Did Glasgow wait too long?

Yesterday the defense team of Drew Peterson sent a motion to the appellate court alleging that prosecutors went past a 30-day deadline when they filed a motion to appeal a ruling on hearsay evidence. It should be filed sometime today.

On July 7, just one day before Peterson’s trial for murder was scheduled to begin, State’s attorney James Glasgow filed three motions and Certificates of Impairment essentially stating that they could not go forward with the prosecution of Drew Peterson without the admission of certain testimony and evidence barred by Judge Stephen White.

The three motions appealed the barring of:

  1. Testimony of Diane Panos, legal expert — Ruling on July 2.
  2. Testimony of Eric Peterson, Vicki Connolley and Anna Doman — Ruling on June 18.
  3. Certain hearsay statements — Ruling on May 18.

It’s interesting to note that although the judge initially ruled on the hearsay testimony on May 18, which would be more than thirty days before the June 30th appeal, he also “denied a motion to to reconsider its decision” on July 6th. Perhaps if the prosecution appeals the denial of the motion to reconsider…

Here are the three motions:

Many thanks to those who helped us out with these documents.

Read more at the Bolingbrook Sun
Read more at the Chicago Tribune
Rule 604. Appeals from Certain Judgments and Orders

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email 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

233 thoughts on “Did Glasgow wait too long?

  1. Thanks for getting this information.

    I wonder if the defense read these motions before filing their motion that it was too late..

    Hey – Can you please also post the links directly to the Scribd documents? It is not letting me to to full screen mode with what you have in the post above for some reason. Or it is running super slow. Thanks!

  2. Boy, I would sure hope that the prosecution knew they were within the time frame allowed to file their appeal. Unless Brodsky is absolutely sure of his legal facts by saying Glasgow is either incompetent or looking to get Judge White off the case, I guess he covered it, heh?

    Incompetent? Sleeping through your expert defense witness’s testimony during the hearsay portion of the proceedings would be called what? If not incompetent, outrageously stupid?

    Yeah, that would be it.

  3. What a great legal term: “prayer for relief”.

    “…a portion of a complaint in which the plaintiff describes the remedies that the plaintiff seeks from the court.”

  4. I’m thinking that because the hearsay appeals were really in response to a new State Supreme Court ruling, that the time limit may be excepted. Just thinking that it’s logical. They did the right thing by asking White to reconsider, too.

  5. facsmiley :
    TAI, under each embedded doc there’s a link that says “View this document on Scribd”.

    Doh! I know for next time. I tried the download and view full screen and it was taking forever.

  6. Just putting this chunk from the defense’s motion in the comments for ease of reading:

    MOTION TO DISMISS THE STATE’S APPEAL OF THE TRIAL COURT’S MAY 18, 2010 ORDER ADMITTING HEARSAY STATEMENTS BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS FILED 49 DAYS AFTER THE ORDER AND IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE

    NOW COMES the Defendant Drew Peterson, by all counsel of record, requesting that this Court dismiss the State’s appeal in this case as it relates to the Court’s May 18, 2010 order allowing for certain hearsay statements to be admitted. In support of this request, Defendant states the following:

    1.The State’s Amended Motion that is at issue was filed in 2009. It was the subject of a lengthy hearing in early 2010. Within, the State listed various statements they wanted the Court to admit at Mr. Peterson’s trial. Their prayer for relief was: “Wherefore, the People respectfully request this Court conduct a hearing pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6, including by reference the established common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing referenced in 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6(g), to allow the People to present the above statements at trial as substantive evidence.” A copy of the State’s Amended Motion is included with the exhibits as Exhibit “C”.

    2.The State did not file their Motion to Reconsider the Court’s May 18 Order until June 30, 2010, 42 days after the Order. That Motion (Exhibit “B”), although titled as a Motion to Admit (just as the other earlier filed Motions had been titled) was actually an untimely Motion to Reconsider. In paragraph 7 of their pleading, the State wrote “Given Hanson, the People request that this Court reconsider its decision to deny the People’s request to admit the hearsay statements previously not admitted under the statutory criteria, and that this Court find that the hearsay statements are admissible at trial under the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing and Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6).

    3.The State similarly requested in their prayer for relief “WHEREFORE, the People request this Court to reconsider its ruling on the statements previously excluded under the statutory criteria, and, pursuant to the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing and Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), admit those statements at trial.”

    4.The Motion to Reconsider was denied July 6…

  7. IDK – After reading these I think it is possible that the defense may win their motion. There are a couple of technicalities here that the court will have to decide upon.

    Regarding the defense’s comment that the motion was filed improperly – they sure didn’t object to it at the time it was filed. In the Casey Anthony case – some motions have been thrown out because the other side has argued it was an improper motion and was filed wrong. So if the judge allowed the new request for reconsideration as an actual motion to admit evidence then that could be considered differently IMO.

    I have faith that the appeals court will rule based on the laws at hand fairly. Now all I need is patience…

  8. I noticed one small detail. There’s no actual signatures on the defense motion,including the notary. No seal no signature.

  9. Grandam – it looks like the defense may have provided someone with their documents prior to actually filing them. They also don’t have the “Filed” stamp on them. Gotta get the stuff out to the media before you file the motion – you know! ;)

  10. I wouldn’t even attempt to guess how the ruling on these motions upon motions will go. If these two experienced legal teams are at odds about the timing and sequence of events, and the titling of motions, far be it for me to try to sort it out.

    The motion appealing the judge’s ruling on Drew’s release should also be filed today.

    I’ll need to call on some patience for that one too…

  11. One thing I’ll venture an opinion on, though. IMO, the legal briefs we’ve seen from the defense since the change in line-up certainly seem to be much better written than in the old days.

    I almost miss snickering at the Abood/Brodsky penned motions.

  12. I know what you mean. Just not so good when they try to be funny. I wonder if I should send 1 or 2 in to Private Eye lol.

  13. facsmiley :
    One thing I’ll venture an opinion on, though. IMO, the legal briefs we’ve seen from the defense since the change in line-up certainly seem to be much better written than in the old days.
    I almost miss snickering at the Abood/Brodsky penned motions.

    If you keep that up Joel is going to become a fan of Justice Cafe! :)

    It was kind of strange not finding all kinds of totally obvious errors on the motions… I have to admit it too!

  14. For those who like to delve into the legal stuff (which makes my head swim) this is the case cited by Greenberg in the defense motion:

    People v. Taylor, 50 Ill.2d 136, 277 N.E.2d 878 (1971) (What it is commonly referred to as the Taylor rule requires a party seeking review of an order appealable under Rule 604(a)(1) to appeal or file a Motion to Reconsider within thirty (30) days).

  15. There is a tiny sloppiness error in the caption, just in case you were worried they were turning to perfectionist.

  16. 1. Under People v. Taylor, 50 Ill.2d 136, 277 N.E.2d 878 (1971), the State loses its right to appeal or seek reconsideration of a suppression order unless it files a notice of appeal or a motion for reconsideration within 30 days. The Taylor rule is subject to one exceptionthe trial court may reconsider a suppression ruling, despite the passage of 30 days, if the facts change materially after the suppression order is entered and the new evidence could not have been presented at the time of the earlier motion.

    So…could the Hanson ruling be seen as a material change in the facts or would the change have to be in the actual evidence? OK…I’m stopping now. So out of my depth.

    http://www.state.il.us/Defender/digests/July08.pdf

  17. I think it could easily be interpreted that the recent supreme court ruling constitutes a change of “facts” . It doesn’t say “evidence”. It also is logical to view it that way. Is everyone supposed to stand about with their hands in their pockets pretending the ruling wasn’t made?

    I’m curious to see precisely how this goes.

  18. Without actually getting into all the legal stuff at this point, wouldn’t it suffice to say the State would have thoroughly studied all laws and by-laws for this appeal to be filed within the proper time frame ?

    It is hard to believe the State would find it important enough to file an appeal that postpones the trial and then not look at something as consequential as the time frame for lodgement.

    I take comfort from the fact someone mentioned the Defense Team should spend more time in the Legal library than acting stupid on t.v..

    The outcome of the appeal is most likely already contained in that statement (!!)

  19. Peterson defense asks again for his release
    July 14, 2010 5:48 PM

    Drew Peterson’s lawyers will take another shot at getting the retired police officer out of jail while an unexpected appeal delays his murder trial.

    In a sharply worded motion sent to the Illinois Appellate Court today, the defense team argued that Peterson is neither a threat to society nor a flight risk.

    “Notwithstanding a very public investigation, and a stated desire to bring charges, at no time did Drew ever attempt to flee from the jurisdiction of the court,” the motion states. “The prosecution has never claimed he is a flight risk. There would be no merit to any suggestion that he would have the capacity or desire to flee if freed pending this appeal.”

    A decision could come as early as next week. If released, Peterson would return to his Bolingbrook home to raise his four children, his attorneys said.

    “Legally, we’re on solid ground,” Peterson lawyer Steven Greenberg said. “But in the court of public opinion, we face an uphill battle and appellate courts don’t operate in a vacuum.”

    Peterson’s attorneys argued that prosecutors had lost faith in their case so they filed appeals – called certificates of impairment — on three separate rulings to delay the trial. It would be unfair to keep Peterson in jail if Glasgow doesn’t believe they have enough to convict at this point, the motion states.

    “Each certificate of impairment confirms that the State’s successful prosecution is presently impaired without the use of evidence that the court has disallowed,” the motion states. “The fact that the prosecution now cites three … separate areas of impairment is itself substantial evidence that they believe their prosecution lacks substance. The scope of the prosecution’s problem is, in this case, times three. Accordingly, unless the prosecution prevails in all three areas of appeal their prosecution will remain … significantly weakened.”

    Pelkie denied any connection between the judge’s retirement and the appeal’s timing. Rather, prosecutors moved to appeal in light of a June 24 Illinois Supreme Court ruling upholding the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slaying of three relatives.

    Glasgow believes the unanimous decision would make it easier for the barred statements to be admitted.

    “No one had any control of when Hanson came down,” Pelkie said.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/peterson-defense-asks-again-for-his-release.html

  20. hmmm, I don’t remember the prosecution ever saying they thought Drew was a flight risk. I don’t believe at all that the “compelling reasons” were related to that.

  21. “Legally, we’re on solid ground,” Peterson lawyer Steven Greenberg said. “But in the court of public opinion, we face an uphill battle and appellate courts don’t operate in a vacuum.”

    And who does he have to thank for that? Brodsky. Tell it like it is. His misfit of a lead attorney created the monster.

  22. …appellate courts don’t operate in a vacuum.”

    I wish Steve Greenberg could tell us how appellate courts do operate if they don’t operate in a vacuum. Is he saying that the appellate court relies on “gossip, rumor and innuendo”? If that’s the case, with the way the defense has been saturating the media with witty one-liners, sob stories, and LIES they should have no trouble springing Peterson.

    Seriously though, does Attorney Greenberg really believe that the appellate court decisions aren’t based on law, fact, and procedure? I hope he makes sure to mention that when he’s arguing in front of the Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa.

  23. Like a guy on 2 charges of premeditated murder is going to sit at home waiting for the trial to restart.

    According to Joel, Drew doesn’t mind being in prison, but I’m sure Drew doesn’t like being in prison that much

    CRAZY !!

  24. “Notwithstanding a very public investigation, and a stated desire to bring charges, at no time did Drew ever attempt to flee from the jurisdiction of the court,” the motion states. “The prosecution has never claimed he is a flight risk. There would be no merit to any suggestion that he would have the capacity or desire to flee if freed pending this appeal.”

    Here, the defense doesn’t say anything that addresses the issue of being a “threat” to society. I realize the defense argued previously that he is not, but, unless it’s mentioned in this motion at another point, I notice it’s not brought up by the defense. Of course, I would expect them to say he’s not a threat to anyone, but I would also expect the prosecution to say otherwise, and I assume they did.

    When the Appellate Court takes into consideration the release of Drew Peterson while the State appeals some of Judge White’s rulings, I wonder if they take under advisement concerns and fears of individuals who are witnesses against him? I also wonder if individuals close to the case are allowed to give statements that can be used by the State when arguing the motion before the Appellate Court. When the State asked for the high bond, which was granted and which has been upheld, would they have shown good reason to believe he is capable of using threats, and carrying them out? Under the circumstances, the untimely, mysterious, violent death of Kathleen, and the sudden, just as mysterious, disappearance, without a trace, of Stacy, it’s not a stretch to assume this man is capable of wreaking havoc on peoples’ lives. So, he’s where he needs to be.

