Sun-Times puts up a fight – files motion to cover Peterson hearing


UPDATE: Motion to close hearings denied.


Sun-Times Media fights for open Peterson hearing
January 8, 2010 By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

The lawyers for accused wife killer Drew Peterson tried to throttle public access to a landmark evidentiary hearing less than two weeks away, but Sun-Times Media won’t give in without a fight.

Sun-Times Media attorney Damon Dunn crafted an emergency motion objecting to a bid by Peterson’s legal team to ban the public from a Jan. 19 pretrial hearing. Seth Stern, another Sun-Times Media attorney, plans to file the motion in Joliet this morning, Dunn said.

Sun-Times Media is The Herald-News’ parent company.

The Associated Press and the Tribune Co. have joined in the effort as well.

Peterson’s attorneys asked Judge Stephen White to shut the public out of the potentially explosive hearing to determine what — if any — hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial. Peterson was arrested in May and charged with drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004.

Peterson is also the sole suspect in the state police investigation of the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. State police believe Stacy Peterson, who vanished in October 2007, may be the victim of foul play, but have failed to find her body or to bring criminal charges in connection with their “potential homicide” investigation.

The request to kill media access is an abrupt switch in strategy for Peterson and his legal team. Both Peterson and the longest serving of his four lawyers, Joel Brodsky have pandered to the press, and two sources who had been privy to Peterson’s 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.

Seeking spotlight
Dunn’s motion points out Peterson’s apparent love of the limelight, saying Peterson “has been subject to widespread publicity for many years.”
“Indeed, (Peterson) has so actively sought the media spotlight that the Court has found it necessary on occasion to restrain him,” the emergency motion says.

White has taken steps to restrain Peterson. After the disgraced former Bolingbrook cop called from jail to a Chicago radio station to tell jokes, the judge forbade him from telephoning anyone not on an approved list.

White also put Peterson’s lawyers in check by issuing a gag order prohibiting them from discussing discovery evidence.

Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, declined to comment on the Sun-Times Media motion. Prosecutors also have yet to respond to the request by Peterson’s lawyers.

White is scheduled to address the motion by Peterson’s lawyers today. Stern was set to attend on behalf of Sun-Times Media.

Read the story at the Herald News
Damon Dunn bio

~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

164 thoughts on “Sun-Times puts up a fight – files motion to cover Peterson hearing

  1. …two sources who had been privy to Peterson’s 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.

    Oh, snap!

  2. That’s just swell.

    That arrangement, if true, seems like a very unorthodox way to get legal fees paid to represent a client. It certainly seems plausible, since we know that keeping Peterson in the news was a common practice. If you put that together with this allegation, it all fits.

    I wonder if this could be trouble for Brodsky with the ARDC, the Chicago Bar, and/or the State Bar? I mean, using a client to generate publicity, knowing that it’s for financial gain, sure seems odd. Brodsky never felt that Peterson would be arrested for either Kathleen’s death or Stacy’s disappearance, so maybe he didn’t feel the least bit uneasy racking up funds based on his client’s notoriety, which he certainly had a hand in. His “white noise.”

    It sucks to be Drew Peterson, and maybe even Joel Brodsky.

  3. CHICAGO – Drew Peterson’s lawyers do not want you at an upcoming hearing in their client’s murder case.

    The attorneys are in court Friday to argue that the public should be banned from a hearing about hearsay evidence.

    Prosecutors have not responded to the defense motion.

    The hearsay hearing is scheduled for January 19.

    The outcome will decide what evidence prosecutors can use against Peterson, who is charged with the murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Savio was found dead in her bathtub in 2004. Her death was initially ruled an accidental drowning, but it is now a homicide.

    Peterson is also a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who has not been seen since October 2007.

    http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-peterson-hearsay-ban-jan10,0,3954188.story

    Defense attorneys are trying to keep that hearing private, saying they want to ensure that Peterson gets a fair trial. But their request is being challenged by Sun-Times Media LLC, the Tribune Co. and The Associated Press.

    AP story

  4. Brodsky’s compensation for taking the case came exclusively from funds generated through publicity.

    Hmmm, taking this into consideration and a step further, if this were to be true, I imagine the terms can’t be changed now. Also, if true, that means the funds are cut off, since there’s a gag order in place and Peterson can’t drum up any publicity right now.

    So, either there are still funds in the coffer from the early defense website asking for money, and the payment for books, stories and/or interviews, or the funds have dried up. The question is, if the funds have dried up, how does Brodsky get paid? Is there going to be more information about this coming out? This is a really interesting new twist on this Drewgate mess.

  5. rescueapet :
    Abood called Glasgow’s honesty into question. Glasgow angrily objected
    less than a minute ago from txt

    Yikes!!! That Abood is showing himself to be a more than worthy partner for Bratsky.

  6. Ruling on Peterson hearing expected today
    Comments

    January 8, 2010

    By Joe Hosey
    JOLIET — Judge Stephen White is expected to rule at 1:30 p.m. today wheter the public should be barred from a Jan. 19 hearing to determine what — if any — hearsay evidence will be allowed in Drew Peterson’s murder trial.

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

    During arguments this morning in Will County court, defense attorney Andrew Abood implied State’s Attorney James Glasgow is a liar. Glasgow, who cited the Spanish Inquisition in his argument, angrily objected.

