Witnesses who testified 1/19/10
Starbucks employees (X2)
Issam Karam (former co-worker)
Lisa Mordente (former boss)
Kyle Toutges (Stacy’s Uncle)
James Coughlin (Bolingbrook police officer)
Sprint Nextel official
Alexander Beck (Peterson’s divorce attorney)
Kenneth Simpson (Bolingbrook police detective )
Today, the first in a series of hearings that is being called a “minitrial” will take place at the Will County Courthouse, to decide which hearsay testimony may be admissible in the trial of Drew Peterson. Peterson has been charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
The state’s attorney’s office has lined up at least 60 witnesses to testify at the hearing, which could last more than a month. Among these witnesses are a man Peterson allegedly tried to hire to murder Savio. Another potential star witness is Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, who claims he was asked by Peterson if he would kill for him, and that he helped carry Stacy Peterson’s body out of the family home in a blue barrel. Another witness will undoubtedly be Pastor Neil Schori who says Stacy Peterson told him that Drew killed Kathleen Savio.
Electronic devices such as cell phones and laptops will not be allowed at this hearing, so reports may not be immediate, but we will update as we receive information about the proceedings. Check the comments thread below…
Story at the Sun-Times
Summary at the Chicago Tribune
~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>
Justice Café 
If you’re going to Joliet this morning, better park on the sidestreets and hike it…
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/joliet-tackles-parking-during-peterson-hearing.html
From Facebook:
Thnks Facs, Rescue!
Hurrah! It’s been a long long road to get here. The arrest was good, but this is so much better!
Here comes the truth. I’m so glad many witnesses will feel relief to tell their stories.
I wonder if people will notice a different Drew in court. Is he so ground down now that he won’t be glaring at witnesses trying to intimidate them? We can hope.
Good luck to Glasgow’s team as well as the witnesses, although I think they’ve already got everything they need. 🙂
Dang ! Where am I going to park today lol. I guess I can drop quarters in the meter all day.
In case ANYONE who reads here thought that Reem Odeh’s “stunning” looks were not to be taken lightly, the defense team has come along and put out a special PR to remind us all of that. Rest easy everyone. I’m sure it’s been keeping a few of us awake at night with worry that she was anything otherwise. 🙄
*******
Drew Peterson Attorney Not Just a Pretty Face
As a hearing on hearsay testimony gets underway, Reem Odeh prepares for vital role on Peterson’s defense team.
(PRNewsChannel) / January 19, 2010 / Bolingbrook, Ill. / As a pivotal hearing on hearsay testimony gets underway today, it will again be Drew Peterson’s lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky who will get most of the face time. But it’s his partner, a model-turned-attorney, who may the secret weapon that could land an acquittal for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant.
Reem Odeh wants the public to know that beyond her stunning good looks is a hard-nosed attorney who is a detail-oriented and who brings keen analytical skills to Team Peterson.
“You don’t need to be front and center to know you’re playing a vital role in a huge criminal case,” says Odeh. “Drew knows what I’m doing. The legal team knows my contribution. Yet most of the public following the case probably have no idea who I am.”
She hardly ever talks to the media. And though present, she rarely addresses the court.
Though Odeh has largely taken a behind-the-scenes role, to be fair she did argue for a change a venue in the case.
Odeh is a single mother of three children who became a “corner office”
partner in a Chicago law firm before she turned 30.
Brodsky, who has received the bulk of the press interviews, says he relies on his partner to review the tremendous amount of documents, transcripts, statements and investigative reports and to analyze and develop a legal strategy.
“Reem has developed and implemented an incredibly powerful process that has allowed us to find and organize the evidence which will prove Drew’s innocence,” says Brodsky. “Her organizational and analytical skills are prodigious.”
She gets equal accolades from co-counsel Andrew Abood.
“She is an essential part of the team, and without her we would not be able to expose all the problems with the State’s case,” said Abood.
During trial, she will conduct the direct examination of one of Peterson’s teenage children who will testify in his father’s defense.
“The jury needs to hear what his children say about him,” says Odeh. “It’s very telling and extremely moving and says a lot about him as a man.
Drew Peterson and his legal team are represented by the PR firm The Publicity Agency.
http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=0&a=2126
ROTFLMAO. If you want to get an acquittal and you’re facing a murder rap, hire Reem Odeh. She’ll stun the jury for you with her good looks.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Victim to speak `from the grave’ in Peterson case
By DON BABWIN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 19, 2010; 7:53 AM
JOLIET, Ill. — Six years after she mysteriously drowned in a bathtub, Kathleen Savio is finally getting her day in court.
Savio essentially will testify from the grave Tuesday, with witnesses expected to tell a judge in Illinois how Savio discussed and wrote about her fears that her husband, former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, would kill her.
The hearing is expected to provide the first detailed look at evidence prosecutors contend ties Peterson to Savio’s death. It stems from a state law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence – testimony from witnesses who recount what they heard from others – in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove a defendant killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying.
The Illinois Legislature passed the law after authorities named Peterson a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, then exhumed the body of Savio, his third wife, and reopened the investigation into her 2004 death. Though the bill’s sponsors were careful never to link the law publicly to Peterson, it has been referred to as “Drew’s Law,” and his attorneys have long suggested it was passed to put Peterson behind bars.
During the hearing, which is expected to last three weeks, prosecutors will present to Will County Judge Stephen White about 60 witnesses to testify about 15 hearsay statements. White will then decide if the jury can hear any or all of those statements when Peterson stands trial. Peterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering Savio, whose body was found in a dry tub. A trial date hasn’t been set.
While neither side has talked much about the evidence in the case, from the day Peterson was arrested, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow has made it clear that allowing Savio to tell jurors why Peterson wanted her dead is crucial to his case.
“In essence, what you’re basically allowing the victim of a violent crime to do is testify from the grave,” Glasgow, who pushed for passage of the bill, told reporters in May shortly after Peterson was arrested.
