Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 14: Divorce lawyer testifies

Posted by

132

Hearings in the Drew Peterson murder case continued today.

Attorney Harry C. Smith, one-time divorce attorney for Kathleen Savio; also contacted by Stacy Peterson shortly before her disappearance, took the stand today.

Smith testified that Kathleen asked him to go to police in the event that she died and to tell them that Drew had killed her. He stated that he did contact them after her death but the person he talked to “was not prepared for that kind of conversation”.

He also said that shortly before Stacy went missing, she met with him and asked, “Can we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell police how he killed Kathy?”

Drew Peterson’s one-time friend, Ric Mims also testified.

~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

132 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 14: Divorce lawyer testifies”

  1. Wow, today looks to be an interesting day.

    craig_wall Drew Peterson hearing heads into the home stretch this
    week. Kathleen Savio’s divorce Atty and Drew’s former pal Ric Mims expected.

  2. I guess Ric’s testimony will be very interesting as he was following Kathleen on behalf of Drew and spent the first three days with him after Stacy went missing. I can’t wait for the reports of our flies.

  3. As far as I can remember, Ric was also afraid of some of the BBPD officers and was phoned several times by Pat Collins. I would love to learn more on it.

  5. He said so on in the interview with Greta. I think all what Ric says in this interview is very important. It is worth reading.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_20071113greta_eavesdrop.htm

    November 13, 2007
    Greta Van Susteren and Richard Mims (Transcribed from Audio File)

    GRETA: And have any police officers called you in 24 hours?

    MIMS: Yeah last night Pat Collins called me, we’re playing phone tag right now, I’ve called him, he’s called me, you know I called him back, we’re playing phone tag till we get in touch with each other.

    [...]

  7. IMO, Collins did not want to talk to Ric but he wanted to let him know (in Drew’s manner)that he “wanted to talk to him”.

  8. cyrhla: At first I thought maybe Rick Mims had the name Patrick Collins confused with Patrick Callaghan, who was actually investigating Stacy’s disappearance, but maybe not. Will be interesting to find out why Collins was calling him, if that’s who it actually was.

  10. Goor Monday Morning all, and yes Rescue, it DOES look as though it will be an interesting day in the land of hearsay.

  11. joehosey:
    The lawyer who represented Kathleen Savio in her divorce from Drew Peterson said Savio urged him to go to the police if she died and

    Tell them Peterson killed her. The lawyer, Harry Smith, did call the state police but they would not take his information. Smith also

    Said Stacy Peterson later called him about divorcing Peterson. Stacy called twice in the week before she disappeared, he said, and

    Told him “Drew was pissed because he thinks I told (his son) Tom that he killed Kathy.” She also told him”she had too much

    Expletive on him at the police department that she wasn’t concerned about her safety,” and asked if going to the police and telling

    Them Peterson killed Savio mihght get her more money in a divorce.
    less than a minute ago from txt

    http://twitter.com/joehosey

  15. CFS – I think we’re going to have to wait for the actual news stories to get this straight. Sounds like they discussed a number of ideas; one being going to the cops with what she knew; another being using what she knew to leverage more money in the divorce.

    A tweet is just a tweet…

  16. facsmiley :

    craig_wall
    Savio divorce Atty testifies Stacy Peterson wanted him to help her divorce Drew. Suggested blackmailing Drew about Savio death to get more $
    1 minute ago from API

    Well, let me be the first to say, with this particular statement, that sucks. Blackmail him to get more money? Wow, Peterson sucked a whole lot of people into his den of inequity.

    **Shaking head**

  17. IMO the statement about Stacy even asking if that would help get her more money will hurt the prosecution.

  19. Facs, you’re right. Just surprised the statements conflicted each other. Also, the statement that she wasn’t concerened about her safety conflicts with things she reportedly told so many other people. Like you said…best to wait on the news reports. Interesting though that Drew thought she told Thomas he killed his mother. Wonder why?

  21. FTR, I’ve always maintained that Stacy wasn’t all that afraid of Drew because she actually did believe her knowledge gave her the upper hand. It’s the mistake only a young woman would make…thinking Drew’s obsession with her meant that he wouldn’t kill her if he was threatened.

    This should prove to Judge White, if nothing else that Drew killed Stacy to keep her from testifying against him and allow the hearsay to be admitted!

  22. JMO – it may backfire as it could make it seem that her talk about Drew killing Kathleen was just to get more money in the divorce. JMO. JMO.

  23. facsmiley :

    I agree with Rescue. If Drew killed Kathleen in order not to lose his money, this latest gives him all the more motive to kill Stacy.

    Yeah. If she was inquiring about blackmailing him, well, it is what it is. Not going to condone that here. But, if the whole picture points to the fact that he knew she was going to spill the goods about him and expose him, that is all the more reason Stacy is not here. Maybe the defense will like this point, but, still, it makes him look more shady and dirty than ever, if his 23 year old wife was being nurtured by one of the darkest cops to come along in a while!

  24. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :
    IMO the statement about Stacy even asking if that would help get her more money will hurt the prosecution.

    TAI – Hell, no, it’s another reason for him wanting her dead!

    ——————-
    If she was bold enough to tell him what she was going to do, which she probably did, so he killed her, IMO. That may be part of the argument Kris heard before it got quiet.

  25. thinkaboutit2 :JMO – it may backfire as it could make it seem that her talk about Drew killing Kathleen was just to get more money in the divorce. JMO. JMO.

