Searching for Stacy Peterson

The effort by today’s searchers was a sight to behold. There were men and women who heard about the need for volunteers on the news and decided to help. One man told me he was having his coffee when he heard about it, and decided to come out. Another man heard the call for volunteers on the news also. He said he wanted to be involved in trying to find Stacy, even though he said she is now in a better place. He lost his own son, only in his 20’s, when he was home from the Service on leave. He was senselessly shot and killed, so he fully understands the anguish of Stacy’s family.

It was a trying search, to say the least. The area to be covered is a Wetland Preserve. About the only way I can explain how it feels to go into something like that is to liken it to walking into a cornfield. Only, the growth is marsh and cattails, and the ground is muddy, mucky. The further you go in, the more water you encounter, sometimes more than knee deep. Sometimes I’d take a step, sink further into the muck, and find it hard to get my foot up and out to take another step. If you’d lose your footing, there was nothing to grab onto. To be safe, people had to stay in groups, because it was like being in a maze, without knowing which way to go back out.

There were a couple of places of interest, one a mound that didn’t match the area around it, as though something could have been buried there. Searchers used their hands to dig further into the ground, but it turned out to be nothing. Another time, searchers actually found a large boulder, with rope tied around it, in a waterway. As though it were an anchor to weigh something down. A group of searchers then volunteered to go back to the area where the rock was found, in water that was thigh high, with sticks to poke at the bottom. Nothing was found in the area where the rock was discovered.

All I can say is I was amongst an awesome group of people. Family, friends and strangers who want only to find Stacy and bring her home.

~ Rescue

~———————————————————————————–~
~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 tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Search for Stacy Peterson to take place Friday

Cassandara Cales and Pam Bosco search for Stacy Peterson

The sister of Stacy Peterson is organizing a volunteer search for Stacy this Friday, August 21st. Participants are asked to meet at the Ikea store in Bolingbrook at 10:00 am.

Be prepared to search through brush, so dress appropriately, use bug spray, and be sure to bring water and a snack.

There will be more details provided at the scene.

DATE: August 21
TIME: 10:00 am
PLACE: Ikea, 750 E Boughton Rd. Bolingbrook, IL

Google Map

Note: The searchers could make use of a jon boat with a trolling motor and sonar. If you can help, please send an email to findstacypeterson.net@gmail.com. Thanks!

~———————————————————————————–~
~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 tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Drew Peterson hearing delayed. Potential jurors brought into court.

Peterson hearing delayed; potential jurors called in

August 14, 2009

From Staff Reports
JOLIET — An expected hearing on a motion for a change of venue in the Drew Peterson case was delayed this morning when the judge told the courtroom he planned to bring some 240 potential jurors into the courtroom.

Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged with murder in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Will County Judge Stephen White said this morning that the jurors would be brought into the courtroom in groups of 60. He did not indicate if arguments on the motion for a change of venue would be heard later today.

White said he planned to give the potential jurors instructions, similar to those in any other case, about presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

Potential jurors also would be admonished about avoiding media reports about the case, White said.

Jurors also will be given a questionnaire that among other things lists some 493 potential witnesses in the case. Potential jurors will be asked to indicate if they have any connection with them.

All reporters were then ordered out of the courtroom.

Andrew Abood, an attorney for Peterson, objected to what he called a “closed courtroom.”

Karen Conti, Adamski & Conti, LLC

White replied that there simply was not room for the potential jurors and the crowd of reporters.

Story at the Sun-Times

Remember, if you have a question for Karen Conti, ask it on the board or email us. Karen will appear on Fox news on Monday to comment on the latest developments.

~———————–~
~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 tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Drew Peterson defense to file motion barring Kathleen Savio’s cries for help

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE “HEARSAY LAW” UNCONSTITUTIONAL

View this document on Scribd

Last night on CNN’s 360, Joel Brodsky’s newest BFF, Lisa Bloom, announced that on Monday, August 10, the defense team of Drew Peterson will file a motion (see above) asking that any “beyond the grave” statements from his deceased wife, Kathleen Savio, not be admitted into court.

Looks like they are going to challenge any citing of Public Act 095-1004 (the so called hearsay-law”) on two points.

First, they will say that the law is being used ex post facto against their client.

Secondly, they are going to claim that the law is unconstitutional in that it operates upon the idea of “Forefeiture by Wrongdoing”, meaning that if it can be shown that you killed someone to keep them from testifying then you forfeit your constitutional right to confront a witness.

Strangely, this is the third time in recent weeks that Lisa Bloom has obtained defense documents days before they are filed or made public and appeared on CNN claiming to have exclusive knowledge about the case. Is this Joel Brodsky’s way of getting around Judge Stephen White’s gag order?

During last night’s interview Bloom stated, “In my opinion, this is the strongest evidence in the case. Kathleen’s statements, ‘If anything happens to me, he did it.’ There’s no DNA evidence linking Drew Peterson to this crime. There’s no forensic evidence.”

