Hearsay evidence to be aired in Drew Peterson’s “mini trial”

Drew Peterson and the Scheme Team on their way to court

On January 19, 2010 a hearing is scheduled to air the hearsay testimony that may be admitted in Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of his ex-wife, Kathleen Savio. This “trial before the trial” will be important since so much of the evidence for the prosecution is expected to be circumstantial. This hearing will also be the first time the judge has heard the hearsay testimony that could be admitted under Public Act 095-1004, which makes an exception for hearsay from witnesses who were murdered in order to keep them from testifying. Statements from Savio, her friends and relatives, and a pastor who received the confidences of Peterson’s third wife (missing since October 2007 and presumed dead), could all play a big part in convincing a jury of Peterson’s guilt.

We asked Illinois attorney, Karen Conti of Adamski & Conti LLC, for her take on the upcoming hearing. This is what she had to say:

Karen Conti

We are pretty much on uncharted grounds. This law is new so I am not aware of any such hearing that has ever been conducted. The way the law reads, it seems that the judge here must find that there is a preponderance of evidence that Peterson’s actions silenced Kathleen and whether the hearsay is otherwise reliable. This is a much less rigorous burden than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is used at civil trials and means that if it is more probably true than not true that Peterson killed Kathleen, the burden is met. It seems the prosecution would also have to show that Stacy’s disappearance was caused by Drew in order to use her words which were spoken to the pastor. If allowed in, Stacy’s words would be very compelling to prove that Peterson killed Kathleen as I believe they include Drew’s admission that he killed her in the bathtub after returning home from her house with bloody clothing on. As to how the hearing works, I do not know. It would have to include the prosecution putting on witnesses and allowing Peterson’s lawyers to cross examine them.

This will give Peterson’s lawyers a real advantage at trial in that they will get to hear what the witnesses are going to say ahead of time. There will be a court reporter present and if the witness deviates from that testimony at trial, he can use the prior testimony to impeach.

I am certain that the jury in the full trial will not get to hear that the judge made a ruling that there was a preponderance of evidence that Peterson killed Stacy or Kathleen. The jury will only get to hear the hearsay testimony and will probably know that there was a prior proceeding that caused some of the witnesses to have testified previously.

This hearing will go a long way toward revealing whether the prosecution has good evidence to prove Peterson’s guilt in that they must put on all evidence that is persuasive. They cannot hold anything back because the admission of hearsay testimony at trial is crucial and will probably be the most compelling evidence.

Many thanks as always to Karen for taking the time to help us out!

Greg Adamski and Karen Conti host their own legal talk show, Legally Speaking, on WGN Radio 720 each Sunday from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. They also presented a mock trial of Drew Peterson last Spring which resulted in a hung jury.

~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

89 thoughts on “Hearsay evidence to be aired in Drew Peterson’s “mini trial”

  1. I’m very excited about the 1/19 hearing. For the first time, the most controversial witnesses will be speaking out in a courtroom. If the judge decides not to admit some of their testimony, it could be the only time some of them will get to have their say.

    I’m also worried this could help the defense to some extent. Seeing a witness on the stand before the trial could help them get started on a cross-examination strategy for the real deal.

  2. I, too, am anxiously awaiting the hearsay proceedings. It seems that, finally, instead of rumors, the actual evidence the prosecution has will finally come out.

    I don’t worry so much about the defense, I guess, since their strategy so far has been nothing short of character assassinations rather than waving any credible counter evidence under our noses.

    I’ve gone back to find the news coverage regarding this upcoming hearsay hearing, and will post the links to recap:

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1854767,4_1_JO30_PETERSON_S1-091030.article

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/hearing-on-hearsay-statements-set-in-drew-peterson-case.html

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Petereson-Hearsay-Hearing-Set-for-January-67288217.html

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30630652/

  3. A HUGE thank you to Karen Conti! Karen, I know few individuals who would so graciously take the time from her/his busy schedule to help explain upcoming legal proceedings. You are truly a Godsent! THANK YOU AGAIN!

  4. Yes, Karen is very gracious about helping us better understand the proceedings, even if it is unusual and unorthodox at times!

    As busy as she is, she always makes a point of responding to our questions.

    We thank her too!!!

  5. Just dropping in to say hello to all of you, it has been some time since I have been on. Good to see things will start to roll in Jan. I will be watching here and elsewhere for the updates. Thank you, for all you do here and waving to all! Win

  6. I hope all the months and months of blabbing and hot air that came out of the mouths of Peterson and his lead blabber mouth, Brodsky, comes back to kick them in their respective asses, regardless of what the future jury will know or not know about this early hearsay evidence proceedings.

    You know what they say – you can’t “unring the bell.”

    Darn those bells.

