Civil case against Drew Peterson to proceed

drew-miserable2 Peterson civil case can proceed

October 14, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — A Will County judge ruled Wednesday that the civil lawsuit against Drew Peterson can proceed.
The family of Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson.

The former Bolingbrook police officer is also charged in criminal court with murdering Savio.

Peterson’s attorney had asked that the judge issue a stay on the Savio family’s civil case pending the outcome of the criminal case.

“The judge didn’t stay the case, didn’t freeze the case. But he also said that Drew or indicated that Drew can take his Fifth Amendment privilege in answer to any question or any pleading,” said Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney.

Savio’s death was originally ruled an accident, but the case was determined to be a homicide after Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy disappeared.

Read the story at ABC7/WLS, Chicago

Thanks TAI, for posting the news.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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>

About these ads

110 thoughts on “Civil case against Drew Peterson to proceed

  1. This is straight from the horse’s mouth, when speaking of himself, as Drew Peterson’s attorney, last year on Legal Pub. It’s another one of those Kodak moments. Especially since he lost, yet again, another ruling in the continuing Drew Peterson/Kathleen Savio saga!

    5-3-08 In response to readers questioning Joel Brodsky’s handling of the case, Joel provides an exclusive Legal Pub Update.
    Joel
    “I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.”

    ;-)

  2. “The judge didn’t stay the case, didn’t freeze the case. But he also said that Drew or indicated that Drew can take his Fifth Amendment privilege in answer to any question or any pleading,” said Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney.
    Savio’s death was originally ruled an accident, but the case was determined to be a homicide after Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy disappeared.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Is that more Brodsky speak ?

    I thought you couldn’t plead the fifth in a civil case (!)

  3. My understanding is the Appellate Court upheld the reopening of the civil case, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be heard straight away (??)

  4. The appellate court affirmed because the manifest weight of evidence supported the trial court’s holding.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    In other words “they have a case” and it is going ahead.

    So much for Joels initial statements calling it “duelling banjos and they don’t have a case”

  5. I think you’re right, Facs, it’s because there are criminal charges pending that DP can invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment. Even multiple murderers can’t be forced to incriminate themselves directly from the witness stand.

  6. I was just reading, also, that whatever he would say in the civil case that is incriminating could be used in the criminal case. So, it makes perfect sense that the judge would preserve his rights against self incrimination, and suggest he take the Fifth.

    No where to go but down from here.

  7. But why would the Judge have to specifically say or “indicate” to Joel Drew can take the Fifth, if that is usual procedure in a civil case with a criminal case pending anyway ?

    Why would the Judge have to mention that at all ??

  8. Okay – I had the wrong case info up previously. Sorry. This is the correct case the judge ruled on today.

    Savio’s family files lawsuit claiming Drew Peterson beat, drowned third wife

    April 22, 2009 – http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1538456,CST-NWS-drew22web.article

    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter/drozek@suntimes.com

    Drew Peterson beat and drowned third wife Kathleen Savio in her bathtub in 2004, then improperly seized control of her financial assets, her relatives contend in a wrongful death lawsuit filed Tuesday.

    The suit also criticizes the original investigation into Savio’s death — which initially was classified an accidental drowning — and contends that Peterson’s now missing fourth wife, Stacy, knew immediately that Peterson had killed Savio.

    The civil suit filed in Will County seeks financial damages from Peterson but also is intended to keep attention on the 55-year-old former Bolingbrook cop, who has not been charged criminally with either Savio’s death or Stacy Peterson’s 2007 disappearance.

    “We want to let him know he’s front and center on this — and one way or the other, he’ll be taken to task,” said John Q. Kelly, a New York lawyer who represented Nicole Brown Simpson’s relatives in a successful suit against her former husband, O.J. Simpson.

    The four-count lawsuit by Savio’s relatives was in part timed to coincide with the expected conclusion of a grand jury investigation that since November 2007 has been probing Savio’s death and Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, Kelly said.

    Filing the suit now, Kelly said, means the civil case likely won’t interfere with whatever action — if any — is taken by the grand jury.

    The allegations in the suit include blunt claims that Peterson deliberately murdered the 40-year-old Savio on March 1, 2004 so he wouldn’t have to split marital property and assets with his former wife. The couple had finalized their divorce in October 2003 but were still battling over how to divide their assets.

    “Peterson purposefully, knowingly and intentionally caused Kathleen Savio bodily injury and death by beating and drowning her,” the lawsuit contends.

    On the day of Savio’s funeral, Peterson skipped a reception for family and friends — instead he drove a truck to Savio’s Bolingbrook home and took personal possessions he wasn’t entitled to have, the suit alleges.

    It also contends that the coroner’s jury that initially ruled Savio’s drowning accidental heard testimony from an Illinois State Police trooper who hadn’t seen Savio’s body, hadn’t attended the autopsy and never interviewed Drew Peterson. A police officer also served on the coroner’s jury and vouched for Peterson’s character during deliberations, the suit contends.

