Drew Peterson defense team breaks up: Irreconcilable differences…with Joel Brodsky

Yesterday, attorney Andrew Abood was a guest on the Roe Conn and Richard Roeper show on WLS AM 890.  Abood discussed his motion to withdraw from the defense team of Drew Peterson in the murder of Kathleen Savio, and blamed irreconcilable differences with lead counsel, Joel Brodsky, as the cause of the rupture.

After the interview, Joel Brodsky called in to the show and refuted Abood’s explanation, citing differences in defense strategy as the reason for Andrew Abood and co-counsel, George Lenard, parting ways with the case.

Here is what they had to say. You can decide for yourself whose account is the accurate one.

Andrew Abood, Part 1

Andrew Abood, Part 2

Joel Brodsky, Part 1

Joel Brodsky, Part 2

~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

143 thoughts on “Drew Peterson defense team breaks up: Irreconcilable differences…with Joel Brodsky

  1. Just curious… Does anyone think that we’re going to be seeing Brodsky and “the Shark” on TV and hear them on the radio a lot again? Do you think Lenard reigned that in and now all bets are off? Or do you think that they will stay more quiet while preparing for trial??

  2. I think there still may be a few more interviews because of the curiosity the media outlets will have regarding this breakup. It’s serious, and it’s a major setback, IMO, so they’ll be some interest in this now. I don’t think Mr. Lopez seems to be a shy person, especially since he criticized the two withdrawing attorneys by saying they didn’t know how to handle this case, so, we’ll see.

    I wish SOMEONE would ask Brodsky how he had the audacity to show up in court and fall asleep. It’s time to stop letting him off the hook for his unusual, bizarre and unorthodox ways, and make him squirm for a change. He’s gotten away with nonsense, rather than showing up and acting like a defense attorney. See, he even got on the nerves of his co-counsel.

  3. I think Andrew’s quote here really gets to the core of why he and Lenard withdrew:

    Not every lawyer displayed the same skills at the hearsay hearing…on the defense team. When you present a case and try and represent a defendant on a charge like this, it’s important that you prepare and present absolutely the best case possible and you can’t divide the case up in a manner of fairness. You have to divide it up as to manner of ability…I think that makes sense and there was disagreement with that.

  4. As I go over the recordings, there are, of course, a few things that stand out, but the most compelling part of all of this is the lack of confidence that Atty Abood seems to have for Brodsky’s abilities. Still, if Peterson’s comfortable with the attorney and strategy he’s chosen, that’s all that matters. Peterson picked his guy, and is sticking with his guy, so he is getting the defense he desires.

  5. As I told Facs, a statement made by Brodsky really piqued my interest. That was the statement that Abood’s strategy would have resulted in a conviction.

    IDK, I’ve heard Brodsky’s solid, forthcoming remarks about subjects pertaining to Peterson over two years, including his client wouldn’t be arrested, there’s no evidence, and they’d win on the motions, and, so far, he’s batting 0 for 0.

  6. My interest was piqued by Roe Conn saying that the hearsay hearing turned out badly for the defense. Joel says he can’t comment on it, being completely gagged, but Conn says that he can and he’s saying that it turned out “not in your favor”.

  7. Been a couple of busy news days with this case, the Haleigh Cummings search, and the Casey Anthony case. Looks like Casey’s team has asked for the judge to be thrown off of her case due to him knowing a blogger that has been critical of Baez… http://tinyurl.com/y29yg7b.

    Guess there is more than one circus out there…

  8. Brodsky claims that he is not impressed by the State’s preparation in this case. As an example, he uses the order of the calling of witnesses by the State in the hearsay hearings. He said that they didn’t know who they were going to call from day-to-day.

    Without knowing for sure, of course, what the reasons were or who was to be called to testify, couldn’t it also have been the State’s strategy NOT to tell the defense who they were going to call until a short time before doing so, so as to “throw off” the defense? It seems to me that if they did not have to give an inordinate amount of notice to the defense who was going to be called on any given day, then it would make sense to me they did this intentionally.

    Wouldn’t that then send the defense scrambling through their computerized notes to bring up the information they needed on any particular witness in a moment’s notice?

    Doesn’t sound like they were unprepared to me. Sounds like one-upmanship.

  9. You know, what I found interesting, is that Joel says there’s going to be a “third” lawyer. They’re talking to a couple of lawyers.

    There has been no mention of Reem Odeh, Brodsky’s partner. I know she put out her own press release that she’s working behind the scenes, she’s very capable even though she is beautiful, and she’s going to be the one who will be questioning Peterson’s son, or sons, on the stand.

    So, what’s up with that?

  10. PRNewsChannel.com
    Drew Peterson Attorney Not Just a Pretty Face
    January 19, 2010 – thepublicityagency.com

    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 might be the secret weapon to 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 detail-oriented and 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 of 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. For more information, please visit http://www.thepublicityagency.com.

    PRNewsChannel

    http://www.PRNewsChannel.com/

  11. I didn’t put too much weight on that comment either. The prosecution doesn’t havea crystal ball to see how long cross-examinations will go nor can they prepare for every possible question asked during cross-examination. I’m sure the prosecution was also withholding some of their witnesses for the actual trial so as not to let their whole case out of the bag before the actual trial.

    And didn’t the defense say they planned to have about 20 defense witnesses but then only called one??? He should understand that flexibility does not necessarily reflect the level of preparation.

  12. See – there’s that deal about his son testifying in his defense! Do you really think they would be the ones to put him up on the stand and make him face cross-examination where he will surely be asked if he ever witnessed his parents fighting?

    I don’t think the prosecution would call him up themselves due to his age but if the defense puts him on the stand they have opened the door to that kind of questioning IMO.

  13. So, um, she’s going to make sure that Drew’s teenage son’s testimony makes Drew sound like a wonderful dad, in spite of it all, so that the jury will be emotionally attached and vote for an acquittal.

    Because, that’s what her press release from January said:

    But it’s his partner, a model-turned-attorney, who might be the secret weapon to land an acquittal for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant.

    Oh, never mind. It’s not Drew’s teenage son who will do it, it’s Reem. Her stunning good looks. Silly goose.

  14. TAI – I guess I should just admit it – I think the State left the defense guessing as to who they would call and when. I was there to see how it works a couple of times. When the defense got the word who the witness would be, they had to start searching through their notes on the witness.

    It’s strategy, and Joel is full of himself.

  15. So it’s Reem Odeh’s job to “analyze and develop a legal strategy”? Looks like Joel should be blaming her for Abood and Lenard walking since it’s all due to a disagreement about defense strategy, no? ;)

  16. The truth is, they, or someone, should be embarrassed by that childish, inappropriate, uncalled for, press release that describes the lead partner’s beauty, when it’s a man’s freedom and life that is at stake here.