    Lawyers for Sun-Times Media, which includes The Herald-News, were to file a motion today objecting to the defense request to bar the public from the hearing.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1980680,Ruling-Peterson-hearing-expected-JO010809.article

  7. Found this interesting, in regards to tweeting from court:

    …many judges are slowly warming to the idea. Some even welcome the use of computers and cell phones in the courtroom as a way to make the judicial system more accessible and transparent to the public. For example, Judge Mark Bennet of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa said in an interview with the ABA Journal, “I thought the public’s right to know what goes on in federal court and the transparency that would be given the proceedings by live-blogging outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant. . . . I allowed it because of my belief that we are the most mysterious branch of federal government and we need to find ways to be more transparent.”

  8. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/will-county-drew-peterson-media-hearsay-trial-010810-81015147.html

    …Brodsky argued that even if the judge rules that some of the statements are inadmissable, the media will still report them, and the potential jury pool will be tainted. “It will be impossible for the jurors to avoid it,” he said.

    But prosecutor James Glasgow vehemently urged the judge to keep the hearing open. “You’ve all heard of the Spanish Inquisition. Close the doors, bad things can happen,” he said. “In the United States, we don’t do that!”

    Pointing at the assembled reporters, Glasgow told the judge, “The press is scrutinizing me, they’re scrutinizing you, to make sure we do it by the rules!”

  9. Wooo hoooo another victory! WTG Glasgow, and all of the media who made it possible for this to be kept public, and open!

  10. It’s been all about the attorneys for months and months. Now it’s going to be all about the defendant. Obviously, things that he doesn’t want known. It’s about time.

    Awesome job done by Joe Hosey and Janet Hosey! Looking forward to their continued updates as things progress.

  11. Preliminary story:

    Drew Peterson judge will keep hearing open

    January 8, 2010

    SUN-TIMES STAFF REPORT

    A Will County judge has denied a request from Drew Peterson’s attorneys to close an upcoming hearing on evidence prosecutors say links the former Bolingbrook police officer to the death of his third wife.

    Judge Stephen White said Friday that the court already has done everything it can to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

    Lawyers for Sun-Times Media, parent company of the Chicago Sun-Times, had asked the judge to allow public access to the hearing.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the 2004 death of Kathleen Savio. He¹s also a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife.

    A Jan. 19 hearing is scheduled to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson¹s upcoming murder trial.

    Defense attorneys had claimed allowing the public to hear the evidence would make it hard for Peterson to get a fair trial.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1980847,drew-peterson-trial-media-open-010809.article

  12. Judge refuses to bar public from Peterson hearing
    January 8, 2010 1:55 PM

    The public will have access to a first-of-its-kind hearing later this month at which prosecutors are expected to lay out much of their case against Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook police officer charged with drowning his third wife in 2004.

    Peterson’s attorneys took the rare step of asking a judge to seal the courtroom for a Jan. 19 hearing required under a new state law on hearsay evidence.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow and an attorney representing the Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune and the Associated Press argued this morning that the hearing — which could last more than two weeks and feature testimony from 60 people — should be open to the public.

    “In the United States of America, we don’t do that,” Glasgow said of barring the public from court proceedings. “We do it out in the open.”

    Prosecutors want Judge Stephen White to allow hearsay statements from 15 people to be heard by a jury. But they must first convince White at the upcoming hearing that a “preponderance of the evidence” shows Peterson killed ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    Hearsay includes any evidence based on what witnesses hear others say, as opposed to what they themselves have experienced themselves.

    In the end, White said in issuing his ruling that he could find no reason to keep the hearing closed.

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky had argued that publicly airing “sensational” statements that may never be heard at trial would undoubtedly prejudice jurors. He gave the judge five possible options — ranging from closing the hearing to all but certain Savio family members to sealing his findings on whether Peterson likely killed her.

    “Transparency in legal proceedings is essential,” Brodsky said in court this morning, before White’s ruling. “But there is a right of the defendant…and right of the state to have an impartial jury hear the case.”

    Glasgow told White that there must be a “substantial probability” that the jury pool would be tainted and that there was no other way — such as through the normal juror selection process — to address it.

    Seth Stern, a lawyer for the newspapers, said sealing a court proceeding like the one planned for Jan. 19 should only be a “last resort” that is typically only used in cases involving national security.

    — Steve Schmadeke

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/drew-peterson-kathleen-savio-stacy-will-county-court-joel-brodsky-murder-charges.html

  13. “Transparency in legal proceedings is essential,” Brodsky said in court this morning, before White’s ruling. “But there is a right of the defendant…and right of the state to have an impartial jury hear the case.”

    Thanks for reading here, Joel. ;)

  14. IProsecutors want Judge Stephen White to allow hearsay statements from 15 people to be heard by a jury. But they must first convince White at the upcoming hearing that a “preponderance of the evidence” shows Peterson killed ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    I guess I just don’t get it. I thought the hearsay law says they have to show that someone was killed in order to keep them from testifying, and this case it would be Stacy, wouldn’t it? So I see how the new law would apply to hearsay related to her statements. I just assumed Kathleen’s statements would be covered by other exceptions. This always confuses me…

  15. A prior Karen Conti response:

    There are numerous bits of testimony that both parties will want to have the jury hear. As to each, the opposing party has objections based upon hearsay and perhaps other legal bases. At the mini trial, the judge will hear either from the witnesses themselves or he will hear the nature of the witness’ expected testimony and will issue pretrial rulings by which the parties will be bound at the real trial. This way, the jury does not hear improper testimony and the real trial will be streamlined because there will not be as many objections throughout.