    Stacy Peterson learned right away that Drew Peterson had killed Savio, the suit claims, citing information Stacy Peterson allegedly shared later with her pastor. That information included a description of how Drew Peterson allegedly described striking Savio on the back of her head prior to her drowning to make her death “look like an accident,” the suit contends.

    Drew Peterson declined to comment Tuesday on the suit. His attorney couldn’t be reached for comment.

    The civil suit won’t have “any impact at all on the criminal investigation,” which remains open and active, a spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said.

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

    Before Peterson was charged with two counts of murder, this is how Brodsky felt about the lawsuit (which he tried to have delayed and was denied):

    “It is more like a gift than a problem,” he said Thursday morning. A wrongful death lawsuit would give him the opportunity to depose — or question — the state police and others to find out what they know. “It would almost be like a private grand jury,” Brodsky said.”

  9. I find it hard to believe the Savios would open a civil suit right at this time for Drew to take the Fifth ??

  10. “It is more like a gift than a problem,” he said Thursday morning. A wrongful death lawsuit would give him the opportunity to depose — or question — the state police and others to find out what they know. “It would almost be like a private grand jury,” Brodsky said.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Joel had his wish granted after May 8th with 6 boxes, 40.000.00 pages of discovery and 800 + witnesses

  11. I’d imagine they’d likely win hands down if he doesn’t testify at all so it seems like it would hurt Drew more than anything else IMO.

  12. Yeah, he’s really in a pickle these days. He’s got money flowing out all over the place in legal fees, and it’d take him light years to recoup what he thinks he squeezed out of all that probate court crap he pulled and got away with. Temporarily got away with. Should be enough to break him out in hives for a long, long time.

  13. He is in huge doodoo no matter which way it goes, because if he can’t take the Fifth in a Civil case (which you can’t) he has to answer questions, so he either has to tell the truth (heaven forbid) or perjure himself (!!)

    If it is correct that he can take the Fifth in a Civil case when a criminal case is pending, he is at the mercy what others are going to testify and that is not looking real good for him either (!!)

  14. thinkaboutit2 :I’d imagine they’d likely win hands down if he doesn’t testify at all so it seems like it would hurt Drew more than anything else IMO.

    I agree with you,Think. Drew has a whole lot of explaining to do, and if he pleads the fifth, it will be difficult for him to counter. They have enough Drew media exhibits to make him suspect. The Nightline interviews where he starts talking about Kathleen are upsetting. We also know that some of the men, who signed some of the documents for Drew are none to happy, including his uncle, the attorney. Think of all of the testimony from the long line of involved people we have not heard yet. I think Brodsky is going to have a h*ll of a time presenting credible rebuttals. IMO

    Keep your mouth closed, Drew, and make our day!

  15. To see someone on the stand who has never hesitated to speak up, even courted the media and joked openly about his situation…how strange it will appear for him to suddenly sit mute. How off-putting it would appear to a jury.

  16. If it is correct that he can take the Fifth in a Civil case when a criminal case is pending, he is at the mercy what others are going to testify and that is not looking real good for him either (!!)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It is still highly unlikely a Judge stated and much less “indicated” to Joel his client can take the Fifth in a Civil case.

    It just doens’t make sense, especially considering a State and Civil case are completely separate from each other.

  17. Just as a matter of interest:

    The OJ trial (the first one) lasted 5 months, produced 58 witnesses, 488 exhibits and 34.500 pages of transcript.

  18. I’m wondering if Neil Schori will be testifying in the civil suit, but even without, he’s toast. What will a jury make of all the financial jiggery-pokery alone?

    Something a bit interesting to compare is the way these things are done in Italy (Knox case). The civil suit is a part of the criminal trial. Because of this bereaved relatives and their lawyers have a right to have all the documents and their lawyer can question witnesses on the stand during the proceedings. I think that’s brilliant for victims’ families.

  19. (In Knox’ case there are 3 civil suits…victim’s family, the man arrested because he was wrongfully accused by Knox, and the owner of the house where the crime occurred for loss of revenue. A very practical and streamlined way of going about things)

  20. I am not 100% sure but I think the judge should inform a defendant about his rights. Just in case, a defendant [Drew] would like to appeal saying, for instance, that his lawyer did not inform him about his rights.

    The U.S. Supreme Court stated the following:
    “The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.”
    See McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, *40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17 (U.S. 1924).

    So the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to a civil proceeding.

    BTW, if it was applicable, it would be better for Drew if that was Brodsky who takes the Fifth. You are absolutely right, JAH. LOL

    Brodsky is so stupid revealing all his tactic! He should wear a T-shirt with :”I yam, I yam. I yam a good lawyer.”* [BTW, I do not complain as long as Drew is in jail and will be banged up to the rest of his life". So, thanks, Joel, that you are such a good lawyer!]