  25. There would be no merit to any suggestion that he would have the capacity or desire to flee if freed pending this appeal.”

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

    Why would there be no merit to any suggestion Drew would have the desire to flee ?

    Drew can always change his mind after he’s out ……..

  26. Oh, face it, there is no way to guarantee that “there would be no merit to any suggestion …. Drew would have the desire to flee.” The defense is making this statement as though it is fact. Peterson was not under the charge of murder when he was enjoying the freedom he did, and Brodsky make public statements, and counseled his client, that no charges would be filed against him. Instead, Peterson and his lawyer sought out and found a guy to write a book, made numerous tv appearances, radio appearances, and was about to hop on a plane to discuss hanging out with a bunch of prostitutes in Nevada. He had no reason to flee this jurisdiction. He has quite a number of reasons to do so now. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. He burdened his married son with the guardianship of four minor children, an enormous, monumental task, and there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t continue to do so. Rather, he could have given up his hard ass attitude of keeping his four minor children away from their maternal families and given his son a chance at having a normal life.

    If we are supposed to believe a young mom would abruptly abandon her two babies for a life on the beach, we can just as readily believe this misfit would take off, never to be seen again.

  27. Drew did say, and it is on Paula and Lenny’s tapes that he was planing to run away. Can’t you remember that? He was even practising it in their presence dressing black clothes and sneaking from their house…He even wanted to run away with Paula:).
    Another person he was telling about his plans to run away was Rick Mimms. He said to him that if the police came, he would take him as a hostage.

    So IMO, at least two premises have been fulfilled: he may be a danger to the society and he may run away. I guess there might be also some persons Drew threatened to harm (let’s say Chrissy)if they step forward.

  28. I agree. I remember Drew talking about bolting, too. And suicide-by-cop. $20m represents a lot of public safety. I don’t think we have to worry.It is interesting that the lawyers don’t go near the public safety cause. Just like Joel didn’t want to discuss the reason DP had his gun card revoked. There seems to be a couple of elephants in the room.

  29. Drew’s lawyers push for release

    July 15, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s attorneys are taking another stab at springing the accused wife-killer from the county jail.

    “There’s no legitimate reason for keeping Drew in” custody, said Joel Brodsky, one of the six attorneys defending Peterson against charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Brodsky said he overnighted a motion requesting Peterson’s release to the Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa on Wednesday. The motion accuses State’s Attorney James Glasgow of filing last minute appeals to drag the case out long enough that it ends up in front of a new judge. The judge now assigned to the case, Stephen White, is expected to retire in October.

    The motion also claims Peterson is not a flight risk or a danger to the public.

    Wednesday’s motion was the second Brodsky sent to Ottawa in as many days. On Tuesday, he overnighted a motion asking the appellate court to shoot down a prosecution appeal of a ruling that limits hearsay evidence at Peterson’s murder trial.

    Earlier this year, White determined that Peterson probably killed both Savio and his next wife, Stacy Peterson, who has been missing since October 2007. This cleared the way for a number of hearsay statements to be allowed at Peterson’s murder trial. Prosecutors had asked White to admit 15 statements, but a source said the judge gave the nod to “less than a third.”

    The day before Peterson’s trial was set to start last week, Glasgow appealed White’s ruling. The state’s attorney cited a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision as the reason behind his appeal.

    Joseph “Shark” Lopez, another of the Peterson’s attorneys, said the appeal process could last as long as two years. With Peterson unable to post his $20 million bond and sitting in jail for more than 14 months already, Brodsky accused Glasgow of keeping his client locked up for no other reason than to mete out punishment to a man who should be presumed innocent.

    “I think they want to punish him,” Brodsky said. “If we really believe in the presumption of innocence, Drew should be let go.”

    Glasgow’s spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, disputed Brodsky’s version of why prosecutors want to keep Peterson behind bars.

    “Certainly not,” Pelkie said, adding, “We presented information and compelling reasons for the bond remaining the same during the pendency of this appeal.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2499232,4_1_JO15_PETERSON_S1-100715.article

  30. The motion accuses State’s Attorney James Glasgow of filing last minute appeals to drag the case out long enough that it ends up in front of a new judge. The judge now assigned to the case, Stephen White, is expected to retire in October.

    The motion also claims Peterson is not a flight risk or a danger to the public.

    Just out of curiosity, how does the defense argue this point about filing a last minute appeal as a tactic to get a new judge? I mean, the State is asking for specific rulings by the Appellate Court regarding the guts of their case. How does the defense leap to the conclusion that this is a stalling tactic, and how do they intend to prove this point and convince the Appellate Court that their argument is the right one? Seems silly to me to even bring up this nonsense, but they’re the lawyers. Guess they know what they’re doing. :-)

    Also, what about all of his guns? His son is supposed to be in possession of his extensive gun collection, yet, his son is now living in his father’s house. He and his wife have split, so I assume the reason he moved into his father’s house was because he needed a place to live. What, did he put the guns in a storage locker, or did he bring them with him? In that house? If Peterson returns to Peasant Chase Court, guess either Steve or the guns will have to go, heh?

  31. Just so we’re clear on the integrity of Brodsky, might as well start pointing it out. The murder defendant hid the gun from law enforcement, and his attorney vouched for him, just like he’s attempting to do now in saying he’s not a flight risk or a danger to anyone.

    JOLIET, Ill., July 16 (UPI) — Friends claim Illinois State Police missed a folding gun when they searched the home of ex-cop Drew Peterson three days after his wife Stacy vanished.

    A former friend of Peterson’s, Ric Mims, says Peterson showed him the gun and bragged that the officers had failed to find it, The Herald News newspaper in Joliet, Ill.,reported Wednesday.

    Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky denies the existence of any folding gun but other friends of Peterson back up Mims, the newspaper said.

    Paula Stark and Len Wawczak say Peterson signed the folding gun over to Stark the day after state police took Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification card.

    “This whole folding gun thing is ridiculous,” Brodsky says. “I know Drew has told me there’s never been anything about a folding gun.”

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/16/Missing-womans-husband-had-secret-gun/UPI-40031216224131/

  32. On the issue of revoking Peterson’s FOID card:

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s letter to the State Police seeking the revocation was sent Tuesday, he said.

    “We can’t say on what basis. We’re not going to discuss the contents of the letter, but there was a basis for his request,” Pelkie said.

    State Police Master Sgt. Luis Gutierrez declined to say anything specifically about Peterson’s case.

    When law enforcement make such a request, “it would be based upon believing that an individual was an imminent danger to either himself or to the community,” Gutierrez said. Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis, he said, and there is no set timeline for requests to be handled.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-27-peterson-belongings_N.htm

  33. Good point about Steven and Drew living with all the guns in the house, Rescue.

    I only hope the children are OK.

    I wonder if Steven still works in the same police department. As far as I know you have to live in a town (or very near the town) you serve in as a policeman. Am I right?

  34. I think that is the case, but I can also see that they may be allowing it on compassionate grounds. Whatever, we all hope it does the children good.

  35. So sick and tired of the Defense whinning and crying already. They are nothing but a bunch of losers… All Joel wants is to parade Peterson around like a trained chimp…That’s Brodsky’s meal ticket…And the other whore lawyers thought why not hop on that gravy train…But,Gee..what are they going to do when the gravy train runs out?
    Hopefully Brodsky will be disbarred…..He is the laughing stock of every lawyer I ever spoke to….

  36. http://tinyurl.com/stacygetitright

    From The Trib’s Stacy St Clair:

    “In asking the judge to keep Peterson in jail, State’s Attorney James Glasgow said Peterson is a threat to society because he killed both wives to prevent them from testifying against him.”

    Where does she get this from? Did they say such a thing? I don’t think so. It would have been reported elsewhere, I think. This is what the defense would like you to think; that the retention of DP in jail is because of a “preponderance” of evidence decision taken by Judge White. The bail has been $20m for a long time, Stacy, and Judge White didn’t set it, either.

    20 really big ones.

  37. I guess that was her own interpretation. Glasgow said it is nothing funny about killing two wives in respond to the defense’s comment of playing chicken. Obviously, that is the reason to keep Drew in jail under such a high bail, but ignoring things as threatening and stalking people, looking for a hitman, damaging the crime scene, digging holes in his friends’ gardens to hide things, hiding a gun during a search warrant, planning to escape or keep hostages, suspision of police corruption (and so on and on…) signifcantly adds to the this basic reason and really counts.

    That is not the first time Stacy St Clair has written something like that…

    BTW, as for these “20 really big ones”… ;) Stephen and his wife are trying to sell their house in North Aurora and I wonder if Stephen is ready to help his father financially. Be careful, Teresa.

  38. I hope Stephen and his wife are not really divorcing. Too many families and children are being affected by the added weight of this. I think Stephen seems like he is trying to help his little siblings and surely has his hands full so I pray that somehow things work out for him and his wife so that their young child doesn’t grow up in a broken home.

    Hearing this news really made me think about something else though. I wonder why Drew still hasn’t filed to divorce Stacy. He says she ran away from him and abandoned his children so why would he want to stay married to her? I mean he can’t say he didn’t want to look like a villain. I think his looking to divorce her would be less villainizing (is that a word) than signing on to a reality show about brothels and openly saying he was engaged to someone after moving her and her kids into the house he used to share with Stacy (oh and admitting to Lisa Bloom that he offered to let Christina take some of Stacys’s stuff he was boxing up).

    I wouldn’t think he’d want her still listed as his legal wife so she couldn’t get part of any assets he forgets to list in his will. I think he would want to get documentation of custodial rights for the kids set in stone in case she came back and tried to get custody of them.

    Now if he doesn’t divorce her and she is found deceased then he could argue someone else harmed her, she harmed herself, or there was some tragic accidnet and he could get her portion of their assets too.

    This is the stuff that I don’t think they realize make people’s guts think he is guilty. Of course the public’s guts are not always right and do not get him convicted.

  39. I was looking through the photographs of their house for sale and felt sorry seeing the child’s bedroom in particular. This is a beautiful and very big, new house and they had a very good starting point. I guess Drew damaged their family life, not only by giving his four children to Stephen’s custody.
    To be honest, I have mixed feelings about Stephen but would not develop on it any further.

  40. I don’t know if you remember TAI but we visited the whole idea of a divorce here on the blog back in January of ’09 when Drew was engaged to the Idiot Woman Child.

    We determined that in order for Drew to divorce Stacy while she was absent he would need to prove that either she “abandoned” him or was dead, which could be an extremely sticky wicket for him.

    According to Craig Stebic’s divorce attorney, who is Dion Davi:

    Under the law in Illinois, where Peterson lives, a divorce can be granted for desertion or abandonment after a spouse has been gone more than a year – but a judge must be convinced that one party willingly walked out.

    “Until Drew can show that Stacy definitely deserted him or is dead, a judge is not going to do anything,” Chicago divorce attorney Dion Davi told The ENQUIRER.

  41. I agree though, that by not divorcing Stacy it does make him look more suspect. But IIRC he did talk to an attorney at one point and I think whatever he was told made him decide not to pursue it.

  42. It does really make him suspect because since Day 1 he behaved as if she was never to come back, even to meet her children. If he had said at least that they had wanted to split up and quarreled all the time, maybe someone would have belived him that on one day she packed her bag and left. But instead, Drew was trying to demostrate that he had been a perfect husband and that they had been happy together [only from time to time (it means once a month) Stacy would ask for divorce and was driving half-naked along the streets on her bike to attract other men's attention].

    If we add those stupid letters from Peoria and Thailand that were to prove his innocence and in fact made him more suspicious, travelling to WI to went and easy-going behaviour… no wonder only few believe (or rather pretend to believe) in his innocence.

    BTW, I wonder if ISP can prove in any way that Drew had anything to do with stealing the documents from ISP car and those abovementioned letters and pictures. If so, no wonder his bail is so high and there is enough reason to keep him in jail during the appeal.