    The judge could also be hearing evidence concerning the new hearsay exception, which is testimony of what a deceased witness (Stacy or Kathleen herself) said. As you recall, the new law requires some finding that Peterson took some action to silence the witness and that is the reason that she is unavailable for trial. That has to be decided first by the judge before the jury gets to hear that testimony.

  16. This is what I was stuck on but I guess they would not need to convince the judge that Kathleen was killed only in order to keep her from testifying.

    While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduciton of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the witness…

  17. To allow Neil Schori’s testimony (quoting Stacy), it has to be shown (by preponderance of evidence) that DP murdered Stacy to prevent her being able to testify against him re Kitty. Have I got that right?

  18. judgin :Did you say ’slithered’ out a side door?

    More like under the side door ;)

    Everytime the dream team comes up short on a motion I can’t help but smile.

  19. Trying not to, but I can’t help enjoying that all of us “Lay People” and “Harpies” got word of the Motion being denied before the Multiple Mommy Murderer did.

  20. Judge refuses to close Peterson hearing

    January 8, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET — The bid by Drew Peterson’s legal team to bar the public from a landmark hearsay hearing failed, setting the stage for potentially explosive testimony to air in a proceeding that could last longer than a month.

    Judge Stephen White rejected the arguments of Peterson’s attorneys Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood that keeping the hearing open might bias potential jurors against their alleged wife-killing client.

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow countered Peterson’s pair of lawyers and compared sealing the upcoming hearing to determine what — if any — hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s murder trial to a distinctly unAmerican and anachronistic system of justice.

    “You’ve all heard of the Spanish Inquisition,” Glasgow said. “You close the doors and bad things happen. We don’t do that in America.”

    While Glasgow cited the Spanish Inquisition, Brodsky pointed to the child pornography case of R&B sensation R. Kelly as his reason for keeping the public out of Peterson’s pretrial hearing. Some of those proceedings, which included the playing of a videotape of Kelly allegedly having sex with an underage girl, were closed to the public.

    “There was some sensational evidence,” Brodsky said. “It was because of the sensationalism, and (the judge) didn’t want any potential jurors hearing anything about that tape.”

    Glasgow accused Brodsky of being way off base with his Kelly comparison.

    “It’s the centerpiece of their motion, and it doesn’t apply,” Glasgow said.

    Peterson could face as many as 60 prosecution witnesses ranging from a man he allegedly solicited to kill his third wife, Kathleen Savio, to his stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, who claims he was asked by Peterson to kill his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, and later helped carry her body out of the family home in a blue barrel.

    Peterson is charged with drowning Savio in March 2004. The state police suspect he may also have killed Stacy Peterson, who vanished in October 2007 and remains missing.

    Peterson has not been charged in connection with the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    Abood predicted Peterson’s murder trial would begin “sometime before October” but conceded this prediction was “just a hunch.”

    Glasgow’s argument to keep the hearsay hearing open to the public was bolstered by Martin Glink, a lawyer representing the Savio family in a wrongful death lawsuit, and Seth Stern, an attorney appearing on behalf of Sun-Times Media, the Associated Press and the Tribune Co. Sun-Times Media is the parent company of The Herald-News.

    “We’re just pleased the court weighed the importance of the First Amendment considerations at issue and made the right decision,” Stern said.

    the hearing, Abood raised Glasgow’s ire by questioning the state’s attorney’s sincerity. Abood asked how Glasgow could be fighting to keep the hearsay hearing open to the public after petitioning for an order forbidding attorneys to discuss discovery evidence.

    “Why did they file a motion to put a gag order on us?” Abood said.

    Glasgow jumped up and angrily objected to Abood’s attack. During a break in the hearing, he declined to discuss the exchange further.

    After losing the argument in court, Brodsky said Peterson is “very confident” and “in good spirits” because “there’s no evidence he did anything wrong.”

    Brodsky claimed the testimony he wanted kept out of the public eye is nothing more than “fabrications” and “falsehoods” coming from people “known to be fabricators of falsehoods.”

    “This stuff isn’t evidence yet,” he said. “It’s rumor, innuendo and gossip.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1980801,Judge-refuses-close-Peterson-hearing_jo01710.article

  21. Brodsky said Peterson is “very confident” and “in good spirits”

    Hmmmm, yet Budenz says:

    Drew shared with me during a recent visit that being locked up has made him, “Never want to have even a pet that is caged.

    Rumor, innuendo and gossip…

  22. After losing the argument in court, Brodsky said Peterson is “very confident” and “in good spirits” because “there’s no evidence he did anything wrong.”

    Brodsky claimed the testimony he wanted kept out of the public eye is nothing more than “fabrications” and “falsehoods” coming from people “known to be fabricators of falsehoods.”

    “This stuff isn’t evidence yet,” he said. “It’s rumor, innuendo and gossip.”

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

    LOL, LOL !!

    Joel wants to protect us from hearing “fabrications and falsehoods”, coming from people “known to be fabricators of falsehoods.”

  23. Abood raised Glasgow’s ire by questioning the state’s attorney’s sincerity. Abood asked how Glasgow could be fighting to keep the hearsay hearing open to the public after petitioning for an order forbidding attorneys to discuss discovery evidence.