  7. Facs, what we’ve learned from past behavior is that Brodsky will attempt to make mountains out of molehills. I have no doubt any minor items removed from testimony will be played out in the media as some huge win for the defense, when in fact almost all trials have certain pieces of evidence dismissed from trial. (At least the ones on TV. LOL)
    Drew Peterson is in deep trouble. If there wasn’t enough good solid testimony that came forward, Drew Peterson would be out on bond, flaunting his latest woman at the clubs. Thankfully there are those with a moral compass. (even if it was late in coming)
    I agree with Rescue. I welcome this pretrial. Yes, this is new legal ground but it is nothing to fear. It’s time to stand up to the bully who sits in Will County jail. I pray that all of the witnesses will feel a renewed sense of empowerment to do the right thing and the words to bring justice to Kathleen Savio’s death.
    I think DP’s defense never thought they would see trial, and DP’s mouth has created a deep crater in his defense. Personally, I found all of JB’s interviews on TV to lack clear, articulate thought. I would never choose this man to represent me in a court of law where I would need someone to convince jurors of my innocence. (Just my opinion.)

  8. I’ve mentioned this numerous times to Facs – that I find it very odd, for lack of a better term, that a local, well-informed, defense attorney has just now been hired onto the case, with the excuse he’s needed to help get through the mounds of discovery in preparation for the upcoming proceedings.

    Baloney! The defense issued a press release about how they hired on recent law school graduates and law students to help with this.

    My guess would be that the dude sitting alone in a jail cell has finally realized he needs a credible, professional defense strategist to help him fight for his pathetic life and freedom, not some guy who used him to promote chicken wings and beer, and set him up with dates for Drew, etc. An attorney who did nothing to shut him up, even promoting his big mouth, which may (or may not, who knows) prove to be his demise.

    I want to see Drew Peterson go away forever because there’s credible and substantial proof that he erased two beautiful women off the face of the earth. Not the defense’s baloney that the witnesses are drunks, dope users and whatever else they pull out of their butts to make them sound like miserable human beings. The only one I can’t get past being destructive to others is the man himself.

  9. From where is Drew Peterson obtaining the funds to pay the credible attorney? These people have secretaries and para-legals to pay, as well as building rent, utilities, etc. Who is really doing the defense work for Drew Peterson? Would you want to hire these firms right now knowing the time and energy it will take the staff to prepare for trial? Even if 50% OF Peterson’s monthly pension went to legal fees, it still would not be enough. Brodsky has also backed himself into a corner. If he dismisses himself from the case at this point, he also has all kinds of media appearances which will come back to haunt his career. I guess he’s made his bed…

  10. Facs and Rescue, you two also deserve a HUGE THANK YOU for all you’ve done to keep the candle burning in regard to these cases. It take tremendous time and effort to do so. Following everything on these cases has been a learning experience, and one has to believe that truth and justice will finally triumph. (And we know Justice Cafe will be right there reporting it all. : – D)

  11. Well, as far as the money situation, I see it this way. Early on, remember, Brodsky put up a website for Peterson to collect funds for his defense.

    If I am not mistaken, there wasn’t much of a defense that Peterson needed all those months up to the time he was indicted for Kathleen’s homicide. Yeah, there was a gun charge, but how much could the Scheme Team have charged for that? Certainly, not hundreds of thousands of dollars. The wrongful death case that was filed was, and still is, at a standstill, pending the outcome of the criminal charges, I believe. The Probate Estate of Kathleen, yes, required some filings, but, again, certainly not in the hundreds of thousands of dollars category.

    So, if Peterson has had to pay out large, substantial amounts of money to Brodsky & Company for services prior to his May, 2009 indictment, I find that strange, since most of the “defense” consisted of a few appearances regarding a weapons violation charge, press releases, television interviews, radio interviews, and an occasional mention of bunnies and whore houses.

    Brodsky was a blogger on SYM for a while, Did Peterson have to pay him to do that?

    Brodsky shuffled Peterson around to various appearances on various news programs, promoting his engagement, his Mancow moments, his Pinkus interview, and on and on….. Did that cost him anything? Brodsky bragged that he kept Peterson out of jail all those months, and said he’d never be charged. Oops.

    Now, he’s into the big bucks. Brodsky has occasionally mentioned that Peterson was a successful businessman in addition to being a police officer. So, let the games begin and the money flow.

  12. I’m not a legal billing authority, but I was told most law offices have a formula for billing clients. Every phone call, every court filing, every minute of research, every copy that has to be made, etc. goes on the client’s tab. You do have a point regarding the appearances in the media. Maybe Brodsky was somehow paid and Peterson was not. You would think that Peterson would have had to given Brodsky an initial retainer fee. My friend had to find $5000 for a divorce retainer, so how much does a normal retainer fee run for a crime case? The fact that Brodsky was out money hunting makes me think Drewpy doesn’t have the funds he once boasted about in the beginning. Didn’t Joel ask for his plane back so it could be sold? Not sure if that ever happened. I don’t think a $6000 plus bill per month is out of the question, in fact I would venture a guess that it is much more.

    I would not be surprised if JB files another motion to level the playing field again between the Prosecution’s financial and manpower resources and Brodsky’s. Brodsky should have spent less time over at SYMS trying to gain a fan club base and more time considering a possible trial. An attorney AND a client wrapped up in becoming famous do not equate to a very good defense strategy. (IMO) (Thank you God!)

  13. Rescue- You bring up some good points about the defense going after the character of many of these witnesses. Yet when you look at most of these people who came forward, they had more to gain financially in turning and looking the other way. DP seemed to have access to large sums of cash and he provided job opportunities and cash to “his followers.” I think Drewpy was extremely confident in his power and abilities to manipulate those around him.