    IMO, Drew should thank the State for the appeal as I do not think his great attorney would manage to deal at once with all the court cases he faces ;)

  43. Hey Bucket, have you tried emailing her for clarification on that statement? I’ve found that reporters are usually pretty receptive to reader email.

    bucketoftea :

    http://tinyurl.com/stacygetitright

    From The Trib’s Stacy St Clair:

    “In asking the judge to keep Peterson in jail, State’s Attorney James Glasgow said Peterson is a threat to society because he killed both wives to prevent them from testifying against him.”

    Where does she get this from? Did they say such a thing? I don’t think so. It would have been reported elsewhere, I think. This is what the defense would like you to think; that the retention of DP in jail is because of a “preponderance” of evidence decision taken by Judge White. The bail has been $20m for a long time, Stacy, and Judge White didn’t set it, either.

    20 really big ones.

  44. facsmiley :
    I agree though, that by not divorcing Stacy it does make him look more suspect. But IIRC he did talk to an attorney at one point and I think whatever he was told made him decide not to pursue it.

    Now that you mention it – I do recall discussing this before and recalled the one-year deal but forgot about the part where the judge would have to believe the other person left willingly. So his argument will be he isn’t filing for divorce because he has had such bad publicity in the media that no judge will go against public opinion and grant him one. Thanks for the reminder. :)

  45. We hear that Drew was in court today on a matter relating to the prosecution’s request to reconsider the hearsay statements, but he was alone. None of his lawyers felt it important enough to attend.

    Drew even asked if Brodsky was aware of today’s proceedings, and he was told that yes, he knew about it.

    Glasgow and the Assistant State’s Atty were there.

  46. facsmiley :
    We hear that Drew was in court today on a matter relating to the prosecution’s request to reconsider the hearsay statements, but he was alone. None of his lawyers felt it important enough to attend.
    Drew even asked if Brodsky was aware of today’s proceedings, and he was told that yes, he knew about it.
    Glasgow and the Assistant State’s Atty were there.

    Wow!

  47. facsmiley :

    We hear that Drew was in court today on a matter relating to the prosecution’s request to reconsider the hearsay statements, but he was alone. None of his lawyers felt it important enough to attend.

    Drew even asked if Brodsky was aware of today’s proceedings, and he was told that yes, he knew about it.

    Glasgow and the Assistant State’s Atty were there.

    Yeah, that’s just great, no? I can understand that today’s matter wasn’t a big deal for the defense, apparently, but due to the sheer number of attorneys he does have at the receiving end of his checkbook, you’d think at least one of them would find the time to show up in court alongside the defendant to, if nothing else, advise him as to what the day’s proceedings meant. If he had to ask if Joel Brodsky knew about today’s proceedings, that doesn’t say much about the guy now, does it? After all, if the State hadn’t asked for an appeal of some of the rulings, they’d be trying this case on a daily basis.

    Go figure.

  48. facsmiley :We hear that Drew was in court today on a matter relating to the prosecution’s request to reconsider the hearsay statements, but he was alone. None of his lawyers felt it important enough to attend.
    Drew even asked if Brodsky was aware of today’s proceedings, and he was told that yes, he knew about it.
    Glasgow and the Assistant State’s Atty were there.

    What else do we expect when Joels driving the bus.

  49. I’d think Drew would be pissed off that this is the 3rd time he has been in court alone. I wonder if Drew would ever fire Brodsky. I mean I’d be pissed. Drew has to sometimes go back and think – he said I’d never get charged with Kathleen’s murder, that I’d only be in jail one day (while he took his media vacation with his wife while I sit in the pokey), that he would get my bond lowered, that none of the hearsay would be allowed at trial, that I would get out for the appeal, yada, yada, yada…

    But then again – maybe not showing is another play in the Brodsky chess gamebook…

  50. Interesting snippet…

    4. Recently, as the trial date has approached, Judge Stephen White, has issued a series of rulings limiting certain evidence the State sought to introduce. His rulings have been geared towards insuring that Drew be only tried for the murder of Kathleen Savio, and to limit any prejudice from the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. The rulings have also sought to prevent the State from introducing otherwise inadmissible and prejudicial evidence. Specifically, the judge has:

    a) Issued a ruling limiting the State’s use of hearsay evidence. The Court’s original ruling was on May 18, 2010. As more fully set forth in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (See Appellate Case No. 3:10-514), the appeal from that ruling is untimely;

    b) The Court has limited the State’s use of other crimes or bad acts evidence. Before doing so, the Court heard extensive evidence regarding each of the allegations, making a reasoned decision that the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value. Included amongst the excluded incidents were incidents that did not involve Ms. Savio, and those that were found by the Court to be extraordinarily remote (more than a decade old). The Court did not exclude all prior bad acts; and,

    c) An order prohibiting the State from having an attorney offer her opinion predicting the outcome of the divorce proceedings between Drew and Kathleen Peterson. The opinion was “It is unlikely that if this case had proceeded to trial before the Honorable Judge O’Leary that the court would have deviated from her previous pretrial recommendations based on my experience and knowledge.”

    Her opinion was supported, in part by, testimony given by Ms. Savio-Peterson’s divorce lawyer in February of 2010 at a pre-trial motion in the murder case, the attorney’s file, Bolingbrook police reports, and a deposition of Ms. Savio-Peterson that was not taken until after the pre-trial conference. The State was unable to offer the court any legal authority for having an attorney give an opinion as an expert with respect to the future outcome of a trial that never took place.

  51. A veteran, having served in the United States Army from 1974 to 1976, Drew was based in Washington D.C., and served in the Military Police unit out of Arlington, VA. Part of his duties was to provide security for dignitaries, including the President of the United States. On occasion, Mr. Peterson provided security for President Gerald Ford. Mr. Peterson was granted an Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Army in 1976.

    Hey, they left out John Travolta and the King of Siam!

  52. Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The defense, in this Motion, uses the family is all here, blah, blah, blah, nonsense, as though this is going to keep him from taking off. Peterson made a big deal about Stacy taking off, leaving two babies, and her sister, who she was very close to. Taking off with nothing more than a bikini. This guy is a murder defendant, he’s got a weapons charge against him, he’s got a wrongful death civil case to contend with, and he’s got a probate court matter with his ex-wife that needs to be straightened out. Not to mention he’s the sole suspect in his wife’s disappearance.

    I also noted that his son, Steve, supposedly lives with his wife and child outside of Bolingbrook. In Oak Brook, according to this motion. Pffft. Actually, he works in Oak Brook. But, if that is true, then DCFS better get over there fast, ah hem, because four minor children are living in Bolingbrook unsupervised by an adult. I think they would call that Home Alone 1, 2 and 3. (In fact, AFAIK, he has split from his wife, and is living in the house.)

    Maybe the defense should read here more often to get their facts straight before they file they inaccurate motions.

  53. 25 times: Objection!

    Are they kidding?
    Now I am 100% sure that they want Drew to stay in jail. LOL.

  54. Hmmm…

    Drew owns real estate, a single-family residence at 6 Pheasant Chase Court,Bolingbrook, Will County, Illinois. The residence is paid for, and is not the subject of any mortgages, other than a line of credit on which no money is owed. Drew does not own any other real estate. Drew has owned homes in Will County, Illinois for the past twenty-five (25) years.

    21.Drew is currently retired, and his only source of income is his pension from the Bolingbrook Police Department, which is approximately $6,000.00 per month. He has no substantial savings or investment accounts.

    Don’t they try to pump up Drew’s financial standing in the documents filed for the HELOC? No mention here about the multiple cars, lightweight plan, motorcycles, gun collection, etc. And why do they say he has a HELOC still if they are fighting that his line was closed illegally? (Note: Not really looking for answers – just thinking out loud.)

  55. Poor Drew with no substatial savings.
    Only $200.000 in his safe ready to pay a bail – if it had been 2 millions – a year ago.

  56. Hmmmm – they say the court shouldn’t take into consideration things that happened decades ago for things against him but point out him protecting President Ford as a sign of his good character. :)

  57. facsmiley :
    Someone got us an interesting photo today, too. Drew’s Harley still sitting in his garage.
    http://petersonstory.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/drews-bike-in-garage.jpg
    That’s kind of funny considering Joel said it was sold in May.

    Drew Peterson’s Harley-Davidson motorcycle has been sold. A private buyer purchased it for what Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky calls “a good price.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/drew-petersons-harley-sol_n_580275.html
    So, I guess that wasn’t true.

    The side mirrors are different on the one in the garage, more rectangular than the round ones on the bike he’s sitting on. Just wondered if if they are the same bike.

  58. Good point at #67, TAI.

    7. While the State certainly has the right to appeal two (2) of the rulings, one must be suspect as to whether their efforts are truly in good faith. These 11th hour filings make one wonder if the State is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to avoid going to trial before Judge White, who is retiring in October. In making this evaluation, this Court should take into account the fact that the State must have known that their Notice of Appeal with respect to the hearsay issue was late, and accordingly jurisdictionally defective, and that their odds of prevailing on the other issues are slight.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/judge-hears-arguments-on-whether-to-keep-peterson-in-jail.html

    The judge, who learned about the delay from the media, was clearly unhappy with the 11th-hour maneuver and chastised prosecutors for not appealing in May if they had concerns about the ruling. Since White issued his hearsay ruling on May 18, the state’s attorney’s office has repeatedly said that it was ready for trial.

    Is the defense kidding? Would they not have, if a ruling by the Supreme Court was issued in their favor, done the same thing if they were able? If not, they’d be fools and incompetent. Funny, they accuse the State of wanting to get a new judge, when they filed a motion to do so themselves.

    Of course, Judge White is mad about this. He’s the presiding trial judge, who is not going to see his case through to the end, for one thing. He also has made a point of showing that he was able to find a significant number of people who were potential jury members. It’s unfortunate the judge probably won’t be presiding over this trial, but I don’t think it’s a consequence the State should suffer because the judge chose to retire in October. Umm, even if the State had filed in mid-May, if an average delay of six months is accurate, that would have meant the trial wouldn’t have started until at least mid-November. If the threat of an appeal on the part of the State was there to linger, whether it was done in mid-May or mid-July, it still would have, most likely, delayed the trial beyond the judge’s retirement.

  59. cfs7360 :

    The side mirrors are different on the one in the garage, more rectangular than the round ones on the bike he’s sitting on. Just wondered if if they are the same bike.

    I think that is Stacy’s bike in the Huffington post picture. here’s another pic of Stacy’s bike.

  60. A veteran, having served in the United States Army from 1974 to 1976, Drew was based in Washington D.C., and served in the Military Police unit out of Arlington, VA. Part of his duties was to provide security for dignitaries, including the President of the United States. On occasion, Mr. Peterson provided security for President Gerald Ford.

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

    There’s also a picture on the internet of John Wayne Gacy being pally and shaking hands with Rosalynn Carter ………..

  61. That black bike isn’t Drew’s or Stacy’s.

    The one in the garage looks like the ebay bike to me, but I know bupkis about motorcycles. What difference do you see, TAI, between:

    and

    A family member could confirm it for us by the license plate maybe?

  62. facsmiley :
    I agree though, that by not divorcing Stacy it does make him look more suspect. But IIRC he did talk to an attorney at one point and I think whatever he was told made him decide not to pursue it.

    Yeah, but remember the intimate t.v. interview with Christina by his side, his declaration of love for her and their wedding plans for August (2009 ?)

    Unfortunately the interviewer never asked Drew how he was going to get a divorce from Stacy at such short notice or IF he was even going to get a divorce before marrying Christina – LOL !

  63. Don’t they try to pump up Drew’s financial standing in the documents filed for the HELOC? No mention here about the multiple cars, lightweight plan, motorcycles, gun collection, etc. And why do they say he has a HELOC still if they are fighting that his line was closed illegally? (Note: Not really looking for answers – just thinking out loud.)

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

    Yes, Drew is either rich or poor depending on who’s asking !

  64. 21.Drew is currently retired, and his only source of income is his pension from the Bolingbrook Police Department, which is approximately $6,000.00 per month. He has no substantial savings or investment accounts.

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

    The Dream Team’s crying poor to the State will help J.P. Morgan Chase Bank cement their case as they are completely contradicting Maksyms Court filings.

    They can’t claim in one Court their client is income and asset rich and in the other he’s a poor retired Police Officer.

    Just more flip flopping by the Defense !