    “Why did they file a motion to put a gag order on us?” Abood said.

    This is true. The State asked that the judge place a gag order on all attorneys and seal the discovery, as I understand it, to avoid having witnesses sought out by the media. But, if anything, it kept the very sensationalism the defense is talking about from getting into the public. Isn’t that what they want now?

    On the other hand, Brodsky has been blatantly clear that he wants this case to be open and “transparent,” up until now, when they filed this motion. So, how does this make them sincere, but make Glasgow insincere? That analogy defies logic.

    If it’s going to be a logical argument, then make it something that makes better sense than this ridiculous comment.

  24. Brodsky claimed the testimony he wanted kept out of the public eye is nothing more than “fabrications” and “falsehoods” coming from people “known to be fabricators of falsehoods.”

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

    Why didn’t Joel put that in his motion, instead of People versus Kelly (!!)

  25. facsmiley :

    …two sources who had been privy to Peterson’s 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.

    Oh, snap!

    You’d have to wonder why Joel Brodsky is so overtly quiet on this particular allegation appearing in print no less as his normal MO is to start threatening legal letters and law suits but to date the silence is deafening (!!)

  26. Much as I adore the fabrications and falsehoods from known fabricators of falsehoods, I’m disappointed he couldn’t seem to find that all-important 3rd alliteration….. ;)

    What lawyer, what an orator, what a man!

  27. Not going to copy the whole article but a snippet:

    …Will County Judge Stephen White decided that the hearing should be open to the media, although he will closely examine some of the hearsay statements before deciding whether to publicizing them.

    This isn’t surprising. There’s much legal precedent for making sure that hearings and trials in criminal and civil cases are open to the public. Judges routinely have pretrial hearings involving the possible suppression of evidence at trial, including confessions, even though publicizing confessions might taint potential jurors. Past cases suggests that such hearings can be closed only as a last resort when no alternatives would remedy the problem.

    In Peterson’s case, the hearsay hearing will be held months before the trial, so the passage of time may dilute it’s impact on potential jurors. Also, a thorough questioning of potential jurors is another remedy. The judge needs to be certain that he can find a dozen impartial jurors, who come to the trial with an open mind regarding Peterson’s guilt or innocence. He apparently believes this will be possible, even after a widely-publicized hearsay hearing.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/special_report/analysis-drew-peterson-ruling

  28. facsmiley :
    So what could the prosecution call their team?
    A portly purveyor of poultry, an atrocious adenoidal attorney, and a hypocritical hot habibi?

    well done lol

  29. Brodsky says Drew’s confident. He knows he’s done nothing wrong, and there’s no evidence indicating he did anything wrong in connection with “Kathy’s” death.

    This is all a true and accurate description. In his client’s sick mind, he doesn’t think he did anything wrong. Wanting a troublesome ex-wife dead, to him, isn’t wrong. Not calling for law enforcement officials to enter his ex-wife’s house isn’t wrong. Leaving prints all around the death scene, one that hasn’t been officially investigated, isn’t wrong, when you’re the sergeant, ex-husband of the deceased. Even though the spouse is always looked upon with suspicion until proven otherwise. Inheriting her assets via an outdated will, even though she couldn’t stand the sight of him, isn’t wrong. Convenient, but not wrong. Maybe makes him look bad to a majority of people, but doesn’t “connect” him to her death. Is that how this works?

    I do wonder how many of his devoted family members and friends were there to lend their support of him? His fiancée? His former law enforcement partners? The people that were a part of ex-Sergeant Drew Peterson’s life for many years, that just know he’s not capable of harming anyone, least of all his ex-wife or his present wife. The ones that just know Drew Peterson didn’t do anything wrong in connection with the death of his ex-wife, Kathleen. The ones that will be able to not only “say” he didn’t do anything wrong, but “show” he didn’t because they have absolute proof of it. I sure hope, though, that the ones that are going to defend him haven’t been in trouble with the law, haven’t done drugs, don’t drink, haven’t been known to be what Drew Peterson refers to as “street rats,” and who don’t have any mental issues of any kind, whether medically treated or otherwise. Because, if so, then, if we’re to believe Brodsky when he refers to the State’s witnesses, their testimony will be false, sensational and fabricated.

    So, if there’s anyone left standing in this mess, I am looking forward to hearing from them, in open court.

  30. facsmiley :

    “Transparency in legal proceedings is essential,” Brodsky said in court this morning, before White’s ruling. “But there is a right of the defendant…and right of the state to have an impartial jury hear the case.”

    Thanks for reading here, Joel.

    The same thought went through my head, Facs. A site loved by all!

  31. On a sad note, we were just told that the Cales family has lost a beloved family member, Grandpa Bob Toutges.

    We are so sorry, and offer our heartfelt condolences. He wanted nothing more than to bring Stacy home.

    [Grandpa] Toutges said his heart nearly gave out when his granddaughter turned up missing.

    “I’m lost without her,” Toutges said. “I love you sweetheart, come home.”

  32. Yes, very sad that he didn’t live to see justice for his granddaughter or to know her resting place. Very sorry for the Cales and Toutges families tonight.