  14. I too will join DD and Apple in applause and thanks for all your efforts, Facs and Rescue.

    AND, I wish you both a rich and full year 2010+ in your pursuit of Justice and truthful reporting of all the ‘successes of the prosecution’ in the Peterson Trial(s) for Kathleen and Stacy’s murders.

  15. Joel Brodsky is a profile in contrasts – on the one hand he is boasting about his clients wealth/ his professional achievements and on the other he is canvassing authors and scratching around suing a Home Insurance provider in order to get some money.

    With his wife now so desperately selling her personal belongings, it is not hard to guess which one of his profiles is the more accurate (!!)

  16. I agree with everyone that Joel will commence a whole new chapter in public character assassination in the legal history of Illinois, from every single witness to perhaps the States Attorney or even the Judge himself, whether it is relevant to the case or not.

    Joel has alluded many times that is the path he is going and it is probably because it is the only path he knows.

    One can only hope Judge White has a strong sense of order and will remind Joel the witnesses/State are not on trial for murder but his client is !

  17. facsmiley :Meanwhile, Ellie Brodsky is still valiantly auctioning off her designer shoes…

    I missed this one earlier. LOL

    You mean “inhighheels” will soon be without hi-heels? Instead of “Shoeless Joe” we’ll have “Shoeless Joel” ? What’s next? LOL

    Facs, is this on Twitter or FB? Do share. : – D

  18. Elizabeth Brodsky’s FB feed might be quite simple, but very telling.

    “Elizabeth Brodsky Only 4 more days left in 2009. I can’t wait to put this year behind me.11 hours ago”

  19. Lisa Bloom and her boyfriend Braden Pollock both appear to be involved with “Legal Brand Marketing”.

    Bloom and Pollock conduct LBM seminar

    So, looks as if the Bloom-Brodsky alliance is more than just a one time thing. Hmmmm…you get me an appearance on court TV and I’ll invest in your legal marketing venture? Oh who knows.

    But when Ellie Brodsky is calling Lisa Bloom, “Lisa, baby!” in her facebook comments, I think we can pretty well scratch any objectivity on the part of Bloom.

    EDIT\ Braden Pollock is actually the owner of Legal Brand Marketing.
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/bradenpollock

  20. Oh, now, isn’t that interesting?

    Of course, we figured that, didn’t we, that Lisa Bloom had a Brodsky lifeline in order to get this stuff out ahead of time.

    What is astonishing to me is that she was supposed to be an advocate for Raines, trying to save her from the evil one. Next thing ya know, she’s holding copies of motions to be filed by the Scheme Team, waving them around on Jane Velez-Mitchell’s cable news program. Exclusive news to share with all about Drew Peterson’s future motions.

    Go figure.

  21. The Lisa Bloom video was what caught my attention and why I posted the link. A family that has managed to market themselves to the networks!

    Check out Abood’s lastest article on his site and his fame to winning ALL his mock trials his firm sets up.
    http://www.aboodlaw.com/news.htm

  22. Thanks for the info, docs.

    The Abood Law Firm conducts Mock Trials on behalf of their clients on nearly a monthly basis. This is a tool that proves extremely valuable in determining the potential outcome of a trial.

    Umm, where’s the outcome of the Drew Peterson Mock Trial? Don’t tell me they haven’t done one for him? Guess not, or I’m sure they’d have mentioned it too. They would have been ringing those bells like crazy.

  23. rescueapet :Thanks for the info, docs.

    The Abood Law Firm conducts Mock Trials on behalf of their clients on nearly a monthly basis. This is a tool that proves extremely valuable in determining the potential outcome of a trial.

    Umm, where’s the outcome of the Drew Peterson Mock Trial? Don’t tell me they haven’t done one for him? Guess not, or I’m sure they’d have mentioned it too. They would have been ringing those bells like crazy.

    Too risky! It would totally ruin his winning percentage. Then who would hire an attorney that failed to win his own mock trial? Just saying…

  24. docsdaughter :

    rescueapet :Thanks for the info, docs.

    The Abood Law Firm conducts Mock Trials on behalf of their clients on nearly a monthly basis. This is a tool that proves extremely valuable in determining the potential outcome of a trial.

    Umm, where’s the outcome of the Drew Peterson Mock Trial? Don’t tell me they haven’t done one for him? Guess not, or I’m sure they’d have mentioned it too. They would have been ringing those bells like crazy.

    Too risky! It would totally ruin his winning percentage. Then who would hire an attorney that failed to win his own mock trial? Just saying…

    Too funny… who writes and produces those mock trials? Garbage In, Garbage Out!

  25. December 28, 2009 at 10:12 pm | #25
    Quote

    Elizabeth Brodsky’s FB feed might be quite simple, but very telling.

    “Elizabeth Brodsky Only 4 more days left in 2009. I can’t wait to put this year behind me.11 hours ago”

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

    Why would Elizabeth Brodsky say something like this ?