The list of witnesses remains under seal, but Savio’s niece, Melissa Doman, said her mother, Anna Doman, is among those who have been called to testify.
“It would be about things my Aunt Kitty (Savio) told my mom about how she was afraid for her life, she said she was afraid of Drew,” Melissa Doman said, adding that she has not been called to testify.
Also expected to testify are other members of Savio’s family, including her sister, Susan Savio. It was Susan Savio who told a coroner’s jury shortly after her sister’s death that Kathleen Savio had told family members that, “if she would die, it may look like an accident, but it wasn’t.”
The death initially was ruled an accidental drowning – until Stacy Peterson’s disappearance led officials to exhume Savio’s body, conduct another autopsy and conclude Savio was the victim of a homicide. Drew Peterson has not been charged in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.
Other possible witnesses who could be asked to testify about the stormy relationship between Drew Peterson and Savio are his former colleagues. Eighteen times in two years, police were called to the couple’s Bolingbrook home to respond to reports of trouble between the two, with Savio telling officers that her husband had beaten her and threatened to kill her. Peterson was never charged. Savio was charged with domestic battery and later was acquitted.
There also are court documents that prosecutors are expected to present into evidence, including a 2002 order of protection in which Savio alleges that Peterson knocked her down, ripped off her necklace and left marks on her body.
“He wants me dead, and if he has to, he will burn the house down just to shut me up,” she wrote.
Among the more intriguing possible witnesses are members of the clergy at a Bolingbrook church attended by Stacy Peterson. In the days after her disappearance, there were media reports that she had told a clergyman a couple months earlier that Drew Peterson had confessed to her that he killed Savio and made it look like an accident.
Peterson’s attorneys have made it clear that they will attack the credibility of at least some of the witnesses.
“All it is, is rumor, innuendo and gossip,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said after a recent hearing concerning information contained in the 15 statements. “People had ulterior motives for saying what they said or are out-and-out unreliable people.”
The defense is not expected to call any witnesses of its own during the hearing.
“People should not think this is going to be the trial,” Brodsky said.
He said the hearing will help Peterson.
“We think that even in this questioning, a lot of beliefs that people have about what was said and who said them are going to be burst, dashed,” he said.
(This version CORRECTS that Drew Peterson and Savio were still married at the time of her death.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011900330.html
Oh, please, can someone put their hands on Odeh’s famous interview? That PR looks very much like throwing a bone to Reem as well as the press.
Yeah, I thought that too, Bucket. I think it’s a very poor PR – trying to prove her self-worth in all of this.
Is she going to shake it for the judge this month? Isn’t that what this is all about? There’s no jury, so I assume they’re meaning that Judge White is going to be in awe of her beauty.
Later the jury will be stunned by it.
Given that Brodsky & Odeh consists of two partners I assumed it would be a given that they might each be afforded a “corner office”. There might even be two more corners…
😉
Imagine if a defense team, any defense team, in a murder trial wrote and released a special PR to say how, first, handsome a behind-the-scenes attorney is, and, second, how organized he is. Don’t underestimate him because he’s a babe magnet.
How far would that go? Yet, this Scheme Team, who, by the way, calls themselves Team Drew, on the morning of the beginning of an important pretrial, feels it necessary to point out how good looking their quiet partner is, but, yet, an important part of the team.
We all know how Drew Peterson falls for attractive, young women. Way to go, Scheme Team!
Just came back from the courthouse. Didn’t see any familiar faces and one news truck from NBC. Asked him if he saw Drew from his location behind the courthouse. Said he couldn’t see anything and assumed they had brought him there. Long lines though this morning.
Thanks for the first-person perspective, givarat. Seems like they hustle Drew in these days, to avoid any repeat of the performance he gave that first time.
Supposedly, the news trucks are being given (sold) parking away from the courthouse today so as not to clog traffic. Good forethought!
Thanks for the info, givarat. I did see JBrodsky give a live interview this morning on the Fox Morning News. Just his usual disapproval of the hearsay evidence.
Thank you so much, Givarat, you’re a chum.
I feel it’s my duty to report that this morning the “Support Reem Odeh” Facebook group went down in membership. *sniff*
(I’m not making that up either…)
This is going to be Reem’s important contribution to the trial of Drew Peterson? Putting the kids on the stand and having them say they love their dad? Huh.
Isn’t this akin to Mancow’s absurd logic that if a person’s kids are well-behaved that the parent couldn’t possibly have killed anyone? Way to go, looking to Mancow for your defense strategy!
You know – as I re-read that PR about Reem Odeh, I wonder if she is the one who actually wrote it?
Personally, I think she should have run for the hills a long time ago. She spoke up in the beginning, by saying DP should shut up, and Brodsky quickly put that down by saying the press took her comments out of context. They’d write books. Hmmmm. Looks like there’s a crack in the cement.
Rescue, I have to agree. I’ve always wondered what Reem is doing partnered with that boob. She seems to have the education, the connections and the professionalism to be successful in any office or even her own practice. Why tether herself to a case and a client that she doesn’t like? The whole idea of the PR is somewhat patronizing.
The PR also makes me think that she’s one of those who’s only just found out that publicity may be the only payoff!!
I wonder if Reem was getting 50% of the take from those paid media appearances. She certainly wasn’t benefitting any from the plugs for Ellie’s chicken wings.
The only thing that stands out for me that Reem Odeh has said about any of this mess is when she spoke so intelligently about how Peterson should be quiet, and that she was going to speak to JB about it.
It’s hard to fault her for anything else, since she’s been quiet and working behind the scenes, as she should.
This PR is embarrassing. Her physical looks and her single-motherhood status has nothing to do with her abilities.
If she is caught up in this and has other ideas, I regret that for her. Maybe she can go on to write her own book about how she knew this was all wrong, and be the one to rise above all the muck.
Channel 9 reports: “Battalion of lawyers” are crowded into the courtroom. Key piece of evidence is a group of statements that the defense says should be thrown out.
Legal experts say, even if the hearsay is allowed in, it will be challenged at the higher court level.
