove that no part of the source was so obtained. A defendant who prevails must be released on issuance of a bail bond as specified. In Illinois, the Judge may issue an order in such situations requiring the defendant to establish proof of the source of funds used for bond purposes.

  3. Good Morning!

    About the monies DP has made/is making from interviews, I’m curious about whether Illinois has ‘Son of Sam’ laws which prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes by selling stories, etc. If IL does have them and DP is found guilty, would he have to somehow surrender that $$? Maybe to Kitty’s estate?

  4. I hope the procecutors will use the argument of Drew profiting from the murders he committed and Drew will stay in prison without any bail after Thurday’s jury.

  5. Facs – Considering the way DP is handling himself and being handled by others and the comments being made, I think you may want to consider replacing the word “Selling” at the top with the more accurately descriptive verb “pimping.”

    It’s a disgusting spectacle.

  6. I am not very comfortable with the idea of Bertani-Tomczak being assigned as I have suspicions about Peterson’s relationship with her husband, Jeff Tomczak. [Are the Tomczaks still married? For some reason, I seem to recall reading that they were now divorced. I might have this case confused with another one I am also following, but this should be checked into.]

    I just don’t feel that Bertani-Tomczak would be able to be as impartial as she should be because of her husband’s previous “turning of the head” when dealing with Peterson. When speaking of the coroner’s jury decision to classify Kathleen’s death as an accident rather than a homicide, Patrick O’Neil (the coroner) stated that “Jeff Tomczak was state’s attorney at that time, and any criminal charges would have been his responsibility, and that criminal charges could be lodged regardless of a coroner’s jury ruling.”

    In other words, Jeff Tomczak could have overruled the coroner’s jury ruling, but did not. In fact, he must have known that there was a police officer sitting on that coroner’s jury, yet still accepted their ruling.

    Obviously, if they (the Tomczaks) are no longer married, I would reconsider my objections to Bertani-Tomczak being assigned to this case.

    I do not know enough about Burmila or Policandriotes to be able to make an informed statement about them.

    Rozak is the one who originally set the $20M bond. He understands the vulgarity and enormity of Peterson’s crimes, yet has a proven track record of being equitably fair to both the prosecution and the defense.

    None of us would want to see Peterson be convicted, only to have that conviction overturned on appeal. Having a truly impartial judge such as Rozak on the bench would almost certainly eliminate that possibility as he would make well thought out rulings.

    If Stephen White is nearing retirement, it would seem unlikely that he would be assigned such a high profile case that is likely to be dragged out for a considerable length of time. This is especially true if Peterson is soon to be charged in Stacy’s case.

    Based on what I know (thus far), of the choices as laid out by facsmiley, my vote goes to Rozak.

  7. Can’t help but keep thinking about how assured Joel and couple that with DP’s incredibly disdainful remarks about ‘a jury of uneducated laypeople making decisions about his case’ (paraphrasing). It doesn’t seem like something someone (even Drew) who was about to face a ‘jury of uneducated laypeople’ would say. Were they thinking of a Judge Trial, not a Jury Trial, and one with a (possibly) judge?

    I’m anxious for Thursday, but knowing DP will also be waiting, but in JAIL, helps.

  8. State, Peterson team fight over judge

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1579500,Peterson-trial-judge-Joliet-JO051809.article

    JOLIET — Prosecutors bounced the judge from Drew Peterson’s murder case, but lawyers for the alleged wife-killer are fighting to get him back on the bench.

    At Peterson’s arraignment Monday, State’s Attorney James Glasgow accused Judge Richard Schoenstedt of “prejudice against the state” and moved to have him taken off the case.

    “I think at this point I should step down and have another judge sit in my stead,” Schoenstedt said as he made way for Judge Gerald Kinney to preside over Peterson’s initial appearance with counsel.

    Kinney was in no hurry to get things under way, saying, “I haven’t done much of anything in this matter.”

    On his way into the courthouse that day, Peterson clowned for the cameras and hollered jokes at reporters. But Monday, Peterson remained silent, and even left it to Brodsky to reply “not guilty” when asked how he pleaded.

    Savio’s half-brother, Nick Savio, was glad Peterson remained behind bars.

    “He should sit in jail, as far as I’m concerned,” said Nick Savio, who slammed the state police for not arresting Peterson until five years, and an ill-fated second marriage for Peterson, after his aunt died.