How can Bloom make a statement like that without having seen the discovery documents? Exactly what is her role in the Brodsky “White Noise” machine?

Bloom & Brodsky discuss May 8, 2009

Transcript from Anderson Cooper 360 – August 7, 2009

“Hearsay Law” Illinois public act 095-1004

~—————————————————————————————–~
~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>

Maybe Drew Peterson’s defense team should go “buy” the book.

The weapons charges against Drew Peterson were dismissed in November, 2008. However the State has appealed that decision and would like to pursue the charges again. Last Monday, August 3rd, Drew Peterson’s defense filed a new response to the prosecution’s decision to appeal a court’s dismissal of gun charges.

While one could question why attorney, Andrew Abood is filing a 30-page brief about the appeal of a dismissed weapons charge when his client is already in jail indicted on two counts of murder, it’s a little more concerning that some of the information given in the response is blatantly un-factual.

In particular, this quote from pages 29-30:

No one can deny the Chicago Tribune and the Naperville Sun have reported on this case regularly. The Naperville Sun has even published a book about Mr. Peterson, featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

For the record, there have been only two books published about the Peterson case. Neither of them was published by the Naperville Sun.

Joseph Hosey, who reports for the Herald-News in Joliet, authored “Fatal Vows: The tragic wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson“. It was published by Phoenix Books.

The other book written about the Peterson case is by Derek Armstrong. It’s called “Drew Peterson Exposed” and it was written after Peterson’s publicist, Glenn Selig, went looking for an author to tell “Drew’s side” of the story. It’s published by Kunati Books.

Please note that the book cover showing Drew attached to the “lie detector machine” is that of Armstrong’s book–the book  written after Drew voluntarily provided “hundreds of hours” of interviews and personal photos to the author. It should also be pointed out that the polygraph of Peterson took place at the offices of his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, and at Brodsky’s request. In fact the photo credit in the book reads, “Photo courtesy of Brodsky & Odeh”.

So, to be clear (since Abood is not), the photo in question was one that Drew Peterson actually posed for, taken by and provided to the author by Joel Brodsky…and yet the defense team is now using it as an example of how the jury pool has been tainted.

If Peterson’s defense team can’t get details like this straight, can we trust the accuracy of any of the information in those 37 pages?

UPDATE AUGUST 14: Two days ago, Abood filed a correction which reads:

The Naperville Sun even published a story about Mr. Peterson about a book featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

Now, the information has gone from false to nonsensical.

The original brief:

View this document on Scribd

The letter of correction submitted August 12

Drew Peterson’s next hearing is on August 10.
~—————————————————————————————–~
~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>

Will Drew Peterson’s trial be moved out of Will County?

View this document on Scribd

Last Thursday Drew Peterson’s defense filed a Defendant’s Motion for a Change of Venue (see above). In it his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, claims that the media has “prejudiced the jury pool” of Will County against the defendant.

It’s noteworthy that most of the exhibits Joel includes in the motion are articles that he printed out from the Internet, and also that these print-outs aren’t of any local publications, but instead of stories from Fox, CNN, ABC, etc. The most local source he includes is MyFox Chicago and (Lisa Bloom, please take note) Chicago is in Cook County, not Will County.

So how do national and even international online sources contribute to a direct tainting of the jury pool in Will County? Brodsky’s exhibits prove only that the case has been widely covered by the media and that those who are interested can find ample reading material about it of they want to…by Googling.

Speaking of Google, it was interesting to see that the motion included some Google stats showing that the term “Drew Peterson” returns 2.95 million results, almost double the results for the term “Rod Blagojevich“. Forget for a moment that most people don’t know how to spell “Blagojevich” and instead think again about how this is relevant to the motion to change the venue from Will County. Well….it isn’t. That is, it isn’t unless Joel can show that his stats represent only searches made by the denizens of Will County.

Among other case precendents, the motion cites Murphy vs Florida in which the Supreme court explained that “in deciding whether to grant a motion for a change in venue, it is important to examine whether such publicity is ‘largely factual publicity’ as opposed to material which is ‘invidious or inflammatory’.”

So, it is interesting the most of the stories Joel provides as exhibits to argue his motion are actually mere statement of facts. Katheen Savio’s body is exhumed. A pathologist declares Kathleen’s death a homicide, Peterson is a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance. Peterson is arrested, etc. Since these news stories simply report on Drew’s arrest, or quote from a letter Kathleen has written or even if Glasgow outlines what the state is going to attempt to prove, they are examples of “factual publicity” and don’t do much to bolster his argument.

It will be interesting to see if Judge Stephen White takes into account the immense amount of media time that has been granted by Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky themselves; and by that I mean not only the interviews to “give Drew’s side of the story” but the horrendous and tacky media stunts they’ve indulged in since Stacy Peterson disappeared.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 14.

REMINDER: If you have any legal/courtroom questions about the case for Karen Conti, please continue to post or email them and we’ll post her replies. Thanks!

~…………………………………………………………………………………………………..~
~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>