  33. Look at it this way. He will be with her, and can hold her again in that embrace.
    My sympathies with the family

  34. Interesting, DD!

    The trial of former Chicago Police Sgt. Drew Peterson, who’s accused of killing his third and fourth wives, will feature the testimony of ABC News’ Martin Bashir when it starts in two weeks. A source said Bashir had been subpoenaed over his January 2009 interview with Peterson, during which Peterson made comments that allegedly contradicted statements he had given law-enforcement officials.

    We’ve got some transcribed excerpts from the Martin Bashir interview here if anyone’s interested.

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/interview-and-show-transcripts/#w

  35. I really do love that all of those hours of interviews Peterson gave are now coming back to haunt him. First Derek Armstrong, now Martin Bashir. What was Joel thinking? Oh right, I forgot those people who said that his compensation was essentially fees paid for interviews.

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

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

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

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

  37. Thanks, DD. I didn’t know where to find that. That interview not only has some uber-creepy sound bites from Drew, but some clips from home videos that I’ve never seen anywhere else.

  38. The trial of former Chicago Police Sgt. Drew Peterson, who’s accused of killing his third and fourth wives, will feature the testimony of ABC News’ Martin Bashir when it starts in two weeks. A source said Bashir had been subpoenaed over his January 2009 interview with Peterson, during which Peterson made comments that allegedly contradicted statements he had given law-enforcement officials.

    If this is true and he’s going to appear, I assume it’s only to confirm what he was told by Drew Peterson and what he reported.

    So, if that’s the case, then why does Armie have to run back to the Canadian border and hide, and avoid returning to the United States?

  39. Good point, Rescue. What’s the big deal with Armstrong that he can’t man up and testify? It’s not like he relied on any secret sources for his book. He interviewed Drew, Joel, and the polygraph exmainer. That’s it.

  40. Because, I believe he’s not being accurate about how many hours of interviews he really has. Claims it’s hundreds. You’d think he’d be proud of what he’s done and what he has to offer. Especially if it gets to the truth. Either way. If he has hundreds of hours of tape of Peterson, and there’s things on there that could help Peterson’s sorry ass, then bring it on. But, then, Brodsky would have been all over that. If not, it speaks for itself – just confirm what it is. No need to “expose” himself and declare Drew Peterson a murderer. Confirm he was a party to the tapes and be done with it.

    What a sham.

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

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

    What if it comes out that this is true, and that things like this are being looked at? I wonder what the consequences are? What a shame if it is true.

  42. rescueapet :FYI: We understand that Geraldo Rivera, Fox News, will have something on this evening regarding the Drew Peterson case, with Joe Hosey.
    9:00 p.m., CST.

    Geraldo took a chunk out of Drew tonight and also the news shows who have been “courting” Peterson & Brodsky for interviews. Joe Hosey mentioned the discussion Stacy had not only with Pastor Neil, but also Kathleen’s attorney. Hosey said since Drew has been isolated he’s aged a hundred years and has become quiet when he appears in court. (Good!) Kimberly Guilfoyle is predicting charges and conviction for Stacy’s murder, as well, with or without a body.

  43. Okay – quick synopsis of the Geraldo DP segment.

    Apparently, Stacy told a second person about Kathleen’s death, and that was Attorney Harry Smith.

    The key in this trial is the prosecution showing that DP killed Stacy in order to keep her from testifying against him for his involvement in the death of Kathleen.

    There were some video clips shown during the segment of Joel Brodsky after Friday’s hearing, one which was Brodsky saying that Judge White may close the hearings intermittently, depending on the testimony.

    I believe Joe Hosey mentioned the trial may begin in late Spring.

  44. I know it’s childish, but it still makes me smile when Geraldo calls Drew names. He just so sincerely seems to hate the way the media courted and paid for time with a murder suspect. Love Geraldo, or hate him, but there’s something that feels so right about his indignation.

  45. That’s true. He made no bones about the fact that he and his lawyer were treated like celebrities, and that they should be ashamed of themselves for it. Of course, there’s no love lost between Geraldo Rivera and Drew Peterson, but, that’s what he said.

  46. facsmiley :Very exciting to hear Hosey confirm that Harry Smith is the second person Stacy told about Drew.

    How will Joel discredit the attorney, Harry Smith? Fabricator? Backyard Gossip Maker? Someone still holding a grudge against Drew?

  47. You know, DD, I thought about that. No, I doubt they can discredit him. Funny, a couple of the defense attorneys had their own disciplinary problems to contend with, so…..

    What they will do is make a lot of noise about the fact that Stacy was a pissed off wife seeking a divorce, and said these things to make her husband look bad. You know they will continue to character assassinate her, without her being here or able to defend herself. Because he made her go away.

    But, IMO, saying these things, then disappearing days later, goes a long way. Also, Peterson could never have imagined that her disappearance would come down so hard on him in the days to come. Unfortunately for him, the limelight cracked that fat head of his big time. He’s going to pay the piper.

  48. Even Maksym was making Geraldo comments over the renting of Drew’s house. Why would you continue to agitate a reporter with your client sitting in jail accused of murder? The arrogance is still present.

  49. I’ve always wondered if Harry Smith might also be in possession of some of Stacy’s notes she was recording about Drew’s behavior. I know the family reported that she had an appointmnet with Smith on that following Monday, but that may have been a meeting to officially retain Smith and file the paperwork. I’m very interested in hearing what he’ll bring to the evidence pool.