    I’m glad their ridiculous egos are being exposed, and what we’ve been saying all along is coming out in the open.

    Most of the time, the media fell all over themselves to get an interview with these numbskulls. Why hasn’t the media gone after Brodsky on the air about his chicken wing and bar shenanigans? Why hasn’t he been asked why his partner felt she had to tell the nation she’s beautiful, but capable? Why hasn’t he been asked why, after a local reporter caught him napping during crucial testimony, he can’t keep himself awake when, the day before, he was panning for the cameras with his other “famous” client, Joseph Reyes, the Catholic, turned Jewish, turned Catholic client?

    We’re all the sane ones – they’re the idiots!

  17. Oh goodness! I guess the breaking up of the defense is making even people like Kris McP question her faith in Joel Brodsky. She had this to say.

    Andrew & Georges contacting Word Press also speaks volumes also. Them leaving is not in Drews best interest. It will go back to the endless circus atmosphere. The structure and professional behavior was very present prior. I would bet that this was not easy for them to do, I know they really like Drew and related to him in so many ways. I myself will miss seeing them because they are stellar men. I honestly do not know what to expect in the future. My gut says nothing good will come of this. But like everyone else I am only a spectator.

  18. Ha, I love it!!!!!

    For one thing, the circus that was was shut down by Judge White, not by Abood and/or Lenard. So, if it goes back to any kind of a circus, then it will be the current defense that is violating the Judge’s gag order, no?

    Since Mr. Lenard hasn’t made any real public statements, and we’re going on what Mr. Abood had to say, or insinuate, it’s no secret they’ve had the same conclusions about Bozo the Joel all along, and they finally walked away from it.

  19. Well, technically we contacted “Andrew & George” and it was very kind of them to respond. I guess for the most part I have to agree with Ms. Kris. I don’t know the two in question to call them “stellar” but I will say that they do appear to be much more capable attorneys than Joel.

    But contrary to what her gut tells her, I feel that quite a bit of good will come of this — only it will be for the prosecution and maybe for Abood and Lenard as well, having freed themselves from this awful defense.

  20. thinkaboutit2 :

    Just curious… Does anyone think that we’re going to be seeing Brodsky and “the Shark” on TV and hear them on the radio a lot again? Do you think Lenard reigned that in and now all bets are off? Or do you think that they will stay more quiet while preparing for trial??

    If this story is any indication, Mr. Lopez has a history of needing to be reined in:

    The federal judge presiding over the Family Secrets mob case in Chicago has privately told Joseph “The Shark” Lopez — the defense lawyer for reputed Outfit hit man Frank Calabrese Sr. — to stop allowing his critiques of the trial to be posted on an Internet blog.

    Lopez, among the more colorful defense attorneys at the trial, called a witness in one blog posting “boring,” a doofus and — using Italian slang — an ass.

    U.S. District Judge James Zagel was not amused and ordered Lopez to stop e-mailing his entries to the blog, chicagosyndicate.blogspot.com. The judge recently took the action behind closed doors, according to sources familiar with the matter…

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/mob/460536,CST-NWS-mob09.stng

  21. Also:

    Halprin: Reeling in “The Shark”
    By Steven Warmbiron
    September 11, 2007 12:27 AM

    The attorney for Frank Calabrese Sr., Joseph “The Shark” Lopez, is a lawyer known in the press world as media friendly.

    He’s also quick with a quote, eager with a quip.

    He’s a flashy dresser, from the bottom of his pink socks to the top of the knot in his pink tie.

    Like many folks, he enjoys the glare of the media spotlight.

    And he appeared to be dying to talk Monday after the guilty verdict.

    There was just one problem

    The gag order against attorneys in the case hadn’t been lifted yet.

    The jury still has more to deliberate on.

    Lopez happened to leave with Rick Halprin, the attorney for Joseph Lombardo.

    Halprin declined to comment to the media horde downstairs in the lobby of the federal building as he was leaving.

    Lopez lingered, checking out the courtroom sketch artist drawings.

    Halprin reminded him of the gag order.

    Lopez still lingered, temptation etched in his face.

    Halprin threw out a few choice words.

    Seeing no real movement on The Shark’s part, Halprin walked back to him and dragged out of the courtroom lobby.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/mob/2007/09/halprin_reeling_in_the_shark.html

  22. Conn and Roeper interview with Joe “the Shark” Lopez:

    [audio src="http://wlsam.com/getpodcast.aspx?sid=16521&lid=5149&id=1773571&source=1&url=http://podcasting.fia.net/5149/4264322.mp3" /]

    (right click and select “save target as”)

  23. Some quotes that stood out to me:

    Andrew Abood said he’s concerned about the level of preparation versus the State’s level of preparation in this:

    “That’s why he’s not there anymore.”

    About having only two months to prepare for trial:

    “It doesn’t matter. This case is not that complicated.”

    You’re saying that it was crazy to try to flip some sort of alibi defense for what you’re calling an accident:

    “When you have an accident there is no alibi defense.”
    “Brodsky knows what he’s doing on the case. He’s got some good ideas on the case.”
    “This is an accident that happened to this lady. We just have to leave it at that.”
    “I’ve seen a lot of murders in my life and this ain’t one.”

    “Joel’s going to be the coach. He knows what to do.”

  24. Boy, I don’t know what to say after listening to this lawyer, but I don’t see what the point of associating him with the “convicted” mobster, Frank Calabrese, has to with getting Drew off this murder charge.

    He’s very flippant and likes to laugh about the circumstances of the case alot.

    Way to go Drew.

  25. Sunday, April 13, 2008

    Joseph ‘The Shark’ Lopez has been called a mob layer and a gang lawyer, but he could care less.Wearing a black suit, black shirt, a black tie with bright slashes of color and a diamond ring with enough bling to make a rapper blush, Lopez, 52, could care less if people call him a “mob lawyer.”

    “I’ve been called a mob lawyer, gang lawyer. I’ve represented a lot of mobsters,” he said.

    He’s also been called “Shark” since he was a youth; it’s on his license plate and his e-mail address.

    Lopez, who represented Frank Calabrese Sr., in last year’s “Family Secrets” trial in Chicago, is not exactly media shy. He wrote his own blog (The Chicago Syndicate) about the trial while it was under way – until the judge ordered him to shut it down.

    “He’s promoted himself in every way possible,” said fellow criminal lawyer Halprin, who represented another defendant in the Family Secrets trial. “That blog was outrageous.”

    Lopez is unrepentant: “The government was mad because I was criticizing them and their witnesses.”

    He plans to re-launch his blog this summer during the trial of client Gary Kimmel, a Chicago dentist charged with laundering money for a nationwide prostitution ring.