    ———–
    Actually, that was my first reaction to it too Think, so I’m sure we won’t be the only two, but I see both sides equally well.

  26. thinkaboutit2 :

    JMO – it may backfire as it could make it seem that her talk about Drew killing Kathleen was just to get more money in the divorce. JMO. JMO.

    Ha, if he gets a pass after it can be reasonably shown he killed two of his wives, and that’s justice, well, then I give intelligent, reasonable jury people more credit than I should.

  27. My gut still says that he killed them both and I can see what you guys are saying about that possibly getting the judge to include Stacy’s hearsay. A part of me though thinks that it may twitch it in the other direction in the judge’s mind made even more complicated by the fact that there is no physical proof that Stacy is dead yet. :( Only time will tell.

  28. Rescue – Many guilty people have been acquitted. People have very different views about what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. And surely whenever a guilty person is acquitted or an innocent person is convicted then justice is served for no one. Our system is imperfect for sure. Sad but true.

  29. thinkaboutit2 :

    JMO – it may backfire as it could make it seem that her talk about Drew killing Kathleen was just to get more money in the divorce. JMO. JMO.

    You could argue that, but only if Stacy was lying about Drew killing Kathleen. And it’s been looking more and more as if he did kill her.

  30. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :
    JMO – it may backfire as it could make it seem that her talk about Drew killing Kathleen was just to get more money in the divorce. JMO. JMO.

    Ha, if he gets a pass after it can be reasonably shown he killed two of his wives, and that’s justice, well, then I give intelligent, reasonable jury people more credit than I should.

    ______________________________________
    Well, I didn’t mean that he would get a pass, and I don’t think he will. My contention was that that particular statement didn’t put Stacy in a favorable light when it seems to imply that she was more concerned about money in a divorce settlement, than her own safety, of which he said she wasn’t concerned. I just plain didn’t like how it sounded on Stacy’s behalf, but I think Drew definitely killed her because of it. As Rescue said….all the more reason, and I wholeheartedly agree.

  32. In one interview, Smith said that Stacy was not afraid of Drew because she had something on him. I am not surprised by his testimony at all. We must take into account, however, that Stacy might have got scared after the conversation with Smith. I know it is only a few days but if Drew learnt Stacy contacted Smith, who had formerly – in 2004 – informed the police that Kathleen’s death was not accidental, Drew got furious.
    IMO, the statements of Cass or Sharon and Smith do not contradict each other.

  33. Greta Van Susteren and Richard Mims (Transcribed from Audio File)

    GRETA: And have any police officers called you in 24 hours?

    MIMS: Yeah last night Pat Collins called me, we’re playing phone tag right now, I’ve called him, he’s called me, you know I called him back, we’re playing phone tag till we get in touch with each other.

    ~~~~~~~~

    I am sure there are phone records to substantiate these calls and wether they were from Collins or Callaghan.
    Interesting that Collins would contact Mims, especially in view of Collins’ determination that this was an accident and ignoring the comments made by others.

    IMHO Collins is one of the things waterboys.

  34. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/attorney-savio-said-if-she-died-drew-did-it.html

    Attorney: Savio said if she died, Drew did it
    February 8, 2010 11:16 AM

    An attorney who represented Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, testified this morning that if she died, “you need to let people know that Drew did it.”

    Attorney Harry C. Smith, who later represented Stacy Peterson, also testified that Peterson’s fourth wife told him that “Drew was pissed at her” because he thought that Stacy had told Peterson’s stepbrother “that he (Peterson) killed Kathy.”

    And when Stacy was contemplating divorcing Peterson, she asked Smith, “Can we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell police how he killed Kathy?”

    Smith’s testimony came on the 14th day of an evidentiary hearing in a Will County courtroom being held to decide which, if any, of 15 hearsay statements can be used against Peterson at his upcoming murder trial in Savio’s death.

    Prosecutors are expected to call their last witness sometime this week. After that Peterson’s defense attorneys will have the opportunity to call their own witnesses.

    Smith said he represented Savio in both her divorce and in connection with charges related to an alleged assault by her against Peterson, charges that eventually were dropped.

    He said that after Savio’s body was found in a bathtub in her home, he did called state police to tell them about Savio’s statement implicating Peterson. But the person he talked to “was not prepared for that kind of conversation,” Smith said, and said someone would get back to him. No one ever did, he said.

    Also after Savio died, Smith said he got a phone call from Peterson’s attorney saying the executor of Savio’s estate did not want him involved anymore.

    That executor was Peterson’s uncle, James Carroll, who previously testified that he only did what Drew told him to do.

    –Steve Schmadeke

    ————————

    This explains the Twitters MUCH better!!

  35. cfs
    Well, I didn’t mean that he would get a pass, and I don’t think he will. My contention was that that particular statement didn’t put Stacy in a favorable light when it seems to imply that she was more concerned about money in a divorce settlement, than her own safety, of which he said she wasn’t concerned. I just plain didn’t like how it sounded on Stacy’s behalf, but I think Drew definitely killed her because of it. As Rescue said….all the more reason, and I wholeheartedly agree.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I agree. Also, didn’t Stacy tell someone that she wanted custody of the 4 kids ? The fact that she wanted the kids from Kathleen’s marriage to *the thing* away from him IMHO speaks volumes. Does her comment about DP’s pension make her seem mercenary ? Of course but thats the nature of divorce and more reasons why the thing would want her gone, too. He saw her continual existence as a threat.