    ——–
    *Copywrite Rescue. All the rights reserved. LOL

  21. justanotherhen :
    Just as a matter of interest:
    The OJ trial (the first one) lasted 5 months, produced 58 witnesses, 488 exhibits and 34.500 pages of transcript.

    JAH, Thank you so much for that information!
    If this criminal trial goes as scheduled, it looks like our grandkids may be the ones to learn the outcome, eh?

  22. Peterson is due back in court at the end of the month, I believe, so, it’s possible the defense might request their trial date be set. I assume they’ll be as ready as they’ll ever be since, if the State had lost the motion regarding the hearsay law, the defense would have then requested a speedy trial at that point. Can you just imagine some of the behind-the-scenes interviews and depositions that have been going on that we haven’t heard about yet?

  23. From what I’ve read below, pleading the Fifth in a civil case can be held against you. Am I misunderstanding?

    Amendment V – Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    http://criminal.lawyers.com/Fifth-Amendment—Double-Jeopardy-Due-Process.html

    The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that a person who is suspected of committing a crime can remain silent during questioning to avoid self-incrimination. In other words, if, in the course of questioning (by law enforcement or in court), the suspect’s truthful answers would prove that they committed the crime, then the suspect is not required to answer those questions. In addition, the Fifth Amendment says that a person who is suspected of committing a crime has the right to have an attorney present while he or she is being questioned.

    http://research.lawyers.com/Pleading-the-Fifth-and-Miranda-Warnings.html

    HOWEVER

    Refusal to testify in a civil case

    While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil action.

    The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, [b]‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’”[/b] Id. at 319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion…is considered evidence of acquiescence…if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).

    In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    My understanding of all that, is the “silence” of not answer questions in a civil trial can be seen as an assertion of guilt?

    If so, Joel might want to think twice (or maybe even three times) about having his client plead the Fifth in the civil trial.

  24. Just a heads up that briefs are still being filed in regards to the the weapons charges (remember those)?

    It looks like Glasgow filed this brief yesterday.

    Reply Brief and Argument for Plaintiff-Appellant and Brief Argument for Cross-appellee

    Points and Authorities relied upon for first time in reply brief

    Reply Brief
    I
    This court should strike defendant’s counter-statement of facts that violate supreme court rules 341(h)(6) and (i)

    II
    The trial judge erred in granting the defendant’s motion to compel the state’s attorney to disclose documents used or relied on by the state in deciding whether to charge defendant

    Cross-appellees Brief
    III
    This court should dismiss defendant’s cross appeal from what are interlocutory orders

    IV
    The trial judge correctly decided that defendant had not pleaded a satisfactory prima facie case of selective prosecution

    V
    Because LESOA is irrelevant to this unlawful use of weapons prosecution, the trial judge correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss

    VI
    This issue should be dismissed since defendant never filed a motion for a change of venue

    Our file of weapons charges documents

  25. Noway, to me it does look like what you observed is correct. The plaintiff can choose to keep his silence, but the jury is free to infer guilt from that choice.

    I’m sort of surprised that the State is still pursuing the weapons charges. But, I guess that gives all those Kent School of Law students plenty to work on.

  26. I have not stopped thinking about the gun case and here it is! I could not come to terms that he got away with it and wondered if the State would appeal.

    Brodsky must emply more students ;).

    Once again, facs, thanks for this info!

  27. Re the gun case – Apart from everything else, I am still baffled the guns when to Stephen (Steven) Peterson.

    That in itself seems such an odd ruling (!!)

  28. One illegal gun passed to Stephen (in a trumpet case?), and the second one hidden and then transferred to Paula… I think he was supposed to return all his guns during the search warrant. Even though you do not have to register the guns, you must keep complete documentation of them and present it to the police whenever they ask you to. I wonder if that gun was also possessed by Drew illegally. Why did he keep it then?

    JAH, I could also never understand the Judges decission about the guns that were transferred to Stephen.

    I cannot also understand why they waited a month after Stacy went missing to seize Drew’s and Stacy’s cars and then the police was given only three months to perform all the tests in them before they had to be returned. Strange.

  29. Facs, I love your choice of pictures of Peterson on this post. It gives me chills. It’s as if you’re looking into the eyes of the devil in this photo, IMO.

    When I think back about all of the emotional highs and lows we’ve all been through in the past couple of years following this case, I just want to say this. Following you gals on a daily basis and recognizing all the hard work you all put into researching the laws and exposing Brodsky’s blather for what it is — leaves me confident that Peterson will never enjoy another day of freedom in his lifetime. That is the only possible outcome that serves justice for Kathleen and Stacy and their families. Brodsky continues to blather on because he would love to have us all believe that possibility doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell, but you all call him out with his BS. For those of us who don’t have the time or the talent to do the hard work to get at the truth and keep the stories surrounding this case in reality mode — thank you for all of your efforts that keep us coming back everyday to catch the latest scoop and being able to trust that what we’re reading is truth and justice in motion.