Will County State’s Attorney, Glasgow, told the judge that it would be “in the interest of justice” for the judge to hear the statements and approve them.
I know you jest, but that’s a very serious point. Back when The Judge was a law partner, you were absolutely not to do “favours” on the side for “consideration” of any kind. All earnings from the practice of law to all go in the pot, which is sensible and fair. Do I need to add that The Judge thought it didn’t apply to him?
JB interview – he basically rehashes his position on the hearsay evidence. Says the State will be laying out their case, which is to the defense’s benefit, and he won’t be laying out his at this time.
Something Bratsky elides here (my new word of the week, lol.It means to omit or ignore)(sounds like a tense of elude?) is that it’s only a part of their case.
Lawyers (showing up for cases other than Kathleen’s) reporting one-hour wait to get in courthouse. So assuming proceedings were late to start?
I wonder if we could influence Joe to use the same kind of physical descriptions as he writes about about JB and AA…Like “JB wants you to know he’s not just a fat, bald bus driver…” or “Andrew Abood, a slim, dusky figure..”
Bucket – good point. How about George Lenard, the latest addition to the team. Single, married, divorced, how many kids? Take a poll. Good looking? How old.? Can he handle himself in court, even though some women (or men) might think he’s “hot?”
Brodsky says he can put Peterson on the stand, but that is unlikely to happen.
Hmmm. Can’t keep a blabbermouth down if he says he wants to talk. We already know that. Good luck. Couldn’t handle him for 2 years, now you can? We’ll see.
But it’s his partner, a model-turned-attorney, who may the secret weapon that could land an acquittal for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant.
I guess Selig didn’t get the looks or the brains. JMO 😉
That’s a good point too, Rescue. I wonder how Drew P. will handle the trial? Will he be able to stay quiet? I think he’s cold enough to.
No kidding! I just can’t get over how patronizing even the headline is.
I’m offering this up as the opening of the next Brodsky & Odeh press release:
Does it have a link to Match.com?
LOL @ you, Facs
LOL @ Facs.
He does have more than colorful ties to link himself to – he has a colorful past with cops and guns, and SWAT teams showing up at his house.
But, hey, that’s already made the news. It’s Reem’s day to shine.
LOL@ you, Rescue
Online content – Wire feeds – Illinois | State & regional
Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 | Comments (0) | Recommend (0)
Witness: Drew Peterson threatened to kill Savio
The Associated Press
JOLIET, Ill. — A one-time co-worker of Kathleen Savio says Savio told him Drew Peterson threw her to the floor one night and told her he could kill her.
Issam Karam (ih-SAHM’ kah-RAHM’) testified Tuesday at a hearing in the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s case. Peterson has pleaded not guilty in Savio’s murder.
The hearing stems from a state law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove a defendant killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying. After the hearing, a Will County judge will decide if jurors can hear the witness statements when Peterson stands trial.
Karam says Savio said Peterson grabbed her throat and had a knife, and that he told Savio he “could kill her there and then.”
http://www.bnd.com/326/story/1094490.html
Here’s a pic of the lines outside the courthouse this morning. I’m told that they are actually pretty typical for a Drew Peterson court date. They probably just seemed longer today since people were so eager for this hearing:
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/image/?image=236975&id=351996
I’m struck today by how many people have not read, much less understand the exception to the hearsay law. It provides just one more exception to the many existing exceptions to the right to confront witnesses. I realize it’s complicated at first blush, but it behooves a person to at least attempt to understand something before forming an opinion.
It is a controversial statute, but the exception will not allow wholesale admission of any and all hearsay statements into a trial.
Julian Cruise says that Peterson appeared haggard and with red splotches on his skin.
Channel 9 – WGN analyst – Terry Sullivan says witness on stand (co-worker) said:
Peterson got into house, tackled her on stairs, put a knife to her throat, and told her nothing she could say – that he could kill her then and there.
He said, down the line, the Supreme Court may come along and decide the constitutionality of this Hearsay Statute.
The prosecution has to show that Stacy and his third wife are unavailable to testify because he got rid of them. Then, the Statute says they can get the hearsay in.
Virtually, we’re going to see most of the case come out.
Also, a Channel 9 reporter/cameras got a quick look at Peterson. He said (his words, not mine), he’s looking haggard, and he’s got red splotches on his face.
Good. Poor me. I wonder if they use a laundry powder that contains enzymes. tsk tsk. Redheads are often martyrs to their sensitive skin. Either that or that this is what really happens to those who practice excessive self-abuse.
I watched video that said a Starbuck’s employee testified about receipts that may show Drew is connected to Stacy’s disappearance.
If I heard right. Will watch again in other room.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7226389
Thanks Noway. The Starbucks drive-thru where Drew took Tom Morphey?
LOL … just should have read article
Peterson is also suspected but not charged in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. Today, a witness from Starbucks testified about Starbucks receipts that may link Peterson to the 2007 of disappearance.
Prosecutors say other witnesses claim Drew wanted Stacy to disappear because she was going to talk about Savio’s death.
Facs, sounds like it. Just backing up what Tom Morphey reported happened?
Hey Noway! Woo Hoo. A timed receipt. He’s so screwed
I hope there is some good surveillance camera footage too.
Jason Knowles
January 19, 2010 (JOLIET, Ill.) (WLS) — A court hearing begins today that could have a major impact in the Drew Peterson murder trial. The former Bolingbrook Police sergeant is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004.
Tuesday, hearsay evidence takes center stage at the Will County Court House in Joliet.
The hearing started just before 10 a.m. Drew Peterson walked in looking confident but he was casual. He looked over to the media and gave a smirk. When asked how he was doing, he said he was doing fine, but then he wouldn’t say anything else after that.
Peterson’s attorneys also walked in Tuesday morning, with an official motion to ban hearsay testimony, which Will County Judge Stephen White will hear today. Peterson was wearing a red-burgundy Polo shirt, khakis and glasses.