    A native Chicagoan of Mexican/Italian heritage, Lopez graduated from the University of Illinois law school. He planned to specialize in divorce law, but was asked to help out in a drug case. “My friends were Colombian/Mexican drug [defendants],” he said. “They sent me over there because I was squeaky clean.”

    A large swordfish hangs on the wall of his cluttered office. “I tell my clients, ‘See how that fish’s mouth is open? That’s how it got caught,'” he said, laughing loudly.

    Sketches on the wall depict Lopez in several of his biggest cases. He represented Rev. Jesse Jackson’s brother, Noah, in a money laundering case; and one of the teenage defendants in the infamous Lenard Clark case. Clark, a young black teenager, was savagely beaten by a group of white teenagers in 1997 as he rode his bike home through a predominantly white neighborhood.

    Lopez has a trial scheduled for the end of March involving Fernando King, the head of the Latin Kings gang in Chicago, on drug and weapons charges.

    Lopez said he’s always confident going into the courtroom. “Most lawyers are afraid they’re gong to lose, so they talk their clients into pleading guilty,” he said. “I always think I’m going to win. Even if there are 300 witnesses, I convince myself I’m going to win.”

    http://www.thechicagosyndicate.com/search/label/Shark

  26. I’m curious to see how the “It was just an accident” defense is going to hold up under the tons of circumstantial evidence in the case.

    Breaking into her house, attempting to hire a hitman, a suitcase full of documents from Kathleen about his threats and terrorizing of her. Heck of a conicidence when she falls down and drowns in her bathtub, with no alcohol or drugs in her system, no clothes or towels in the bathroom, and a now-missing wife who shortly before disappearing told two people that he did it.

    You go, Joe.

  27. Interview with Joel Brodsky part 1

    at approx 2.35 mins – he’s giving Andrew Abood a big serve and talks about “sour grapes” on Andrews part

    at approx 3.10 – 3.40 – Joel is back to boasting about his abilities again and again and again, such as “he wins most of his cases” (which ones, he’s never handled a murder case before)

    he also mentions about 4 or 5 (according to him) top lawyers who will all vouch for his abilities (!!), yet in the next breath he says he is shopping for a third lawyer and hasn’t found one yet.

    If Joel were such a great lawyer, wouldn’t all these top lawyers fall over themselves to work with him or have someone waiting in the wings with bated breath to take Andrew Aboods place ??

  28. BTW, the coroner NEVER said her death was accidental as Lopez stated. He said that the injury to her head could have been the result of a fall.

    I think he’s vastly underrating his need to study the case if even bloggers know more of the details than he does.

    Mob lawyer. I guess maybe this is the kind of lawyer Drew wants and deserves. Surprising though that a man whose ex-wife slips in the bath and drowns requires the services of a mob lawyer to drive home the “it was a household accident” defense. According to Lopez, there’s really no need for a third forensics/science/attorney because he can cover that as well. I kind of hope he does…

  29. facsmiley :
    JAH – The “sour grapes” bit was a little bizarre considering Abood walked out on him, not the other way around.

    Yeah – in the next interview Joel will probably say he sacked him – LOL !

  30. I really think this is because hearsay was allowed in. Maybe all of it. Thats my opinion of why this all is happening with the lawyers quitting. I’d quit too.

  31. Abood, ‘Shark’ exchange jabs

    April 17, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — The break-up of Drew Peterson’s legal team is starting to look almost as ugly as his messy divorce from the wife he allegedly murdered.

    Andrew Abood, the Michigan attorney who bailed on Peterson Wednesday took some potshots at the Chicago lawyer who replaced him — Joseph “the Shark” Lopez.

    “Is that another self-proclaimed moniker?” Abood asked about Lopez’s colorful nickname. Lopez insists that it is not.

    “I had that name since I was a kid, even before I was a lawyer,” said Lopez, who explained that it was his tenacious nature that earned him the handle.

    Abood and co-counsel George Lenard pulled out of the Peterson defense team Wednesday. They cited “irreconcilable differences” with remaining lawyer Joel Brodsky. Lopez said Abood insisted on putting on an “alibi defense” when Brodsky wanted to claim Peterson’s dead third wife perished in a freak bathtub accident.

    “Brodsky knows exactly what to do in this case and they wouldn’t listen to him,” Lopez said.

    Peterson case
    Peterson faces murder charges for allegedly drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004. The state police detectives charged with probing the case insisted Savio did indeed fall victim to an accident, but changed their tune when Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, mysteriously vanished in October 2007.

    When push came to shove, Peterson apparently stuck with Brodsky over Lenard and Abood.

    “Drew and Joel are tied to the hip and very loyal,” Abood said. He also thinks Brodsky and Lopez will make a good pair.

    “I am sure Joel and Joe will get along really well and that is important,” he said. “Thelma and Louise got along really well too — and I hear Joe Lopez has a nice car.”

    “I do have a nice car,” Lopez said of his Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG. “It might cost more than Abood makes all year.”

    Abood pointed out that Lopez failed to acquit Peterson in a mock trial in which no evidence was presented (it ended in a hung jury), and insinuated that Lopez did not know his attorney registration number when he showed up to court. He also made reference to disclosing “to the press what likely would be considered privileged information” days after Lopez gave his first interviews about the Peterson case.

    “He’s a sissy, that’s what he is,” Lopez shot back. “He’s a crybaby.”

    While there seems to be no love lost between Abood and “the Shark,” Lopez said he “was sorry to see George go” and added that he and Brodsky are trying to lure a third lawyer onto their team.

    “We’d like to bring in one other guy to balance it out,” he said, declining to identify who that might be.

    But even without another lawyer on board, the team has markedly improved in the experience department since he joined up, Lopez said.

    “I’ve won more murder cases than (Abood’s) got clients,” he said.

    “If he’d known what he was doing, he wouldn’t have gotten booted.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2168018,4_1_JO17_ABOOD_S1-100417.article

  32. These are excerpts from the defense’s expert, who they’re going to be relying on (Chicago Tribune; http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/peterson-defense-says-it-will-call-just-one-witness.html)

    “I believe all the injuries she sustained could have been sustained with a simple fall,” he said.

    Other factors in his decision include a lack of defensive wounds and a “delicate” necklace found around her neck undamaged, he said.

    Jentzen, who served as Milwaukee’s chief medical examiner when officials were investigating the case against serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, said it also was possible that Savio suffered cardiac arrest and fell.

    No signs of a heart attack would have been detected at the autopsy, he said. Savio’s physician had previously testified Savio was diagnosed with a medically insignificant heart murmur in the mid-1990s.

    Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jentzen if his opinion would change knowing that the police investigation was flawed. Illinois State Police investigators have testified they bungled the Savio case.

    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration.