  65. rescueapet :
    Boy, I would sure hope that the prosecution knew they were within the time frame allowed to file their appeal. Unless Brodsky is absolutely sure of his legal facts by saying Glasgow is either incompetent or looking to get Judge White off the case, I guess he covered it, heh?
    Incompetent? Sleeping through your expert defense witness’s testimony during the hearsay portion of the proceedings would be called what? If not incompetent, outrageously stupid?
    Yeah, that would be it.

    I agree……….I would certainly hope that the prosecution would know if they were within the legal deadlines for filing an appeal. I hope Brodsky and company are just taking a shot in the dark approach and hoping they can tie up the appellate court with their appeal long enough to come up with a defense.

  66. facsmiley :
    That black bike isn’t Drew’s or Stacy’s.
    The one in the garage looks like the ebay bike to me, but I know bupkis about motorcycles. What difference do you see, TAI, between:
    http://imgsrv.wbbm780.com/image/DbGraphic/201005/1568037.jpg
    and
    http://petersonstory.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/drews-bike-in-garage.jpg
    A family member could confirm it for us by the license plate maybe?

    The wheels are very, very shiny silver in the eBay shot but look less fancy on the one in the garage.

  67. Nevermind – I think the one with the round mirrors is the one that doesn’t have the passenger back guard. Here is a video of Drew driving that one and you can see that the one he is riding is not the one in the garage.

    So the one in the garage could be the ebay one with bad lighting so you can’t see the shiny rims.

  68. Peterson without his lawyers in brief hearing

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

    JOLIET — Maybe one of Drew Peterson’s six lawyers would have made it to his last court date if a TV camera had been around.

    As it was, Peterson had to fend for himself Friday during a brief appearance in front of Judge Stephen White.

    Assistant State’s Attorney Robert Lorz, the chief of the office’s criminal division, requested that White put in writing a verbal ruling on the admissibility of testimony at Peterson’s murder trial. White refused.

    During the hearing, a shackled Peterson stood before the judge and asked for assurance that his lead lawyer, Joel Brodsky, knew what was afoot.

    “Mr. Brodsky’s aware of all this?” Peterson asked, and was told that the absent attorney was indeed aware of what was going on.

    Peterson was then taken back to jail, where he is being held on $20 million bail, but not before calling out, “Thank you, gentlemen, for your clarification.”

    Peterson is charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. His trial was set to start on July 8 but State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed a last-minute appeal of a ruling White made on hearsay evidence.

    Hearsay ruling
    Earlier this year, White presided over a month-long hearing to determine what hearsay testimony would be allowed at Peterson’s trial. Prosecutors asked White to give the nod to 15 statements. A source said the judge gave the go-ahead to “less than a third.”

    Friday’s hearing also involved testimony White is keeping away from the jury’s ears. The judge previously excluded testimony from Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, his eldest son, Eric Peterson, and Savio’s sister, Anna Doman. White also limited potential testimony from Palos Heights attorney Diane Panos, who the prosecution hoped to call as an expert witness on what might have been the marital settlement resulting from Peterson and Savio’s divorce.

    Lorz wanted those rejections in writing but did not get them.

    Gun charge
    While Peterson, who has been locked up for 14 months, might remain in jail for another two years while the various appeals in his murder case are sorted out, some past legal trouble has come back to haunt him anew.

    The felony gun charge prosecutors slapped on Peterson in May 2008, then dropped six months later when a judge ordered them to surrender internal communications, is back in court Monday.

    The 3rd District Appellate Court ruled in February that Judge Richard Schoenstedt erred when he ruled that prosecutors had to turn over internal documents to Peterson’s defense team. Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor chose to dismiss the charges rather than surrender the sensitive documents.

    The appellate court’s decision cleared the way for the state’s attorney to go after Peterson on the gun charge again. Monday’s hearing is expected to involve scheduling matters.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2505648,4_1_JO17_PETERSON_S1-100717.article

  69. That darn Joe. He must be making this all up. Drew in shackles? Drew in court and no lawyers?

    Oh, wait. It must be true. He did say there were no cameras.

  70. I guess the point is that the procecution want to delay the murder trial because they want to finish the gun case first. If Drew was convicted of unlawful use of weapon it could help Kathleen’s (and further Stacy’s) case.

  71. Cyrhla, I don’t believe that’s the point of Hosey’s article. Personally, I don’t believe the prosecution is trying to delay anything. IMO, they just want to get as much testimony admitted as they possibly can. They only get one stab at this.

  72. I did not mean this is the point of the article but of the prosecution’s appeal, facs

    They can have two cakes: more testimonies allowed and the prove Drew haa a history of unlawful use of weapon. Just IMO, of course. I have a picture of those holes in the Drew and Stacy’s bedroom in my mind which I guess were found and examined by ISP…

  73. Just wondering out loud why the gun charges are suddenly back on the table again ?

    Is there a time limit for these type cases ?

    Is it a co-incidence they are back just at a time there was a chance Drew could have walked ??

  74. OMG – I just can’t believe Drew was all by himself in Court and even needed to ask if Joel was aware of this hearing (!!)

    What is Joels excuse going to be this time – did the bus break down on the way to Court – LOL !

  75. I think it’s interesting that Judge White will not oblige with a written ruling. I’m puzzling it over. I don’t see why not. Anyone?

    Interesting thought, Cyrhla! Which gun did he use to shoot through the floor into the garage? Stacy was standing just there by the fridge (see Huffington photo).

    I just thought I’d share this little circuit my brain made, and I know we didn’t expect there to be any blood from Stacy’s murder
    I was just remembering Drew showing us a place in his bedroom where there was a “juice” spill, and laughing at police that they wanted to test juice. Something I’ve learned during my Perugia-loitering is that luminol will react (though not as strongly as blood) with some fruit juices. Splashin’ a little reactive juice where you’ve cleaned up blood would be a little clever. Just sayin’…a weekend ponder…

  76. Love your bus picture, Think. Someone obviously doesn’t think much of Neasden (area of London) LOL.

  77. It goes against the grain for me to say this, but I feel sorry for DP. I don’t like that. I don’t want to feel sorry for him.

    But I do, because everybody is entitled to a good defense. I would want nothing less for myself if I were accused of a crime. Even though I am 100% sure he is guilty of killing Kitty, for the system to be fair, everybody needs decent representation.

    DP has circus clowns for attorneys. Joe Hosey nailed it, IMO, when he wrote (probably tongue in cheek) that none of the attys showed up because there were no TV cameras around.

    I think there are too many egos in play on that side of the fence and they (the defence) have all forgotten what their jobs are.

  78. I have recently started thinking about Stacy being shot as well, bucket. Why would Drew try to hide and then sell to Paula and Lenny that folding gun? I will never understand why he has never been punished for hiding this gun?

    The other issue connected with Drew’s guns is that his Colt was with Stephen at the time of search warrant and (according to Brodsky) voluntarily returned by him on the following day . Does the law allow to borrow your gun to another person, even having a FOID card?

  79. Maybe I am not right that Drew has never been charged with hiding the folding gun. That might have been a reason his FOID card was revoked.

  80. Though I understand your point of view, aussie, I do not share you feelings.
    Drew Peterson, having enough assets for finding an experienced and good lawyer, started looking for one willing to work for him pro bono. He chose the one who had had no experience (what was very easy to check) but was eager to make money on Drew’s publicity and finally became Drew’s financial manager. Drew chose him because with Brodsky he could do whatever he wanted to: lie, speak in front of the cameras,publish a book, and so on… If Brodsky was his random choice or he was given a public defender like Brodsky, I would feel sorry for him.

    BTW, I think Brodsky has done much more than any other lawyer would do. Even spelling mistakes ;).

  81. Naw, Aussie, don’t feel sorry for the murder defendant because of representation. When you have those moments of weakness, try to remember this:

    ….Peterson sent a one-page, handwritten letter to the Tribune last week — his first comments to the press since 2009 — in which he praised his attorneys and downplayed any suggestion that his defense had been hampered by the recent shake-up.

    It “turned out to be a blessing in disguise with Joel Brodsky assembling the finest team I have ever seen in my thirty-two years in law enforcement,” Peterson wrote in a rare jailhouse letter. “I feel safe with my life in their hands.”

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/key-players-in-the-drew-peterson-trial.html

  82. justanotherhen :

    Just wondering out loud why the gun charges are suddenly back on the table again ?

    Is there a time limit for these type cases ?

    Is it a co-incidence they are back just at a time there was a chance Drew could have walked ??

    I think it has to do more with the court docket scheduling than anything else. The Appellate Court decision came out in February, 2010, and the matter was reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court. It will be Judge Schoenstedt’s case, so, I assume, between the previous assumptions that Peterson and his defense team were going to be tied up with the Savio murder trial, and Judge Schoenstedt’s schedule, this was probably decided to be the time to get this scheduled to go. Otherwise, without scheduling delays, IMO, wouldn’t it have been close to impossible to have two trials going on at the same time, with different judges and different courtrooms?

  83. justanotherhen :OMG – I just can’t believe Drew was all by himself in Court and even needed to ask if Joel was aware of this hearing (!!)
    What is Joels excuse going to be this time – did the bus break down on the way to Court – LOL !

    the bus just blew past the scheduled stop.
    Do you think it was a ploy to get some sympathy from potential jurors?

  84. grandam :

    the bus just blew past the scheduled stop.
    Do you think it was a ploy to get some sympathy from potential jurors?

    IMO, probably not. It was a short hearing and from what we hear there was very few press in attendance. I think it’s possible it may have been an intentional absence for strategic reasons (relating to the legal process). If not, then it was just some sorry neglect of their client.

  85. If it was a legal strategy, then Peterson was in on it. He specifically asked if his attorney was aware of the day’s proceedings. If his attorneys intentionally did not show up, then they told him to act like a stupid fool and play along with the game.

    Wow, real smart legal-eeze going on.

    Otherwise, Peterson was expecting to see someone from his defense team in attendance. Not one bothered to fill him in on the details. Either way, loser, loser.

  86. I realize this court no-show was a very brief meeting, but does this please the Court to actually have the defendant there w/no representation? That it put Drew in the position of having to directly address someone, rather than going through his attorney doesn’t sound like proper protocol to me. Might this not come back and bite the Brodsky team? Seems like blatant judge snubbing, to me, a total lack of respect.
    Or, maybe this happens all the time. I just know I would not as a judge be pleased at having set a court date and only to have counsel ignore it.

  87. Sometimes lawyers for both sides agree beforehand that only one attorney will go before the judge for clarification on some issue that would be beneficial to both parties. Since there may be no objection from defendant’s lawyer on a ‘minor issue’, they agree that he will not show up in court. The judge is usually informed by the nonobjecting side by phone prior to Hearing.

  88. judgin :

    Sometimes lawyers for both sides agree beforehand that only one attorney will go before the judge for clarification on some issue that would be beneficial to both parties. Since there may be no objection from defendant’s lawyer on a ‘minor issue’, they agree that he will not show up in court. The judge is usually informed by the nonobjecting side by phone prior to Hearing.

    Yeah, that is all well and fine, maybe that is the way it was, but what about the murder defendant asking if Brodsky knew of the day’s proceedings? If Drew wasn’t playing along with some silly game, which only made his lawyers look like they were leaving him to fend for himself, why did he ask if his attorney was aware of the proceedings?

    Okay, so is this the way it is? Peterson knew his lawyers were aware of what the SA was returning to court for. His attorneys chose not to show up because of either a strategy, they were in agreement with the State to stay away, or they didn’t think it was important. Does that mean that Peterson’s sick sense of humor is still in gear and that’s why he asked about whether his attorneys were advised of the proceedings? That’s just ducky, then, that he’s still able to spew out wisecracks for shock value.

  89. You’re absolutely right Rescue #106. AND … is the court file noted as such, or does this move make a window for another point for Appeal?

  90. As far as I know, the State asked Judge White to reconsider his appeal on the hearsay statements. It was the same request that they made on July 6 (identical document), and Judge White also refused to sign it on that date.

    The defense may have chosen not to have representation present for a reason, but if it was a strategical move, ultimately it was pointless, since nothing changed.

    All it really does is make Drew’s representation look bad.

  91. I wonder if there will be a lot more of these ‘walk-in’ requests. I wonder how the media knew of this last unscheduled hearing.

  92. It is hard to believe they would bring Drew out of his prison cell to front the Judge if any of his lawyers were not required to be there.