    “I believe the state police stood together,” he said. “I believe it was a cover-up. Drew knew a lot of people. He had a lot of money.”

  9. “…Peterson remained silent, and even left it to Brodsky to reply “not guilty” when asked how he pleaded.”

    ——
    Couldn’t he spit it out? No wonder.

  10. I suppose we can expect a lot of legal and political manoevring with possibly some personal vendettas thrown in before all is said and done but I take comfort from the fact if someone as powerful and well connected as Thomas Capano can get indicted and convicted on murder charges than Drew Peterson can’t be too far away.

    Thomas Capano was a US lawyer from a wealthy family, he was former Deputy Attorney General of Delaware, Wilmington City Attorney, Counsel to Governor Michael Castle, partners in a law firm and politically well connected (!!)

    and what does Drew have going for him ??

  11. I, too, am concerned about Judge Tomczak’s ability to be impartial over decisions regarding ” the thing called Drew” if she is indeed related to the other Tomczak, who seems to have neglected Kathleens dilemma. If she is still married to JT, she should absolutely not hear this case.

  12. Thomas Capano was prosecuted with vigor because his victim worked for the governer. I have to wonder if she was employed as a domestic or ? if justice would have been served. It’s all about who you know, make no mistake about it.

  13. It’s revolting the way man-cow panders to Drew & his pet jackass, with the interviews and phone call updates and studio appearances.
    Seems as though JB has a pipeline right into the studio microphone ! How very cozy and offensive.

    I predict the man-cow will be doing high school basketball blow by blows within a few years or sooner.
    hasta la bye-bye man-cow.

  14. Don’t you think it would be a great fun if it was the State to ask for the change of venue, not Brodsky and Drew? ;)

    I read opinions of some lawyers on the ‘gun’ decision of Schoenstedt and they all agreed that he had legal basis to refuse submitting investigation documents to Brodsky. When he missed the option, my first thought was that his ‘I had no choice’ judgement sounded similar to the Coroner’s Jury deprived of ‘undetermined’ option of Kathleen’s death.

    I am only afraid Judge Gerald Kenney will not allow to replace RS.

  15. http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2009/05/drew-peterson-view-from-two.html

    Monday, May 18, 2009
    Drew Peterson: A View From Two Perpsectives

    by Robin Sax

    Part 1: The Prosecutor’s Version
    (Tomorrow, The Violence Expert, Susan Murphy Milano in Part 2)

    What a great relief it was to all justice seekers to see that the grand jury finally handed down an indictment against Drew Peterson. You heard it here first; there is no way that this case will settle. Drew Peterson is probably one of the most narcissistic (self loving persons) out there. He will never take responsibility for the years of domestic abuse against all of his wives, the abuse of power by using his police knowledge and power to murder at least one and probably two of his wives, and the child abuse; for not only killing his children’s mother but also for subjecting his children to the lies and cover-up that have become the symbol of this case since the onset. Drew Peterson is incapable of accepting responsibility and a trial will give him the opportunity to do what he loves best—to be in front of a camera and to talk, talk, talk.

    So, what are we likely to see as his defense? In the words of Joel Brodsky on the Today Show, “This is a weak, circumstantial case at best.” All I have to say is SO WHAT? Most cases are proved by circumstantial evidence…

  16. Channel 9, WGN News, legal analyst, Terry Sullivan says:

    Prosecution asking judge to be removed: Doesn’t happen all that often for prosecution side, but Statute says State or defense can ask for it. Once for the prosecution and twice for defense. He says the removal is automatic. In other words, Brodsky says he’s going to contest it Thursday, but it can’t really be contested, and he says he doesn’t think he’s going anywhere with it. He said it does not show a weak case because no one really knows what the State’s case is. He said he is expecting the State to put up a little more information than we’ve seen so far on Thursday. Also, on Thursday, either the case judge will reassign a new judge, or the chief judge will take jurisdiction.

    As far as this being a circumstantial case – most are. He said, being the era of CSI, a lot of times, jurors enjoy playing CSI and putting cases together themselves to get to a conclusion.

  17. Good Morning!

    …I would add that I see no reason to be able to say that the prosecutor doesn’t want to try Drew on the merit of the case. Technicalities, yes. Technically he’s a mommykiller.