  33. (Huffinton Post, 02/17/2010; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/drew-peterson-trial-patho_0_n_466124.html)

    In the clearest signal yet of the battle attorneys will engage in over the death of Kathleen Savio, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen said “it is my opinion that it was an accident.”

    Jentzen said the evidence clearly points to an accident – from the absence of any defensive wounds on Savio’s body to the condition of the bathroom when her body was found. He said the bathroom appeared normal, saying Savio’s glasses were folded and there was no sign of an intruder.

    The pathologist said he believes Savio may have simply slipped or fainted in the tub. He also pointed to medical records that show she had a heart murmur, suggesting her heart may have stopped and caused her to slam the back of her head against a hard object and then fall into the tub and drown.

    Whatever happened, “she suffered a blunt force injury and that could have rendered her unconscious,” Jentzen said.

    Other witnesses have testified that Savio would never have bathed wearing jewelry. Jentzen said the fact that she was wearing what he called a “delicate” necklace strongly suggested to him that she didn’t struggle with an attacker.

    Jentzen, who has conducted thousands of autopsies, said he would have expected such a necklace to have somehow been damaged in an attack.

    “I’ve seen it numerous times,” he said.

    Jentzen also said he believes many of the other bruises on Savio’s body could have happened when she fell.

  34. (abc news, 2/18/2010; http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7281905)

    Hired by Drew Peterson’s attorneys, Jenzen said, “it is in my opinion that it was an accident.”

    Jentzen who teaches at the University of Michigan is the former chief medical examiner in Milwaukee. While he did not conduct an autopsy on Savio’s remains, he based his conclusions on photographs and investigative reports.

    Originally ruled an accident, Savio’s death was reclassified a homicide after a second autopsy was performed three years after her death. During hearsay hearing, a crime scene investigator testified that he never took any evidence from the scene. Will County state’s attorney John Connor asked Jenzten if his opinion on Savio’s death would change if there was evidence of a flawed police investigation. Jentzen said, “it would invite me to review the case again.”

  35. I do have a nice car,” Lopez said of his Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG. “It might cost more than Abood makes all year.

    Hmmm. Wonder what kind of a car Brodsky and Odeh drive around in, and if their income is more or less than what Lopez’ car cost.

    Geesh. What class. Not.

  36. BTW, Abood had something to say about Lopez’s comments on his FB wall. (Lopez said that his car cost more than Abood makes in a year and also stated that Abood was “booted” from the defense team):

    …I am thinking that as long as a the truth doesn’t matter why say only a year, why not say a decade. A big time chicago lawyer, why didnt he say that his car cost more than Andrew Abood makes in a lifetime…

    More importantly i hope it makes him feel good to think that i got booted. Just remember one important thing Shark: “Don’t believe everything you think.”

  37. Oh, man, this is all just wrong, wrong.

    Peterson might not like to read, but he’s damn well going to see this shark dude circling the waters, and I can’t imagine he thinks this is good for his case, let alone win him his freedom.

    But, hey, it’s hard to know how a man charged with the murder of his children’s mother thinks, heh? Maybe this is his idea of the new Dream Team, but I think he should just ask Scottie to beam him up now.

  38. It’s pretty clear that for Joe Lopez, this is about Joe Lopez; certainly not about Drew Peterson and very far from being about Kathleen Savio, “this lady” who lost her life.

  39. Hmmm. Well, the only person this should all matter to is Peterson. If he’s good with all of this, then it doesn’t matter what we think, other attorneys think, or what anyone who is hoping for his acquittal or conviction thinks.

    What’s left is for us to sit back and enjoy the show of slicing and dicing. This time, though, it’s jabs the attorneys are hurling at each other, and, for a change, the victims and witnesses are escaping the slime. Get the popcorn, and don’t touch the remote.

  40. rescueapet :

    I do have a nice car,” Lopez said of his Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG. “It might cost more than Abood makes all year.

    Hmmm. Wonder what kind of a car Brodsky and Odeh drive around in, and if their income is more or less than what Lopez’ car cost.
    Geesh. What class. Not.

    Brodsky drives a Beemer also. Not sure what Odeh drives.

  41. So it starts out kind of bitter and get down right ugly. I think Drew was bored and this gives him entertainment. I’m not sure Joel will like someone hogging up the lime light for very long.

  42. Yeah, right, Charmed. I don’t think Lopez is any more interested in being second in charge of two than Brodsky is. Well, three, if Reem Odeh is on the team. Who knows anymore.

  43. Susan Murphey Milano has released a new book titled, Time’s Up: How to Escape Abusive and Stalking Relationships Guide. It’s a guide for women like Stacy & Kathleen who needed to record what was happening to them. I listened to Susan’s latest radio show and it sounds like the book has some very good advice for women who find themselves in these situations. How differently things would play out in a court of law if there was information the abusive spouse was unaware existed and kept in a safe place.

  44. givarat :

    rescueapet :

    I do have a nice car,” Lopez said of his Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG. “It might cost more than Abood makes all year.

    Hmmm. Wonder what kind of a car Brodsky and Odeh drive around in, and if their income is more or less than what Lopez’ car cost.Geesh. What class. Not.

    Brodsky drives a Beemer also. Not sure what Odeh drives.

    I think Reem has been seen in a Bently, but this whole car talk is silly coming from these attorneys. How many of these vehicles are leased and not owned? If you’re leasing a car, you own nothing. My dad use to say, “but is it paid for ?” whenever we mentioned someone having a really expensive car.

    My first impression of Lopez and how he responded in the media = yawn

  45. BTW, we’ve heard some more from Andrew Abood and he apologizes for the typos and grammatical errors that some of you caught in his statement that was posted on the blog.

    He said,

    “I agree with the criticism. You should expect your attorney to file documents with the appropriate grammar and spelling. Given the attention that was given to the statement that I issued, I should have taken the time to double check it.”

    He also says he understands and appreciates that not everyone likes him or Drew Peterson, stating,

    “Despite the fact that most of your commentators dislike Drew Peterson, the attention they bring to the case is actually beneficial to his legal rights. And the examination given by the readers helps to keep the state on the straight and narrow. A task that would almost always be impossible for the private citizen on his or her own, even with a great attorney, without the help of the general public and the media.”

    I would add to his comment, that the same attention also helps keep the prosecutors defense on the straight and narrow…at least I hope so!

  46. Personally, I think it would also be extremely beneficial to the DEFENSE as well…especially since our comments might be a reflection of the thoughts of a potential jury.

  47. cfs7360 :Personally, I think it would also be extremely beneficial to the DEFENSE as well…especially since our comments might be a reflection of the thoughts of a potential jury.

    I would agree. I just heard a similar comment by a guest attorney discussing the Casey Anthony case.

  48. Andrew Abood should not have been the target of comments by Lopez, IMO. Facs, I’m actually more impressed by Abood that he contacted you and admitted his error. Time to move on.