  50. docsdaughter :

    I’ve always wondered if Harry Smith might also be in possession of some of Stacy’s notes she was recording about Drew’s behavior. I know the family reported that she had an appointmnet with Smith on that following Monday, but that may have been a meeting to officially retain Smith and file the paperwork. I’m very interested in hearing what he’ll bring to the evidence pool.

    Certainly, Attorney Smith is not one to be taken lightly. I’m sure he’s a very important, credible witness. Who’s to know what he has to offer, but it’ll soon be in open court.

    I suppose what he has to offer may be part of the reason the defense didn’t want the proceedings held in open court after all.

  51. DD, I don’t think Stacy met with Harry Smith at all.

    RC: And the piece of information that we are learning today for the first time is that she had contacted you on the Friday prior to her disappearance seeking information about a divorce from Drew Peterson.

    HS: It was Wednesday and then another brief conversation on Friday, that is correct.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/kathleen_savio_WLS-AM890harrysmith.htm

    Now whether she could have sent something to him via a messenger service, that is a thought.

  52. Now whether she could have sent something to him via a messenger service, that is a thought.

    Maybe she had it stashed somewhere in the house and happened to mention it to someone at some point or another.

    I’ve always wondered why LE went back into DP’s house after he was arrested and took out more things. I wonder what that turned out to be about?

  53. New Will County Circuit Court Schedule posted

    04P 000232 – Kathleen Savio PROBATE Case
    PETERSON DREW 2 2 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status
    PETERSON KRISTOPHER 2 2 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status
    PETERSON THOMAS D 2 2 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status

  54. ROBINSON MICHAEL 1 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Status
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 1 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Status
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 1 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Status

  55. Hey all. Yeah, Geraldo came up again, so I fancied bringin’ him out for a spin. So sad I can’t get Geraldo online. Thanks for the report!

  56. The Robinson case will be going on for two years on the 16th of this month. Anyone know if Hosey will be covering todays court?

  57. facsmiley :IIRC, Robinson switched attorneys. Would that mean that court proceedings start anew?

    No, the Trial goes forward, the new attorney will update himself, discuss the case and educate his client,and may readjust his defense strategies and tactics. Based upon evidence and chance of winning the case, they may file a Motion To Dismiss, enter into a Plea Agreement or?.

  58. Hans Reiser convicted of murdering his wife in “no body” case
    Reiser juror explains what led to conviction

    Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008

    (04-29) 12:24 PDT Oakland – — Hans Reiser’s arrogance and his lack of compassion for his estranged wife helped persuade jurors to convict the computer programmer of first-degree murder, a member of the Oakland jury said Tuesday.

    In an interview with The Chronicle, Vince Dunn, 61, said that while Reiser had been going through a bitter divorce with his wife, Nina Reiser, “He never showed any kind of sympathy for the fact that she was the mother of his kids.”

    Dunn’s comments came on a day when Judge Larry Goodman of Alameda County Superior Court set a July 9 sentencing date for the 44-year-old Reiser, who faces a penalty of 25 years to life in prison.

    During a brief hearing Tuesday, Reiser laughed with his attorney, William Du Bois, who said outside court that his client was simply trying to relieve stress. “He accepts the reality” of the jury’s verdict on Monday, the attorney said.

    But juror Dunn said Reiser’s coldness on the witness stand during the six-month-long trial, coupled with a phone call to his mother in which he justified why he hated his wife, helped convince the seven-man, five-woman jury that he deliberately murdered his 31-year-old wife even though her body has not been found.

    “He was always making her the bad person,” Dunn said. “He just focused on his belief that she was unfit, a thief, not a good mother, on and on and on, but everybody else was talking about what a nice person she was.”

    Jurors believed Reiser was “very arrogant” and wasn’t telling the truth while on the stand, Dunn said.

    Dunn acknowledged that the case had no body, no murder weapon and no eyewitnesses, making deliberations difficult at times. But Dunn said he and his fellow jurors “all came to the conclusion that there was so much circumstantial evidence” and that “all the evidence pointed to him as the culprit.”

    Nobody has heard from Nina Reiser since Sept. 3, 2006, when she dropped off the couple’s children at his Oakland hills home. “We were convinced that she was dead because she would never have left her children,” Dunn said.

    whole article at

    http://nobodycases.blogstream.com/v1/p5.html

  59. BTW, after he was convicted, he finally fessed up and led police to her remains.

    Convicted killer Hans Reiser led police Monday to what he said was the body of his wife in the Oakland hills just two days before he was to be sentenced for first-degree murder, authorities said.

    Reiser, who had proclaimed his innocence from the day his estranged wife, Nina, was last seen in September 2006, agreed to reveal the location of her body in exchange for a deal in which he would be sentenced for second-degree murder rather than the first-degree murder conviction a jury returned against him in April, according to officials with knowledge of the case.

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-07-08/news/17170474_1_first-degree-murder-conviction-wife-s-body-sentenced

  60. Yeah, it better be Joel. If it was Carroll, he wouldn’t bother to inform his client what’s on the table as far as bargaining. That’s why he’s not sitting on the right side of the defense table anymore. ;-)

  61. Facs, Love to see Geraldo rising from the waves like some kind of (wet) hero. LOL! You can win. (this time) hahahahaha

  62. Filming interviews for the Drew Peterson Feature Documentary. Let the drama, lies, truth and human nature unfold on the big screen.
    12 minutes ago from web

    DavidTurvey
    Twitter

    Remember the college student, David Turvey?

