Documents: Tom Peterson’s release of Drew Peterson from civil suit, Amended complaint

We know that people following the Peterson cases do so for a number of reasons.  Some are personally involved, others are interested in the cases of missing persons, some are crusaders against intimate partner violence. Some like to follow the cases out of an interest in law and justice.  If you are trying to keep up with the legal side of the Peterson saga, we’ve got a couple of new documents for you:

Release in Full of All Claims (from Thomas Peterson in the wrongful death suit filed on his behalf  by Anna M. Doman and Henry J. Savio, executors of Kathleen Savio’s estate)

Fourth Amended Complaint at Law (In the Wrongful Death, Illinois Survival Act,  Assault and Battery and Breach of Fiduciary claims against Drew Peterson and James B Carroll)

Letter from Tom Peterson to Michael Sneed

~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.~

About these ads

56 thoughts on “Documents: Tom Peterson’s release of Drew Peterson from civil suit, Amended complaint

  1. I’m a little perplexed by the reference to an adult Tom as “Tommy” in the release. It seems that the only time I’ve ever seen or heard him referred to as Tommy is when Brodsky spews. Yes, it seems this whole release and letter is suspiciously Brodsky creating ideas in his mind and following through on them. I also am surprised that he thinks when he speaks, people jump. Why would he expect his opposing counsel to fold up merely because Brodsky said to? Would he?

  2. I think it’s interesting that Tom chose not to get his own lawyer and instead, appears to have let Joel Brodsky handle this who thing.

    Since Drew Peterson is Joel’s client, isn’t that a little hinky?

  3. Of course it is very Hinky Facs.
    Typical bully tactics by Drew and his lawyer. Drew bullies everyone in his life. He bullied his wives, friends, what would make his kids any different?

  4. Oak Brook Postpones Hearing on Whether to Fire Drew Peterson’s Son
    Updated: Tuesday, 01 Feb 2011, 5:57 PM CST
    Published : Tuesday, 01 Feb 2011, 5:57 PM CST

    Oak Brook, Ill. – The Oak Brook Board of Fire and Police Commissioners has again canceled a scheduled hearing over the possible firing of Police Officer Stephen Peterson.

    This time, the weather is to blame.

    The board was set to meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday, but sent out notice Tuesday afternoon that the meeting was canceled. No rescheduled date was included in the announcement…

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew-stephen-peterson-oak-brook-police-officer-hearing-fired-stacy-20110201

  5. So Joel wants the lawsuit by Henry Savio and Susan Doman dismissed because Thomas is now 18 years of age and declares with 1000% moral certainty his father is innocent of killing his mother.

    Considering the Savio lawsuit has been initiated on behalf of Kathleens Estate and the two minor children Thomas and Kris, Joel Brodsky is arguing a moot point as at the time of Kathleens death and division of the Estate, both boys were minors, so that changes nothing as far as the lawsuit is concerned.

    It just makes Joel look silly trying to bluff another lawyer as if they wouldn’t know the law !

  6. 04P 000232 – PROBATE Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased
    JUNE FORD CHESTER 4 14 11 900 RVJC IN THE MATTER OF THE 04P 000232 PROB
    PETERSON DREW 4 14 11 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status
    PETERSON KRISTOPHER 4 14 11 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status
    PETERSON THOMAS D 4 14 11 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status

  7. So the snake lives on. Infecting the law offices, leather skin, red eyes and an appetite for juicy mousies.Hissing “MMVJ” as she snakes along spreading lies and cover ups.Beware of her in her many travels.

  8. Allrighty…we’re playing the waiting game re: Stephen and he’s still making money despite being suspended..Know people are snowbound up there and just hope that it all clears away without too much flooding…What am I saying…any flooding is too much…I hope the board meets soon and that we have a definitive answer…this suspense is killing me…

  9. Thank Again for all the post. I do not want to write to steph watts or others.. My life as been very not fun fun
    SEE THIS! wELL To the defence no one would evey think this would happened to kitty, She was smart and to you defence bring it on Would you see this ! no you would not My sister tells her story,,so brodsky tell the lyes and really make some sence

  10. I don’t understand why the stephen peterson case has been postponed yet again. I will check back in a few years – maybe they will have reached a decision by then.