  49. I have to admit, I’m glad Abood and Lenard quit….it was way to boring around here with the hearsay being done and the trial still a few months away. Thanks for giving us something to talk about. I do wonder where Reem stands in all of this, I think I would be hoping people would forget Joel is my partner.

  50. Hey Rescue, and thank you. We probably both suspect Brodsky has been well schooled on this blog, and has learned volumes about what a potential jury might think and/or believe, as well as tons of other things that could help his defense. Don’t you just sometimes wonder how many hours of research Justice Cafe has saved that man? Seriously. He has just always seemed to me to be the type to take the easy route, and regardless of who he has on his team, he will never be as proficient, professional, or prepared as James Glasgow, as far as I’m concerned.

  51. facsmiley :Sorry, I wrote “prosecutors” when I meant “defense”. Fixed now. Doh.

    I wondered Facs, and thought that must be a mistake. Started to ask you, but that’s why I made the comment I did.

  52. if he were really paying attention to us he would get that we don’t believe it was an accident and Drew better come up with an Alibi to save his … The accident theory is much like the tub, it doesn’t hold water!

  53. Thank you Facs. I’ve been popping in when I can, and this latest news has also brought out several other posters, I see. Truthfully, I’m just glad Abood and Lenard are no longer associated with Drew’s nightmare, and I have a lot more respect for both of them for walking away from it all, trial lawyer’s dream case or not.

  54. charmed4sr :if he were really paying attention to us he would get that we don’t believe it was an accident and Drew better come up with an Alibi to save his … The accident theory is much like the tub, it doesn’t hold water!

    That’s Brodsky for you Charmed. He’s just got a hollow head.

  55. Actually, I think he believes he can prove the impossible, and that’s going to be his downfall. Just like he said Drew would never be charged, and is still saying there is no evidence. There’s plenty of evidence, just not the kind he believes will save Drew’s butt. Clueless….without a brain to boot. Why do you think those guys left him? At least they’re intelligent.

  56. I was wondering if Joel is afraid of an alibi defense because to have one would risk bringing up Stacy, and once that happened it would “open the door” to the prosecution calling some of these hearsay witnesses (like Schori).

    Judge White mentioned something about that at the end of the hearsay hearings, IIRC.

    As long as they just keep saying, “It was an accident. It was an accident” they’ll never risk that happening.

  57. Hey, I was going through a prior post, and I came across a “tweet” from Elzabeth Brodsky. Remember this?

    March 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm | #262
    Quote | Edit

    Who believes Drew Peterson is NOT guilty? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale!
    9:28 PM Mar 16th from TwitterFon

    http://twitter.com/Elliebrod

  58. facsmiley :I was wondering if Joel is afraid of an alibi defense because to have one would risk bringing up Stacy, and once that happened it would “open the door” to the prosecution calling some of these hearsay witnesses (like Schori).
    Judge White mentioned something about that at the end of the hearsay hearings, IIRC.
    As long as they just keep saying, “It was an accident. It was an accident” they’ll never risk that happening.

    Excellent point Facs. Excellent!

  59. rescueapet :Hey, I was going through a prior post, and I came across a “tweet” from Elzabeth Brodsky. Remember this?
    March 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm | #262Quote | Edit
    Who believes Drew Peterson is NOT guilty? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale!9:28 PM Mar 16th from TwitterFon
    http://twitter.com/Elliebrod

    OMG, I had not seen that! It would be interesting to know if Joel has ever confided to her that he thinks Drew is guilty, or if she just apparently feels that way. That’s a beauty Rescue.

  60. cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :I was wondering if Joel is afraid of an alibi defense because to have one would risk bringing up Stacy, and once that happened it would “open the door” to the prosecution calling some of these hearsay witnesses (like Schori).Judge White mentioned something about that at the end of the hearsay hearings, IIRC.As long as they just keep saying, “It was an accident. It was an accident” they’ll never risk that happening.

    Excellent point Facs. Excellent!

    You know, it just sort of appears to me that Brodsky is damned is he does, and damned if he doesn’t. I honestly can’t see where he has a chance in hell, but then I won’t be on the jury either.

  61. Rescue, I so remember that Tweet from Ellie. I think we were all surprised by the comment. I’ve never seen a picture on the internet with Ellie posing with Drew Peterson, nor her two daughters, despite the numerous ones shown of Joel, friends & family. (smart move. IMO) A picture speaks a thousand words. What does the lack of one say?

    Facs, I think you’re right about JB’s defense strategy for the Savio case. June can’t get here soon enough.

  62. That is a very good point Facs. If he sticks with the Alibi he gave that night, that opens the question of where is Stacy, if he changes his Alibi to his son, that opens the question of why the change and where is Stacy. So they say it was an accident….great, fine, it was an accident, but where was Drew during this accident and why did he act out of character. In my opinion, if I were a juror, this accident would seem out of sorts and I would want to know where the accused was and why his actions of normally breaking into the house were different on this occassion. I do have to say, I’m glad he let the neighbor find her and not the children.

  63. I’ve been waiting for someone to comment on something Brodsky said to Roe Conn at approximately 3:57 into Part II of his response to AA leaving, because I’m not sure if I understood it in the correct context. However, after listening to it several times, I’ve decided it’s a typical “Brodsky Bungle.” If he were my attorney, it would also probably be grounds for his dismissal. Roe Conn said he thinks they will probably find his client guilty…Brodsky stumbles around and said they probably will, but there’s no evidence to support that allegation.

    I mean folks, how inept is that, or am I not understanding this? Pretty much this tells me some hearsay is being admitted, and that maybe Joel is thinking the hearing found him guilty for it to be admitted, but Roe Conn was referring to the real trial. If Drew is found guilty at trial, that’s the end of the story, unless they appeal. Doesn’t matter if Joel thinks it’s just “mere allegations” as he called them. Even Richard Roper seems to make a comment to Roe Conn in disbelief that Joel would admit Drew would probably be found guilty, and Conn laughingly says back to Roper, “that is correct.” Personally, I don’t see how Abood and Lenard put up with Brosky for as long as they did, but Drew deserves every bit of him.

  64. CFS, I relistened to that part a couple of times as well and the thing here is context. They are discussing the preparedness of the prosecution when Conn says:

    “I think they are going to say your client’s guilty by the way”

    Joel replies:

    “I probably think they will but they won’t be able to put any evidence out to support that allegation and unfortunately, for them anyway, a mere allegation doesn’t convict somebody — only evidence does and the problem with their case is there’s no evidence.”

    To my ears, Conn is saying that the jury will find Drew guilty, but Joel doesn’t get it because at that point they had been discussing the prosecutors and their case against Drew and he thinks the “they” in this case is the prosecutors still.