    Robin Sax totally right on to cite the LIES and cover-up as damaging to the children. The worst, of course, that Stacy abandoned them, but all that slime won’t disappear. (Well done again Drew, BJobsky and Damstrong)

  18. Hey Bucket. I have to tell you ~ when Peterson was asked by Lauer (blah!!!!) what he tells his little ones about his absence, I cringed waiting for his answer, thinking: he’s not going to say he told them he’s on vacation, is he? If I remember, he did kind of hesitate and then responded with something like he’s helping the police. That’s what his older son is telling them, that dad is helping the police. The older ones “know” what’s going on.

    Yes, they sure do. Maybe, the longer he is away from them, the sooner they can begin to collect their real thoughts and sort this all out for themselves. I hope so.

  19. I had to laugh at the “helping the police”. The standard police description of someone being questioned here is that “They are helping the police with their enquiries.” LOL

    I actually think I would say the same to the little ones at this stage.

  20. Well, “helping the police” would have to be the most logical explanation for those little children, since their current memories of mommy leaving on a vacation wouldn’t leave them with a secure thought if daddy went on one too.

    I am so good with the idea that the longer that man rots in a cell away from all of those kids, the better off they all will be for it.

  21. I had a lovely picture in my head of Lacy getting a great big kick out of her baby niece. :-D Probably Anthony, too.

  22. I just checked the will county court docket and there is NO court date set for M. Robinson. The Robinson with battery and witness intimidation charges. Does that mean he might have cut a deal at his last pretrial hearing??? Oh boy, I think there’s something fishy going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if all of those kids could be introduced to their extended families, and find out what it’s like to have relationships with family members like the rest of the civilized world does? The Peterson theory is any family member, other than him and his son, Stephen, is evil, selfish and sinister.

    He’s done a good job with that, hasn’t he. That can’t be disputed. Stephen should get on his knees and thank the heavens that his mother got out of a Drew Peterson relationship with her life. Too bad he hasn’t done any serious soul searching about how dysfunctional his father’s way of life has become.

  24. I’m rather hoping that Stephen’s wife will issue a few invitations for Sunday tea or other.

  25. Rescue, could you tell me who the Chief Judge is? I just wondered who the judge might be if instead of assigning Kinney to the case, the Chief Judge takes on the case.

    Also, with Drew Peterson and his lawyer out trolling for reporters to do stories on him, how would that affect any request for change of venue. If they feel they cannot get a impartial jury and are responsible in great part for that themselves, would the judge just say “too bad, so sad”?

  26. Saw these on another board:

    PETERSON DREW W  5189  405 900 09CF001048  0  MURDER/INTENT TO  2 Arraignment
    PETERSON DREW W  5189  405 900 09CF001048  0  MURDER/INTENT TO  1 Arraignment
    
    CARCERANO STEVEN  5199 900 09SC000500  Return Date
    WAWCZAK LEONARD  5199 900 08LM003930  Return Date
    ROBINSON MICHAEL   5199 WCCA 130 08CH003585 Motions
    ROBINSON MICHAEL   7019 301  900  04F 000340  Warrant 
  27. BTW, the first blog article that I linked to, the one with the potential judges, has more info than just that. I didn’t want to snag his entire article.

  28. Thanks, Rescue. I saw Facs’ post that listed Stephen White as the former chief judge, and had heard Brodsky say “he is the chief judge” but didn’t know who he was talking about.

    So either the case judge assigns someone or the chief judge takes over. The prosecution must then feel comfortable with any of the other judges. IMO, this makes Brodsky’s statement that the change was because the prosecution had a weak case much less likely.

    And I understand that Brodsky was on the spot to come up with something fast since all he had prepared were statements on their successful (NOT!) reduction of bail. ;)

  29. OT so delete if you so chose but I thought it was funny and was wishing that some other dynamic duo had set up a stunt challenge like this:

    The Big 89 Waterboard: Mancow OR Cassidy?
    The Big 89 Waterboard will be on Friday, May 22nd and YOU get to choose who gets wet; Mancow OR Cassidy?
    Text ‘DUNK’ to 68683 and give us your vote now! (Standard text message rates apply)

    Tune into the ‘results show’ on Thursday, May 21st, then the following day, listen to The Big 89 Waterboard: Mancow or Cassidy? You decide!