    If it were just a paper shuffling exercise between legal teams, why would Drew have to sit through that on his own ?

    It doesn’t make sense, but then again not a lot makes sense in this particular case.

    Maybe it’s new age lawyering – LOL !

  93. Assistant State’s Attorney Robert Lorz, the chief of the office’s criminal division, requested that White put in writing a verbal ruling on the admissibility of testimony at Peterson’s murder trial. White refused.

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

    That is most peculiar too !

    The State only got a verbal ruling and Judge White won’t put it on paper.

    Why would a Judge let this stand as a verbal ruling only ?????

  94. Thanks, guys. Weird, but then that seems to be the name of the bus…and I’d like to know why Judge White wouldn’t put the ruling in writing, too, but…far more in this situation than in Brodsky/Peterson, do I have faith in his reasons.
    OMG-just had a sick joke sneak up on me…BP…atty/client and oil company. Well. Can. Be. Capped. LOL!

  95. Well, well, well. Lookie at this. Today’s court hearing is regarding the gun charge scheduling.

    joehosey

    Abood here, talking to Drew
    36 minutes ago via txt

  96. joehosey

    Brodsky is arguing the speedy trial term has lapsed. ASA John Connor says it still has 38 days.

    2 minutes ago via txt

    joehosey

    Brodsky tried to file a paper in which Drew fired Abood, but Judge Schoenstedt took Abood’s motion to withdrawal instead

    3 minutes ago via txt

    joehosey

    They’re trying to figure it out now. By the way, Abood told me he offered to buy Brodsky lunch.

    less than a minute ago via txt

  97. Isn’t that just like Joel to try to go after Andrew, instead of just allowing him to withdraw?

    So, Abood is now officially off the gun case as well as the murder, it would seem.

  98. LOL If it had been the other way around Joel could have sued for alienation of affection again.

  99. “A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.” – Joel Brodsky

    Hmmm – Sure doesn’t seem like he didn’t think about anyone else’s moves but his own. It really seems like they do not think about the worst-case scenarios and only plan 5-10 moves ahead of the possibilities that they want to have happen.

  100. bucketoftea :

    Well, even Charles Manson had his backing singers.

    Yeah, but the difference between a police officer hero who gets gunned down in the street trying to fend off the bad guys, and the one we’re talking about here, are light years apart, and he’s where he needs to be. Fan girl club or not.

  101. joehosey

    Brodsky asked for a 7/26 pretrial. Wanted Drew to get an I-bond on the gun charge. Judge said no and set it back at $75k.

    3 minutes ago via txt

  102. I guess Peterson is anticipating getting out of jail regarding the State’s appeal of his murder trial case, so he didn’t want to have to cough up the bond money for the gun case.

    Always thinking, that guy.

  103. Brodsky is beginning to sound to me like a dangerous possessive lover, alienating from loved ones and insisting he’s the only one with the answers. Making noises that he’s the only one who can solve a problem, and that no one but he in any position to make a single rational decision. It’s beginning to alarm me.
    The thing is that he sounds exactly like Drew.

  104. He would only have to pay $7,500 to get out on the gun charge though. I would think that would be pretty easy for him to do. I think though that if he is out on bond on that charge then he may not be able to roam as freely as if he was relieved of all of his bond obligations pending the appeal. So this would mean that he may not be able to just go on vacation or leave the state without approval of the court. Just thinking out loud…

  105. Cheryl, if Joel’s the only one who shows up for court dates, then he kind of has to call the shots.

    IMO, he’s the only defense team member who really is still invested in the case. Abood and Lenard walked, Reem appears to have done the same (even if it’s not official yet), and to me it seems that Greenberg, Lopez and Merzyck were jumping onboard close to trial for the publicity. Now that the trial is delayed…not so sure how keen they are on it. Especially since it appears that they are all working either pro bono or for a cut on any book/movie/media deals that come their way.

    So, I’m not sure if Joel wants to be ‘last lawyer standing’ but lately it looks that way.

  106. Well, yeah, TAI, I guess if he’s concerned about leaving the State, getting an I-Bond is a good thing for him. You know, so he can get back to Wisconsin, maybe, to touch special rocks with Dan Budenz and be able to see the Alien Mother Ship.

  107. Drew could easily get $10k for that HD Screaming Eagle in his garage. Oh, I forgot! It was already sold to a private buyer for a ‘good price’. ;)

  108. Isn’t it possible that Drew never changed the lawyers on the gun case yet so that is why they weren’t there? It seems like Abood was there just to withdraw from that case. I would have thought the defense was ready for that case since it had already was in start mode some time ago.

  109. Bucket – an I Bond is an individual bond where you are basically released just with your word that you will come to court and you do not have to put up any cash. I doubt that judges release people with gun charges on I bonds routinely though.

  110. rescueapet :Well, yeah, TAI, I guess if he’s concerned about leaving the State, getting an I-Bond is a good thing for him. You know, so he can get back to Wisconsin, maybe, to touch special rocks with Dan Budenz and be able to see the Alien Mother Ship.

    LOL. Well I thought Budenz has a place in Florida too and Nevada may still be on the visitation docket… Plus if he does get out you know it is very likely he will go on the media circuit tour as well.

    Did Joe Hosey say if the court is over for the day? That is the only think that I think he misses on his Twitter page. Sometimes I have checked it because you cannot always tell that the court proceeding ended for the day.

  111. Thanks, think. They call that being “released on your own recoginisance (pronounced re-COG-ni-zance) Fat chance!

    I think the carnival idea is ace! Bratsky could ride on his shoulders ’round the Wall of Death. That’s gotta be worth some maahney!

    ps creepy Hitler car. yikes.

  112. Attorney Abood stayed for the entire court proceeding, although it didn’t have much substance. He sat in the first row with Joe Hosey and groupie-woman. Abood spoke with Peterson for a time, and they seemed to have had a friendly chat.

    I think it’s fair to say, from my understanding, that Joel Brodsky tried to give a convoluted reason why the gun case was beyond the speedy trial time frame he was suggesting, but he didn’t get far with that. Judge Schoenstedt conferred with Judge White, and, afterwards, Judge Schoenstedt told Brodsky he was prepared to start the trial, there was a jury that could be seated, and the Assistant SA was willing to start. Of course, that didn’t happen. They’ll be back in court next Monday.

    BTW, at one point, Peterson was asked how he was doing, and he gave his bracelet-laced thumbs up sign. Good for him.

  113. Oh poor Andrew Abood! It seems he was embarrassed when a strange woman accosted him in the hallway and hugged him. The assistant SA wanted to know who “the woman with the white hair” was. Glad he’s been informed about her now. You can never be too careful with courtroom groupies.

  114. cyrhla :
    I have recently started thinking about Stacy being shot as well, bucket. Why would Drew try to hide and then sell to Paula and Lenny that folding gun? I will never understand why he has never been punished for hiding this gun?
    The other issue connected with Drew’s guns is that his Colt was with Stephen at the time of search warrant and (according to Brodsky) voluntarily returned by him on the following day . Does the law allow to borrow your gun to another person, even having a FOID card?

    Interesting thought! I’ve never considered the possibility of Stacy being shot because I would think there would be a lot of blood and a gunshot would have been heard (I would think) on a quiet Sunday morning in a residential neighborhood.

    I’ve always leaned towards Stacy being strangled or more likely Drew using a police choke hold on her. I know a lot of police departments have outlawed the police choke hold being used on suspects who’re combative because a number of suspects have died when too much pressure is applied, crushing their airway. So I’ve thought that would be a likely way Drew would kill Stacy.

  115. facsmiley :

    Molly, yes. But it looks as if it could be more than a hearing. Possibly jury selection, pre-trial stuff.

    I wonder, though, if they could, or would, forego a jury and ask for a bench trial. I guess that’s always a possibility.

  116. facsmiley :

    joehosey
    Brodsky asked for a 7/26 pretrial. Wanted Drew to get an I-bond on the gun charge. Judge said no and set it back at $75k.
    3 minutes ago via txt

    Maybe Judge Schoenstedt can’t be so lenient 2nd time around considering Drew is now sitting in prison awaiting trial on 2 premeditated murder charges.

  117. Besides, how can someone ask for an I-Bond with the promise to attend Court on one matter if he’s already held on 20 million dollar Bond on another (!!)

    Drew is not exactly in a position to promise anything to anybody where he is now !

  118. rescueapet :Naw, Aussie, don’t feel sorry for the murder defendant because of representation. When you have those moments of weakness, try to remember this:

    ….Peterson sent a one-page, handwritten letter to the Tribune last week — his first comments to the press since 2009 — in which he praised his attorneys and downplayed any suggestion that his defense had been hampered by the recent shake-up.
    It “turned out to be a blessing in disguise with Joel Brodsky assembling the finest team I have ever seen in my thirty-two years in law enforcement,” Peterson wrote in a rare jailhouse letter. “I feel safe with my life in their hands.”

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/key-players-in-the-drew-peterson-trial.html

    You are absolutely right, you too Cyrhla.

    I forgot about that little handwritten note when I logged in the other night.

    I have seen some cases where a convicted killer has appealed on the grounds of ineffective counsel at the original trial. Haha, DP won’t be able to pull that one when he tries to appeal his conviction (the one I am confident will come)!

  119. Aussie @151. Not in my wildest dreams would I have thought that Peterson would actually send a handwritten letter to a Chicago newspaper to profess his jubilation with his assembled defense team.

    What in the world, or who in the world, would possess him to do such a half-ass thing? Even if the possibility were remote that he would raise an appeal issue that he felt his defense was incompetent or wasn’t acting in his best interests, why not leave that avenue open? Makes you shake your head in disbelief, no?

  120. Does DP really have a death wish? IMO, his behavior and the actions taken by his defense team leaves everyone scratching their heads…

    and I wonder if he is putting on a show, going thru the motions of defending himself, ‘the victim’, knowing what the outcome is going to be anyway… like a self-fullfilled prophecy.

    but “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? ‘The Shadow’ knows!

    http://www.mysterynet.com/shadow/

  121. I think it’s possible that JB engineered that note; persuading DP it was necessary for some bogus reason? Did he tell him it would be good game psychology to announce that all was tickety-boo?

  122. Bucket @155. IDK, but something triggered the letter. I mean, it’s not like Peterson would have decided to pick up a pen, put it to paper and become a cheerleader for his defense team, just for the hell of it. Do we care? Nope. So, who’s he talking to? Anyone in particular on his defense team?

  123. BTW, since Judge Schoenstedt tossed the original gun charge out, that, obviously, ended the bond situation, and the bond Peterson posted was returned and he was free to come and go as he pleased.

    After the Appellate Court reversed the judge and remanded the case, the bond issue came back into play. That would have been the reason for Brodsky asking that the judge allow an I-Bond, which we now know he denied, setting the bond at $75,000.00.

    If the two thinking heads thought enough to request an I-Bond, they must really be geared up for Peterson walking out of jail while the murder trial appeal is going on. Free to come and go as he pleases and do as he pleases, without the constraints of a bond.

  124. Judge: Clock hasn’t run out on Peterson’s gun charge

    July 20, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s murder trial is on hold, but the felony gun charge the cops arrested him on more than two years ago looks like it’s finally on the fast track.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt tried to kick-start the trial into action Monday morning, but Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, was not prepared.

    Brodsky argued Monday that a speedy trial term had lapsed and that Peterson should skate on the charges.

    Peterson was arrested in May 2008 for allegedly possessing an assault rifle with an illegally short barrel. Brodsky claimed Peterson was allowed to carry the gun since he was a Bolingbrook police sergeant.

    Peterson bailed himself out of jail the same day he was arrested and had a right to go to trial within 160 days, not including time off the clock for delays his attorneys created.

    But in November 2008, Schoenstedt dropped the charges when prosecutors refused to surrender internal communications to Peterson’s lawyers. The appellate court determined Schoenstedt goofed and sent the case back last week.

    In the meantime, Peterson returned to jail in May 2009 for allegedly killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. His murder trial was set to start a week and a half ago, but a last minute appeal by State’s Attorney James Glasgow put this case in limbo.

    The way Brodsky had the days counted on the gun case deadline, the prosecution blew its chance to nail Peterson by two days. The judge didn’t buy it, but to be on the safe side, offered to start the trial immediately. After a lengthy, private conference with Peterson, Brodsky backed off.