The law that is being debated that allows hearsay testimony is known at “Drew’s Law.” The prosecutors want the judge to allow seven witnesses who will testify today and others to also be able to testify in Peterson’s actual trial. Prosecutors hope that the hearsay testimony can prove charges that Peterson murdered his third wife, Savio.
Savio’s family and friends supposedly say that Peterson wanted to kill Savio and she also wrote a letter to prosecutors saying the same thing.
Peterson is also suspected but not charged in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. Today, a witness from Starbucks testified about Starbucks receipts that may link Peterson to the 2007 of disappearance.
Prosecutors say other witnesses claim Drew wanted Stacy to disappear because she was going to talk about Savio’s death.
“The question is whether some evidence that a jury may not even think is worth very much, that they may not give any weight to, may or may not be admissible in the actual trial,” said Joel Brodsky, Peterson defense attorney. “And while we’re gonna get a good look at what the state’s case is, you’re not gonna see all of the defense’s case, because we don’t have to, and I don’t want to show them all our hand, but they have to show me a good deal of theirs.”
Peterson’s legal team says that they wanted the media to be shut out of this hearing, but they are also saying the hearsay law is unconstitutional and is all based on rumors.
The bottom line is, it will all be up to a judge to decide if a jury can eventually hear the hearsay.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7226389
“Peterson’s legal team says that they wanted the media to be shut out of this hearing, but they are also saying the hearsay law is unconstitutional and is all based on rumors.”
Did they really say the law is based on rumours?
Glib.
Too subtle for me today. lol
I just saw the press interviewing Pam Bosco. Couldn’t hear a thing though and I was only a few yards away. This was about 12:15. I figure I’d go there at lunch break. Not sure where everyone else was unless they have a break later for lunch.Got tired of standing around though.
GAR, too bad you don’t have a little Flip video camera. 🙂
If Pam was in the courtroom, then she’s not going to be a witness in this pretrial hearing process, since witnesses are not allowed to be present to hear other witness testimony.
She may be a spectator, watching the proceedings on behalf of Cass and Stacy’s family.
I would look forward to her perspective – that’s for sure. Class act.
Well there were 4 witnesses allready so maybe they come in one by one. So that dosn’t nescescarily rule out she didn’t testify. Of course my guess agrees with you for I don’t think Stacy told her anything and she probably never talked to Drew much if at all.
I heard that Pam has some texts/messages on her cell phone from Cass, from the night Stacy went missing and Cass was trying to find her. Couldn’t those possibly be used to help determine a timeline?
No idea about what Stacy or Drew may have said to Pam. Could have been plenty! 🙂
BTW, I’m updating the who’s who page with the names of witnesses as we learn them.
Dave Tortorici (the ex-manager of TGI Friday’s) did not testify today but is being called back at a later time.
LMAO, Facs … Oh I bet that made Dave happy. 🙂
Dave does not seem thrilled…at all. 🙂
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/19/drew-peterson-back-in-court/?test=latestnews
FYI:
“…dont even really visit” How does that work?
Unless I’m mistaken, I doubt that’s the little ones – they’re with their big bro, or should be.
Now that she called Drew a liar by saying she’s tired of his lies, maybe she’ll lose her mommie dearest privileges.
Geeze, you talk about one big dysfunctional bunch of people!!!!!
Daily Herald had an update and this is all Pam said in it, you can read more at the link.
“Drew … knew they were speaking to people. It would almost be a disservice to our system if their voices aren’t heard,” said Pamela Bosco, a spokeswoman for the missing woman’s family who spoke to reporters outside court.
https://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=351996
Savio’s fmr boss, Lisa Mordente, (LM) testified that Drew peterson sat outside Savios office workplace on several occassions in his squad car and in an unmarked car.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Was it part of Drews job description or duties to sit outside his wife’s office workplace ??
Was Kathleen under official surveillance by BBPD ??
If not, what was he doing there using Police Department vehicles for his own purposes ??
I really love being an auntie. I can’t imagine how it must hurt Kitty’s & Stacy’s familes to know that although THEY arent’ allowed to see their niece/nephews, Ms. Raines apparently still can.
Oh oh, maybe now BB will have a basis and be able to stop DP’s pension for this self-proclaimed benefit of the BBPD.
Im sorry but I think Chrissy has a few loose screws.IMO
Hi Coffee. What you said!!!! That bothers me every single day. They are not worthy of being a part of the lives of the Peterson children, but a nitwit like this is, who hasn’t met a beer bottle yet she doesn’t caress. Pictures, pictures.
No kidding, Coffee. Cass is banned because Drew doesn’t like how she drives, but a mother of two who still “cant wait” to go out and get drunk come Friday night, and takes prescription pain medicine when she can’t sleep…that’s OK? Serenity now.
I might add, she’s safe and alive and has the luxury of “giving up” on Drew because of his “lies.” She’s just not getting that part of it, is she?
Of course, the all-time puzzler is how she even allowed herself to become involved with him in the first place, when she knew exactly who he was and his legal status as a murder suspect. She brought her kids into the man’s house to live! Whether or not she believed in his guilt, what mother would do that?
Well, the second part of the all-time puzzler is what about her makes Gloria Allred want to nurture her and be her spokesperson? Who or what is Allred protecting Raines from? Hell, she was a single mother with two small kids who shacked up with a murder suspect. What part of being an advocate for women and women’s rights does this fit into? She should have pounded on that madman’s door and dragged her client out of the house, along with her two small children, if she’s going to be her advocate.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
I guess the nicest thing I can say is…I’m glad she’s moving on.
Facs – I’m thinking the key words there are “into the man’s house to live.” I honestly believe she figured she was going to be “taken care of” (and not in the sinister meaning we have come to expect from DP).
She was going to have a (dead woman’s) house, a (dead woman’s car), some nice (dead woman’s) jewelry… She’s a stupid, selfish and – most of all – very, very sad footnote in this tragedy.
I guess the financially sound prospect is to hope the orgasm expert gets JPMorgan/Chase to cut loose some of that money so Ms. Raines moves on quietly, along with her attorney??????