    Source:
    http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=1323491&spid=7571

    Right now Mancow has 61% of the vote to be the one dunked and I think he’s starting to poop in his pants already hearing people talk about how horrible it is and how you could actually die if it is done improperly. I’m putting my money down that someone in the radio management will stop the stunt before it happens.

  30. [sorry, I didn't copy the poster's name]
    May 19, 2009 at 12:59 am
    …When I went to the funeral, he laughed and joked in the back,” recalls Henry Savio, father of Kathleen Savio. “You think he’d have some heart.”…
    ________________

    I thought DP was ransacking Kathleen’s house during her funeral. Which is it? Am I just misunderstanding something here?

  31. Tink, there was both a reception and a funeral. IIRC, Drew blew off the reception to ransack the house, but he did attend the funeral.
    From the Civil Suit:

    In addition, on the day of Kathleen Savio’s funeral, rather than attend a reception for family and friends afterwards, defendant Peterson pulled a truck into the driveway of Kathleen Savio’s residence, and removed a large amount of personal property that had not been inventoried yet, nor which he had any claim to.

  32. I understood that he attended the funeral with Tommy and Kris, but passed on the gathering after the service and burial and opted instead to start cleaning out her house.

  33. thanks! mom, agreed! I have to admit I am getting a good laugh at the dynamic duo. They are so full of themselves with their narcissistic outlook, they don’t think ahead whatsoever, beyond their money- making plans/scams, in their alternate reality. They seem to think everything will go according to THEIR plan, prosecution will act as THEY expect, etc. Karma.

  34. It sounds like (from this report anyway) that Drew skipped out of the post-funeral luncheon and not the funeral itself.

    ****

    Also in the suit, it is alleged that on the day of Savio’s funeral, rather than attend a reception for family and friends, Peterson pulled a truck into the driveway of Savio’s home and removed personal property that had not yet been inventoried.

    Source: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/drew-peterson-sued-for-wrongful-death-of-3rd-wife-kathleen-savio.html

  35. I do belive Karma is in the works. It has already started. I thank God each and every day,that Drew’s scream team is like children in a corn maze….Which way do we go now.Would love to be a fly on the cell wall. Wonder if Drew is getting a little nervous about now? He should be..

  36. May 19, 2009 at 9:19 am
    Wouldn’t that be wonderful if all of those kids could be introduced to their extended families, and find out what it’s like to have relationships with family members like the rest of the civilized world does?
    ____________________________________________________

    Fortunately, the children do have a relationship with Paul & Norma Peterson, who are fine people and doting parents to their own child.

  37. The children also seem to be close to Stephen, Drew’s son who is presently watching them.

    My hope is that the children will now be able to have loving relationships with the families of their mothers, not only the members of Drew’s family that he approved of.

    There’s a whole world of people outside of the controller’s realm.

  38. I wonder (sorry WonderWoman) why Drew didn’t send the kids to his brother, Paul. I’d have thought that he’d figure Steve had his hands full with his full-time police officer job and new baby.

    I’d imagine that Paul is probably helping in some way, shape, or form with the kids. It did seem like he was around with them when everything first went down.

    I do hope that eventually the kids get to keep in touch with all sides of their families and get to see that their mom(s)’ families love them too.

  39. It appears that Grandpa Henry didn’t have much to do with the children even when his daughter was alive.

  40. I’m sorry, but in my eyes, Stephen is simply Drew,Jr. He’s still in the DP bubble. If he’s so fabulous, why doesn’t he call up Cass & the Savios to set up visits with the kids they haven’t seen in forever? The average joe would be completely overwhelmed by their own new baby alone, then add in 4 more kids, he’s got to be pulling his hair out. Any normal person would really want some help from the other family members, IMO. DP had the guns given back to him because DP knows he could just get them anytime, and I think he probably did get his guns back immediately. Stephen is the one the $250k was supposedly given to immediately after Stacy “disappeared”. (Was that determined to be internet rumor? I can’t keep it all straight anymore.) I don’t believe he can be trusted. I believe he is continuing the brainwashing of the kids. I hope & pray those kids can be de-programmed eventually, so they don’t turn into wife erasers like dear old dad. A responsible person would get those 4 kids into immediate counseling for their well being, instead of keeping them away from their non-criminal relatives who love & miss them. I’d love nothing more than to be told I’m wrong & they are getting family visits & counseling.