    Wasn’t 2009 a stellar year for the Brodsky’s – fame, fortune and lots of money thanks to her husbands thriving Legal practice and driving the bus in one of the most high profile cases in the USA ???

    Hmmmmm, I’m beginning to think that in the end Elizabeth Brodsky may be the one with more interesting copy for a book deal than her husband and his famous client (!!)

  26. Isn’t it strange the wife of a high profile lawyer with a thriving practice such as Joel Brodsky is blogging about financial worries regarding their chicken wing bar, selling her personal property and wanting the year to be over.

    That doesn’t sound like a happy woman basking in the glory of a high profile successful husband or she’d be buying more shoes and Hermes scarves and never wants the year to end (!!)

  27. Gosh facebook sure does make for some strange bedfellows. Kris McPherson, Paul Huebl, Reem O, Ellie B, Lisa Bloom and Joel all friends. Quite the sleepover.

  28. Whilst remaining impartial – it must be challenging to be Mrs Brodsky and is this the same Mrs. Brodsky to witness Joel go ballistic with a gun or was that another one ??

  29. facsmiley :I missed it myself, but Joel was on Anderson Cooper’s show with Lisa Bloom back in September because…he is somehow an authority on the Roman Polanski case (?).
    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/bloom-brodsky.jpg

    Maybe if we attend a special Lisa Bloom marketing seminar, there is a package deal available which throws in a few minutes of air time. LOL

    Love the picture! (I’m going to be nice and hold back from making further comment.) Thanks for sharing, Facs!

  30. Folks, just a reminder to stay away from personal attacks. So far nothing has veered from the facts, but be careful.

  31. Sorry gatekeep! Hey, at least I didn’t give out her name. As for the Brodskys I’m not suggesting that they can’t afford to pay for the party. Maybe they used the moolah from Ellie’s eBay auctions. ;)

  32. (PRNewsChannel) / December 31, 2009 / Los Angeles, Calif. /
    The following is a statement from Glenn Selig, spokesman for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, on Gov. Blagojevich being named the ‘Worst Behaved Newsmaker’ in an unscientific poll that aired last night on ABC’s ‘Nightline’ program.

    “Those who are closely watching Rod Blagojevich’s story unfold understand that he is in the midst of a campaign of a lifetime to clear his name for the sake of himself and his family, his friends and the people of Illinois who twice elected him governor. Gov. Blagojevich looks forward to his trial because he’s anxious for the truth to come out.

    “Until then he will talk to everyone he meets to let them know he’s done nothing wrong and he has not let them down. And he will do the modern day equivalent of standing on a mountaintop and shouting ‘I am innocent.’”

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=0&a=2056

    I’m surprised he aced out Drew for this…

  33. Oh, I am gagging on my coffee with this:

    “Those who are closely watching Rod Blagojevich’s story unfold understand that he is in the midst of a campaign of a lifetime to clear his name for the sake of himself and his family, his friends and the people of Illinois who twice elected him governor. Gov. Blagojevich looks forward to his trial because he’s anxious for the truth to come out.

    Selig does not live in the real world if he thinks people “understand” Blago is campaigning to clear his name. He’s trying to make a few bucks to stay afloat. He’s the laughing stock of the US. Yes, he’s reached beyond Illinois in looking like a fool.

    That must be what Peterson was doing, heh? Campaigning for his innocence. Shacking up with a 23 year old, haunting late night bars and getting photographed sucking face with college-aged girls. About to leave on a plane to get a job at a whore house, until he was short circuited by the cops! Wow, that was really impressive to see.

    Now we all know, via Selig, what it takes to show how men that act foolish and crazy are just campaigning to show us all how innocent they really are.

  34. Happy New Year to all my Justice Cafe friends. In spite of dire weather predictions for today, we have a beautiful blue sky, the sun is shining and the wind is still. It is very nice out, here. I like to think that it’s an omen for 2010…

    I wish for everyone that they find 2010 full of relief, resolution and happy surprises! Not least for Kitty and Stacy’s families. A special wish for Facs…all the above, plus! Love ya, Rescue and Facs! Thanks for another year of hard (brilliant) work. We all owe you bigtime! XX XX

  35. chicagotribune.com
    So there are no surprises in 2010

    Eric Zorn

    Change of Subject

    January 1, 2010

    It’s been my New Year’s tradition recently to ask readers to join me in predicting the news events of the coming 12 months. We did pretty well in 2009 — correctly forecasting Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s ouster, the political plans of Alexi Giannoulias, Pat Quinn and Jesse Jackson Jr., failures by the Cubs, White Sox and so on.

    What’d we miss? Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s decision not to seek higher office, wife-killing suspect Drew Peterson’s indictment and then-Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley’s election to the U.S. House seat vacated by Rahm Emanuel.

    I predicted Bears head coach Lovie Smith would get fired in 2009, but readers correctly said no. Readers predicted Chicago would get the 2016 Summer Olympics, that the Dow would languish under 10,000 and Comptroller Dan Hynes would run for re-election, but I correctly said no.

    So with all that in mind, here are my best guesses for 2010 along with the results so far of our unscientific online survey of some 400 readers:

    –Rod Blagojevich and Drew Peterson will be found guilty. (Most readers said both men will still be awaiting trial as the justice system moves along at its typical glacial pace.)