    “If I had two more weeks, I could be ready to go to trial,” Brodsky said. “I couldn’t get ready in one day. That wouldn’t be fair to Drew.”

    Familiar face returns
    While Brodsky was the only one of Peterson’s six current attorneys present in court Monday, a lawyer from the former cop’s past turned up and stuck around all morning. Andrew Abood, who abandoned Peterson’s murder case, showed up to quit the gun case too.

    While Abood was filing a motion to withdraw, Brodsky filed a motion signed by Peterson to fire him. Schoenstedt accepted Abood’s paper instead of Brodsky’s.

    Asked if he was subpoenaed to testify at Peterson’s murder trial, Abood said, “I heard I might be on the list,” and added, “I don’t think I’ll be called, I’ll tell you that.”

    Abood, who jumped ship on the murder case after clashing with Brodsky, sat next to Peterson in the jury box prior to Monday’s hearing. The two men spoke for more than 20 minutes, smiling and laughing throughout.

    “Drew and I are fine. Drew’s great,” Abood said of their conversation. He also said he offered to buy Brodsky lunch.

    “I can buy my own lunch,” Brodsky said.

    Constitutional issue?
    Of the gun charge being back in court, Brodsky accused Glasgow of trampling on the constitutional rights of not only his client, but everyone in Will County.

    “Will County residents don’t have the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to bear arms,” he said, pointing out that Peterson must remain in jail during what might prove a lengthy appeal process, that Glasgow is trying to get hearsay evidence allowed at Peterson’s murder trial, and that Peterson was charged with possessing an assault rifle he supposedly was permitted to carry as a Bolingbrook cop.

    “Does Mr. Glasgow think Will County residents have any constitutional rights?” Brodsky asked, making Peterson a symbolic victim of the state’s attorney’s tyranny.

    “Drew just happens to be the poster boy, so to speak,” Brodsky said. “If (the Constitution) doesn’t apply to him, it doesn’t apply to anybody. Everybody in Will County should be concerned.”

    Glasgow’s spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, took exception to Brodsky’s criticism.

    “These are comments that are not befitting of the profession that he’s in,” Pelkie said.

    “Joel should argue these points in court,” he said. “When he does argue these points in court, he’s often wrong.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxvalleysun/news/2512944,4_1_JO20_PETERSON_S1-100720.article

  125. :D
    “Joel should argue these points in court,” he said. “When he does argue these points in court, he’s often wrong.”

  126. Tee hee. So glad someone within the law profession told it like it is. Thank you Charles! That’s comforting to think it isn’t all going to hell, we’re not all loopy for being outraged. There is very good reason to protect the reputation of the law and the courts. JB just isn’t up to it. Not enough discretion. Not enough perspective or involvement of his higher self.

    I just thought a bit more about the I Love My Lawyers note. Didn’t the lawyers leaving Drew also make some kind of complaint against Brodsky?

  127. bucketoftea :

    I just thought a bit more about the I Love My Lawyers note. Didn’t the lawyers leaving Drew also make some kind of complaint against Brodsky?

    My first though after I read about this letter was that Brodsky was protecting himself against disbarring in case Drew would sue him in future(if convicted).

    BTW, I love Aboot for inviting Brodsky to lunch! LOL

  128. noway406 :“Joel should argue these points in court,” he said. “When he does argue these points in court, he’s often wrong.”

    … and when he co-counsel is arguing these points for his client he is repeatedly nodding off. :)

  129. Thumbs up for mr. Abood, offering Brodsky an olive branch. Brodsky’s response [if he didn't want to go to lunch] should have just been, no thank you. Way to go Mr. Abood.

  130. Be sure to listen to after Brodsky hangs up to hear Amy and Big John say they have asked for the prosecution to come on the show and they feel like people think they are standing up for Drew. The prosecution is NOT going to go on all of the shows that Brodsky has been on stating their case. Could you imagine what the defense team would argue if the prosecution did do that?? I am still surprised that they don’t just put a gag order on this case if you have a defense team going out there on show after show saying things that make the prosecution feel they must respond too and then have the defense say that their client cannot get a fair trial due to publicity. It is crazy.

  131. grandam :

    Thumbs up for mr. Abood, offering Brodsky an olive branch. Brodsky’s response [if he didn't want to go to lunch] should have just been, no thank you. Way to go Mr. Abood.

    See how a show of civility and professionalism can change the perception of a situation? I mean, many of us are not fans of any of the Peterson defense, especially in light of the snarky way they’ve conducted themselves, but who looks like the nincompoop AGAIN in this touchy situation??? Hmmmm?

    Oh, and the pissing contest Brodsky waged of trying to get the judge to accept firing vs. withdrawal of Abood was more of the same kind of stupid.

    But, this is merely for our entertainment, I guess, since Peterson saw fit to take time out to write the Tribune and tell us all how warm and fuzzy he feels with his life in his current defense team’s hands. Oh, good for him.

  132. TAI @ #167. You hit the nail on the head about the gag order. I think many, many people who follow the case wonder how the defense is able to continue talking and berating as they do, without recourse.

    Maybe there will be consequences for certain of the defense team when this case is eventually concluded, IDK. But, I also have to say that it’s easy to lose faith in the wisdom of a judge’s order when that order is not followed. I mean, who of those that follow this case don’t realize there’s a gag order? Yet, we hear the defense constantly make insensitive, sarcastic and idiotic remarks during soundbites, and wonder why they’re getting away with it. Including the victims’ families.

  133. *smacks forehead with palm* I’ve only just taken on board that the lawyer-love letter was sent to the Trib. (thanks rescue) Ahhh.

    I don’t understand how the judge stands for it. I honestly don’t believe a lot of what came out of Brodsky’s mouth would be tolerated here. The dignity of the court and its officers is taken pretty seriously. Not to say there aren’t our fair share of jerks, they just wouldn’t dare to make themselves look so totally disrespectful.

  134. I could see Brodsky having the papers on hand to say that Drew fired Abood in case Abood didn’t show up – but trying to get his paper’s filed over Abood’s withdrawal papers just makes him look like a lawyer scorned…

  135. I just notice the docket date for gun charge. Is this the new date?
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16''/SHOTGUN 1 Status

  136. I think that is the old docket date and they pushed it up so as not to infringe on Drew’s right to a speedy trial.

  137. grandam :

    I just notice the docket date for gun charge. Is this the new date?
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 1 Status

    I think there is also a status hearing on 8/23 to see how the State’s appeal is progressing in the Savio matter.

  138. grandam :I just notice the docket date for gun charge. Is this the new date?PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 2 StatusPETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 1 Status

    Gramam, the answer to your question is upthread at #143.

    @ #143 – “Judge Schoenstedt conferred with Judge White, and, afterwards, Judge Schoenstedt told Brodsky he was prepared to start the trial, there was a jury that could be seated, and the Assistant SA was willing to start. Of course, that didn’t happen. They’ll be back in court next Monday.”

    Next Monday will be 7/26.

  139. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/peterson-case-details-of-ruling-on-hearsay-sources-come-to-light.html

    Peterson case: Details of ruling on hearsay sources come to light
    July 20, 2010 8:12 PM

    The judge overseeing the Drew Peterson case has ruled the former Bolingbrook police sergeant likely murdered his third and fourth wives, but found that only five of the 13 hearsay sources prosecutors hoped to admit at trial could be used, according to a copy of the sealed ruling obtained by the Tribune.

    Peterson’s murder trial is on hold while prosecutors appeal Judge Stephen White’s ruling.

    The Tribune previously reported on parts of White’s four-page ruling, in which he finds it more likely than not that Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. The ruling was made under a lesser legal standard than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would face.

    Peterson has been charged only with Savio’s 2004 drowning death, but he is the sole suspect in Stacy Peterson’s 2007 disappearance. He has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

    Statements White ruled could be heard include:

    Savio’s statement to her sister Anna Doman that “Drew said he’s going to kill me and I would not make it to the divorce settlement, I will never get his pension or my children.”

    Two of Savio’s statements in 2003 to Mary Parks, a classmate at Joliet Junior College, that Peterson “could kill her and no one would know” and that Peterson entered Savio’s home, pinned her down by her throat and asked, “Why don’t you just die?”

    Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.

    White also ruled that Savio’s 2002 letter of complaint to an assistant state’s attorney and a handwritten statement given Bolingbrook police regarding a 2002 run-in with Peterson can be admitted.

    Defense attorneys have argued that the prosecution’s July 7 appeal should be dismissed because it was filed more than a month after White’s May 18 hearsay ruling. Prosecutors this week attempted to hedge their position, asking for permission to file a late appeal while arguing that the clock actually began June 30 when White upheld his decision.

    — Steve Schmadeke

  140. So who provided a copy of the sealed ruling to the Tribune?? I would think that the court would want to find out who did it and hold them in contempt or something.

  141. Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.

    The first thing that came to my mind about this is the Tribune’s front page exclusive, where it was reported that Schori could testify to the false alibi Stacy gave for Drew.

    Oops, that was wrong. Who was the defense butthead that gave them that false information?

  142. Interestingly though this article says they were provided a copy of the actual ruling. This article also says that statements Stacy made to Schori would be allowed. But – once again – who is the source? What is their angle? What do they get out of it? So many reports have been wrong out there as we have seen in this and other cases in the news.

  143. facsmiley :

    So much for sealed rulings…and gag orders, etc.

    Yeah, well, what’s the difference? Judge White doesn’t appear to be doing anything about it, when it’s happened in the past, so what’s the consequence of doing it now?

    Defense attorneys have argued that the prosecution’s July 7 appeal should be dismissed because it was filed more than a month after White’s May 18 hearsay ruling. Prosecutors this week attempted to hedge their position, asking for permission to file a late appeal while arguing that the clock actually began June 30 when White upheld his decision.

    I assumed this was the reason for the State’s belief that they were within the time frame of filing an appeal of the hearsay rulings, basing it on their request of Judge White to reconsider. Hopefully, we’ll have that motion soon to post here.

  144. thinkaboutit2 :

    So who provided a copy of the sealed ruling to the Tribune?? I would think that the court would want to find out who did it and hold them in contempt or something.

    Gee, could it be the same attorney that did an early morning news show and lied by saying no one came forward after Kathleen Savio’s death with their concerns?

  145. thinkaboutit2 :

    Interestingly though this article says they were provided a copy of the actual ruling. This article also says that statements Stacy made to Schori would be allowed. But – once again – who is the source? What is their angle? What do they get out of it? So many reports have been wrong out there as we have seen in this and other cases in the news.

    TAI! The Tribune previously reported that Schori was going to be allowed to testify about Stacy’s false alibi for Drew. We’ve been over this. The Daily Herald said that he was NOT going to be allowed to say that. We brought this out that there were conflicting stories by two different newspapers, based, obviously, on information they were given by the defense. Now that the Tribune claims to have the actual ruling, their prior story turns out to be inaccurate.

    The information is only as good as the defense guy who gives it to them, and we’ve seen what they can do with the truth.

  146. This is the inaccurate information reported by the Tribune previously by “whoever” gave it to them:

    Jury to hear Stacy Peterson’s false alibi confession
    Testimony about Drew Peterson’s alleged threat to kill Kathleen Savio won’t be allowed
    June 25, 2010|By Stacy St. Clair and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters

    On the eve of Drew Peterson’s much-anticipated murder trial, a judge has ruled that a suburban pastor can testify about a counseling session in which Stacy Peterson alleged that her husband coaxed her into providing a false alibi for the weekend of his third wife’s death, the Tribune has learned.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-25/news/ct-met-peterson-20100625_1_pastor-neil-schori-hearsay-statements-drew-peterson

  147. White’s hearsay decision is sealed from public inspection until after the trial starts. The Daily Herald learned, however, that White barred the majority of testimony prosecutors presented earlier this year during a lengthy reliability hearing.

    For example, White barred Stacy’s pastor, Neil Schori, from testifying that she admitted providing Drew Peterson with a false alibi the weekend Savio died. Schori still will be allowed to take the stand, but his testimony will be limited

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=392343

  148. Rescue – I know we have been over this before. I have pointed out differences between articles and do not rely on any of them as truth.

    That is why I said – “But – once again who is the source?” Because sources have been wrong or have a reason to say something the way they want to say them.