  30. Thank you, Sugarbabes and coffee. I guess we’re just addicted to this case! Believe me, it’s a team effort. Without the comments and emails with tips and URLs, etc. we’d be lost. :)

  31. Peterson’s attorney had asked that the judge issue a stay on the Savio family’s civil case pending the outcome of the criminal case.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Why “pending the outcome of the criminal case”

    Why would Joel support a case, State, Civil or ANY case against his client ??

    Is Joel saying, he doesn’t mind a case against his client as long as the timing is right – LOL !!

  32. First it was “duelling banjos and they don’t have a case”

    Then he was looking forward to a civil case as “it would help him”

    Next he appealed the civil case to be opened.

    Now it’s oke to have a civil case again as long as it’s pending the outcome of the criminal case.

    Does Joel know where he parked the bus ??

  33. Hey Sugar and Coffee, thanks for the nice words. We really appreciate that. It has been a team effort, and I’ve even made some special friends along the way, who have helped us so much in keeping the blog informative and accurate.

  34. Sonofagun! Looks like old Brodsky couldn’t get Savio’s legal team to crawl in bed with him to go after the homeowner insurance carrier’s deep pockets.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/peterson-wont-contest-judges-insurance-ruling.html

    Peterson won’t contest judge’s insurance ruling

    October 15, 2009 6:20 PM | No

    Former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson won’t contest efforts by his homeowner’s insurance company to remove itself from a wrongful death lawsuit filed against him, his attorney said today.

    Peterson, jailed in lieu of $20 million bond, is charged with murder in the death of third wife Kathleen Savio. In April, Savio’s family filed a wrongful death suit alleging he intentionally killed her.

    A Will County judge recently entered a default judgement in favor of Country Mutual Insurance Co., which underwrote Peterson’s $500,000 home insurance policy, after Peterson failed to respond to its June 19 lawsuit. The company argued Peterson’s insurance policy did not include coverage of intentionally-inflicted injuries and so it should not be liable for his legal bills or damages.

    A final hearing is set for next month, but Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky said he has no intention of appearing. He criticized the Savio family’s attorneys, calling them “amateurs” who “mucked up” their case by failing to also sue Peterson for negligently causing Savio’s death, thereby getting his homeowner’s insurance — with its deeper pockets — involved.

    “Why waste the time and money (to appear) when the insurance company is right?” Brodsky said.

    John Q. Kelly, the Savio’s attorney, said they filed their lawsuit strictly on the facts in the case.

    “If their client wants to come out and say he negligently killed (Savio) we’re more than happy to put that in the complaint,” he said. “We don’t monkey around with facts on homicides.”
    Brodsky said a Will county judge found this week that the civil case could go forward while the criminal case is active, though Peterson retained his 5th Amendment right not to answer questions. But Kelly said they will wait to see what happens with the murder case before moving ahead.

    “If he’s convicted, fine, and if he’s acquitted we’ll get right into the deposition process,” he said.

    –Steve Schmadeke

  35. So Joel is not going to get paid via the Home Insurance Policy either.

    Oh well in the very beginning Joel said he was taking this case Pro Bono anyway as he was expecting Fame and Book Deals in lieu.

    So far he hasn’t got either !

  36. You know what stood out to me the most in this recent news – the fact that Brodsky is calling another team of lawyers “amateurs.” This is the same group of lawyers he said would be laughed out of the courtroom and knew less than a first year law student, I believe is what he said previously.

    Thanks for posting the article, Sugar.

  37. YW, Rescue, and I busted a gutt when I read the “amateurs” bit, too. I’d say “mucked up” was probably a typo!

  38. (5/15/09) New York attorney John Q. Kelly said he faxed a letter Friday to Will County Circuit Judge Richard C. Schoenstetd and the other parties in the case saying Savio’s estate “strongly opposes any reduction” in Peterson’s bail.

    The issue is expected to be raised at Peterson’s arraignment on Monday.

    In his letter, Kelly sets the value of Savio’s estate potential claim at about $470,000 and argues that any bail Peterson posts likely “is only available to him as a result of her murder” and would likely later revert to her estate anyway, giving him no incentive not to flee.

    But Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney, called the letter “baloney” saying that the estate has no claim or standing in the criminal case.

    “It’s the most absurd argument that I’ve ever heard. … It’s absurd to the point I would expect a first-year law student to know better,” he said. “He’s going to be laughed out of court.”

    Brodsky said he plans to ask the judge on Monday to reduce Peterson’s bail to perhaps between $100,000 and $500,000, based in part on his lack of a criminal record.

    Nope, didn’t happen, wasn’t laughed out of court. Gottcha!

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/savio-estate-opposes-peterson-bond-reduction.html

  39. It is so crazy to hear Brodsky say everyone is in it just for the money and then out of the other side of his mouth says they are dumb for not going for more money. Nutty, nutty, nutty…

  40. I don’t know who that jackass thinks he’s kidding. The one who stood to gain the most out of their attempts to defraud yet another insurance company was none other than Drew and Brodsky & Co. The Savio’s and Kelly took the high road, IMO. The only pockets they’ll be attempting to empty are the ones belonging to Drew that he fraudulently filled with life insurance and estate money after getting by with murdering Kathleen.