  36. Attorney Harry C. Smith, who later represented Stacy Peterson, also testified that Peterson’s fourth wife told him that “Drew was pissed at her” because he thought that Stacy had told Peterson’s stepbrother “that he (Peterson) killed Kathy.”

    So…did Drew believe that she had told his son, Tom, or Tom Morphey? Maybe Smith didn’t make it clear in his testimony. If it was Tom Morphey, then that might explain why Tom told Drew, “I always assumed you killed Kathleen”.

  37. facsmiley :

    Attorney Harry C. Smith, who later represented Stacy Peterson, also testified that Peterson’s fourth wife told him that “Drew was pissed at her” because he thought that Stacy had told Peterson’s stepbrother “that he (Peterson) killed Kathy.”

    So…did Drew believe that she had told his son, Tom, or Tom Morphey? Maybe Smith didn’t make it clear in his testimony. If it was Tom Morphey, then that might explain why Tom told Drew, “I always assumed you killed Kathleen”

    ———–
    Just goes back to what you said about waiting for the news Facs. Joe Hosey wrote that it was Drew’s son Tom, but I suspect it was really Tom Morphey that Smith was referring to, as the article stated. Next time, I don’t think I’ll comment until the reporting is actually done and get a cross section of what everyone heard.

  38. The rushed reporting and the absence of recording equipment during these hearings has caused some confusion more than once! These reporters must have major writer’s cramp at the end of the week.

    That’s what we get for wanting to get the info ASAP! :)

  39. Facs, you know, it’s just sort of pointless to me that everyone can write things that may not be printed accurately when reported, and all of these pictures that are drawn make Drew and Glasgow look like brothers. I mean, good grief, for the sake of accurate reporting, since these hearing are open to the public anyway, why NOT allow cameras and/or recording devices? Sort of archaic to me to be using pens, pencils, and sketch pads, but I’m sure there’s a reason somewhere…regardless of its validity.

  40. And yes, I know cameras aren’t allowed in Illinois court rooms, but they need to step into the future and get that changed. Everything gets reported anyway, just not always accurately. No offense to the artists either, but it just seems such a wast of time to have to draw everybody, you know?

  41. I agree – what’s the point of admitting the public and the press and then hobbling them in such a way that you can guarantee there will be errors?

    IMO, some of the court artists are way better than others. ABC 7 seems to have hired the best. IMO!

  42. I guess journalists operating their equipment during the testimonies could distract the witnesses and so on. Same the presence of TV cameras. I think they are all under big stress without it.

    However, I totally agree with you all the relations from the courtroom are very subjective and it is annoying.

  43. cyrhla, I guess I’m just thinking about how it’s done elsewhere. The TV cameras are set up to run and stay in place until it’s over, and that’s it. Not everyone has their own equipment, which would definitely be a problem. It’s just not that big of a deal, but I understand that it’s not allowed there.

  44. That’s a good point Cyrhla. I didn’t think how distracting a bunch of cameras and mics might be. The testimony must be nerve-wracking as it is. But I’ll bet those squeaky markers make more noise than the hum of a camera…

  45. If I was the judge, I would want these Hearsay Hearings videotaped and recorded.

    Installation of in-courtroom cameras costs the taxpayers lots of money…

    In-courtroom cameras in Illinois would be a very good thing !…

  46. If I were a witness I would be probably thinking about being filmed all the time.
    But to be honest, I would love to see the live broadcast LOL.

  47. Oh, I am surprised. I thought the trial was recorded for court purposes and only the press was not allowed to.

  48. Attorney Harry C. Smith, who later represented Stacy Peterson, also testified that Peterson’s fourth wife told him that “Drew was pissed at her” because he thought that Stacy had told Peterson’s stepbrother “that he (Peterson) killed Kathy.”

    This has now been updated on the website as:

    Attorney Harry C. Smith, who later represented Stacy Peterson, also testified that Peterson’s fourth wife told him that “Drew was pissed at her” because he thought that Stacy had told Peterson’s son Tom “that he (Peterson) killed Kathy.”

    SOOooo, apparently Smith did say it was Drew’s son Thomas, and not Thomas Morphey. Maybe we’ll find out for sure after everything is printed.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/attorney-savio-said-if-she-died-drew-did-it.html

  50. I think you are, facs :) .

    In light of the last sentence “That executor was Peterson’s uncle, James Carroll, who previously testified that he only did what Drew told him to do.” I am waiting for further updates of this article.

  51. This article, and a few others I won’t post, just says told “somebody.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2035951,Peterson-stacy-savio-attorney-JO020810.article

    Attorney: Stacy had dirt on Drew Peterson

    February 8, 2010

    The Associated Press
    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — A divorce attorney for Drew Peterson’s third wife says the former suburban Chicago police officer’s fourth wife called him days before she disappeared in 2007.

    Harry Smith says Stacy Peterson told him that Drew Peterson was angry because he thought she’d told somebody he had killed Kathleen Savio. Savio was found dead in a bathtub in 2004.

    Smith says Stacy Peterson asked him how much money she could get from Drew Peterson if she threatened to go to police with information that he killed Savio.

    He also says Stacy Peterson wasn’t concerned about her safety because she had too much dirt on Drew Peterson’s work at the Bolingbrook Police Department.