    This new Tribune article still states “Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.” So the Tribune is still saying that Schori can testify about Stacy giving a false alibi. Now they may very well be wrong about that.

    But I think that is still possibly been allowed (at least the one where she spoke to him in the coffee shop) because the prosecution did not have Pastor Schori on their appeal list. Who knows though – until the actual trial comes around all of this will not be verified by the judge.

    We agree 100% that the information is only as good as the source. I don’t take articles as fact. Too many times the source has proven to be wrong.

    I was thinking though – couldn’t the source of this information be the defendant himself? I mean he has written another letter to the Tribune and seems to give them scoops. :/

  149. rescueapet :

    White’s hearsay decision is sealed from public inspection until after the trial starts. The Daily Herald learned, however, that White barred the majority of testimony prosecutors presented earlier this year during a lengthy reliability hearing.For example, White barred Stacy’s pastor, Neil Schori, from testifying that she admitted providing Drew Peterson with a false alibi the weekend Savio died. Schori still will be allowed to take the stand, but his testimony will be limited

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=392343

    Now I see what you are referring to but I have to ask – how do we know the Daily Herald is right and the Tribune is wrong. It is supposed to be a sealed ruling so how does any reporter even know.

  150. TAI:

    This new Tribune article still states “Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.” So the Tribune is still saying that Schori can testify about Stacy giving a false alibi. Now they may very well be wrong about that.

    No, that is not saying he can testify about Stacy giving a false alibi. It states that she saw him washing clothes, while he was dressed in black.

    Unless I’m missing something here?

  151. Those of us who have been following the case closely are savvy enough to see the discrepancies in reporting, based on the defense sources.

    But, imagine this. Greenberg goes on Fox News in the morning and blatantly lies about no one coming forward after Kathleen’s death with their concerns. We KNOW that is a lie, but people who catch soundbites here and there and don’t necessarily know the story that well hear that bull and digest it. Isn’t that the point? What does the defense man care if what he says isn’t accurate. He got his point across the way he wanted to.

    So, when you read the stories that come out about leaked rulings, etc., I take it with a grain of salt. It could be right, it might be wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the planets are in alignment with the stars. :-)

  152. rescueapet :TAI:

    This new Tribune article still states “Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.” So the Tribune is still saying that Schori can testify about Stacy giving a false alibi. Now they may very well be wrong about that.

    No, that is not saying he can testify about Stacy giving a false alibi. It states that she saw him washing clothes, while he was dressed in black.Unless I’m missing something here?

    I think we are saying the same thing but calling it something different. I guess I just consider that admitting she gave him a false alibi because how can she say she saw him return home with this bag of clothes if in her alibi she said he was with her all weekend long except for going to get donuts or something.

  153. rescueapet :Those of us who have been following the case closely are savvy enough to see the discrepancies in reporting, based on the defense sources.But, imagine this. Greenberg goes on Fox News in the morning and blatantly lies about no one coming forward after Kathleen’s death with their concerns. We KNOW that is a lie, but people who catch soundbites here and there and don’t necessarily know the story that well hear that bull and digest it. Isn’t that the point? What does the defense man care if what he says isn’t accurate. He got his point across the way he wanted to.So, when you read the stories that come out about leaked rulings, etc., I take it with a grain of salt. It could be right, it might be wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the planets are in alignment with the stars.

    Yup – agree 100%. The defense team will do all they can to get out information that potential jurors can hear that would benefit their client. The prosecution will not come forward and discuss the case because they are not allowed to. So the defense just tries to rattle the prosecution and get out things they want to get out.

    (Now I don’t know how the heck letting out anything on the hearsay ruling fall into that category but sometimes defense attorneys see strategies that make absolutely no sense to me. Like Hey – Let’s go on the radio and suggest a “Win a Date With Drew” contest, sell the lawyer’s wife’s chicken wings as payment for interviews, hook our client up to a polygraph machine with a Canadian author, and do shows about how much in love our client is with his new young girlfriend…)

  154. Hey all.

    I’m pretty sure these were two different statements and considered separately by the judge.

    1. Stacy’s statement to her pastor that she saw Drew dressed in black, putting clothes in the washer. (this we hear has been ruled admissible)

    2. Stacy’s statement to her pastor that she gave a false alibi to the ISP under questioning. (this we hear has been ruled inadmissible but reports varied from paper to paper)

    As a narrative it may not make much sense, but I’m not sure that matters in court.

  155. thinkaboutit2 :

    I give up and will just wait for the real information to come out on this one. :)

    Naw, it’s easy, really. Just don’t take as truth anything that uses the defense as a source, because it can’t be relied on.

  156. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :
    I give up and will just wait for the real information to come out on this one.

    Naw, it’s easy, really. Just don’t take as truth anything that uses the defense as a source, because it can’t be relied on.

    LOL – The problem is that reporters get it wrong lots of time on their own.

  157. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2517664,4_1_JO21_PETERSON_S1-100721.article

    State’s attorney pushes hearsay appeal

    July 21, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Even if an appeal of a judge’s ruling on hearsay evidence in the Drew Peterson case was filed too late, the state’s attorney still wants to push it through.

    Top prosecutor James Glasgow asked the third appellate court to double the 30-day deadline he had to appeal Judge Stephen White’s ruling on 15 hearsay statements the state’s attorney is trying to get admitted at Peterson’s murder trial.

    White made his decision on May 18, and a source said the judge cleared the way for “less than a third” of the statements prosecutors wanted in.

    On June 30, prosecutors asked White to reconsider his ruling. Six days later, White refused to do so.

    Then, on July 7 — one day before the start of Peterson’s trial — Glasgow appealed White’s ruling.

    The half dozen lawyers representing Peterson have claimed Glasgow’s appeal was 19 days past the 30-day deadline. One of these lawyers, Joel Brodsky, said the motion asking for an extension is proof of this.

    “This is basically an admission they filed late,” Brodsky said. “They’re back to trying a case where they admitted .. they have insufficient evidence to convict Drew.”

    Peterson is charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is also suspected of killing his missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    Besides ripping Glasgow for supposedly blowing the deadline on his appeal, Brodsky also lashed out at the state’s attorney’s spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, who earlier this week criticized Brodsky’s legal prowess.

    “I think Mr. Pelkie’s got it backwards, unless he thinks he’s working for me,” Brodsky said. “They’re the ones that lose when they go to court. That’s why they’re appealing.”

    Pelkie defended Glasgow’s recently filed late notice of appeal, saying, “It’s common. It’s a straightforward practice. It’s something we’ve said all along.”

    He explained that Glasgow stands by his original appeal and maintains that it is timely, but that if the appellate court disagrees, he has grounds for the 30-day extension.

    “This is an example, once again, of Mr. Brodsky misrepresenting, either deliberately or through ignorance, the nature of a legal file,” Pelkie said.

    Brodsky had a differing opinion.

    “Baloney,” he said. “They understand that it’s late.”

  158. Looks like the “source” also provided the document to the Daily Herald (or are they affiliated with the Tribune?)

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=395356

    Sealed document: Judge thinks Peterson likely committed murder
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald StaffContact

    It’s more likely than not that Drew Peterson killed two of his wives, but the majority of hearsay statements prosecutors argue proves his guilt are not reliable enough for a jury to hear at trial, a Will County judge ruled in a sealed opinion.

    On Tuesday, the Daily Herald obtained a full copy of Judge Stephen White’s May 18 four-page written ruling barring eight of the 13 hearsay statements. Prosecutors appealed White’s decision, which delayed the July 8 start of jury selection.

    The statements are crucial for the prosecution, which lacks forensics, a confession or concrete medical evidence implicating the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant in the 2004 death of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Authorities initially called the 40-year-old Savio’s bathtub drowning an accident, but they exhumed her body and ruled otherwise after suspicions grew in light of the October 2007 disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, who still hasn’t been found.

    White presided over a lengthy hearsay hearing last winter. A new state law requires such a hearing to determine reliability, though hearsay exceptions long have been allowed at trial under common law and in federal cases.

    The Daily Herald previously reported that much of the barred hearsay statements deal with Stacy. For example, White barred her pastor, Neil Schori, from testifying that she admitted providing Drew Peterson with a false alibi the weekend Savio died. Schori still will be allowed, though, to tell of a conversation the pastor said he had with Stacy in which she described how Peterson returned home in the early morning hours, the weekend Savio died, dressed in black with a bag containing woman’s clothing.

    The judge also barred Stacy’s similar confession to friend Scott Rossetto. White did, however, allow Savio’s Nov. 14, 2002, letter to an assistant Will County state’s attorney outlining prior allegations against Peterson of physical abuse.

    White also allowed the following other statements:

    • Savio to sister Anna Doman: “Drew said he’s going to kill me and I would not make it to the divorce settlement, I will never get his pension or my children.”

    • Savio to Mary Susan Parks, a Joliet Junior College friend, of Peterson: “He could kill her and no one would know,” and that Peterson broke into her home in late fall 2003, grabbed Savio by her throat and said, “Why don’t you just die?”

    White ruled prosecutors proved Peterson killed both women “by a preponderance of the evidence,” as the hearsay law requires, which is a lesser legal standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, White said, nearly all statements attributed to Stacy Peterson “do not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability as to the time, contents and circumstances of the statements.”

    Drew Peterson, 56, denies wrongdoing in both cases. He remains held on a $20 million bond, though his lawyers are seeking his release during the appeals process.

    White sealed his opinion to protect against tainting Peterson’s jury, but he admonished 240 potential jurors in the pool last August to avoid all Peterson media coverage until the trial. Those folks still are on standby.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow argues Peterson faced financial devastation from the former couple’s upcoming settlement as he tried to begin a new life with his bride, Stacy, about 30 years his junior, and their new baby.

    Glasgow appealed White’s May 18 ruling, but the defense team argues prosecutors missed the 30-day deadline. Even if the hourglass ran out, Glasgow argued the appeal should be heard because a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision “markedly changed the law.”

    Glasgow cited a June 24 Illinois Supreme Court decision upholding the DuPage County death penalty conviction of Eric Hanson for the 2005 slayings of four relatives that the prosecutor said shows he is entitled to present additional hearsay evidence.

    In its unanimous opinion, the state high court found long-existing common law does not require them to weigh a hearsay statement’s reliability for its admissibility.

    “The people will argue that a material change in the law is akin to a material change in facts,” Glasgow wrote in this week’s appellate motion, “and the people will submit that (Hanson) marked a material change in the law.”

  159. rescueapet :

    Actually, there was another important element of hearsay, but the judge didn’t allow it in the hearsay proceedings:

    Schori in interviews has claimed Stacy Peterson confided to him before she vanished that Drew had admitted killing Savio.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2011844,drew-peterson-hearsay-savio-012610.article

    I remember that. One of the original 15 statements. This one was barred early on and another one as well due to Schori being Drew’s counselor as well as Stacy’s.

  160. I have to admit it’s nice to see Pelkie taking a few public shots at the defense. I know they’ve tried to take the high road from the beginning but with the defense riding roughshod over the gag order, they almost have to speak out.

  161. Good Morning

    So I see we have a further report from Steve ‘n’ Stacy (yeah, I see only Steve’s name on the byline)It’s obvious The Daily Brodsky may have been the ones to buy JB lunch in the end ;).

  162. I’m wondering if anyone could have a civil claim against the paper/the leaker for interfering with due process and contempt. Interfering with the victim’s rights.

    It reminds me of my thoughts while watching the World Cup Final. Here comes the Dutch team knocking illegal lumps out of the Spanish players including a karate-style kick to the chest. I was thinking “what a great example for kids…it’s OK to break the rules so long as you can get away with it.” It worries me that this is the message. Pick up and apply the tacit rulebook to make your way to success.

  163. Also from The Trib’s Principles:

    “The Tribune is committed to Midwestern values and concerns, and brings that sensibility to the public debate.”

    Did you all in the Midwest know that your values and concerns would be served by giving the finger to Judge White?

  164. “This is an example, once again, of Mr. Brodsky misrepresenting, either deliberately or through ignorance, the nature of a legal file,” Pelkie said.

    This would make a nice banner :)

  165. JB is using the old legal theory…

    Lies become fact thru repetition.