  41. I think it was around that same 5/15/09 timeframe that I recall Brodsky and Abood during a press conference grinning like a couple of cheshire cats, indicating they weren’t worried about getting paid. Nailing this insurance company was their ace — so they thought. Old Brodsky’s such a wizard of creative financing, isn’t he now?

  42. Wow. If you really think about it, Brodsky is hissing at Kelly for not doing it the way Brodsky thinks it should’ve been done, thereby, letting the homeowner’s policy kick in. If they would’ve sued Peterson for causing Savio’s death, Brodsky could’ve found a better way to collect on those billable hours, defending his client against the accusations. Someone is not happy.

    Joel Brodsky said he has no intention of appearing. He criticized the Savio family’s attorneys, calling them “amateurs” who “mucked up” their case by failing to also sue Peterson for negligently causing Savio’s death, thereby getting his homeowner’s insurance — with its deeper pockets — involved.

  43. If the Savio’s attorneys were “amateurs” wouldn’t Brodsky have won the argument to totally dismiss the case?? Hmmm… Pot/Kettle… :)

  44. Exactly, Rescue! Damn, he just can’t seem to score, and he really hisses when he sees others missing opportunities to fill their pockets with dirty money. Remember what he had to say about Lenny and Paula not selling their story? And out the other side of his mouth, he pelleted Ric Mims for the Enquirer story. He wants to be the sole storyteller, making all of the bucks, and he doesn’t want any competition. Especially from ex-wives and step-daughters.

  45. Here is what it appears Joel wrote at LegalPub about Lenny and Paula:

    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

    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-darrell-johnson-turning-up-alive.html

  46. If we’ve learned anything all these months, anytime someone comes out against Peterson/Brodsky, they go into slime ‘em mode. Especially if what they have to say must be anywhere near the truth.

    So, this shouldn’t come as any surprise, I guess. It’s business as usual.

  47. Joel Brodsky said he has no intention of appearing. He criticized the Savio family’s attorneys, calling them “amateurs” who “mucked up” their case by failing to also sue Peterson for negligently causing Savio’s death, thereby getting his homeowner’s insurance — with its deeper pockets — involved.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What is Joel talking about ??????

    Isn’t the Civil suit about the Savio family suing Peterson for negligently causing Savios death and isn’t that the same suit he has been trying to stop, defer, ridicule etc ?

    Where is his logic ?

  48. I think they said he killed her on purpose – not due to negligence. A technical difference in the eyes of the legaleze of the insurance policy I guess. I loved Kelly’s response though:

    “If their client wants to come out and say he negligently killed (Savio) we’re more than happy to put that in the complaint,” he said. “We don’t monkey around with facts on homicides.”

  49. Exactly. In insurance company terms, negligence and intentional are very different things, obviously, but it’s funny to know that Brodsky is pissed because Kelly went the opposite way of what he would have liked. In other words, like I said before —

    bend over, Brodsky, here it comes again!!!!!!!!

  50. It looks like Joel lost another case (against the Home Insurance Company this time) and he is not going to get paid (!!), so now he blames this on the Savio family lawyers and their Civil suit against Drew Peterson, a suit he has tried to stop in the first place because according to Joel, the suit is frivolous as his client never caused Savios death.

    I almost cannot comprehend his train of thought and reasoning, it is just too bizarre for words !

  51. Didn’t the Home Insurance Company already state if the death was caused by the policy holder itself they wouldn’t pay, even before Joel took them to task.

  52. “If their client wants to come out and say he negligently killed (Savio) we’re more than happy to put that in the complaint,” he said. “We don’t monkey around with facts on homicides.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Yeah that’s a classic – LOL – and the bottom line is Joel Brodsky is not going to get paid via the Home Insurance policy, the Chicken Wing Bar is not making any money and Drew doesn’t have any money he wants to tell Joel Brodsky about (!!)

  53. I think they said he killed her on purpose – not due to negligence. A technical difference in the eyes of the legaleze of the insurance policy I guess. I loved Kelly’s response though:

    “If their client wants to come out and say he negligently killed (Savio) we’re more than happy to put that in the complaint,” he said. “We don’t monkey around with facts on homicides.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Yeah, you’re right, Drew is not sitting in jail for negligence, he’s sitting in jail for murder, so the Savios are obviously not suing for negligence either.

    CRAZY how Joel Brodsky reasons the Savio lawyers should help him get paid !!!

  54. I found what I was looking for. It sounds like the insurance company just filed a declaration to be included in the lawsuit against Drew to make sure they were protected from anyone expecting payment from them.

    Carlson, on behalf of Country Mutual, filed to have the court declare the insurance company not only has no obligation to fund Peterson’s defense, but that it should not be on the hook to pay damages if the accused wife killer loses the wrongful-death suit to Savio’s family.