  65. Thanks for your reply Facs, and that’s one way to look at it. But of course the prosecution says Drew is guilty! Why else would he be behind bars with a 20 million dollar bail? That’s certainly nothing new to Brodsky, and is he really that dense that he can’t understand Roe Conn’s comment in the correct context? Apparently so. He just can’t ever seem to get his mind in gear with his mouth, and it was just really, REALLY stupid dialogue on his part, but what else is new? I still can’t help but believe that he has been made aware of Judge White’s ruling on whether some of the hearsay will be admitted, and that’s where his mindset seems to be in regard to his latest remarks and actions, as well as those of Drew’s former attorneys, and even his new one. They had to be told at some point before the trial in the event they wanted to appeal the ruling, and surely Judge White wouldn’t wait until almost time for the trial to start because they need time to prepare their defense accordingly. It goes without saying that if hearsay is allowed, it drastically changes the odds for Drew’s acquittal.

  66. Maybe I should clarify my comment @82 about the hearsay hearing finding Drew guilty. Even though there is formally no guilty verdict issued, the judge still has to come to the conclusion that Drew is “likely more guilty than not” of Kathleen’s murder, in order for him to allow the hearsay evidence, in part, or in total. That’s what I meant when I said the hearsay hearing (actually Judge White) may have found Drew guilty (actually, more guilty that not) which would basically be the case if he has allowed any hearsay into evidence. Hope this makes sense in the manner intended.

  67. Hmmm. All I know is that the jury better find Dr. Jentzen extremely believable, because that is what they must do to end this all and find that she died by a slip and fall, resulting in her drowning.

    Accident?

    Dr. Jentzen says she could have had an instant, fatal heart attack to cause her fall, but also said it wouldn’t show up on an autopsy. Why does evidence of a heart attack show up in other people, but not Kathleen? Especially one that was so severe, it killed her instantly?

    Dr. Jentzen said a delicate necklace on Kathleen’s neck was intact, but should have been damaged if she was in a violent struggle with an attacker. Yet, he described a slip, hitting of the back of her head on the wall, causing a gash, falling and twisting forward, and slamming into a tub of water, where she sustained bruising on her breast from a soap bar. Isn’t it something that necklace made it through all of that especially unusual slip and fall?

    Dr. Jentzen said that it’s possible Kathleen was still able to breathe, even though she died instantly, in explaining how she had water in her sinus passages. I’ll just leave that one for divine intervention.

    Dr. Jentzen used a picture with a towel near the tub as a basis for assuming, in his report, that she was bathing. Most of know this is inaccurate and is useless.

    Dr. Jentzen relied on information from the law enforcement agency that conducted the initial investigation. It was flawed, the lead detective admitted protocol was not followed. His reliance on this information is inaccurate and useless.

    Dr. Jentzen said Dr. Mitchell might have, or should have, at the very least, sent the investigators back out into the field to gather more information if he felt there was something unusual, other than what they had reported to him, about Kathleen’s death. To that, I say, same applies now with him, since he’s been told the information he relied on was inaccurate and flawed, so he needs to rethink his evaluation of his initial findings.

    So, there you have it, my take on Dr. Jentzen.

  68. Well Rescue, I just hope the jury’s take on Dr. Jentzen will be the same as yours. But honestly, I don’t see how Brodsky can allow an alibi defense, because that’s admitting that they agree Kathleen was murdered, and that’s exactly what the State is hoping to prove, only by Drew’s hands. It just opens the door to too many other problems in defending Drew, as well as having to formulate an alibi defense, when his main alibi is no longer here. Putting his son on the stand as an alternate alibi would possibly create even more problems for him, and probably would not be looked upon very favorably by a jury. At least I don’t think it would.

    Brodsky is, based on his past performances, going to take the easiest route, or at best, the path of least resistance, and in my opinion, the path of the least amount of effort on his part. As I said yesterday, he’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t, but he’s so sure of his lawyering abilities, we’ll just have to wait and see if he’s the fool most of us think he is. Maybe he’s counting on “The Shark” to save his, AND Drew’s butt, but he sure needs help from somebody. According to what he told Roe Conn, he has their expert witnesses (notice the plural) all lined up and they’re all in agreement that it was an accident. Wonder who they are, besides Dr. Jentzen? That doesn’t surprise me in the least though, because you can pretty much pay anyone to say anything for the right amount of money. I mean, just look at the things to which Dr. Jentzen testified, and he may not have even been paid, who knows?

  69. Thanks CFS.

    It is a complicated, difficult defense, especially if there isn’t a whole lot there to exonerate him, anymore than there is to absolutely identify him as the murderer.

  70. The New Lawyer Team has already said as much:

    “It is simple – the lady had an accident”.

  71. Joel needs to keep bringing in fresh “experts” on accidents in bath tubs as he can’t use testimony from the original investigators since they’ve now all said they didn’t investigate anything and the whole investigation was a lot of baloney (!!)

    As a result, no one from the original “investigation” can back up any of their statements to support the Defense, so Joel is basically empty handed as far as the original accidental death theory is concerned.

    He therefore has no other option than to clutch at straws and invent stuff, like tripping on the soap, invisible heart attack, breathing after death, a bar of soap leaving marks on ones chest and other utter nonsense.

    Unfortunately for him he has to stick with the accidental death theory and subsequent bungled investigation as the other options are even more incriminating to his client.

    It sucks to be Joel !!

  72. In one of the articles – it was pointed out that the Shark only got a hung jury rather than an acquittal for Drew on the mock trial in spite of there being only part of the evidence the State may use. Add to that the fact that the lead attorney doesn’t even seem to have been able to convince his own wife that Drew is innocent. I still won’t get why Drew didn’t stick with Lenard but he gave the OK and I still think if things don’t go his way then we will see an appeal about him having inadequate representation…

  73. thinkaboutit2 :

    I still won’t get why Drew didn’t stick with Lenard but he gave the OK and I still think if things don’t go his way then we will see an appeal about him having inadequate representation…

    I wonder if he could get it when he agreed to let the more experienced and capable lawyer (Lenard) walk. If the defendant opts for a crappy attorney when a better one was on hand…does he get to claim that he was badly represented?

  74. Facs, sure, he can, along with a boatload of other things.

    But, if his lead attorney’s early prediction to Reem Odeh is true, they’ll all have book deals and it won’t matter what he thinks he got or didn’t get.

    As to not sticking with his two withdrawing attorneys, Abood did say that Peterson is very loyal to Joel. That must be true because they’ve given the appearance they have a much more complicated relationship that just client/attorney.

    BTW, I wonder what ever became of Attorney John Carroll? He was a colorful character himself, it seems.