    (Continued) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0101zornjan01,0,5986906.column

    *********

    Might be unscientific, but I suppose the defense needs to rely heavily on Brodsky’s prediction that the public’s perception of his client will make a 180-degree turn.

  36. “People’s assumptions are going to be turned on their head — it’s going to be 180 degrees,” one of Peterson’s lawyers, Joel Brodsky, said Thursday after the accused wife-killer’s most recent court appearance.

    “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses,” said Brodsky, who claimed that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

    IDK, I have a hard time convincing myself that all of the “interesting questions” are going to be solely coming from the defense. Just saying….

    Sure we expect “secrets” to come out. But if those secrets mean anything in any of this, sure enough, the dude sitting in his cell and cooling his jets has something to do with it, one way or the other. What’s that saying? You go, I go?

  37. I am hopeful that the New Year brings justice to all of the victims’ families in a number of high profile cases. Although this blog is dedicated to seeing justice for Kathleen and Stacy, we are always mindful of the torture other families go through when their loved ones are missing or have been murdered.

    So, with the New Year, I need to vent. I, personally, find it so frustrating at times to hear others not sympathetic to the victims and their families try and justify how someone like Drew Peterson is a victim in all of this turmoil. How could he be a victim, when it was four of his children who lost their mothers? How could he be a victim when he danced on the grave of his deceased ex-wife, and demeaned her and his current missing wife with ugly innuendos? Without them being here to defend themselves against his one-sided accusations? How could he be a victim when he continued to haunt bars and get photographed kissing “careless” and “carefree” college-aged women, when he had young children at home needing his attention?

    IMHO, the only thing Drew Peterson is a victim of is his own big mouth and horrendous actions all these months. Sure, it’ll be up to a jury to figure out if he did what he’s accused of, but there is no mistaking that he acted like a cold, soul-lacking woman chaser all the months he remained free after Stacy went missing, and he’s endeared himself to no one but a few who are merely caught up in the celebrity of it all.

    So, everyone, with the upcoming proceedings just a short time away, we look forward to your comments and opinions!

    Happy New Year.

  38. 2009 was a good year. It saw the arrest of Drew Peterson–one step closer to justice for Kathleen Savio and Stacy peterson. That arrest surely has brought some comfort to the families and friends of those two women, people who know in their hearts that Drew Peterson killed them both. The arrest also brought about a welcome end to the shameless public spectacles incited by the Defendant, his lawyer, his PR man and the gaggle of parasites that latched on to his celebrity. Some of those people are presently dealing with the dubious fruits of their involvement (ie. Derek Armstrong losing his publishing business and now scrambling to avoid turning over evidence amd testifying in court). Unboubtedly, some will slip back into obscurity, leaving only a few conscience-niggling Google results or a second hand ring as a reminder. Still others may hang on a bit longer, mistaking obsession, greed and celebrity worship for loyalty. May 2010 be the year that they realize what it has cost to their reputation, their careers and their personal lives.

    May 2010 be the year that sees Drew Peterson convicted for the murder of Kathleen Savio and indicted in the murder of Stacy Peterson.

  39. December 22, 2009
    Lansing Attorney Who Represents High-Profile Clients Speaks About Jury Trials and the Media at Cooley on January 14

    Excerpt:

    Abood, who works with his brother, F. Joseph Abood, at the Abood Law Firm in Lansing, will share his experiences leading high-profile cases, the importance of clients’ representation in the media and offer advice on the best ways to work with media during jury trials.

    Abood will discuss some of the high-profile clients he has represented, including Drew Peterson of Will County, Ill., a former police sergeant who was accused of killing his third wife…..

    http://www.cooley.edu/newsevents/2009/122209_abood.html

    *****

    Don’t need a forum to get this one right. Aren’t attorneys supposed to tell their clients to shut-up, don’t talk to the media?

    Unless, of course, it’s Drew Peterson, then you become his enablers. You can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Lead him around, or do I have that reversed, from one radio/tv/media appearance to another. :-)

  40. Exactly. He appeared as an author, who was doing these media appearances for the publicity in order to sell his book.

    Who cares what he thinks he is now, career-wise. For all we care and know, he could be the guy who picks up horse manure at the race track. When he was writing a book during those months Peterson was sucking up the spotlight, and he and the others were riding his coattails, he was a book publisher/author. Recreating himself now to avoid legal pressure to fess-up is about as silly as that ridiculous piece of garbage he wrote about Peterson. Maybe he’ll get away with it, but he’s about as credible as that publishing company that he was running. And we all know that went belly up.

  41. How many people strive to be able to say “I’m published”; “I’m the author of a book” ? It does raise a red flag to be heading backward in ones credentials. How do you become an “ex-author”?

  42. Didn’t Abood make a comment in the very beginning of this whole media parading of Drew that he didn’t think it was a good idea? (2007) I thought he made a comment that was quoted in the media, but it’s been so long ago, I wouldn’t even know where to look. I don’t think the two agreed on that issue in the beginning. It seems that Drew’s behavior was gettting so much media attention that the concept of keeping your client quiet went right out the door.