    Carlson pointed out that while Peterson’s homeowner’s insurance provides coverage for bodily injury, it is not to be paid out in the event the policy holder deliberately caused it, as alleged in the wrongful-death lawsuit.

    The declaration filed by Carlson also named Henry J. Savio and Anna Doman as defendants along with Peterson. He explained that Savio’s sister and father were listed to clarify that the insurance company is not obligated to pay them for any judgment entered against Peterson if he loses the wrongful-death suit.

    Source: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1684352,4_1_JO25_PETERSON_S1-090725.article

  55. This surely would be a very unique situation, whereby a lawyer wants to claim payment for his defense via a Home Insurance Policy held by a policyholder on murder charges !

    Would that have been a first ??

  56. I am so glad that the gun charges are being pursued. It’s not a small thing, for a start, but it is such a banner of his sense of entitlement, and for me quite the symbol of a really bad cop. I think they really needed to address Schoenstedt’s decision….can’t leave that lying around for the likes of LeBrodsque to quote in the future. (Schoenstedt needs his arse kicked, too.)

  57. I think it’s a bit of a shame John Q is not involved in the criminal trial…he seems like he’s got a sense of humour and would be good for a few more bon mots.

    I have a little insight into the mind of Brodders from listening to and watching The Judge in action in his younger days. Young aspiring lawyers/law students at first clutch with both hands and run with the knowledge that everything is up for argument. (beginning with pranks like writing out a check for a meal in a restaurant on a paper napkin because they would be able to argue that, in law, it could still be recognised as a legal form of tender blah blah blah) What usually happens is they get the edges knocked off by experience and common sense. Brodsky and Brodsky-alikes, unhindered by manners, respect and the ability to evolve will carry on arguing over every single toss of the coin. Rather like a slot machine, they just keep pulling the lever hoping that eventually something will pay out. This tactic also yields maximum billing. ;-)

  58. It’s no wonder why we’ve seen our homeowner insurance premiums skyrocket in recent years with opportunists like Brodsky pulling off sleezy schemes like he attempted in this case. I recall a video shortly after the Savio’s wrongful death lawsuit was filed wherein Brodsky and Abood were beaming as they smugly announced that they weren’t worried about getting paid. The implication was at that time that Drew’s homeowner policy would be responsible for financing his defense in this frivilous lawsuit. It’s reassuring to know that Brodsky came out of this challenge with his only claim to victory being that he felt entitled to assault John Q. Kelly as an “amateur” who “mucked up” the Savio’s case by not going after those deep pockets of the insurer. I’ll bet this ruling wiped those smug grins off Brodsky’s and Abood’s mugs — at least momentarily.

  59. Heh, it seems pretty obvious now, after his Brodskyness let his true feelings spew out, that he’s mad as hell that his opponent didn’t handle the civil case against his client correctly in the Complaint. That is, he didn’t handle it in the way his Brodskyness wanted him to.

    Too funny. Bet when the Peterson defense figured out that insurance issue wasn’t going to swing their way, they had a full night of wings and beer to drown their sorrows.

  60. Elizabeth better keep that chicken wings shack profitable, Rescue, because her wizard of creative finance husband seems to keep coming up short. I’m sure he’s still holding on to the hope that he’s going to land a tremendous book deal when this is all over, and perhaps he has some hopes that Gloria and Lisa will provide him words of praise for future consultant appearances on CNN. He’ll be barking and whining at anyone who attempts to put a book out there before he’s able to, because he can’t stand the competition. And, I suspect his gal pals at CNN will be jumping ship and dropping him like a hot potato when the next big crime story comes along that they’ll be latching onto. Or, maybe Glenn Selig has a master plan in mind to rescue him. Old Brodsky’s on a sinking ship, and he doesn’t appear to know it yet.

  61. Rescue honey you make me LOL with “bend over, here it comes again”. I nominate that as another official fond nickname for (I love it!you’re on a roll) His Brodskyness Bendover Brodsky. or just Ben Dover, if you like.

  62. LOL, I vote for Ben Dover. That will be the official Justice Cafe name for he who shall remain nameless.

    And the other he who shall remain nameless will be Sir Assalot.

    Ben Dover, here it comes again.

  63. The judge said it can go ahead, but Attorney John Kelly said they’re going to wait until the trial is over before they proceed with it. It seems to me Kelly is the one who decides how to run his civil suit, not Ben Dover.

  64. Anatomy of the Lie: Drew Peterson as the New Example of the Believable Liar

    …If you saw the Drew Peterson’s interview on Dateline NBC on May 8 of this year, you saw a man who was able to look right into the eye of a reporter and millions of TV viewers to say that he was an innocent man. While perhaps the evidence isn’t right between the eyes as it was with O.J. Simpson, the evidence is compelling and deductive enough to suggest that Peterson was able to convince himself he didn’t kill his two previous wives as an act of suspicion of marital affairs. As with Simpson, Peterson obviously believes that it’s all about him and any sign of an affair with a wife will set them off into a state of mind that even they can’t comprehend until it happens.