  75. cfs7360 :
    Hey Rescue, and thank you. We probably both suspect Brodsky has been well schooled on this blog, and has learned volumes about what a potential jury might think and/or believe, as well as tons of other things that could help his defense. Don’t you just sometimes wonder how many hours of research Justice Cafe has saved that man? Seriously. He has just always seemed to me to be the type to take the easy route, and regardless of who he has on his team, he will never be as proficient, professional, or prepared as James Glasgow, as far as I’m concerned.

    Dead right. Hence the claim of his lack of prep. His job is to drive the bus, damn it!

    Abood has grown up and got some manners or at least proper *professional* PR advice.

    Gotta say Brodders is looking a bit rough.

  76. I’ve always thought that DP may have a claim for ineffective counsel due to conflict of interest. If Bratsky’s stated aim is to become famous and rich and get book deals, it would hardly matter whether Droopy was found guilty or not. The only thing that matters is publicity and plenty of. Especially if that ambition on spec is the basis for his retention as Droop’s counsel (er, make that Chief Counsel)

  77. ‘Shark’ joins Drew Peterson’s defense amid shakeup
    By Emanuella Grinberg, CNN

    (CNN) — Former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson has changed up his defense team two months before the murder trial in his third wife’s death is scheduled to begin.

    Joining the defense team is Joseph Lopez, a veteran trial attorney nicknamed “The Shark.” He is known in legal circles and among mafia buffs for representing some of Chicago’s most notorious mobsters.

    Peterson lost two other attorneys last week after they filed motions asking to withdraw from the case, citing “irreconcilable differences” with lead attorney Joel Brodsky.

    Brodsky said the shakeup would not affect the trial’s June start date.

    “We absolutely want to go on as planned. Drew wants to go to trial June 14, I want to go to trial on June 14 and Mr. Lopez will be ready on June 14,” Brodsky said in a telephone interview Friday.

    Charges against Peterson, 56, for the death of Kathleen Savio came amid an investigation into the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. He has pleaded not guilty to charges he murdered Savio and denies involvement in Stacy’s disappearance.

    Lopez, a friend of Brodsky’s, is no stranger to Peterson’s case. He “represented” Peterson in a mock trial staged in 2009 for a local radio station. The mock trial ended in a hung jury.

    His law firm doesn’t have a Web site. Instead, Lopez said he prefers to rely on his reputation for tenacious cross-examination and off-the-cuff remarks to the press to bring in clients.

    “They just come, like moth to a flame,” he said in a phone interview. “I’ve always been ruthless when it comes to this kind of stuff — anything, you name it.”

    Lopez speaks proudly of his roots in the heart of Chicago’s Little Italy, where he was born and raised, and scoffs at the irony of his high-profile representation of 13 mobsters in the “Family Secrets” federal trial, which is credited with taking down the upper echelons of the Chicago Syndicate.

    Lopez said his arguments in the Peterson mock trial mirror his view that Savio’s death was an accident that only became a homicide when authorities couldn’t pin charges on Peterson for Stacy’s disappearance. Stacy still hasn’t been found.

    “It’s just a straight-up case of an accident that later turned into an allegation of murder. There’s no DNA, no scientific evidence, bunch of expert witnesses that disagree on the cause of death, and that raises reasonable doubt right there.”

    Brodsky said Lopez’s years of experience as a trial attorney and his shared view of the defense strategy in Peterson’s case made him an ideal replacement for Andrew Abood and George Lenerd, who asked to withdraw from the case on Wednesday.

    Abood said that he and Lenerd were not forced off the case, attributing the decision to leave to personality differences with Brodsky.

    “Joel’s a different kind of lawyer than I’m used to,” he said. “He’s a very good lawyer in his office and he’s very knowledgeable, but to be a trial lawyer and to present a case requires a certain amount of skill and ability to think on your feet and understand issues and an ability to communicate those issues to jurors.”

    Brodsky, however, said it was impossible to divorce the concept of clashing personalities from trial strategy when defending a client charged with murder.

    “Everybody’s got their own style, everybody has their own ideas, and maybe when he tries to convince me that his way is the right way and I don’t agree with him, maybe he considers that to be a personality conflict,” Brodsky said.

    “I’m sorry he couldn’t see things my way, but there can only be one boss, one bus driver, one captain of the ship, whatever you want to call it. You can try to convince, you can try to argue, try to make people see things your way, but if you can’t agree when the captain or coach or lead counsel makes the final decision, and you really can’t go along with it, then I guess you have to step aside.”

    The two attorneys left on good terms with Peterson, Abood said. “We shook hands and wished each other the best.”

    As for Brodsky?

    “I don’t think Joel will be inviting me to any Christmas parties,” Abood said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/19/drew.peterson.lawyers/?hpt=T2

  78. It’s really ironic that an attorney who has basically no experience in trying murder cases wouldn’t listen to the ones on his team that do, espeically Lenard. Brodsky’s concern seems to be more about being the bossy bus driver in charge, and what his lack of experience considers is best for his client. Abood nailed it when he said “to be a trial lawyer and to present a case requires a certain amount of skill and ability to think on your feet and understand issues and an ability to communicate those issues to jurors.” Brodsky never seems to have his brain and mouth in sync. What a putz.

  79. “It’s just a straight-up case of an accident that later turned into an allegation of murder. There’s no DNA, no scientific evidence, bunch of expert witnesses that disagree on the cause of death, and that raises reasonable doubt right there.”

    Oh, were it that easy, heh?

    No DNA? Yeah, there was his DNA, most likely, all over that room. Could he have planned it that way if one were to assume he was the murderer?

    Bunch of experts disagree on the cause of death? Is that really unique to this death? How many times does a defense expert get on the stand and agree with the prosecution expert on scientific evidence? Don’t they get paid to disagree? Round and round we go.

  80. Wait… Isn’t Brodsky Jewish?? Maybe Brodsky was just being sarcastic saying Abood wasn’t invited to the Christmas party…. :)

  81. Okay, so now Drew has a mob attorney on his payroll. Does anybody but me think that this fact alone may be intimidating to a jury?

  82. cfs7360 :
    Okay, so now Drew has a mob attorney on his payroll. Does anybody but me think that this fact alone may be intimidating to a jury?

    Not if he persists with the pink ties and socks, no.

  83. CFS, agree that the argument of a police officer’s ex-wife succumbeing due to a household mishap, made by a flamboyant “mob attorney” will seem a bit incongruous to a jury.

  84. Love it Bucket. :D

    And yes Facs, incongruous is probably a much better choice of words than intimidating, but I see you get my drift.

  85. LOL@ you, cfs. Does Reem really drive a Bentley? (btw Lopez’ cracks about cars is such absurdly childish willy waving…what a surprise)

  86. I wonder if Lopez has been before Judge White before. The judge can make a significant difference to the conduct of the trial.Firm grip required, I should think, with both of these baboons doing their baboon-display thing.