  52. So when did James Carroll testify?? Was that today? Hearing that Harry Smith couldn’t even get the police to return his call is disheartening. I wonder if he said he tried back again later or put anything formal in writing to that effect. I think the public guardian who was appointed to settling her estate did that. I’d think that Harry Smith would have somehow put something in writing – as most lawyers know that is the way to go on things.

  56. Well dang. Wonder if there have been others we don’t know about, and wonder why James Carroll was even testifying if he didn’t have anything important to say? Maybe just saying that he did what Drew told him to do was all the prosecution wanted him to admit. His pawns are numerous and diverse….family to street rats, and everything in between.

  57. I would imagine that the cross-examination wouldn’t be much either. I mean it’s Drew’s Uncle and he executed Kathleen’s will which favored Drew. No point in trying to discredit him!

  58. Hey Noway!! Great to see you. That was my post, but you’re not used to seeing me on here anymore. However, these hearings really have my interest piqued. Hope you’re doing great!

    The new articles are now just saying she told “somebody” so maybe at some point it will be clear, but I would think it’s Morphey. Can’t imagine her telling the boy such a thing, and if she had, it would definitely put Drew in a rage, so who knows?

  60. He also says Stacy Peterson wasn’t concerned about her safety because she had too much dirt on Drew Peterson’s work at the Bolingbrook Police Department.

    I’m really wondering what this “dirt” was.

  62. judgin :

    facsmiley :Hehe. A dear friend made this for me:http://www.yooouuutuuube.com/v/?rows=36&cols=36&id=IUKsojPR4YM&startZoom=1

    Too funny.. JB is in this case over his head

    Brodsky better do a little more research. he said there hasn’t been a no body murder conviction since 1850′s. WRONG
    Gilbert, Daniel killed
    Chimene Ellena, girlfriend
    1999
    Illinois
    Convicted for 1999 murder. Body of victim found in Janesville, WI in October of 2000.
    So he was convicted in 1999 they didn’t find body till 2000.
    Theres more Joel, do your research.

  63. Just imagine with all the stuff Drew had done over the years that someone as young as Stacy would be the one to get him undone.

    He couldn’t let that happen.

    Also the Police Chief at the time (McGury) was already investigation Drew and wanted him sacked, so maybe Drews position was not as strong anymore as it had been in the past and Stacy’s information could have finally spelled the end for him and his prized pension !

  64. facsmiley :
    Noway – I deleted your post since the info was already posted upscreen /\

    Sorry CFS!

    Sorry Facs! My point was that it had been updated from what was posted. I didn’t see that the update had been posted.

  66. Writer – Especially appropriate clip, as every ludicrous mistake the Keystone Cops made was planned and coreographed ahead of time…

  68. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/08/us/AP-US-Drew-Peterson.html

    New article by the New York Times.

    Lawyer: Wife Mulled Extorting Ill. Murder Suspect

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: February 8, 2010
    Filed at 4:51 p.m. ET

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Days before a former suburban Chicago police officer’s fourth wife vanished in 2007, she told a divorce attorney that her husband thought she suspected he had killed his previous wife and suggested extorting money from him to keep quiet, the lawyer testified Monday.

    The dramatic details provided by Harry Smith were the first in more than three weeks of testimony that recounted Stacy Peterson talking directly about Drew Peterson’s alleged involvement in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Stacy Peterson told the lawyer that her husband was angry because he believed she had told a person named ”Tom” that he killed Savio, Smith testified.

    Smith, a divorce attorney for Savio, did not further identify Tom, but it is the name of one of Savio and Peterson’s sons and of Thomas Morphey, a friend of Drew Peterson who testified that he helped the former Bolingbrook police sergeant move a blue barrel he believed contained Stacy Peterson’s remains.

    The hearing will determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial. Savio’s body was found in her bathtub in 2004 and her death was ruled an accident. But after Stacy Peterson went missing in 2007, Savio’s body was exhumed and her death reclassified as a homicide.

    Drew Peterson denied wrongdoing in Savio’s death. He remains the only suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance but has not been charged.

    On Monday, Smith did not say that Stacy Peterson said her husband had killed Savio, only that Drew Peterson believed that she had told someone he had.

    Smith said that Stacy Peterson had called him for her own divorce, but he told her he could not represent her because he thought it was a conflict of interest.

    He is also the first witness to suggest Stacy Peterson had a plan to squeeze money out of her husband.

    ”She asked, ‘Could we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell the police he killed Kathy?”’ said Smith. He told her that plan might be dangerous, but Stacy Peterson said her husband would never try to hurt her and that she had too much dirt on him at the police department.

    ”She wasn’t concerned about her safety,” Smith said.

    Smith’s testimony also suggested a motive for why Peterson might have wanted Savio dead — money.

    In detailed testimony Smith said things were not going well for Drew Peterson and he knew it in the later stages of his contentious divorce from Savio.

    He testified that shortly before Savio was found dead, a judge had told him and Peterson’s attorney that she was about to recommend that Savio be allowed to keep the couple’s Bolingbrook home, receive a share of his police pension, receive child support and some money from the sale of a bar the couple had owned.

    ”He was not happy, he was angry,” said Smith recalling how he watched Drew Peterson’s lawyer explain to him what the judge had told him.

    As other witnesses have testified, Smith said Savio repeatedly told him that Peterson had threatened to kill her and make it look like an accident.