  63. He’s down the street from me locked up till the trial begins…You will hear all about it on the news again starting next wk
    21 minutes ago from web in reply to DreDuBBcms

    More Tweets from David Turvey.
    I guess we’ll have to wait until next week unless Facs and Rescue can obtain some more info.

  64. Turvey says:

    He’s down the street from me locked up till the trial begins…You will hear all about it on the news again starting next wk
    30 minutes ago from web

    Well, the mini-trial is a week from today so…I’d say that’s a given.

  65. facsmiley :OK – DD, that’s the second time I’ve done that. I deleted the first one. I’m going to leave these up to you, LOL!

    I just happen to be on Twitter. Please post away.

  66. I was just looking at the Police report about the incident in Kathleen’s basement with Drew, and at the very end there is a blacked out portion, but it does mention a statement from Mary Pontarelli. I wonder if she will testify about this?

  67. My prediction is that Mary’s testimony will be very important in the case regarding Kathleen Savio. She was there the day Kathleen was found. It will be interesting to hear from her what exactly Drew said and how he acted that night. She probably also witnessed some of the events where the police were called or could have seen things through the windows if she ever snooped. The houses aren’t that far apart and she could possibly have heard loud arguments if windows were open on a warm day.

    The Pontarelli’s have been very quiet through this whole ordeal and you don’t hear about them getting (or having been) in trouble with the law so they will likely be very credible witnesses if/when they do take the stand.

  68. Ha ha…… after you read Sneed’s last sentence, you’ll be thinking the same thing. Too bad Kathleen and Stacy aren’t here to bake those cookies!

    The Peterson case . . .

    Sneed is told that accused wife murderer Drew Peterson was recently treated for a skin rash from the industrial detergent used to clean jail clothes.

    • Sob story: Walter Maksym, one of Peterson’s attorneys, tells Sneed that Peterson is being held in such close confinement, “I couldn’t even bring him a cookie for Christmas when I visited him.”

    • Hmmm. Why is my hankie still in my purse?

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1990293,CST-NWS-SNEED14.article

  69. BTW, before Maksym spreads his doom and gloom message about this poor sad sap of a client, I wonder if any prisoner in the WC Detention Center is able to accept outside goodies and treats, or other food or incidentals, from visitors/attorneys. I KNOW, being an attorney, Mr. Maksym KNOWS the answer to that. He KNOWS the WC Detention Center rules. If, in fact, he KNOWS it’s not allowed, then why is he even talking about this?

    Raising hand. Pick me. I’ll answer. Sympathy.

    Commissary? Give defendant cookie money.

  70. Judgin – Yeah, you’re right. But, they’re really scraping the bottom of the cookie jar now with this kind of goofy stuff. Feel sorry for Drew because he’s scratching his skin off due to an allergic reaction and not getting a Christmas cookie from his attorney?

    Feel bad, feel regret, for the families of Kathleen and Stacy. Not his client. He’s got his legal team to save him from the charges. His wives had no one to save them.

  71. You are so right! Kids do not have their mothers, and Kathleen and Stacy do not have their lives.

    Poor DP… could that ‘allergy’ be a ‘nerve’ condition due to his ‘GUILT?

    BTW, scratching his butt will give him something to do…

    and who cares

  72. I heard on FoxNews chicago that the judge sent out letters to all the jurors with specific guidelines on what to do and not to do. They were ordered not to read, talk, etc anything about the Drew Peterson case. I didn’t hear the whole thing, nor could I find anything written about it as of yet. Did anyone else hear this? Or confirm it? They said something about that it would be released next week? I am waiting to hear more about it. I hope they repeat it. I guess it is a new order to the jurors? Not sure though? Has anybody else seen this today?

  73. Oh also the Dupage County courthouse has started a new thing where you can look up inmates with pictures, offenses, bond, court information etc. For anyone interested in looking up inmates, or information about anyone in Dupage County.

    The new link can be reached at http://www.dupagesheriff.org.

  74. Thanks, Questions. I haven’t heard/seen anything about the letters to jurors. I guess it’s just a formality and a reminder since the mini-trial is only five days away and they are anticipating a fair amount of news coverage.

    AFAIK, the jurors have already been instructed not to read/watch/discuss anything about the case (at the time they were selected back in August).

  75. http://www.state.il.us/court/AppellateCourt/OralCal/3rdDist_PDF/0110.pdf

    JANUARY 19, 20 & 21 COURT CALL
    JUSTICE WILLIAM E. HOLDRIDGE, Presiding
    JUSTICE ROBERT L. CARTER
    JUSTICE DANIEL L. SCHMIDT
    JUSTICE VICKI R. WRIGHT
    JUSTICE TOM M. LYTTON
    JUSTICE MARY W. McDADE
    JUSTICE MARY K. O’BRIEN
    GIST FLESHMAN, Clerk of the Court

    WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010 – 1:15 P.M.
    3-08-1025 Will
    People of the State of Illinois, vs. Drew Peterson, Appellee-Cross-Appellant
    Appellant-Cross-Appellee (Mr. Andrew Abood & Mr. Joel A. Brodsky)
    (Mr. James Glasgow & Mr. Gary F. Gnidovec)

  76. Ha, I have this picture in my mind of half a dozen attorneys working it for Drew. They’re all over the place – guns, probate, line of credit, criminal. Whew.