  43. I know Reem Odeh definitely had some critical words to say about Drew being paraded around the media circuit and allowed to speak out, but I don’t know if Abood also said anything.

    http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/feb/27/local/chi-drew-peterson-hearing-webfeb28

    February 27, 2008

    Brodsky has mounted an aggressive campaign for media coverage, including interviews with national TV shows.

    Asked whether she discussed those issues with Brodsky, Odeh said, “Absolutely. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

    Odeh said she plans to meet with Peterson soon and explain to him that she believes he should behave in a more professional manner, and if that doesn’t happen, she’ll push to have him dropped as a client.

    I guess the thought of fame and book deals won her over in the end. Integrity!

  44. Heh. Brodsky later spoke up, on behalf of Reem Odeh, and said that her words were taken out of context, whatever that means. That’s sounds about as stupid as asking the State to ring the bell.

    But I want to first address the quote attributed to my partner, Reem Odeh. She never said those things. What occurred was that she engaged in a long conversation with a reporter in which they discussed many subjects, including the media, the Today Show interview (which occurred the next day but which had been promoted by NBC), and if we had been approached by book publishers. The reporter then cobbled together the quotes and the story which you have now quoted from. It is extremely inaccurate, (made out of “whole cloth” as they say), and out of context, and we complained to the reporter. You will notice that the story has not been repeated or quoted in any other papers. That is because Reem told everyone it was not accurate.
    In fact many of the quotes in the newspapers are inaccurate or out of context, (though not as badly done as the quote from Reem) I would say they get a quote right and in context about 50% of the time, or less. It is not that they are bad intentioned, but that is just the nature of print journalism. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video. And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read.

    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html

    Also, yet again, Brodsky spoke up on behalf of Raines, after she said her engagement to Drew was a stunt.

    That’s what I found out tonight. I really wanted to ask Chrissy why she said that. She explained to me that these people from a couple of the morning shows had been on her for literally three days……So, I don’t blame her. She made a mistake. She basically confused a couple of things she overheard and just didn’t know what she was really saying as opposed to…and that’s why it happened and I can understand that.

    Certainly, I’ve seen how these people operate so I can understand how it happened and I don’t bear any grudge. She’s setting the record straight now and that’s great and hopefully the real story or at least the correct story will get out there. And the correct story is her and Drew are engaged. They’re eventually going to get married and go on with their lives as best they can and that’s the real story here.

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/drew-peterson-and-joel-brodsky-explain-it-all-christina-raines-says-nothing/

    *******************
    See how it all works? Someone in the Scheme Team Circle says the wrong thing, and Brodsky comes along and fixes it.

  45. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video.

    Let’s not any of us forget these powerful, telling words that we can attribute to Mr. Brodsky.

    Like when Drew was on Fox News in the Morning:

    During an interview on the morning show, he said that he tells his children their mother, Stacy Peterson, is on vacation and is not coming back.

    When asked, “Why do you say she’s not coming back,” Peterson, a suspect in his wife’s disappearance, first denied making the comment. Then, when pressed, he said it was merely a slip of the tongue.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517656,00.html

  46. I finally got around to watching the Walter Maksym videos from November. That’s a pretty clear “No” at the end of the clip when asked if he’s handling this portion of Drew’s case pro bono.

  47. This is definitely a Kodak moment during a “video” interview with Dan Abrams. Per the above quotes about believing what you see:

    BRODSKY: Well, you mentioned Tom Morphey, for example, for example. When you look at him – I‘ve got pictures to show you – recent pictures of Tom Morphey to show you what they‘re relying on.

    ABRAMS: You say he‘s not credible. You say he‘s not credible.

    BRODSKY: Well, look at this.

    ABRAMS: All right.

    BRODSKY: This is a recent picture of him smoking dope.

    ABRAMS: You say you‘ve got pictures of him doing drugs.

    BRODSKY: Yes.

    ABRAMS: Look, even if – you claim you have pictures. OK.

    BRODSKY: What do you do when he‘s not credible? You can‘t trust a man like that, that‘s so stoned he can‘t even stand up.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24312506

    The TRUTH is – what you should BELIEVE is:

    Morphey also accused Peterson and his friend, Steve Carcerano, of paying one of Morphey’s former girlfriends $500 for photographs depicting Morphey in a less than favorable light.

    Brodsky, without success, attempted to distribute the photographs, one of which allegedly showed Morphey smoking marijuana. The woman, Holly Steele, confirmed in September that she sold the photographs to Peterson and Carcerano.

    Carcerano said he remembers accompanying Peterson to purchase photographs of Morphey but did not know the name of the woman they obtained them from. He also disputed the $500 price tag for the pictures but did not give a figure for them.

    Morphey described the picture ploy as “the stunt that they tried to pull in the beginning, buying 10-year-old pictures and trying to make them seem recent.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1469992,Stepbrother-Drew-tries-discredit-me_jo031009.article

    Liar, liar, …….

  48. You two have me revisting older video clips again.
    http://vodpod.com/watch/2414352-brodsky-and-maksym-on-wgn?pod=facsmiley

    In the October 28th WGN interview regarding the Chase Bank lawsuit Maksym states that Drew was making “130 percent more with the Social Security benefits then when he was actually approved for the loan.”