    And like other witnesses, he also testified that Savio had told him about how Peterson, wearing all black clothing, surprised her in her house and threatened her with a knife.

    He said Savio told him on several occasions, ”If I die, Drew did it.”

    Smith acknowledged that he thought Savio was paranoid and did not take such talk seriously, until he heard she had died.

    He said he quickly called the Illinois State Police with his suspicions. He’s at least the third witness to testify to doing so in the days after Savio’s death.

    Like the others, he said Illinois State Police never called him back.

    Illinois State Police have admitted to not conducting a thorough investigation, failing to collect a single fingerprint or even seal the house because authorities believed her death was an accident.

  71. coffeeocity February 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm | #66 Quote Writer – Especially appropriate clip, as every ludicrous mistake the Keystone Cops made was planned and coreographed ahead of time…

    ~~~~
    many people are asking for an investigation by federal authorities as to how this case was handled by the ISP and Bolingbrook PD. many people are coming right out and calling it a coverup. I think thats obvious at this point that some plannning was involved and that others helped the thing along the way.
    these people need to pay. no more coverups.

  72. Hi guys — It’s ATLgranny from the original blog by Cass. I’ve been trying to keep track of this case, but it’s hard to get the time.

    A few comments:

    - I think Tracy would have been very guarded in what she told Smith. Didn’t we hear in the very beginning that Drew had threatened her that she would be arrested for Savio’s death. I think I remember him trying to convince her that anything she knew would make her complicit and subject to arrest. I remember him saying that she’d never see her kids again. Telling Smith that she knew Drew DID murder Kathy might have made her subject to arrest as an accomplice to murder after the fact, so I suspect that she would only hint at it and not come out and say that Drew admitted it.

    - I belive that in regard to Carroll. Didn’t he testify in the civil trial (Savio’s family) that he only did what he was told to by Drew? Any attorney would say that, though, as they are ultimately held to that standard. They can only do what their client wants, in spite of any advice they give. (i.e., an attorney may advise a client not to take the witness stand, but they may choose to go up there anyway.)

    Just some thoughts. I sure hope that some of this hearsay evidence gets admitted.

  73. He also said that shortly before Stacy went missing, she met with him and asked, “Can we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell police how he killed Kathy?”

    I think Craig Wall went a little overboard to throw the word blackmail in there.She sounds like she was exploring her options and possibly even using the statement to tell someone about the fact that she believed Drew killed Kathleen to get it off her chest. May have been said in a joking way as well.With that said, it’s kind of harsh to throw the word blackmail in there without being there to hear how it was actually said in the first place IMO.

  74. I’m with you, Giv. Stacy was trying to figure out how she could possibly leave and be able to take not just her own children, but Kitty’s young ones, as well. I’m sure it’s not the single thing of which Stacy would be most proud, but it’s not like she killed somebody, now is it?

  75. What Attorney Smith did today was pretty much testify in support of his former client, Kathleen. He did as she asked him to do when she told him to contact the authorities if she died, which he did. He wasn’t successful then, but certainly is now.

    I wouldn’t even attempt to defend the information that has come out about Stacy asking him whether information she may have had would fetch her more money. IMO, this is not a defining moment in the memory of Stacy. That being said, the issue is whether or not her husband killed her, stashed her body inside of a receptacle, as is being alleged, and disposed of her, whatever his motive was. If he did, it’s punishable by law and he should pay dearly for taking another human being’s life. ASAIK, killing another, even if the killer believes he has a reason that works for him, isn’t yet acceptable in our society.

  76. Altgranny: – I belive that in regard to Carroll. Didn’t he testify in the civil trial (Savio’s family) that he only did what he was told to by Drew? Any attorney would say that, though, as they are ultimately held to that standard. They can only do what their client wants, in spite of any advice they give. (i.e., an attorney may advise a client not to take the witness stand, but they may choose to go up there anyway.)
    ___________________________________________

    James Carroll is Drew’s uncle who testified that he only did what Drew asked him to do.

    John Paul Carroll is an attorney, who is (or was) part of Drew’s defense team, but I don’t believe he testified anywhere about doing what Drew wanted.

    Too many characters in this saga have the same first or last names, so it’s very easy to get confused about who’s who at times.

  77. Why did Harry Smith have so many phone conversations with Stacy IF he was going to tell her that he could not represent her because there may be a conflict of interest. He sure went into deep discussion on the phone about details that should be disclosed in an initial interview. I’m wondering if Cassandra would know who the attorney Stacy was going to see on Monday.

    Harry Smith very poorly represented Kathleen Savio in the divorce, and made an extremely poor attempt at reporting her request to the ISP.

    IMO, Today’s testimony by Harry Smith was designed to cover his own butt for his own ineptness and to make himself look better. He sounds like another DP to me.

    I don’t think much of this guy as a man or a lawyer and is not on my lawyer referral list.

  78. Judgin, it sounded like the judge was going to award her half of everything, including Drew’s pension, so as little as I know about him or the situation, it doesn’t sound as though he did too badly by her. In the meeting when the judge was informing Drew and his attorney of the supposed settlement, is when Drew got so angry, and probably made up his mind then and there that she wouldn’t be getting anything, regardless of what the judge said. Just my observation, but you may know a lot more about it than I do. JMO.