    Reminds me of a light bulb joke.

    Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

    Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object, one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time sheets, two to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.

  77. I think you missed a few Rescue!

    One to go online and blog, one to fidget on a tv show, one to call Mancow, one to plug the chicken wings, one to arrange the boxing match, one to send a cease and desist letter, one to have a one-hour-orgasm, one to forget to tell the client about a plea deal, one to kill a wild boar, etc…

  78. Pulse

    January 15, 2010

    When it comes to the Butcher of Bolingbrook, the Boss of Bolingbrook seems to be at a loss for words.

    The “Butcher of Bolingbrook” is what celebrity journalist Geraldo Rivera called Drew Peterson — when he wasn’t calling him the “Beast of Bolingbrook” — in a Sunday night broadcast that included an interview with Herald-News reporter Joe Hosey .

    Pulse was interested in what Mayor Roger Claar thought about Rivera’s play on words with his town’s name along with that of Peterson, formerly a Bolingbrook cop and currently in jail facing trial for the murder of an ex-wife. But the mayor did not return phone calls.

    Rivera did not always call Peterson the Butcher and/or Beast of Bolingbrook. He used to call him the “Skunk of Bolingbrook.”

    Peterson’s notoriety might not be doing much harm to Bolingbrook’s image anyway. Within a year of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, vanishing, Money Magazine named Bolingbrook the 32nd best place to live in the United States.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1991962,4_1_JO15_PULSE_S1-100115.article

  79. Peterson’s notoriety might not be doing much harm to Bolingbrook’s image anyway. Within a year of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, vanishing, Money Magazine named Bolingbrook the 32nd best place to live in the United States.

    Well, good for that news. No one wants to see home values go down, or bad things happen in a place where hard working families, who abide by the law and move through life without chaos and turmoil, fall prey to the notoriety of one Drew Peterson.

  80. Right. I doubt the city’s reputation will suffer because of one bad guy living there. The Boston Strangler didn’t ruin things for Boston nor did the D.C. Sniper change anyone’s opinion of Washington, D.C.

  81. By Steve Schmadeke
    Tribune reporter

    January 17, 2010

    Former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson is charged with drowning estranged wife Kathleen Savio, but much of the information likely to be presented at a unique pretrial hearing that starts Tuesday will involve the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    For Stacy’s family, the hearing will provide their first detailed look at what was uncovered during the massive investigation launched after she vanished in 2007. Her disappearance and the exhumation afterward of Savio’s body and reclassification of her death as a homicide helped turn the case into national tabloid fodder.

    Stacy’s family immediately feared the worst. She had talked of divorcing Peterson, and on the Saturday night before she disappeared, her sister Cassandra Cales said, Stacy leaned over the kitchen table in the Peterson home and whispered: “If I go missing, come find me.”

    Kathleen Savio’s family also is hoping for more answers. After her sister drowned in 2004 while going through a bitter custody battle with Peterson, Sue Doman placed a note in her coffin asking her to tell her how she’d died, Doman told the Tribune last year.

    When the body was later exhumed, Doman added a flower and a new note that read: “I’d been waiting four years and you still haven’t told me — so please tell me what happened to you,” she said.

    For prosecutors and defense attorneys, the hearing that starts Tuesday and is expected to last a month will be a high-stakes marathon.

    Prosecutors must prove by a “preponderance of evidence” that Peterson made Stacy or Kathleen “unavailable” to testify against him. If they succeed, Judge Stephen White has the option, under a new state law championed by State’s Attorney James Glasgow, of allowing certain statements to be heard at a jury trial.

    One of the linchpins of the government’s case may be hearsay statements that Stacy and Kathleen allegedly made to others.

    “Drew Peterson has told me he’s going to kill me and make it look like an accident,” is how Glasgow in court described the statement Savio allegedly made to “trusted friends and relatives.”

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky last week said the hearsay statements were “rumor and innuendo and gossip” from “out-and-out unreliable people.”

    As part of their case to essentially prove, under a lower standard than required at trial, that Peterson killed his wife, prosecutors have subpoenaed records of “bathtub-related fatalities” from 14 Illinois counties, including Will, DuPage, Lake and Cook, for the years 2003 to 2005, according to court records.

    Prosecutors will likely use them to argue that the circumstances of Savio’s death — the 1-inch gash on her head, along with bruises and cuts elsewhere — are so singular that she could only have been murdered.

    Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

    Brodsky agrees that the autopsy results are straightforward — but that they clearly point to an accidental drowning.

    It may be a daunting task for Judge White. Prosecutors have turned over lists of hundreds of pieces of evidence in Savio’s death and Peterson’s disappearance.

    There are hundreds of potential witnesses, including two former acquaintances of Peterson who wore wires and also videotaped him, Brodsky has said in court, asking that prosecutors reveal whether they were paid.

    It’s not clear how or when prosecutors will address their own handling of the Savio case. Glasgow expressed frustration with his predecessor at a hearing last spring, noting that a letter Savio wrote to prosecutors alleging that Peterson sneaked into her home in 2002 and held a knife to her throat did not result in battery charges being filed.

    Prosecutors have said in court that in Savio’s original autopsy, the pathologist was not asked to rule on the manner of death. A coroner’s jury ruled it accidental.

    sschmadeke@tribune.com

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-peterson-advance-17-bd-jan17,0,5635078.story

Comments are closed.