  87. I don’t know about Judge White and Lopez Bucket, nor if Lopez has even tried cases in Will County before, but there’s probably some information out there on it somewhere. Will be interesting, to say the least.

  88. rescueapet :Actually, TAI, it was Abood that said Brodsky wouldn’t be inviting him to any Christmas parties.

    I know – I was being humorous because I don’t think Brodsky would invite anyone to a Christmas party if he is Jewish. Isn’t Brodsky Jewish?? That was on one of their press releases… “About Brodsky & Odeh: The Law Firm of Brodsky & Odeh has two (2) partners, an arabic speaking first generation Palestinian-American and a second generation Jewish-American.”

    Source: http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1186&z=4

    So I just thought it was a funny response by Abood because a Jewish person doesn’t celebrate Christmas. Obviously my sense of humor sometimes is a bit off…. :/

  89. We’ve got the Motion for Abood Law to withdraw as Drew’s counsel now. It’s embedded above in the main post for quick viewing or you can read it at our Scribd account:

    Thanks, Abood Law, for providing us with the PDF!

  90. Mr. Abood was right, it was sweet, short and to the point; a drive-through kind of motion. Sure didn’t warrant the start of the name calling that it did, IMO. But, that is just business as usual.

  91. http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=0&a=1990

    George D. Lenard Joins Drew Peterson Defense Team

    About George D. Lenard: George Lenard is licensed to practice law in Illinois, California, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan. He is a former assistant Will County State’s attorney and also is a member of the Illinois Capital Litigation Trial Bar Screening Committee, a panel responsible for investigating the qualifications of lawyers applying to represent clients in capital cases.

  92. judgin :http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=0&a=1990
    George D. Lenard Joins Drew Peterson Defense Team
    About George D. Lenard: George Lenard is licensed to practice law in Illinois, California, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan. He is a former assistant Will County State’s attorney and also is a member of the Illinois Capital Litigation Trial Bar Screening Committee, a panel responsible for investigating the qualifications of lawyers applying to represent clients in capital cases.

    LOL…Maybe it’s just me giggling that Selig posted the superior qualifications of George D. Lenard, a recognized screener and qualifier of lawyers’ qualifications

    and silly Brodsky’s grandious opinion of himself and his lawyering skills. :D

    JB is so transparent

  93. We asked Abood a little bit about the hearsay hearing decision being sealed and at what point he thought it might be made public – if ever. He replied,

    I suspect that before trial the decision, at least most of it, will be known to the general public.

    The state can appeal the decision before the trial, but the defense can not. You might take his comment to mean that he expects the State to make an appeal, which would then clue us in that some of the hearsay won’t be admitted…but we shall see…

  94. Truthfully, right now I’m more interested in whether the attorneys have been informed yet or not. My hunch is yes. However, the fact that Abood referred to the decision as “at least most of it” intrigues me as well.

  95. Hey everyone – we were able to find out that Judge White has made no ruling yet regarding the hearsay testimony. So, any speculation on anyone’s part is just that–speculation.

  96. You’re welcome. Since I think we were all under the impression the ruling has been made, there’s no point now in guessing what the outcome was, because it’s not known yet.

  97. The Shark: “It’s just a straight-up case of an accident that later turned into an allegation of murder”

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

    It’s good to see the Shark has all the evidence it was an accident.

    Did he get that by reading the transcripts of the initial investigation ?? – LOL

  98. I just got through watching the mock trial again and was enlightened to a few questions I had. It was helpful to learn the prosecution could appeal if they didn’t like the outcome of the judges decision about the hearsay. Also certain issues the jury got stumped was a good review. Getting an idea of where the shark is going with his part in the defense makes more sense now also. I recommend listening to that show again if you haven’t watched it in awhile or at all.

    ***Post modified by Adminstrator**

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/video-mock-trial-of-drew-peterson/

  99. If I were on the Jury I would be wondering why the Defendant, as an ex-Police Sergeant, would be represented by a Mob-lawyer, especially considering the “accident” took place when Drew was still a member of the Police Force.

    What is so crooked about an accident that it needs a Mob-lawyer to fix it ???

  100. I’ll be honest – if I were on a jury I would never have even known who the Shark was. I hadn’t recognized his name until they started their whole media circus again. Joel is either going to come out looking like a genius or a nut – no middle ground IMO.

  101. thinkaboutit2 :
    I’ll be honest – if I were on a jury I would never have even known who the Shark was. I hadn’t recognized his name until they started their whole media circus again. Joel is either going to come out looking like a genius or a nut – no middle ground IMO.

    Hey thinkaboutit,

    During the course of the trial a Juror will surely find out who is representing the defendant as the Shark is hardly a demure or conservative person going about his business without any self glorification or grandstanding and that is besides the flashy ties, bling and type of car he drives – LOL !

  102. Oh – I hear you there. I just don’t know that he’d admit he’s a mob lawyer or that this tidbit about him would be made known to the jurors. Sometimes those flashy, crazy lawyers somehow win over the jury. The Shark didn’t have good luck with his Calebrese case nor with the mock trial (as it ended with a hung jury and not an acquittal)… It will surely make for interesting news reporting and blogging…

  103. If you get a chance to watch/listen to Lopez’ argument for the mock trial I guarantee you’ll find yourself yelling at your monitor. Peterson paid for Kathleen’s funeral and that’s supposed to make him a nice guy? Of course he paid for it. He was hoping that would buy him the right to cremate her remains.

    I’ll love it if he brings up half the crap that he tried to argue at the mock trial. It’ll be like shooting fish in a barrel for the State.

  104. But, but, but, he could have been a draft dodger and run off to Canada. Instead, he served our Country by joining the Service. Therefore, he could not possibly be the murderer of Kathleen.

  105. Oh, and one of The Shark’s arguments if that there is not one fingerprint, not one hair of Drew’s left behind as evidence.

    Huh? He was all over that bathroom. There’s many prints, possibly DNA, that were left behind. The jury needs to be reminded that a seasoned former MP, police sergeant, used his knowledge of police investigations to make sure his prints and DNA were there as a rue. So that statement was out and out wrong. Not to mention no evidence was collected.

  106. Well you know that mock trial was extremely premature as at that time it was unknown how badly botched the initial investigation really was.

    For all intents and purposes the “accidental death” at the time was still a feasibility due to the results of a supposed investigation.

    We now know the initial investigation didn’t even exist, the accidental death finding was a total sham, so that Mock trial at the time still had the respectability of that initial investigation for the Defense to work with.

    If that Mock trial was held today with the information we have now, I find it hard to believe the Defense would even get as close as a hung Jury, so for the Shark to be boasting about that result as a basis for the real trial is just ludicrous and delusional !

Comments are closed.