  80. cfs7360 :Altgranny: – I belive that in regard to Carroll. Didn’t he testify in the civil trial (Savio’s family) that he only did what he was told to by Drew? Any attorney would say that, though, as they are ultimately held to that standard. They can only do what their client wants, in spite of any advice they give. (i.e., an attorney may advise a client not to take the witness stand, but they may choose to go up there anyway.)___________________________________________
    James Carroll is Drew’s uncle who testified that he only did what Drew asked him to do.
    John Paul Carroll is an attorney, who is (or was) part of Drew’s defense team, but I don’t believe he testified anywhere about doing what Drew wanted.
    Too many characters in this saga have the same first or last names, so it’s very easy to get confused about who’s who at times.

    Ahhh, yes……it’s coming back to me now! THX!

  81. There was a story at 6, but it wasn’t very good, IMO. Nothing new and they brought up Tom Morphey’s name but didn’t tie him in to today’s testimony. If I see a video anywhere later, I’ll grab it.

  82. Drew Peterson’s former friend Ric Mims testified that he never read Joe Hosey’s true crime thriller “Fatal Vows.” Mims also admitted smoking Crack 20 to 50 times. So he’s got that going for him. Read “Fatal Vows.” It’s addictive!
    about 2 hours ago from txt

    http://twitter.com/joehosey

  83. What it does prove is that Stacy had powerful and truthful information about Kathleens demise (and whatever else she knew about Drew) because if it were baloney she would still be here (!!)

  84. Is there still a gag order preventing people like Barfsky from blabbing after each day in court? It seems eerily quiet not having him tear apart every witness in front of dozens of microphones. Eerily quiet…..:-)

  85. He’s commenting some, but I think the limited gag order was mainly to keep those two off TV shows and radio programs doing their ridiculous interviews, etc.

  86. judgin :
    Harry Smith very poorly represented Kathleen Savio in the divorce, and made an extremely poor attempt at reporting her request to the ISP.
    IMO, Today’s testimony by Harry Smith was designed to cover his own butt for his own ineptness and to make himself look better. He sounds like another DP to me.
    I don’t think much of this guy as a man or a lawyer and is not on my lawyer referral list.

    Agree. There is no way that an attorney wouldn’t know how to escalate things to make sure that a murder investigation happened — no matter how “powerful” Drew was.

    Something just doesn’t add up.

  89. In light of the above (Mims), I guess it can be said don’t lose sight of the ball. When Drew assembled those he wanted close to him, he chose the weakest links in the chain. When he got his hooks into Stacy, she was 17 years old. So, for six years, he was a major influence on her. As to the others, there’s baggage, skeletons, stories and deeds. It’s impossible to judge them all without starting at the head of the table. Drew Peterson and his dark world.

    He deserves the hole he might wind up in some day, and I doubt there’s many that sympathize with him.

  92. I wonder if the mystery neighbor is going to be appearing at these hearings–the neighbor that reported seeing Drew Peterson and “another man” carrying out the container from the house?

    Vicki Connolly is another vital part of the Peterson saga. Isn’t there the “rumor” that she was critically injured in a car accident that was caused by a questionable defect in the brakes of her car, or something like that?

    Of course, there’s the tapes – the wondrous tapes.

  93. craig_wall
    prosecution will wrap its case Tue. 6 more witnesses. defense says it will call 20 witnesses, starting Wednesday
    about 4 hours ago from API

  94. Six witnesses, all in one day? Hmmm.

    Twenty witnesses for the defense should take at least another week, I would think.

    Anyone from the defense-side that reads here wanna let us know who may be testifying on behalf of Drew?

    We’re all ears. :-)

  95. facsmiley :

    craig_wallprosecution will wrap its case Tue. 6 more witnesses. defense says it will call 20 witnesses, starting Wednesdayabout 4 hours ago from API

    Oh my goodness. Wonder who?

  101. What I never understood how Carroll (Drews Uncle) could just sack Harry Smith.

    How can one lawyer just sack another one without the dispute going to Court or some form of Arbitration ??

  102. Just curious, but what’s the purpose of their bringing witnesses? To shoot down the hearsay testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses? Or to bring in some character witnesses to say what an upstanding guy Drew is, or both? Probably the former, I would guess….

  103. I wouldn’t have thought the defense could find 20 people who gave a damn about Drew. Should really be interesting.

  105. Wooooo, wait a minute here. I just watched a Fox News video, and the reporting is much different than what we’ve been seeing.

    Stacy said Drew was mad at her because he thought she told “his oldest son” that he had killed Kathy.”

    It’s also being reported in the Fox News video that Stacy had so much dirt on him with the Bolingbrook Police Department that he “couldn’t touch her,” and wanted to know if she could use THAT as leverage to get more money in the divorce.

    There’s nothing in this video that says Stacy wanted to know if her knowledge of him killing Kathleen Savio could get her more money if she tried to use that against him.

    So, which is it? Did she bring up Kathleen’s death, or didn’t she? This video and report does NOT say that she did. Brodsky is in the clip afterwards, and doesn’t even bring that up. That is strange that he wouldn’t be running with that.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/attorney-testifies-drew-ptereson

  108. Harry Smith did what he did…or didn’t do because he didn’t want problems in Bolingbrook with the thing or his pals. For those not familiar with Bolingbrook, it’s not a huge sprawling metropolis and I am sure Harry would prefer no confrontations with DP whose reputation preceeded him and Harry knew it.
    Weenie ? more like self preservation to him anyway. I am sure Harry is sorry now.