See how these nitwits give us the bats (plastic ones, of course) to pound them over their cluck heads with?
I forgot to include the alien/addiction expert, who can’t get a fact in this sordid mess straight to save himself. But, he was the expert who counseled four young kids, two of whom were told their mommie went on a never-ending vacation.
Now, he’s enjoying his celebrity by blogging about aliens, and Drew’s spreading salve on his rash in a lonely prison cell. Go figure.
Snippet from another story:
http://www.examiner.com/a-2429097~Witness__Former_Ill__cop_threatened_to_kill_wife.html
Hosey has a story up now. Looks like there were two witnesses from Starbucks:
I admit, I am confused by this paragraph. Are the Starbucks receipts linked to Stacy’s disappearance as an earlier article said, or are the Starbucks people former co-workers of Kathleen’s…or both?
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1999159,Peterson-hearsay-witness-JO011910.article
So four witnesses this morning:
Starbucks employees (X2)
Issam Karam (former co-worker)
Lisa Mordente (former boss)
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.hearing.2.1434546.html
I think I read that 7 witnesses were to be heard today.
It’s so exciting that people are finally able to tell the truth in a safe place where they WILL be heard.
What a relief for them.
With the hearsay repeated by the witnesses so far, namely, Kathleen’s co-workers, what’s the defense’s stand? Are the witnesses embellishing what they’re testifying to, or are they telling the truth as they know it? Are the statements relayed to them by Kathleen lies, because she was a Drew-hating ex-wife who decided to spread ugly rumors about him (except that her statements did come to be true).
I understand Judge White has to make a decision, based on the credibility of the people testifying and their actual statements. In the case of the two co-workers, what does Judge White decide? Kathleen was a raging ex, or the co-workers are Drew haters, who’s testimony isn’t worthy?
Well did they cover up for him after all? If the prosecution has some evidence that some members did turn a blind eye, it makes this hearsay all the more credible, no?
The very fact DP used multiple Bolingbrook Police Dept cars (both marked and unmarked) on multiple occasions to intimidate Kitty while she worked – in ROMEOVILLE, not Bolingbrook, adds quite a bit of credibility to Kitty’s fears thatnotifying police “won’t help,” IMO.
From the first witnesses, we’re seeing the DP we know – someone who abuses his authority and believes he’s entitled to go outside of rules and procedures to carry out a purely personal vendetta.
I just want to thank everyone here for keeping everyone updated on this important hearing!
Thank you!
Hi molly!!!!!
OK. So I’m confused about how this Starbuck testimony will go. It seems that reporters are just breezing by the testimony and all I’ve seen in any detail is
“Two employees from the Starbucks loss prevention department where Savio worked also took the stand. The employees verified the purchase of a cup of coffee by an unidentified customer.”
Source: http://tinyurl.com/yf74ote
So if it was purchased by an unidentified customer how does that help the prosecution?
That info is incorrect,, I believe, TAI. Upscreen is a version that makes more sense.
@#86
BTW – Why did they do that PR deal about Odeh in the first place? It is so weird that they’d even come up with this as their topic. Who cares what Rheem is doing or if she was a beauty queen in the past?? White noise. White noise. White noise. That’s the only reason I can come up with for such a funny PR article.
I guess maybe the loss prevention folks can’t identify the person but someone else may be able to if the person used their debit/credit card or there was someone who actually sold the coffee to him that will identify him later.
***
Think – Seems to me the foremost reason for that crappy piece was The Drew Crew’s usual foremost reason for doing anything: To hear themselves make noise. And I think the secondary reason was another of their old standards: Misogyny.
Hmmm… Couldn’t one also argue that Drew would also have ulterior motives for saying what he has been saying? Couldn’t one argue that Drew himself has said that he wasn’t reliable when he admitted to cheating on his wives and that he is a great con man??
Source: http://tinyurl.com/yfve47m
An interesting quote from the Daily Herald story.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=351996
Better to wait until he could get her in the tub…
Maybe it’s another one of their preemptive strikes. They’ve been known to do that. Maybe there’s a story coming out that there’s trouble in paradise and someone is questioning Odeh’s worthiness in all of this.
Nothing surprises me.
I think it’s Selig’s attempt to follow his own rules about trying to cover up bad news with fluff stories.
I suppose that is true. Since it’s such an odd time to put out a story about Brodsky’s partner just when crucial proceedings are about to begin.
Is it time to cue the violins?
Something to keep in mind if Drew decides to take the stand, despite what Joel wants.
I think you’re right on this one, Facs… this is a “fluff story” to distract from the Beginning of the End of their Grand Strategy.
The misogyny is probably just because it’s second nature and they know how to do it. 😉
OK – so Stacy’s Uncle, Kyle Toutges, testified. I’m sure we’ll see the rest of that story soon.
Yes – especially the part that didn’t make it as part of JHosey’s tweet!
Thanks Joe, for the cliffhanger… LOL
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/01/19/general-us-drew-peterson_7285993.html
Thanks Facs Rescue and all for keeping us informed..
I heard on wbbm Toutges also accused Drew of… “lying like a snake”
Thank you, womenscorned! You solved the mystery of the ending of JHosey’s tweet!
Police Officer James Coughlin was one of the witnesses today, and is the one that Drew told he would be better off if Kathleen was dead.
Also, it’s reported by them that Joel Brodsky said it is “unlikely” that Drew will testify.
Not impossible, no, absolutely not, never, no way. “Unlikely.”
Hmmmm.
Just from the few excerpts we are reading here, I think that we are going to be hearing/reading some explosive testimony–even more so than we might have thought possible.
I am so glad that this monster’s day of reckoning is finally here, and I hope he is shaking in his itchy prison garb just thinking about his future behind bars. Speaking of which, every time they show the Lockup: Stateville episode on MSNBC, I watch it and imagine him soon to be a long-term resident there. I have probably seen that episode 15 times–his life there will be no picnic, that is for sure!
Soon Kathleen will finally be able to rest in peace, and then it will be time to seek justice for Stacy–and not a day too soon.