    Everyone is not as stoopid as DP and his lawyers. They project their own ignorance and have proven that their words must never be trusted.

    They forgot there are those of us who have a sensitive B.S. Detector and Google. :)

  166. My BS Detector (LOL, judgin) tells me the leak of the judge’s sealed decision is nor coinicidental. It looks exactly the same as publishing the documents stolen from an ISP car [though it could have been a job of a secret fly with a camera in the courtroom). I am trying to figure out what Brodsky was to gain by that. Is Brodsky asking himself for disbarring or a fine?

  167. http://www.cltv.com/news/wgntv-peterson-case-july21,0,2141063.story

    Judge: Drew Peterson most likely murdered 3rd and 4th wives
    Judge’s decision has lesser legal standard than the one needed to convict him

    C. Hayes, Chicago Tribune WGNTV NEWS
    July 21, 2010

    CHICAGO – The judge overseeing the Drew Peterson case has ruled the former Bolingbrook police sergeant likely murdered his third and fourth wives, according to a copy of the sealed ruling obtained by the Tribune.

    Judge Stephen White says in a four-page ruling it’s more likely than not that Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. The ruling was made under a lesser legal standard than the one jurors will have to use in the trial.

    Peterson has been charged with Savio’s death, and he is the prime suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. He has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

    A copy of the sealed ruling also says only five of the prosecution’s 13 “hearsay” sources can be used.

    Statements White ruled could be heard include:

    Savio’s statement to her sister Anna Doman that “Drew said he’s going to kill me and I would not make it to the divorce settlement, I will never get his pension or my children.”

    Two of Savio’s statements in 2003 to Mary Parks, a classmate at Joliet Junior College, that Peterson “could kill her and no one would know” and that Peterson entered Savio’s home, pinned her down by her throat and asked, “Why don’t you just die?”

    Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.

    White also ruled that Savio’s 2002 letter of complaint to an assistant state’s attorney and a handwritten statement given Bolingbrook police regarding a 2002 run-in with Peterson can be admitted.

    Peterson’s murder trial is on hold while prosecutors appeal Judge Stephen White’s ruling.

    Defense attorneys have argued that the prosecution’s July 7 appeal should be dismissed because it was filed more than a month after White’s May 18 hearsay ruling. Prosecutors this week attempted to hedge their position, asking for permission to file a late appeal while arguing that the clock actually began June 30 when White upheld his decision.

  168. Don’t you think the defense would be screaming about the leak, if they weren’t behind info being released?

  169. grandam :
    Don’t you think the defense would be screaming about the leak, if they weren’t behind info being released?

    Just give them some time to blame the procecutors for the leak.;)

  170. grandam :

    Don’t you think the defense would be screaming about the leak, if they weren’t behind info being released?

    Heh – they’ll be screaming that the murder defendant can’t get a fair jury, or a fair trial in Will County.

    Why wouldn’t they? It’s typical of the way they defend Drew Peterson. In the court of public opinion.

  171. So this is all five, right? (numbers added by me):

    Statements White ruled could be heard include:

    (1) Savio’s statement to her sister Anna Doman that “Drew said he’s going to kill me and I would not make it to the divorce settlement, I will never get his pension or my children.”

    (2 and 3) Two of Savio’s statements in 2003 to Mary Parks, a classmate at Joliet Junior College, that Peterson “could kill her and no one would know” and that Peterson entered Savio’s home, pinned her down by her throat and asked, “Why don’t you just die?”

    (4) Stacy Peterson’s statement to her pastor, Neil Schori, that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing, shortly before Savio’s body was found.

    (5) White also ruled that Savio’s 2002 letter of complaint to an assistant state’s attorney and a handwritten statement given Bolingbrook police regarding a 2002 run-in with Peterson can be admitted.

  172. Peterson case: Details of ruling on hearsay sources come to light

    Even this headline is annoying. It’s not as if they “details” were public record that had been lost until some dedicated researcher discovered them and brought the out into the light of day. This is a sealed document that was deliberately handed to the media in violation of the Judge’s wishes.

    Of course the leak could be anyone. A file clerk at Will County could have been the culprit. But, it’s logical to wonder who such a leak might benefit and turn our gaze in that direction.

  173. Case files are not kept under lock and key. Judges Schoenstedt and White have been reviewing those sealed files.

    There are several places that a copy of the sealed, now unsealed, documents can be found.

    Those sealed files were included in the Appellate Court filings for BOTH Appeals … the Appeal of the State Prosecutor AND the Appeal by JB for his client.

    The court clerk has those files and could have remained unsealed. The media and the public can see those files and even make copies in the court clerks office.

    Who knows where both the Tribune and the other news media were able to obtain a copy.

  174. Judgin @ #215. That’s true, but the gist of what has been reported since last night has been smelling up the joint for a couple of weeks now. Since the new guys joined the team, and one in particular, there’s been even more white noise than Brodsky could drum up on his own. I get this picture in my mind of one guy pushing the other guy out of the way to speak, if you know what I mean?

    Still, wherever the unsealed ruling came from, it’s no secret the defense has been making television appearances. Greenberg on Fox. Lopez and Brodsky were on WGN together. I thought I understood it that Judge White mentioned he wasn’t advised of those interviews beforehand.

    I just have lost all faith in how this circus has been run, “gag” order and all. It sucks.

  175. Good point, Judgin. I was thinking that the ‘sealed’ hearsay decision would have to come out during the appellate hearing, since those proceedings are public, but it never occurred to me that the appellate filings might be public as well.

    However, in the defense’s appeal sent to Ottowa I thought I saw where they mentioned that the exhibits were being sent separately because of the seal.

  176. Here it is:

    Because this Motion to Dismiss concerns a Sealed Order the exhibits are being filed separately.

    That note led me to believe that the exhibits were filed under seal.

  177. Since this news of the judge’s finding that Peterson most likely killed Kathleen and Stacy, it’s been on at least two local tv stations, one even calling it a bombshell.

    It’s not a bombshell, really, since it doesn’t take a leap to figure out he felt that way when the defense triggered a motion to have him removed from the case. They wouldn’t want him removed because they didn’t like the way he wore his hair. Duh.

    If it weren’t for the fact that Peterson has been knocked down a few pegs by being locked up all these months, he’d be, once again, just about getting away with yet another young woman’s unfortunate fate.

  178. Of course, any discussion of ‘sealed’ vs. unsealed’ is moot at this point. Dribs and drabs of Judge White’s hearsay decisions were being leaked since June. This just rips the cover completely off.

  179. It’s making me sick. No matter who leaked it, the Trib editor was not obliged to publish a sealed ruling. It’s a joke, isn’t it? We’re not even talking about political nefariousness (are we? lol) being exposed to review, it’s a criminal case of the most disgusting kind in which the most offended victims are the perp’s own children, his own wives. He’s nothing special, neither is Joel or those other whats-their-names.

    Sick.

  180. …just like the networks weren’t obliged to entertain and broadcast Messers Peterson and Brodsky, I suppose.

  181. I’ve been looking into it today Bucket, and I can’t find a thing in any journalistic code that would preclude a news outlet from reporting the contents of a leaked confidential document.

    I’ve seen reminders to journalists to carefully check the authenticity of any leaked documents but nothing saying it’s a no-no.

    As much as we may not like that things meant to be secret get reported or how the information got to the media, personally I have to back up the freedom of the press. I lay any blame with the person who leaked it — not with the outlets that report it. They are going to report whatever they can verify and I’m standing by their right to do it.

  182. I agree, bucket. If it was the National Enquirer, it would be easier to digest. This is the way they sell, unfortunatelly.
    However, I would rather blame legal procedures. IMO, the decision should stay sealed to the public and the procecution/defense until after the jury has been selected (and then appealed, if necessary).

  183. I didn’t think there would be a journalists’ guideline about that. Lots of things are confidential, but under seal by court order in a murder case is a bit stronger than that?.

  184. Thanks TAI………….this following paragraph jumped out at me. Is Glasgow saying that he did miss the 30-day deadline, but is reasoning that it’s the State Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hanson case that is at issue?

    It sounds to me that Brodsky is basing his concept of missing the 30-day deadline on Judge White’s May 18th ruling, while the state is basing their appeal solely on the ruling of the State Supreme Court, which came after the 30-day deadline of Judge White’s ruling, and Judge White’s decision of July 6th (having read the State Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hanson case) not to allow more hearsay evidence. The state learned Judge White’s decision on additional hearsay evidence two days before the trial was to start, and filed their appeal the next day. So, the state’s only avenue was to appeal Judge White’s ruling the state and defense received on July 6th. Paragraph I’m referencing below.

    “Glasgow appealed White’s May 18 ruling, but the defense team argues prosecutors missed the 30-day deadline. Even if the hourglass ran out, Glasgow argued the appeal should be heard because a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision “markedly changed the law.”

  185. Molly – Glasgow’s office feels the timeline is tied-in with the judge’s reconsideration ruling, not the original one. In the event the Appellate Court rules otherwise, then they want the appeal to be considered on the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

  186. Finally!!!! The State’s Attorney’s Office commented (at the end of this story) about the absurdity of the “leak.”

    Ruling details Peterson hearsay evidence
    Updated at 05:11 PM today
    Stacey Baca

    July 21, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — A written ruling by Judge Stephen White apparently details the judge’s reasons for disallowing hearsay evidence in the Drew Peterson murder trial.

    Peterson’s trial, for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, was to begin earlier this month but was delayed while the prosecution appealed.

    The judge sealed his ruling on hearsay evidence back in May. However, ABC7’s news partner, the Daily Herald, obtained a copy of that written ruling, and it details specific quotes about what Peterson’s third and fourth wives told friends, family members and a church pastor.

    Drew Peterson remained in custody Wednesday while prosecutors appealed a judge’s ruling about what hearsay evidence can be used in his murder trial. That hearsay evidence includes comments that Kathleen Savio, whom Peterson is accused of killing, told others.

    In the ruling, the judge barred eight of the 13 hearsay statements, but he did allow comments Savio allegedly told her sister and a college friend. In one of the statements, Savio allegedly told her sister, “Drew said he’s going to kill me, and I would not make it to the divorce settlement. I will never get his pension or my children.”

    “I’m happy with the statements he wants to allow, but you need everything you can get in a murder trial in order to convict a person,” said Nick Savio, Kathleen Savio’s brother.

    Nick Savio says he is pleased Judge White will allow five hearsay statements in the trial. But, he says, he strongly supports prosecutors who are trying to get all 13 statements into the courtroom.

    “Let’s hear everything. Why only five statements? Let’s hear everything, let’s bring it all out. This is the one shot you get to get him, and let’s just bring out everything,” Nick Savio said.

    According to the judge’s sealed ruling, Savio also told a college friend that Peterson “could kill her and no one would know.” It goes on to say that in 2003, Peterson grabbed Savio and said, “Why don’t you just die?”

    “Those are incredibly powerful comments because they are words brought out from the dead, someone who is not there, who you feel sympathy for, and all of a sudden, you hear their words and it has resonance, it has meaning to the jurors,” said legal expert Thomas Glasgow.

    The judge also ruled that part of a conversation between Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson’s fourth wife who is missing, and her pastor would be allowed in the trial.

    A spokesman for the Will County State’s Attorney would not confirm any information about the leaked ruling but did say the office is “outraged” and considering all its legal options.

    ABC7 Chicago also reached out to Peterson’s attorney, but he did not return phone calls Wednesday.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7566968

  187. ABC7 Chicago also reached out to Peterson’s attorney, but he did not return phone calls Wednesday.

    What!? The defense has nothing to say about this leak? Well, I’ll be gobsmacked.

  188. facsmiley :

    ABC7 Chicago also reached out to Peterson’s attorney, but he did not return phone calls Wednesday.

    What!? The defense has nothing to say about this leak? Well, I’ll be gobsmacked.

    They did not leave any message how much they pay for the return call.

  189. facsmiley :

    ABC7 Chicago also reached out to Peterson’s attorney, but he did not return phone calls Wednesday.

    What!? The defense has nothing to say about this leak? Well, I’ll be gobsmacked.

    No! What’ya think of that? Hmmm? For once, they’re at a loss for words.

    I’m going to find an email addy for Judge White and send him a question as to whether this will actually be looked into, and what the consequences are. It makes me sick. Who knows, maybe he’ll respond.

Comments are closed.