    Every indication is there that the mindset of convincing one’s self they didn’t commit a horrific murder starts with their ego containing a hidden and uncontrollable rage. That heightened emotion could very well be a real Jekyll/Hyde syndrome hidden throughout society that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a multiple personality disorder, but still a new form of mental illness. When in those rages, they’re Hyde squared or cubed. Afterward, they’re convinced it was someone else out there who had the capability to kill a fellow human being…

  65. I remember James Glasgow’s reference to getting insight into the soul of Drew Peterson, by comparing him to the character, Dennis Peck, in the movie Internal Affairs. I looked up a couple of the descriptions of the character.

    Glasgow: “If he did kill Stacy Peterson, he killed his alibi in Kathleen Savio,” Glasgow said. He advised those interested in gaining insight into Drew Peterson’s character to watch the movie “Internal Affairs.” “The character played by Richard Gere is a window into Drew Peterson’s soul,” he said.

    ********

    Dennis Peck knows his way around the law. He can launder money, run a scam, fix a bad rap. He can even, for the right price, arrange a murder.

    He is also devious, a womaniser, and a clever manipulator…

    …his influence and dominance over others seems to extend further than the reach of his badge….In his drive to dominate others, Peck attempts to seduce almost every woman around him and is obsessed with children and fatherhood. Peck is most dangerous when the investigation threatens his territory and his extended family…

    Raymond Avila (Andy Garcia) has just been transferred to the police department’s Internal Affairs. His job is to investigate police corruption and/or abuse of authority. His attention his drawn to Dennis Peck (Richard Gere), who has an unusually high percentage of arrest/conviction rate. People around him also seem to die. His life style is also beyond what a cop’s salary would pay. Just what does Peck have going?

  66. That’s quite an accurate discription, Rescue. Isn’t it ironic that the initials of the character in the film are also those of Drew?

  67. I’ll tell you, docs, when I was reading some of those synopses of Sergeant Dennis Peck’s character, I was amazed at how easy it is to compare him to the real Sergeant Drew Peterson. People dying around him, his obsession with children. I haven’t watched the movie in a long time, but I know what a heartless, cold and calculated character Dennis Peck was. Eerie.

  68. I wonder who the author modeled his character from? I would like to read more about these older cases. The parallels are fascinating and a reminder that Drew Petersons followed criminal behavioral patterns no matter how “smart” and “careful” he thought he was being.

    We need to have a JC movie week, and watch this film again.

  69. Mark Furhman is on Fox discussing his new book and the big business murder investigations and trials have become. They mentioned the Drew Peterson case.

  70. Oh, dear. The practice of law. I just saw John Q. Kelly on Larry King repeating the defense’s lies about Amanda Knox’ innocence and how backwards and unreasonable the Italians are. Even after following Drew’s crimes I’m pretty shocked that they’re allowed to shout things that appear to have been proven false in court. (for the record, she wasn’t beaten and she wasn’t interrogated for 14 hours before her “false confession” and accusing an innocent man) :( Drew should have hired the Knox’s PR.

  71. I found the transcript for the Mark Fuhrman interview on Fox. I think I would like to read his new book, as well, Bucket.

    To read the full interview:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,565842,00.html

    A few interesting snips:

    “MACCALLUM: What happens when you do that? I mean, what kind of responses do you get to some questions? I was reading the chapter on Drew Peterson, and it really brought me back into, you know, the cases and the stories that were involved in that. And a couple of things popped out at me that you talked about. And one of them was Stacy Peterson, when she recounted to her pastor what had happened the night that she believes Drew Peterson killed Kathleen Savio and how she caught him — he came down stairs wearing all black, and she catches him putting women’s clothing into a washing machine. I didn’t remember that, though. I didn’t remember that.

    FUHRMAN: Well, you know, it was — that was done in segments because that’s how we fed it out when we could. And “when we could” is an operative way that we have to do this. You just can’t dump something because it does trickle out in small pieces. But Neil Schori, the minister, very brave man because he had a balancing act — and I tried to describe that — a balancing act between the responsibility to a human being and the responsibility to his vows. And which trumps which? Well, do no harm, and the victim is the number one person we’re talking about. And Stacy told him so somebody was left to actually tell her story.

    MACCALLUM: And you were able to, you know, talk to him and help him to see on his own that that was what she probably wanted. You think that he didn’t plan to kill Stacy Peterson. And you confronted him with it. What did he say to you when you looked at him and said, You killed her, didn’t you?

    FUHRMAN: Well, he was typically Drew Peterson.

    MACCALLUM: Yes.

    FUHRMAN: He smiled, laughed, and was his affable, engaging self. And this is — this is his power. He was able to draw people in, women especially. He had a good rap.

    MACCALLUM: Right.