I bet all these press breaks aren’t quite as much fun for DP now as they once were… http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-threatend-wife-knife-witnesses/story?id=9605026
By DON BABWIN
The Associated Press
Excerpts:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/witness-former-ill-cop-277886.html
Wow – good stuff, Rescue.
🙂
You two women are absolutely amazing! Hope you know how appreciated and loved you are!!
(Beginning to have a real fear that my head may explode as testimony dribbles out. I am so excited to have people speaking truth about DP and him having to sit and listen.)
Oh Coffee, thanks for such nice words. I feel pretty explody this evening, myself!
Thank you, Coffee! Getting accurate news/info on here can be challenging sometimes! We appreciate your support.
Hi Rescueapet!
It will be interesting to see the defense argue the statements from the police officer (which will still be allowed in at trial since he said something he actually witnessed and that Drew said to him rather than Kathleen).
The video tape of a car like Drew’s will be interesting as well and collaborates the story that Tom Morphey said.
And the 3 calls from Sprint. I’d imagine that those will show that Stacy called Drew the night she was supposed to be his alibi.
I wonder how it will affect the defense that they are getting to see evidence that will be allowed at trial whether or not the hearsay is allowed…
Ex-Savio co-workers tell of Drew Peterson threats
Ex-Bolingbrook police sergeant somberly listens to testimony in hearsay hearing
By Stacy St. Clair, Steve Schmadeke and Erika Slife, Tribune reporters
January 19, 2010
Looking and acting nothing like the courthouse jester who cracked jokes at his arraignment eight months ago, a somber Drew Peterson listened Tuesday as prosecutors called witnesses intended to help his ex-wife testify from the grave.
The day’s most chilling testimony came from two former co-workers who recounted statements Kathleen Savio allegedly made about Peterson’s sadistic behavior months before her March 2004 death.
One colleague said Savio, with a bruised arm, detailed a home invasion in which Peterson held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her right there, but it “would be too bloody.” Another told the judge that Peterson stalked Savio at the office, sitting in the parking lot for hours and waiting for her to leave.
Neither called the police to share their concerns before — or immediately after — Savio’s death because they said she told them that the Bolingbrook Police Department protected Peterson, a decorated sergeant with three decades on the job.
“Kathleen said it wouldn’t help,” said Lisa Mordente, owner of the Romeoville sign company where Savio was a saleswoman.
Peterson, 56, gave no visible reaction to the testimony, though he often jotted notes on a yellow legal pad and conferred with attorneys. Wearing an ill-fitting red polo shirt, khaki pants and glasses, he occasionally looked into the gallery and gave small smirks to reporters. He has gained about 20 pounds in segregation at the Will County Jail, his attorneys said.
Peterson has been in custody since he was charged in May with Savio’s murder. She had drowned and was found in an empty bathtub in her Bolingbrook home March 1, 2004.
Officials initially ruled her death an accident, but after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in October 2007, authorities reopened Savio’s case and determined she had been killed. He has not been charged in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.
At his arraignment in May, Peterson joked and hammed it up for the news media. On Tuesday, a grayer and more subdued Peterson sat at the defense table with his back to his gallery for the majority of the proceeding.
He largely ignored the media and spectators, offering only a quick laugh to one reporter’s observation that his shirt barely covered his abdomen.
His attorney Joel Brodsky, however, continued his irreverent approach to the murder case as he handed out pens with his name emblazoned on them to some media members.
“If anybody else is good to me, then they get a pen,” he said as he dangled a large bag of Brodsky ballpoints before the courtroom gallery.
None of Peterson’s family or friends attended the hearing, the first day of testimony in a monthlong proceeding to determine whether hearsay statements should be allowed into evidence if the case goes to trial. Prosecutors are expected to call about 60 witnesses to testify regarding 15 separate statements allegedly made by Savio and Stacy Peterson.
Prosecutors have built their case around those statements, which they say give Savio a voice from the grave. The hearing is being held under a new Illinois statute, referred to as Drew’s Law, that allows certain types of hearsay at trial.
“And while we’re going to get a good look at what the state’s case is, you’re not going to see all of the defense’s case because we don’t have to,” Brodsky said on his way into the courthouse. “I don’t want to show them all our hand, but they have to show me a good deal of theirs.”
Peterson’s defense team has a standing objection to the hearsay evidence and is expected to appeal if Will County Judge Steven White deems any of it admissible. They also plan to question the credibility and motivation of the witnesses called by the state. On Tuesday, nine people testified on the prosecution’s behalf.
Among the statements in question is the testimony from Issam Karam, who worked with Savio at the Romeoville sign company in late 2003. He told the court that during a visit to her office, she told him that Peterson recently had broken into her home, tackled her on the stairs and held a knife to her throat as he threatened to kill her.
“He told her that nothing she could do would make her safe. She could not run or hide,” Karam said. “He said he could kill her right there and then, but he wouldn’t because it would be too bloody.”
Karam testified that Savio showed him a bruise on her arm and told him it came from the attack. As she recounted the incident, she cried, he said.
“She truly felt her life was in danger,” Karam said.
The defense tried to paint Karam as an attention seeker who came forward only after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance made national headlines. Karam said he didn’t go to the police immediately after Savio’s death because he assumed other people knew about the incident and because her death was later ruled an accident.
He planned to write an anonymous letter about Savio’s allegations to the media after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance in 2007, Karam said, but Illinois State Police contacted him before he mailed the note.
“I felt as a human being that I needed to tell people what Kathleen told me,” he said.
Mordente, Savio’s former boss, testified that a man stalked Savio at the office in late 2003. A white male would sit outside the building in a car — at least once in a Bolingbrook squad car, other times an unmarked vehicle — and wait for Savio to leave.
On one occasion, Savio approached the car and spoke with the man in the driver’s seat. When she returned to the office, she tearfully told her boss that the man was her ex-husband, Mordente testified.
“Her hands were shaking,” she said. “She was a mess.”