  41. I wonder (sorry again WonderWoman) if either Ann Doman or Cassie have reached out to Steve to look into getting to see the kids. I don’t think Steve will be the one to do the reaching.

  42. Hopefully, in this age of technology, family members have reached out electronically to at least the oldest boy and let him know their desire to visit/get to know them.

  43. I totally agree with you that the children should have contacts with the rest of their families and friends, but IMO it is not the right moment now to contact Steven.

  44. Does Drew lose his pension if he is convicted of killing Kathleen or would it have to have been a crime committed while on duty? I remember discussions about this some time ago but I have cobwebs in my brain.

  45. He was on duty when they found her in the tub – but I don’t recall there has been anything suggesting that she actually died while he was on duty.

  46. Tink, at one point Joel wrote on an Internet forum that Drew initially withdrew $250,000 of equity from the house and gave it to Stephen, but then put it back.

    As always when it comes to comments from the defense though, consider the source.

    2:51 PM 5/16/20082:52 PM 5/16/2008 Drew initally pulled that money out to prevent Stacy from getting it to enjoy with her paramour, but now he put it back because if she pulls it out then she has shown hereself and Drew is off the hook so to speak. (In reality she owns half the house is hers so half the money is hers anyway.)

  47. thinkaboutit2 Says:
    May 19, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    He was on duty when they found her in the tub – but I don’t recall there has been anything suggesting that she actually died while he was on duty.

    —–
    Oh, I see what you mean now. Good question!

  48. I think I found the answer to my question…

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5764203

    The only thing that would operate to take away his pension, for Sergeant Peterson or any other police officer, is a felony conviction that is related to his employment. It has to be a job-related felony,” said Richard Reimer, attorney for Bolingbrook Police pension board.

    Even if Peterson is fired from the force, he still would be entitled to his pension, unless he is convicted of a job-related felony, which the Bolingbrook pension board would have to define.

    “If there was evidence, and there was a conviction that somehow he used or misused his police authority, that would be something the board would consider that could be considered a job-related felony that could cause him to lose his pension,” said Reimer.

  49. So I wonder if things like this would count if he was convicted in either Kathleen or Stacy’s cases and they found any of these scenarios to be true:

    1)Using his on-duty status as a cover up for his involvement in the crime (such as if he was on duty when he called the neighbors and a locksmith to the house and one could argue that he did so to minimize suspicions about his involvement that he would know would have arisen if he was the one to find the body).

    2) Using his department-issued uniform, tools, or weapons while committing either murder while committing the crime.

    3) Using his police department computer to find out the address of any possible witnesses or attempts to intimidate anyone by saying he’d have them arrested if they turned him in – aka abuse of his power of police authority.

    IDK – I think if he is convicted and sent to prison then whoever has the kids should get his pension to help support them.

  50. This is the 1st time I’ve seen Reem Odeh (Dr. Phil). I wonder if she’s the reason he chose Joel, in addition to JB being a complete narcissist too…maybe he thought he’d charm Reem, she definitely fits his preferred physical type. Her body language is speaking volumes to me. She is very uncomfortable sitting next to JB & she averts her eyes when JB tells a lie. Why didn’t Dr Phil point out that the polygraph questions JB is defending today were questions written by him????

    I’d bet a paycheck (if I hadn’t just gotten laid off) that DP committed SOME felony on duty in 30 years.

  51. Oh Ernie. I know he’s not the brightest bulb in the box, but my heart does go out to him. His hands are tied. Thank God those Nevada passports didn’t come yet. Couldn’t resist.

  52. Did anyone else think that Reem looked like she was covering up like one would when they felt a man was creepily ogling them?

  53. When I can, I like to add links to blogs by people with some legal expertise. In this case a probate specialist:

    For a number of years, much having to do with Drew Peterson seems to have been irregular yet accepted – not surprisingly given Illinois’ reputation for embracing corruption over integrity when it comes to many public officeholders and policy. In the case of Kathleen Savio’s alleged will, if this document is truly as it has been described and if Drew Peterson retains beneficial status, might the state of Illinois have potentially set a legal precedent that former spouses can now stand to inherit the assets of their past wife/husband as a “surviving spouse” despite being divorced?

    http://www.huliq.com/1/81091/drew-peterson-still-jail

    I really can just never get over the fact that an old joint will was allowed into court, from a time when Kathleen and Drew were married, and not just allowed but honored, even though the two were divorced (contentiously!) and Drew was remarried and with a new child on the way.