    -If the line of credit was approved in 2005, then Drew’s income tax forms he would have provided for proof of income would have been for 2004 and 2003. Kathleen was murdered in 2004.

    -Doesn’t Maksym’s reasoning and”DP financial flowchart” proving increase of income in the Chase issue, just give further proof to the proesecution that Drew had substantial monetary gain to be made from Kathleen’s death?

    -130 percent increase in Peterson’s income after the death of ones ex-spouse is nothing to sneeze at. Was income creatively manipulated during those years because of child support figures and an unresolved property settlement?

    In addition, doesn’t this also provide a financial reason for murdering Stacy Peterson?
    -130 percent increase of income within the time period of their marriage
    -division of assets acquired within that time period
    -child support for two children based on a 130 percent increase in income
    -some type of maintenance, perhaps while she finished her education

    I hope Walter provides copies of Drew’s miraculous income increase to the prosecution. Heck, it might even be the makings for another Maksym best seller, “How to Increase Your Pleasure by Increasing Your Income by 130% in Four Years.”

  49. Joel and Maksym both seem to have a habit of inadvertently telling on their client by boasting about Drews income and/or assets when this needs to be to his/their advantage, such as his income increasing 130% via Social Security benefits, Stacy “stealing” $ 25.000 cash out of the safe at home and statements Drew has many successful business to pay his attorneys (!!)

    Accountants,forensic accountants and the Prosecution are going to have a field day with this case, especially taking in consideration Joel and Maksyms public statements drawing attention to them.

  50. judgin :
    Pinch me, … am I dreaming?? that they are their own worst enemies and DP’s worst nightmare!

    LOL @ Judgin !

    The good news is DP still thinks he has great lawyers !

  51. rescueapet :Heh. Brodsky later spoke up, on behalf of Reem Odeh, and said that her words were taken out of context, whatever that means. That’s sounds about as stupid as asking the State to ring the bell.

    But I want to first address the quote attributed to my partner, Reem Odeh. She never said those things. What occurred was that she engaged in a long conversation with a reporter in which they discussed many subjects, including the media, the Today Show interview (which occurred the next day but which had been promoted by NBC), and if we had been approached by book publishers. The reporter then cobbled together the quotes and the story which you have now quoted from. It is extremely inaccurate, (made out of “whole cloth” as they say), and out of context, and we complained to the reporter. You will notice that the story has not been repeated or quoted in any other papers. That is because Reem told everyone it was not accurate.In fact many of the quotes in the newspapers are inaccurate or out of context, (though not as badly done as the quote from Reem) I would say they get a quote right and in context about 50% of the time, or less. It is not that they are bad intentioned, but that is just the nature of print journalism. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video. And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read.

    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html
    Also, yet again, Brodsky spoke up on behalf of Raines, after she said her engagement to Drew was a stunt.

    That’s what I found out tonight. I really wanted to ask Chrissy why she said that. She explained to me that these people from a couple of the morning shows had been on her for literally three days……So, I don’t blame her. She made a mistake. She basically confused a couple of things she overheard and just didn’t know what she was really saying as opposed to…and that’s why it happened and I can understand that.
    Certainly, I’ve seen how these people operate so I can understand how it happened and I don’t bear any grudge. She’s setting the record straight now and that’s great and hopefully the real story or at least the correct story will get out there. And the correct story is her and Drew are engaged. They’re eventually going to get married and go on with their lives as best they can and that’s the real story here.

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/drew-peterson-and-joel-brodsky-explain-it-all-christina-raines-says-nothing/
    *******************See how it all works? Someone in the Scheme Team Circle says the wrong thing, and Brodsky comes along and fixes it.

    Hee hee, just like the little ‘balloon boy’

  52. docsdaughter :

    You two have me revisting older video clips again.
    http://vodpod.com/watch/2414352-brodsky-and-maksym-on-wgn?pod=facsmiley

    In the October 28th WGN interview regarding the Chase Bank lawsuit Maksym states that Drew was making “130 percent more with the Social Security benefits then when he was actually approved for the loan.”

    -If the line of credit was approved in 2005, then Drew’s income tax forms he would have provided for proof of income would have been for 2004 and 2003. Kathleen was murdered in 2004.

    -Doesn’t Maksym’s reasoning and”DP financial flowchart” proving increase of income in the Chase issue, just give further proof to the proesecution that Drew had substantial monetary gain to be made from Kathleen’s death?

    -130 percent increase in Peterson’s income after the death of ones ex-spouse is nothing to sneeze at. Was income creatively manipulated during those years because of child support figures and an unresolved property settlement?

    In addition, doesn’t this also provide a financial reason for murdering Stacy Peterson?
    -130 percent increase of income within the time period of their marriage
    -division of assets acquired within that time period
    -child support for two children based on a 130 percent increase in income
    -some type of maintenance, perhaps while she finished her education

    I hope Walter provides copies of Drew’s miraculous income increase to the prosecution. Heck, it might even be the makings for another Maksym best seller, “How to Increase Your Pleasure by Increasing Your Income by 130% in Four Years.”