An uncle of Stacy Peterson’s testified he overheard Peterson say “let them prove it” when Peterson’s friends suggested it “looked bad” for him to have his ex-wife die at such a convenient time in their tumultuous custody and property battle.
“Our family gave Drew the benefit of the doubt,” Kyle Toutges testified. “We were told Kathleen was crazy and on drugs and needed to be in a home.”
Other testimony focused on a cup of coffee bought at a Bolingbrook Starbucks at 8:44 p.m. Oct. 28, 2007, the day Stacy Peterson disappeared. Prosecutors intend to use videotapes and cash register data from the purchase to bolster Drew Peterson’s stepbrother’s allegation that the two men were together on the night she disappeared.
Thomas Morphey has told police that Peterson used him to concoct a fake alibi for that day. The defense team dismisses the allegation as lies from a man with a long history of mental illness and multiple suicide attempts.
Prosecutors also quizzed a cell phone company representative over records detailing cell phone calls made on the day she vanished. And a police lieutenant testified that Peterson punched him in the head after a round of locker room horseplay at the Police Department.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/ct-met-0120-drew-peterson-hearing-20100119,0,1105938.story?page=2
Oh, snap!
Tacky.
Well, no witnesses can be allowed in court during testimony. Since the defense has said they don’t plan on calling any witnesses, could Drew’s family and friends be State witnesses? Ooops.
Ah – Looks like the phone records are from the night Stacy disappeared rather than the weekend that Kathleen died…
This story really struck me as interesting also Facs. Just gives the image of Drew killing Stacy in a clean manner such as strangulation and to put her in a non pores container such as a plastic blue barrel to keep the crime scene as clean as possible.I also kept a photo from a news article when one of the cadaver dogs hit on something outside Drew’s garage door.All this combined really gives one a clearer image of what happened with Stacy that day.
So, all-in-all, if Judge White allows anything in, the trial is months and months away, because the defense will appeal his ruling. Wow. It may be longer than we ever imagined!
I’m kind of surprised that the defense is already pulling out the “attention seeker” accusation at a guy who didn’t even go public, but was contacted by the ISP about what he witnessed. I thought they would reserve that comment for some of the folks who actually talked to the press or sold their stories…but, OK…
I think it is because he admitted that he was going to give his story to the media but got contacted by the ISP before doing so. I agree though – he didn’t go forward with contacting the media or getting paid for his story. He’d definitely be a much better witness if he just went straight to the ISP instead of them contacting him. But it has to be scary knowing the guy is a police officer and not knowing if the police would back their own guy…
Any word on the defense ripping on the Lt. Coughlin’s character yet??
Yeah, imagine having your co-worker say she was afraid she was going to be dead and it was going to be her ex-husband. Maybe he didn’t want to wind up the same way, or put his family at risk. This was the real deal – a dead woman who knew it was coming.
GAR, this pic?
Honestly, that picture rattles me every time I see it. Of all of the hundreds, if not more, pictures out there, this has to be the most chilling. JMO.
Like Drew? Can’t see what he’s paying for, if he’s actually paying for anything, in which case, you get what you pay for.
Hello, everyone. I’ve never quit reading. This is without a doubt the best place on the internet having to do w/all things Drew.
Hi Cheryljones. Welcome back. Thanks for the support!
The PR firm forgot to add her membership to “Ridiculously Good Looking Palestinians” and “The Most Gorgeous, Sexiest, and Cutest Middle Eastern Couples on Facebook!!!”
And we thought it was just getting deep in the courtroom with Drew Peterson.
Bring your shovels!
Bucket- Drew can’t make it to the tanning beds anymore. His true skin type is showing along with his nerves. Reem will have to give him some make-up tips before the big day.LOL
“All it is, is rumor, innuendo and gossip,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said after a recent hearing concerning information contained in the 15 statements. “People had ulterior motives for saying what they said or are out-and-out unreliable people.”
I have the feeling that by the time this hearing is over, and the eventual trial is over…………..we’re all going have the above paragraph memorized, seared into our brains, and are going to be tired of hearing JB spouting this nonsense!
“During trial, she will conduct the direct examination of one of Peterson’s teenage children who will testify in his father’s defense.
“The jury needs to hear what his children say about him,” says Odeh. “It’s very telling and extremely moving and says a lot about him as a man.”
What?? Reem will only be allowed the direct examination of “one” Peterson child? Great idea to put a woman up there to ask the child questions. Let’s remind the kids AND THE JURY that two mothers have vanished from these kids’ lives. Nice visual JB!
I wonder who will be conducting the direct examination of Eric Peterson and Vickie’s daughter?
Oh, you’re so welcome, Rescue! I see a lot of us are coming out today. I think we’re all just so glad to see something FINALLY happening. Laughing w/Facs over the ‘attention seeker’ title. He’s tabbed an attention seeker because he waited, vs an attention seeker who went blabbed straight away. I really want to see the defense paint both of those scenarios w/the same brush.
And Ballpoint Brodsky… now how ‘attention seeker’ is that? He wants to bribe the press to be good to him w/a ballpoint pen? I’m sure that will work, LOL
That picture makes me cringe. That dog is in pain. I’ve read of cadaver dog trainers who have had to put live people out to dig themselves into a pit so that the dog can find something alive to feel happy about. They get that upset and sad.
I totally agree w/Rescue. That’s the most chilling picture I’ve seen, too.
Yeah, imagine having your co-worker say she was afraid she was going to be dead and it was going to be her ex-husband. Maybe he didn’t want to wind up the same way, or put his family at risk. This was the real deal – a dead woman who knew it was coming.
This also sets the stage for why Stacy confided her fears to her sister and family, but didn’t go to the police. She even expressed the fear that the local police wouldn’t believe her or would protect DP.
And then there’s Tom Morphey……who was so fearful of Drew he made a suicide attempt when he realized he had helped Drew remove Stacy’s body from the house……..he knew Drew would come after him if he went to the police with what he knew.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=3933639
Reem was given this 2007 media appearance. Guess JB didn’t like the job she did. (Certainly not “model hair” Reem)
Odeh is a single mother of three children who became a “corner office”
partner in a Chicago law firm before she turned 30.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ohhh, so Reem is a single mother of three children ?