  11. Non-locals may not know that Northern Illinois had a very severe winter storm between Tuesday/Wednesday. Pretty much all government agencies were shut shut down, as well as schools which are presently still closed.

    Stephen Peterson’s latest hearing was postponed for that reason.

    You can read more about the storm here:

    http://www.cltv.com/

  12. Joel Brodsky is saying that he expects to be posting Facebook updates during breaks in the upcoming Drew Peterson trial, which may start in April.

    So Joel is no longer content to merely court the media–now he thinks he can be his own reporter?

    I would suggest that he just put his efforts towards being a better lawyer…

  13. Well, will Greenberg tell Brodsky to STFU again? Twice? The SA heard it and the onlookers heard it. Not very professional, is it? Now he’s going to tweet? To whom? His wife? The reporters will Tweet the hearing as it happens, not Brodsky gibberish as he sees it.

    What a goof.

  14. ha ha ha rescue, I almost posted the same about his wife being the only one watching/reading ahahahah It will give him something to do while he sits in his car with the windows rolled up eating his sandwiches. I wonder if Father Christmas brought him a nice thermos.

  15. Hmm. Brodsky is predicting that the trial of DP will be happening in April. That’s odd that he would predict that. I would assume that either side would then appeal to the IL Supreme Court once the Appellate Court rules. That is, unless Brodsky’s side does not intend to appeal if they lose. Then, yes, I would imagine his prediction is close to correct, if the Appellate Court rules within a couple of months of this hearing on Feb. 16.

    If the hearsay was admitted in the Hanson case before this one, I would assume the hearsay will be admissible in the Savio/Peterson trial. So, are we to also assume the Brodsky boys will not appeal further, or is it they’re confident they will win in spite of what occurred in the Hanson case?

    This is how it was reported in July, 2010 as to how the Supreme Court ruled in the Hanson case:

    Glasgow will ask the Third District Appellate Court to consider White’s ruling in light of a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in People v. Hanson, a death-penalty case from DuPage County. According to the press release, in the Hanson case the Illinois Supreme Court discussed issues with regard to applying the hearsay exception and stated that “we now expressly recognize that the doctrine (of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing) serves both as an exception to the hearsay rule and to extinguish confrontation clause claims.”

    http://poll.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2475202,Peterson-trial-delay_JO070710.article

  16. …The oral arguments over hearsay are expected to be brief. The court’s allowing each side 15 minutes to make their case, then the State gets the final word, with a 5 minute rebuttal at the end

    The court also decided to allow a Chicago TV news camera to be in the courtroom to cover the arguments, which is unprecedented in Illinois, and may be due to the fact that its a subject that has such widespread interest.

    It could take several months before a decision is made on the appeal.

    http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/04/drew-peterson-hearing-the-hearsay/

  17. I think it looks like an obvious conflict of interest, but what the lawyers make of it, I don’t know.

    I’ve always said that I think DP’s arrangement with JB has conflict of interest because Joel’s pay-off was publicity/fame (and get “fees” paid by TV appearances , licensing …making mawney) so JB’s best interests are served. It doesn’t matter a jot whether he can get DP off or not.

    As things are, even a good lawyer can’t get him acquitted, so JB’s even off that hook from a batting avaerage point of view.

  18. Off-topic but an interesting read (especially if you participate in or run a blog like this one) about the Internet craziness that has risen up around the Haleigh Cummings case, which I’m sure some of our readers also follow.

    While Drew Peterson, his lawyer and publicist courted the public and generated the media frenzy surrounding the cases of Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio, in the case of missing Haleigh Cummings, there’s almost an entire subculture of blog, forum, email and twitter followers who are generating the craziness all on their own.