    Post of the Week.

  53. Just want to remind people of where Lisa Bloom was back in August of this year, commending and applauding the hearsay law and its application to the Kathleen Savio case.

    Wonder if she’d say something different now…

  54. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxvalleysun/news/1972750,Lawyers-want-closed-Peterson-hearing_JO010410.article

    Lawyers want closed Peterson hearing

    January 4, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    Barnum & Bailey want to shut down the circus.

    Drew Peterson’s legal team has asked to bar the public from a potentially explosive hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at the former Bolingbrook cop’s murder trial.

    Local attorney George Lenard, who signed on with the Peterson camp just last month, filed the motion Monday. Lenard failed to return calls for comment, but the motion signals an abrupt change in Peterson’s defense strategy, which had been marked by an attraction to the limelight and the airing of everything from secret messages and photographs that supposedly cleared Peterson of guilt to details of his love life and plans to make a 23-year-old local mother his fifth wife.

    More often than not, Peterson’s lead attorney Joel Brodsky could be found at the forefront of the frenzy.

    Brodsky appeared on numerous TV programs in the more than two years since Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished. Sources who had been close to Peterson and privy to his financial arrangements said Brodsky’s compensation for taking the case came exclusively from funds generated through publicity. Brodsky failed to return calls for comment on this allegation.

    Less than three months ago, Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager for their chance to publicly cross-examine the state’s witnesses during the hearing. At that time, Brodsky said, “People’s assumptions are going to be turned on their head — it’s going to be 180 degrees.”

    Brodsky also said, “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses” and boasted that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

    Gag order

    The public spectacle of the Peterson case was drastically subdued by a gag order on attorneys effected by Judge Stephen White in May. White also forbade the jailed Peterson, who is charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, from making telephone calls to anyone not on an approved list. Peterson called a Chicago radio station to tell jokes on air after he was arrested May 7.

    Now, instead of letting Peterson clown around, his lawyers want to ban the public from his Jan. 19 hearsay hearing.

    The motion claims “the potential jury pool will be saturated with television, newspaper and Internet coverage of inadmissible hearsay information that will be reported over and over before the actual trial begins” and “this national exposure of testimony elicited during this pretrial hearing will likely result in the potential jurors having preconceived notions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, thus depriving him of a fair trial.”

    The motion also points out that an appellate court upheld the decision to close some of the pre-trial hearings in the case against R&B sensation R. Kelly, who was acquitted of child pornography charges in 2008.

    Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, declined to comment on the motion to seal the hearing.

  55. Peterson Attorney Files To Seal Hearsay Evidence
    Reporting
    Mike Puccinelli

    It’s the crucial evidence Drew Peterson’s legal team doesn’t want you to hear. Peterson is accused of killing his third wife, and now the former cop’s lawyers are taking a page right out of the R. Kelly defense team’s playbook. CBS 2’s Mike Puccinelli reports.

    It’s a two-page motion that could dramatically affect what the public knows about the most highly publicized murder trial in the history of Will County. It was filed Monday by Drew Peterson’s defense team.

    “We filed a motion today to seal and close a hearing that’s going to start on January 19th to admit hearsay,” said Peterson’s defense attorney Joel Brodsky.

    The defense team moved because Brodsky says if the proceedings are not closed, Peterson can’t get a fair trial because the jury pool will likely be tainted by what he predicts will be saturation coverage in the media.

    “This has got nothing to do with truth or innocence,” Brodsky said. “This has to do with whether the jury is going to hear things that a judge is going to decide not to allow into evidence.”

    Many hearsay statements that Kathleen Savio allegedly made to family members and attorneys before she was found dead in her bathtub in 2004 are well known. But Brodsky says many other alleged statements are not.

    “Probably more than half of the statements that the state wants to introduce in hearsay have not been previously disclosed,” Brodsky said.

    CBS 2 Legal Analyst Irv Miller says trying to keep the public and the media from hearing those statements is sound legal strategy.

    “I think what the defense did was a very smart, strategic move because they’re trying to keep any taint from this jury pool even before the trial,” Miller said. “And secondly, if Drew Peterson gets convicted, this is possible grounds to appeal the conviction.”

    Brodsky says today’s motion was in part based on a successful motion filed by attorneys representing another high-profile client.

    Brodsky says, as far as pretrial publicity and pretrial hearings goes, the R. Kelly case provided him with a roadmap on how to defend Drew Peterson.

    That’s because in the famed singer’s child porn trial, the judge closed certain pretrial hearings in order to protect R. Kelly’s right to a fair trial, and to keep the jury pool from hearing inadmissible evidence. R. Kelly was acquitted.

    “The R. Kelly case was really one of the first cases in Illinois that this even came up,” Miller said. “And it does provide a roadmap. And it allows the judge to protect the rights of the defendant.”

    Miller says the judge has to balance the public’s right to know with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. He says the public’s right is a qualified right whereas Peterson’s right is fundamental.

    He says when weighing the two, the defendant’s right takes precedence. Ultimately, he says it makes for a very tough call for the trial judge.

    (© MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Comments are closed.