  54. That is a very good point. Why would the powers that be believe Kathleen wanted all of her assets to go to Drew? It is very scary to know that he has had lots of help with both of these cases!

  55. thinkaboutit….YES! And she sure is a mousy little thing for an attorney. Is this her first case?

    thanks facs. The whole thing is just insane. Maybe all these crooked cops, judges, MEs, etc will/have rolled over on Drew to save their own hides. I guess that goes without saying.

  56. I wonder why Drew doesn’t just use John Paul Carroll as his attorney and just leave the rest behind. He seems to be much more qualified based on what he has on his website about his practice than anything you can find on the Brodksy & Odeh or Abood Law sites.

    Plus his last little zinger (I’ve bolded it) sure make him seem realistic and a common sense kind of attorney.

    ****

    Serious Criminal Defense

    John Paul Carroll has represented five different men in death penalty cases, either at the trial or appellate level. He has argued two death penalty cases before the Supreme Court of Illinois. His other clients were charged with crimes including murder, narcotics violations, robbery and white collar crime. Mr. Carroll has won Not Guilty verdicts in both state and federal courts.

    Caveat: No matter who you ultimately retain to represent you, please keep in mind that while an attorney can guarantee that he will do his best to win an acquittal for you, any attorney who guarantees that a case will end with a Not Guilty verdict not only violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but he also violates common sense. No one can predict what verdict a criminal jury or judge will render. So any lawyer who guarantees you that he will win the criminal case should be avoided because he is not being honest.

    Source: http://www.johnpaulcarroll.com/areas_of_practice.php

    So much more detailed that the information provide by others who seem like they do more civil and corporate law that murder cases:

    Adrew Abood: http://www.aboodlaw.com/

    Brodsky: http://www.brodskyodeh.com/jsp3015255.jsp

    Odeh: http://www.brodskyodeh.com/jsp3015257.jsp

  57. Quite frankly if there is no current will and your ex-spouse has a copy of an old will the two of you shared then I think they would have a case to gain possession of your possesssions.

    So the point is that if you have a will – you have to be very careful to keep it updated and officialy indicate that any old ones are void and null.

    Even if that isn’t the case – I think Drew and Kathleen’s case was pretty different from others because of them having that bifurcated (aka partial) divorce where the financial assets had yet to be settled. Not too many people do that kind of divorce and this case should show that it shouldn’t be allowed IMO.

  58. I could be wrong but I would imagine that a divorce would nullify any will created while two people were married…especially if the assets were to go to the surviving “spouse”. Once you’re divorced there is no spouse. The probate specialist made it sound as if it was very unusual that it had happened in Kathleen’s case.

    Didn’t one of Kathleen’s sisters say that she had made a new will but it was never found. Well, more’s the pity.

    BTW, I just watched some of the Dr. Phil show and Ernie Raines said on it that Chrissy found out that Drew had been cheating on her. Oh, the humanity! :)

  59. Well then; Drew can pay his own living expenses when he’s sentenced for 2 murders and countless other crimes. There are paper/electronic/video trails which will uncover everything he has been doing for the last several years. If Bolingbrook chooses to continue his pension, then they may as well send it directly to whatever prison he’ll be residing in and if ” the thing ” requires TP, he pays for every little 4 x 4 sheet.

  60. Here’s a link to the PDF of the will and the court documents related to it being officially certified and filed upon her death:

    http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/peterson-poweratt.pdf

    It doesn’t say spouse. It literally spells out each of their names – “This day March 2nd 1997 Drew Walter Peterson and Kathleen Savio Peterson, both being of sound body and mind, do hereby bequeath all of our worldly possessions to each other in the event of eithre of our individual deaths.”

    Well – I wonder if Drew wrote up a new will as someone could use this to make sure Drew gets his wish to be buried along with Kathleen…

    “It is also the desire of Drew Walter Peterson to have his remains creamated (not my misspelling) and burried (also not my misspelling) with the remains of his wife, Kathleen Savio Peterson.”