    One blogger and theorist even self-published a book in which he tries to show that little Haleigh is alive and has been kept in hiding and passed around from place to place. Oh Internet…

    http://levipageshow.blogspot.com/2011/01/www-wild-wild-west.html

  19. Excerpt – Levi on Crime

    I’ve been blogging and hosting a online radio show on true crime stories for about 3 years now. I’ve met a lot of nice people who track these cases and run nice respectable blogs and forums on the cases: Such as Tricia Griffith who runs the true crime forum Websleuths, Art Harris who writes great investigative reports over on The Bald Truth, and many of the people I interact with on websleuths, twitter or facebook.

    The above run their websites and forums with integrity and they delete the trolls who come in and spew their ignorant conspiracy theories or try to cause trouble. As do I… If anyone comes to my blog, facebook or twitter and attempts to slander innocent people, defend criminals, or spin crazy theories, I’ll delete their posts, ban them and then block them. These creepy losers do not need to be encouraged or given a venue to spew their hate, lies and garbage.

  20. *Shakes head* I’ve seen the Amanda Knox is Innocent cavalcade of the barking mad. At least three nutty blogger books. They make up tons of excuses and “explanations” that have nothing to do with the facts. Imposters with an irrelevant degree claiming to be forensic or DNA experts. If only all that misdirected passion could be harnessed for good…

  21. So true, Bucket. I think I remember way back when, on this very blog, when a group of people were doggedly trying to to track down Pastor Neil Schori and contact him by phone. I thought it was a very misguided overstepping of the bounds but did note here that their determination and willingness to take action was admirable, and just think what could be done if a group like that had chosen to turn their energies towards searching for the missing or any other community-oriented endeavor instead of harassing a witness.

    For some people, they are only interested if they can immerse themselves (sometimes way too aggressively) into some alternate-reality, or conspiracy-based theory about the events. Too bad the facts aren’t good enough!

  22. From Joel Brodsky’s FB (edit by me for the sake of truthiness. Meow.)

    Steven Greenberg and I will be preparing for the appellate court oral arguments this weekend. Because it will be televised I bet the appellate court justices will be ready with some pointed questions for both the state and the defense. I think it’s great that the public will get to see how the appellate system works my bald head on camera yet again

    Look, the appellate court arguments are always recorded and posted on the Illinois Court web site. The fact that cameras will be there is hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist–unless you’re Joel Brodsky. It’s Joel’s opinion that the questions will be more ‘pointed’ due to the fact that cameras will be present. Because…normally the justices pose vague and meandering questions? What a stupid thing to say and what a transparent shill to try to generate interest in the footage of the media-hungry Brodsky.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/Media/Appellate/3rd_District.asp

  23. I’m very dismayed that Tom Peterson has removed himself from the wrongful death lawsuit of Kathleen, and also swears to his father’s innocence in his mother’s death.

    It’s understandable that Tom would do whatever his father and JB told him was the right thing to do, as he’s been brainwashed to believe what his father has told him about both his mother, Kathleen, and his step-mother, Stacy. It’s sad to think that none of these children have the opportunity to know the truth about what happened to their mothers. I think that at some point in the future, Tom will regret the decisions he’s making now.

    I keep checking for news on the supreme court’s ruling on the hearsay evidence. It’s been more than 7 months since the state’s motion to the state supreme court to allow more hearsay evidence in the trial of Drew Peterson for the death of Kathleen Savio. Has there been any updates on this?

  24. Mollly, the oral arguments about the hearsay will be made before the third appellate court next week, February 16th:

    http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/hearsay-appeal-arguments-to-be-heard-february-16/

    http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/04/drew-peterson-hearing-the-hearsay/

    The oral arguments over hearsay are expected to be brief. The court’s allowing each side 15 minutes to make their case, then the State gets the final word, with a 5 minute rebuttal at the end.

    It could be up to 3 months after that for the court to make its decision.