  109. If the Defense is going to bring out their own witnesses, that will give a good perspective where the Defense is going and what circle (professional and/or otherwise) is behind Drew and what he stands for.

  111. JAH, you make a good point, but I’m already reconciling myself to being disgusted for the remainder of the week after tomorrow.

  112. Attorney: Stacy Peterson asked about extorting money from husband
    By Erika Slife and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters

    February 8, 2010

    Shortly before she vanished in October 2007, Stacy Peterson told a divorce attorney that she thought her husband was mad at her because he believed she told his son he had killed his ex-wife, the attorney testified Monday.

    She also wondered if she’d be able to extort money from Drew Peterson if she threatened to go to police, the attorney said.

    Harry C. Smith, who had represented Drew Peterson’s ex-wife, Kathleen Savio, in their divorce, said Stacy did not seem afraid of the former Bolingbrook police sergeant during their two conversations, saying she told him she had “so much (expletive) on him at the police department, he couldn’t do anything to her.”

    Smith’s testimony came on the 14th day of a pretrial hearing to determine whether 15 hearsay statements will be admitted into trial against Peterson, who has been charged with Savio’s 2004 drowning death.

    Smith said Stacy Peterson had called him because she was seeking a divorce from Drew Peterson.

    “She told me that Drew was (upset) at her because” Drew thought she had told his and Savio’s son Tom that Drew killed Savio, Smith testified. “She said, ‘Could we get more money out of Drew if we threatened to tell the police department that Drew killed Kathy?’”

    Smith said he told Stacy Peterson he could not represent her because of the conflict of interest.

    Smith represented Savio beginning in January 2002. She was found dead March 1, 2004, in an empty bathtub at her Bolingbrook home. Authorities at the time concluded her death was an accident, but after Stacy Peterson vanished they reopened the Savio case as a homicide. Drew Peterson is the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, but has not been charged.

    Smith said that right before Savio died, a divorce judge had recommended Savio be awarded the home, custody of the children, her share of Peterson’s police pension, child support and the proceeds from a bar the couple had owned.

    “He was angry,” Smith said of Peterson.

    Smith said Savio frequently faxed and called him with complaints about Peterson, including custody matters and alleged threats. Smith said Savio told him Peterson had threatened to kill her and make it look like an accident, but he had believed she may have been “paranoid.”

    After she was found dead, Smith said, “I thought I’d done a poor job of listening to my client.”

    Savio had told him that if she died, “to let people know that Drew did it,” Smith testified. So Smith said he called Illinois State Police but the officer he spoke with was “not prepared for that kind of conversation.” Smith said he was told someone would get back to him, but no one ever did.

    Illinois State Police have already admitted shortcomings in the investigation.

    Smith became at least the eighth witness to testify that Savio said Peterson broke into her home, put a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her.

    The Bolingbrook police sergeant who took Savio’s report said Savio refused to include in her written statement the detail about Peterson using a knife. Teresa Kernc, who retired as a lieutenant in 2005 and is now mayor of Diamond, Ill., said Savio was worried that detail could cost Peterson his job.

    When interviewed by Kernc, Peterson denied attacking Savio, said she had invited him over and alleged that Savio exposed herself to him and asked if he “missed this.”

    Former Peterson friend Ric Mims testified Monday that he helped Peterson follow Savio around, once sitting in a parked vehicle outside her office while Peterson told him he was removing papers from Savio’s house. Mims testified the National Enquirer paid him $17,500 for his story.

    Prosecutors, who have called 60 witnesses, said they have six more to call. Defense attorneys said they plan to call about 20 witnesses.

    eslife@tribune.com

    sschmadeke@tribune.com

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0209-drew-peterson-hearing-20100208,0,1766037.story

  113. I haven’t read any of the comments yet, but I have to say that I don’t like the sound of Stacy asking the lawyer if they “could get more money…” Sounds bad. I am TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF STACY/KATHLEEN so please, don’t misunderstand me. It just sounds like she could have been willing to look the other way if the “price was right!” EWW forgive me for thinking that way but why was money a topic for consideration!?

  114. It’s also being reported in the Fox News video that Stacy had so much dirt on him with the Bolingbrook Police Department that he “couldn’t touch her,” and wanted to know if she could use THAT as leverage to get more money in the divorce.

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

    That makes perfect sense.

    Drew knew what she (Stacy) knew and if Kathleen already knew a lot of secret stuff about Drew, then Stacy would have known a lot more (e.g. Kathleens murder for starters) he didn’t want coming out at any cost especially since he was so close to retiring.

    Despite her precarious situation, it makes a lot of sense for Stacy to think she had leverage over Drew in a divorce/divorce settlement as she could cause his house of cards to crumble, which she did anyway but not in the way anyone could imagine (!!)

  115. It now also makes sense Drew asking Stacy not to file for divorce until after his retirement.

    I always thought that was a very strange request, but now it becomes clear why he wanted it that way (!!)

  116. Now of course it begs the question:

    “What Dirt Did Everyone Have On Drew” ????

    I suppose the 20 million dollar Bond is a fair indication of how much dirt there could be.

  118. Lawyer: Stacy planned to blackmail Peterson

    February 9, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    JOLIET —

    …”Could we get more money if we threatened to tell the police how he killed Kathy?” Smith said Stacy asked him. “I told her she could get arrested.”…

    …Smith said he had two phone conversations with Stacy in the five days before she disappeared….