Someone should publicly ask her if she would run away with a new man and never contact her children for two years and counting.
Considering she is Drews Defense lawyer she’d have to say that would be quite a normal thing to do as she can’t very well say she would never leave her children (!!)
That completely creeps me out that they’re going to put the boys on the stand. I hope it won’t happen in the end. It makes me want to slap her and ask her if she’d do the same to her kids.
Some claim to fame. They rolled me in to be the soft face of the futile torture of the boys. Bah! and worse.
ROBINSON MICHAEL 1 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL ROBINSON MICHAEL 1 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY
ROBINSON MICHAEL 1 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL
This listing for status hearings on th12th are still listed today. What’s up with this bad boy?
Wish I knew what Brodsky said to that, or see the expression on his face.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1999159,Peterson-hearsay-witness-JO011910.article
This one too…..
http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2000546,CST-NWS-drew20.article
womenscorned:
Wow. If this is any example of Brodsky’s lawyering and the kind of responses he’s going to get — buh bye, Drew.
Witnesses: Peterson threatened to kill Savio
January 20, 2010
By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
Excerpts:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1999159,Peterson-hearsay-witness-JO011910.article#
ROTFLMAO
Unless you live in the world Abood lives in, how do you bring attention to yourself if you are anonymous?
Brodsky shot back, “It didn’t happen,” to which Toutges replied, “Then where’s Stacy?”
Toutges did a very good job! Brodsky needs to answer the question, where is Stacy? His client knows where she is, yet he still insists on sticking to the story that she just ran off somewhere with some mystery man that nobody has reported missing on, or around the time Stacy did. Let’s also remember their big detective they have looking for Stacy who has yet to come forward, or show any evidence to back up Drew’s story that she just ran off. Yet another lie by them? Where is Stacy Joel?
They didn’t fail to explain why they didn’t go to the police. They DID explain. He just didn’t like their answers!
Maybe the defense man can explain why it is that, although Kathleen Savio DID try to go to “the police,” State’s Attorney, and even Walter Jacobson, she wasn’t taken seriously. Too bad, since she was accurate in her fears and she died under mysterious circumstances.
Why does “every” witness have “credibility” problems, but Drew Peterson doesn’t? Given the known circumstances of Peterson’s buffoon behavior, why would anyone lend him any credibility, and not see him as having “issues?”
As much as I try to give this some intelligent thought, I’m not seeing the clear picture of why telephone and coffee shop employees, two police officers, a divorce attorney, and a relative, are wrought with credibility issues, per Brodsky.
Wanted to observe that it is Stacy Peterson’s Birthday today. I’ll forego the “Happy Birthday” but maybe she will get some measure of justice in the coming year.
Appellate court, on the gun charge today. Do you know if any reporters will be reporting?
Grandam – Yes, Joe Hosey had a tweet last night that indicated he’d be covering it.
Yes – it is Stacy Peterson’s birthday, but, certainly, a “Happy Birthday” wish is not appropriate anymore. It’s a reminder of what should be a joyous day, but what is now a sad one for her family.
I still think that a lot of this stuff isn’t hearsay since it comes from multiple sources that aren’t connected to each other in anyway and they are just being a witness to what they heard or saw.I guess Brodsky’s defense wants to try to say 60 people have issues and are coming out now to get there face in the media. They are coming out now for this is trial time and they have subpoenas. It doesn’t look like Brodsky’s doing a good job in discrediting them now and just hopes a federal appeal board will see it that way if there testimony is allowed.Good luck Brodsky.Your dreaming again.His head is still swolen from the gun charge dismisal that was never actually dismissed, just put on hold.
I realize this has been commented on before but, that is some BAD lawyering. Joel is supposed to be questioning the witnesses, not offering his own version of the facts. WTF?
Yeah, I am not getting the credibility issues he says all of the witness have, and how they’ve shown that.
They are implying in news bits that Kathleen had credibility issues too. It’s just kind of difficult to grasp that now, since everything she “predicted” did come to pass. Given the choice between her credibility and her ex-husband’s, it’s not a leap to give her prior remarks credibility.
I am anxiously anticipating whether the prosecution is going to address the circumstances of just how the night of her death discovery was so botched. I think that is going to be VERY important in the way this unfolds.
Yeah, about as smart as the other guy saying the witness was looking for attention, even though he was doing it anonymously.
Man, you just can’t make this stuff up, can you?
It’s occured to me that while Joel pretends to be thrilled by the hearsay hearings and gloats to the press that it’s like getting a sneak preview of the State’s case, isn’t it true that all of this court time, and the follow up is going to mean a huge investment in time, energy and cash on the part of the defense? His whole team is driving out to Joliet for every date (or staying at a hotel which costs even more), sitting in court all day and then going home to research and create cases against the witnesses and testimony they’ve heard, which may or may not make it to trial. These hearings are supposed to go on for about three weeks and it looks as if Glasgow is calling in just about anyone who ever served Drew a sandwich.
Joel might want to hold on to those pens for when Brodsky & Odeh start running low on office supplies…
LOL @ Facs!
That’s not what the reports say. Looks like every person explained why they didn’t report what they heard, when that was the case.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2000546,CST-NWS-drew20.article
Joel really needs to come up with some variety while he’s attempting to discredit witnesses. I don’t think anyone is going to believe that a missing person’s family members are speaking out because they crave media attention. He might get someone to buy that about an acquaintance, but who would believe that an Uncle isn’t concerned about the health and well-being of his niece?
I wish someone on that defense side would explain why Kathleen is dead after she said she would be, after she DID report her fears to various family members, friends, police, state’s attorney and news reporter.
From Joe Hosey:
Joseph Hosey is heading to Ottawa this afternoon.
41 minutes ago ·
New Post is up!
https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/peterson-hearsay-hearings-to-continue-thursday/