  25. Oh, Brodsky Schmodsky. Who is he kidding with his nonsense? For one thing, this is about what this televised proceeding will do for his continued face time. This is all about how much exposure his puss can get in order to get his own legal commentary gig somewhere. It has nothing to do with working his butt off to get his client a favorable outcome. He’s used Peterson since the day he met him and he will continue to do so until he’s finished with him.

    If memory serves me correctly, Brodsky isn’t arguing this appeal, Greenberg is. The same guy that told Brodsky to STFU the last time they were together in court. So if Brodsky is preparing for anything this weekend, it sure isn’t honing his legal abilities in front of the Appellate justices. What he is doing is using this pre-hearing time to promote his favorite subject. Himself.

  26. Thanks Facsmiley! I’m anxiously awaiting the court’s decision, as I know everyone here is. If the decision is made within 3 months of the oral arguments, then we could be looking for the trial to be set for sometime this coming summer.

    After reading the document that Tom Peterson signed, I didn’t think it would be as simple as him signing off on the lawsuit. He and his brother, Kristopher, are beneficiaries of that lawsuit, but aren’t parties to that lawsuit. It would seem to me that it would be up to one of the two parties that brought the lawsuit to make any changes or amendments to the lawsuit.

  27. I really hope this appeal result will firm up the hearsay rules. Victims’ voices must be heard, and the likes of JB prevented from trying to reinvent that wheel every time.

    BTW Greenberg looks just like someone who used to bully me bad in the 6th grade. I try not to hold it against him. lol I look forward to hearing the arguments.

  28. Estee, I’m not sure if video of the whole proceeding is going to be made available or when. Brodsky refers to the arguments being ‘televised’ but I don’t know if that means there will be news teams there shooting and we will then see snippets of coverage later on the news (as we’ve seen from the Stephen Peterson hearings) or if the entire proceeding will be recorded and made available (like on truTV or something)

    We’ll try to find out more before the 16th.

  29. Chrissy Raines is moving on with her life because she can. She doesn’t have a nut job of a stalker tracking her every move. For that, she is lucky, and she should move on with her life. She’s young and she should look forward. Not facing a 55+ washed up has been.

  30. According to Joel’s FB, the defense is now requesting 45 minutes of argument time each for prosecution and defense at the court date next Wednesday.

    In other words, more camera time! His motives are so transparent.

  31. It’s interesting the Joel likes to use pictures of Drew Peterson to accompany his facebook posts about the case. In his last update he does so again. I am wondering though…why did he crop the photo to only show Drew’s face?

    Here’s the original pic – Drew Peterson with his arms around the shoulders of Joel’s two daughters:

    I don’t care how high-profile the case is. I would keep my kids far, far away from it.

  32. According to Joel’s FB, the defense is now requesting 45 minutes of argument time each for both prosecution and defense at the court date next Wednesday.

    In other words, more camera time! His motives are so transparent.

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

    So Joel now wants 45 minutes of argument time ?

    A dangerous request on his part as he will never be able to stay awake that long.

    His attention span doesn’t stretch that far; he will never get through 45 minutes without having to fidget, scratch himself, pick his nose or say something completely bizarre or unrelated to anything to do with the case.

  33. Hard for me to look at that picture of Chrissy Raines and not think that Stacy might have been out having a good time with a young man her own age now, if only the authorities had not totally botched things up back in 2004.

    Raines should consider herself lucky. She got away.

  34. NOTE: You may have noticed a change in the default avatars. Instead of the abstract design, they look like little creatures. It’s no refection on you! Just livening things up a little.

    Remember, if you want to use your own personal avatar, just sign in with your WordPress account and upload a picture.

    Thanks

  35. Considering that the arguments for and against the hearsay decision aren’t supposed to refer directly to any of the statements under seal, I imagine it would be a challenge to fill another 30 minutes of argument time with anything pertinent to the case.

    What does the defense want to use all that extra time to talk about?

Comments are closed.