  61. Source: Grand jury ends Peterson probe

    May 19, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET — The grand jury investigating the fate of Drew Peterson’s last two wives wrapped up Tuesday with the testimony of potential star witness Thomas Morphey, a source said.

    The grand jury’s 18-month term is set to expire Thursday, but the source said it finished two days early.

    Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, said he could neither confirm nor deny whether the grand jury, which was hearing testimony regarding the murder of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, as well as the apparently unrelated disappearance of Plainfield mother Lisa Stebic, was in fact done.

    The grand jury indicted Peterson two weeks ago on first-degree murder charges in connection with Savio’s death, but no indictments are on file relating to either Stacy Peterson or Stebic’s disappearance, although they may be under seal.

    Pelkie declined to comment on whether or not the grand jury has returned indictments in either Stacy or Stebic’s case.

    Morphey, the last witness to testify before the grand jury, received immunity from the state’s attorney’s office within days of Stacy’s October 2007 disappearance. The state police put Morphey in hiding for his safety for months, but he was called to testify for the first time just last week.

    Morphey, who is Peterson’s stepbrother, claims that the week before Stacy disappeared, Peterson solicited him to murder her. Peterson also asked Morphey to rent a storage locker for him, he said, but he declined to do so.

    Hours after Stacy’s family last had contact with her, Morphey claims he helped Peterson carry a large blue barrel from Stacy and Peterson’s bedroom to the driveway, and loaded it into Peterson’s waiting sport utility vehicle.

    Morphey is certain Stacy’s body was inside the barrel. He said he was so despondent he attempted to kill himself by overdosing on antidepressant medication.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is being held at the county jail on a $20 million bond. He is scheduled to appear in court Thursday afternoon.

    At the hearing, Peterson’s attorneys will challenge the prosecution’s motion to prevent Judge Richard Schoenstedt from hearing the case. His attorneys may also attempt to have Peterson’s bond reduced.

    http://www.heraldnewsonline.com

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxvalleysun/news/1581433,Peterson-Grand-jury-concludes-JO051909.article

  62. They won’t make the indictment public (Stebic) until they have him in custody.

    We already know where Drew is.

    Wonder if either of them is sweating just a little bit.

  63. I found an interesting source on death during divorce:

    ***

    Posthumous divorce litigation and revised probate laws has prompted family law expert Jonathan W. Wolfe to issue a word of warning to his clients.

    “If you have a will, it has to be changed immediately. And if you don’t have a will, you need to have one … because you are now in a position in your life where you don’t want your separate assets to go to the person you’re trying to divorce,” said Wolfe, who chairs the family law committee for the American Bar Association’s General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division.

    Wolfe’s advice comes in the wake of recently revised state probate laws that could cause unintended results for married people with children who die while getting or contemplating a divorce. Specifically, intestacy laws could allow one spouse to inherit another’s entire estate, including assets that the other person didn’t want the spouse to have.

    Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1151658317073

  64. Very interesting Rescue – I wonder if they did that a couple of days early to ensure that the prosecutor has that information in his possession prior to Thursday’s hearing to ensure Drew didn’t get bonded out even for a moment.

  65. never mind the most important “possessions” were not accounted for…the kids! who gets the kids???

    if you take the time to draw up a will, with minor children this is the most important designation..I have a very hard time believing this will was drawn up because of KATHLEEN’S request when the childrens guardian is not accounted for…Stephen would have only been 18 years old at the time it was drawn up..so assuming that they kids would go to him is laughable

    also…as far as the burial is concerned…the last wishes for burial/funeral etc is not listed..so he wants to be “burried” with Kathleen but where? simple funeral or catholic mass? what funeral home? is there a burial policy?

    wills are more than just financial and property designations…and with two small kids I find it hard to believe that neither parent considered these facts..well I do find it easy to believe that Drew didn’t..the only facts contained within this will are HIS wishes

    “It is also the desire of Drew Walter Peterson to have his remains creamated (not my misspelling) and burried (also not my misspelling) with the remains of his wife, Kathleen Savio Peterson.”

    normally with writing a joint will it will specify the method of burial and the JOINT wishes of the parties..not one party over the other.

Comments are closed.