    FUHRMAN: And he was able to probably be a fairly good police officer with it. But he also used this as his power to actually manipulate and control. He knows that I know. And when we actually talked, he tried to actually manipulate me by telling me, Look, come on, we’re cops.

    MACCALLUM: Right.

    FUHRMAN: Like I said, you crossed the line.

    MACCALLUM: Yes. No, we’re…”

  72. With Joel targeting Drews Insurance Policies for payment, could this cause Insurance Companies to cancel their policies with Drew ??

  73. I do not know if it is of any importance but the police report of July 18th 2002 was made by Sgt. Mary Bouley (who retired in 2004).

  74. Drew Peterson Legal Team Files Final Brief to Illinois Appellate Court in State’s Appeal of Gun Charge Dismissal
    Illinois Appeals Court can decide at any time.
    brodskyodeh.com – October 19, 2009

    (PRNewsChannel) / Ottawa, Ill. / Drew Peterson’s legal team led by Joel A. Brodsky, Andrew Abood and Reem Odeh filed the final brief in the state’s appeal of felony weapons charges dismissed against the retired Bolingbrook police detective setting the stage for the court to render a decision at any time.

    In November of 2008 a Will County, Ill. judge dismissed gun charges filed against Peterson.

    After the dismissal, the Will County State’s Attorney appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

    With the final brief from Peterson’s legal team, the matter is now pending with the Illinois Appellate Court.

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1747&z=4

  75. You can read the new brief in our documents section.

    Defendant – Appellee/cross – Appellant’s Reply Brief and Argument on Appeal – October 15, 2009

    Points and Authorities
    I. The trial court’s order of dismissal with prejudice is a final order because it conclusively adjucates the rights of the parties in this case; therefore, the cross-appeal issues are cognizable.

    II. The standard for obtaining discovery from the state into the selective prosecution is “colorable claim,” not the “reasonableness” pleadings standard the state asserts.

    III. The trial court should have dismissed this case because , as a qualified law enforcement officer authorized to carry, and therefore possess, an “illegal” firearm, defendant-appellee/cross-appellant is under LEOSA – regardless of contrary state law.

    IV. The trial court should have ordered a venue change upon defendant-appellee/cross-appellant’s motion because reasonable grounds to believe prejudice and an inability to obtain a fair trial exist under state constitutional law.

  76. If you need a refresher, this is what was contained in the latest appeal from the State:

    Reply Brief and Argument for Plaintiff-Appellant and Brief Argument for Cross-appellee

    Points and Authorities relied upon for first time in reply brief

    Reply Brief
    I
    This court should strike defendant’s counter-statement of facts that violate supreme court rules 341(h)(6) and (i)

    II
    The trial judge erred in granting the defendant’s motion to compel the state’s attorney to disclose documents used or relied on by the state in deciding whether to charge defendant

    Cross-appellees Brief
    III
    This court should dismiss defendant’s cross appeal from what are interlocutory orders

    IV
    The trial judge correctly decided that defendant had not pleaded a satisfactory prima facie case of selective prosecution

    V
    Because LESOA is irrelevant to this unlawful use of weapons prosecution, the trial judge correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss

    VI
    This issue should be dismissed since defendant never filed a motion for a change of venue

  77. Thanks for posting the information, Facs.

    For those of you who were wondering if “colorable claim” is such an animal, I looked it up and it is, indeed, a term I was able to find an explanation for. It was used in (II) of defendant’s Points and Authorities. It’s a pretty self explanatory term — that is, the defense is saying they’ve got a shot at winning if they can back up their facts. Not to worry, though, they stink when it comes to really working it. Sir Assalot’s attorney, Ben Dover, has a lousy track record so far.

    II. The standard for obtaining discovery from the state into the selective prosecution is “colorable claim,” not the “reasonableness” pleadings standard the state asserts.

    “Colorable Claim”: A plausible legal claim. In other words, a claim strong enough to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court. The claim need not actually result in a win.

  78. In the weapons case the judge wanted to hear the defense’s charge of “vindicitive prosecution” and so asked for documentation be provided to them so that they could build their case for it. When the State refused to produce it, the case was dismissed.

    I don’t see the same kind of bungling in this case as we do in Kathleen’s death inquest transcript. Of course, all we have on paper are the charges, the appeals and the replies.

    My impression is that the defense consistantly appears to bluster and flounder in their arguments. The whole explanation of how the word “conceal” can be construed to mean “carry an illegal weapon” is pretty bad to me – and I’m just a layperson!
    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/weapons-charges/#vv (pg. 10)

    The other goofy bit (as the State pointed out) is that the defense never actually asked for a change of venue (in the weapons case). You think it would be a little embarrassing to have spent all this time arguing something that you never asked the judge for.

    Still, I’m not sure why the State is continuing to press the appeal on the weapons charge. It doesn’t relate directly to either the case of Kathleen or Stacy. Maybe they are just trying to save face after the judge dismissed.

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/weapons-charges/

Comments are closed.