    …Smith also testified that Savio told him “Drew had broken into her house. That he was all dressed in black, that he had threatened her with a knife, that he threatened to kill her and make it look like an accident unless she got this divorce going.”

    Police report

    Several other witnesses testified to hearing virtually the same story, including former Bolingbrook police Lt. Teresa Kernc, who also took the witness stand Monday.

    Kernc, who is now mayor of Diamond, said Savio told her Peterson broke into her house, ambushed her on the stairs and menaced her with a knife.

    “Drew Peterson asked her if she was afraid and she said she was,” Kernc testified. “She said, ‘Go ahead and do what you came here to do. Kill me.’”

    But Peterson said “he couldn’t hurt her,” Kernc said.

    Savio waited 13 days before alerting the police to the incident, Kernc testified.

    Kernc said she questioned Peterson about the alleged attack but he claimed he had been invited to come over and that he and Savio spoke about their issues for about three hours before she exposed herself and asked him to have sex with her.

    Stalker/hostage

    Also Monday, Peterson’s former friend Ric Mims testified that he stalked Savio at Peterson’s request.

    Mims, who moved into Peterson’s house for the better part of a week after Stacy vanished, also said Peterson asked him to be his hostage if the police came to take him.

    “He said, ‘I’m going to ask you a really weird question. I’m going to ask you to be a hostage,’” Mims said.

    “He didn’t want Stacy’s family to get the kids. He wanted to keep the police at bay until (Peterson’s adult son) Steve got there to take the kids.”

    Mims went from being Peterson’s most vocal supporter to a finger-pointing detractor when he sold an interview about Peterson to the National Enquirer for $17,500.

    On the stand, he said he grew suspicious of his friend after talking to former Los Angeles police Detective Mark Fuhrman about the case. Fuhrman, famous for his role in the O.J. Simpson case, was working for Fox News Channel when he arrived in Bolingbrook in November 2007.

    “I call it my ‘coming to Jesus’ meeting,” Mims said of his meeting with Fuhrman.

    By the end of Monday’s testimony, 60 witnesses had taken the stand during the 14-day marathon hearing. Prosecutors said they have another six up their sleeve, and defense attorney Andrew Abood said his side plans to call about 20 more.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2036862,Lawyer-Stacy-planned-blackmail_JO020910.article

  119. As for the witnesses of the defense, I think we can expect some experts, like a patholigist for instance. Their private “investigator”?

    I am 100% sure about Stephen Peterson and Tom Peterson.

    Steve Carcerano? (I think he moved out of the state).

    Mike Kurdenok also came to my mind.
    http://www.wbbm780.com/Attorney–There-s-Proof-Stacy-Let-Drew/2825663

    [...] According to an affidavit by the state investigator, Kurdenok told the investigator that he had drinks with Stacy Peterson on Oct. 27, the day before she disappeared.

    According to the investigator’s statement, Kurdenok suggested to Stacy she should take cash and not use her credit cards – and that she said if she were to leave, she would leave in the morning when Drew was asleep.

    Now Kurdenok tellls Newsradio 780, “What’s on record is on record.”

    Mike was a classmate of Stacy’s at Joliet Junior College, where she was in nursing school when she disappeared, according to Drew Peterson’s lawyer.

    Asked if he thinks Stacy Peterson ran away, Kurdenok said, “What’s on record is on record. That’s all I have to say.” [...]

    Big hmmm… but maybe Christina Raines?

  121. IMO, the defense is going to have to be very careful who they call. Any one with anything favorable to say about Drew Peterson has had over two years to come forward…and very few have. Of cours they’ll be under a oath, but a clever cross-examination could really tear apart anything Joel might have called them to say.

  122. Some perverse part of me is hoping they will call Erich “Mancow” Muller up so he can testify that anyone with such great kids couldn’t possibly be a murderer…

  123. facsmiley :
    I think if the defense calls Mike Kurdenok they might have a “hostile witness” on their hands. After all he was Stacy’s friend…not Drew’s.

    What Mike said to the investigators has already been interpreted in favour of Drew by the defense, even though Mike was Stacy’s friend. Mike does not have to testify in favour of Drew to raise resonable doubts. IMO.
    However, this is probably not all what he knows and shared with the police, so you are right, Facs, that it may appear to be a little bit inconvenient for the defense.

  124. I’m still curious as all hell to find out what all these people had on Drew that could make him lose his job at BBPD as so far it appears he could basically do what he wanted and got away with everything and anything over a very long period of time !!

  125. Morning all

    I thought Stacy had an appointment to meet with the lawyer (?Smith) on the Monday after she disappeared. How many conversations did Smith have with Stacy before he told her he couldn’t represent her??? I can’t help it, honest, getting a hinky feeling from Smith.

  126. Kernc said she questioned Peterson about the alleged attack but he claimed he had been invited to come over and that he and Savio spoke about their issues for about three hours before she exposed herself and asked him to have sex with her.

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

    It looks like every time Drew is in the presence of fellow Police Officers he has to bring up his sex life or maybe more his idea of his sex life as it sure doesn’t sound like anybody elses idea of having a good time with him – LOL !

  128. Morning, bucket. I am also curious about the Monday meeting. Did Stacy make arrangements with another lawyer?

  130. Please please please don’t put Tom Peterson on the stand. I wonder if the defense will call Larry King, Martin Bashir, Greta vS, Dan Abrams, Dr Phil…..

Comments are closed.