Three years since Drew Peterson’s arrest for murder. What has changed?

On Monday it will be three years since Drew Peterson was arrested and charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Since that day he has resided at the Will County Adult Detention Facility in Joliet awaiting trial. So, what has changed since May 7, 2009?

Trial Status

Today: At a pre-trial hearing on May 4, 2012 Peterson’s defense team indicated that they could be ready to go to trial in 60-90 days.

Legal Representation

Today: In September, Attorney Walter Maksym was asked to “step aside” from the legal team after he was criticized by the federal appeals court for filing “unintelligible” court papers that were “riddled with errors”. As the case nears trial, it has been announced that Atty Joe Lopez will present closing arguments.
One Year ago: After months of rumors of arguing and even a physical incident, Reem Odeh left the partnership and withdrew from the Peterson defense team in September 2010. In February of 2011, Lisa Lopez, wife of Joe Lopez, assisted with the oral arguments regarding the hearsay decision before the Appellate court, which were presented by Steven Greenberg.
Two years ago: Andrew Abood and George Lenard withdrew from the case in April of 2010, citing irreconcilable differences with Joel Brodsky. John Paul Carroll had a complaint filed against him in September and appears to have left the case. Attorneys from Brodsky & Odeh, Steven A. Greenberg and Associates, Law Offices of Meczyk Goldberg, Joseph R. Lopez, P.C., and Walter P. Maksym Jr. then made up the “Seven Samurai” representing Peterson in court.
Three years ago: Brodsky & Odeh, Abood Law, and John Paul Carroll represented Drew Peterson. George D. Lenard joined the case in December of 2009.

Media Exposure

Today: The Sun-Times continues to shill for Peterson. On April 17 they featured a sympathetic story and cover photo of Drew Peterson after the state won their appeal to get more evidence admitted to his trial for murder.
One year ago: Despite the gag order prohibiting interviews, Peterson spent 2011 writing letters and statements that were provided to the media, in particular to gossip columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, Michael Sneed.
Two years ago: Drew was prohibited from giving interviews to the press.
Three years ago: Drew’s last interview was given over the phone to a WLS radio show host, Eric Mancow Muller, from jail on May 27, 2009. He also gave one other in-jail phone interview on May 15, to Matt Lauer of the Today show.

Judges

Today: On May 4, 2012, Judge Edward Burmilla was assigned to the case.
One year ago: Judge Stephen White retired in October 2010.
Two years ago: Judge Stephen White presided over the case.
Three years ago: Judge Richard Schoenstedt was first assigned to the case; then Judge Carla Alessio-Policandriotes and finally Judge Stephen White. Will County Chief Judge Gerald Kinney made the new appointments. Judge Daniel J. Rozak set Peterson’s bond.

Hearsay Evidence

Today: After the appellate court did not reconsider the barred hearsay statements due to a missed deadline, the State appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court which decided that the appellate court should consider the evidence on its merits. In April the appellate court reversed Judge White’s decision and decided that the hearsay statements were reliable and admissible in court. Peterson’s defense announced that they would not appeal and wanted instead to go to trial.
One year ago: The judge’s decision regarding the hearsay statements was leaked in July 2010, revealing that possibly fewer than five of the 15 statements being considered were to be allowed. This decision was appealed by the prosecution. During February oral arguments before the appellate justices, States Attorney Jim Glasgow was asked what he now wanted to “hang” his argument on. Glasgow said that he chose “804 (b)” or, in other words the common law doctrine that is part of the Illinois Rules of Evidence (rather than the so-called “Hearsay Law”).
Two years ago: In October 2009, Peterson’s defense lost a motion to declare the act unconstitutional. Hearsay evidence and witnesses were heard during hearings in January 2010.
Three years ago: The Hearsay Statue was passed into legislation November, 2008

Books, Plays and Movies

Today: In June 2011, the Annoyance Theater in Chicago presented a satirical play, Waiting for Drew Peterson, about two sisters obsessed with Drew Peterson. In January of 2012, the Lifetime movie network aired the movie, “Drew Peterson: Untouchable“. Based on Joe Hosey’s book, Fatal Vows, it broke all viewing records for the network. In February of this year, the Raven Theater of Chicago presented, Dating Walter Dante, a play inspired by the love life of Drew Peterson.

Peterson family

Today: Stephen Peterson is still appealing his dismissal. His next court date is scheduled for May 9.
One year ago: In August 2009, Stephen Peterson was suspended for accepting and hiding weapons for his father, shortly after the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. In February 2010, Peterson was fired from Oak Brook Police Force and appealed his dismissal.  Thomas Peterson wrote a letter and made a filing asking to be removed from the Savio family’s civil suit against Drew Peterson. This has not been granted yet. Tom Peterson was chosen as valedictorian of his graduating class.
Three years ago: Drew’s four youngest children were left in the care of their step-brother, Oak Brook Police Officer, Stephen Peterson.

Drew’s Love Life

Today: Gossip columnist Michael Sneed reports that Peterson has over 20 pen pals (male and female), at least four of whom contribute to his funds at the commissary so that he can enjoy snacks while he awaits trial.
One year ago: In August 2010 we heard that Christina Raines was engaged to a new man. In February 2011 we obtained a photo of Chrissy with her fiancé. In April 2011, an old acquaintance of Drew’s, Diana Grandel, released some letters from Drew in which he made sexual comments to her and offered Stacy’s clothing to her.
Two years ago: In January Raines posted a status update on her Facebook page stating, “I met someone who i fell in love with and very happy with. I think i just about gave up on drew with all his lies i dont even really visit him anymore.” and then, “But his kids i love dearly and still visit with them they are good kids”
Three years ago: Christina Raines was at the house that Drew and Stacy Peterson shared at the time or his arrest and was also taken into custody. She removed her belongings from his home shortly afterwards. Raines is on the list to visit Drew in jail.

Stunts

Today: Besides frequent mundane snippets in the gossip columns about Peterson’s life in prison, all has been quiet.
One year ago: While Drew’s bids for attention have been mostly curtailed due to his detention, his lawyer and PR people continued to pepper the news with updates and letters from him detailing everything from his life in jail to his opinions about the legal decisions regarding his children. Kathleen’s oldest son, Tom, was the subject of news stories and wrote his own letters to the press in support of his father.
Two years ago: Soon after Drew’s arrest he attempted to have his motorcycle auctioned off on eBay. He was asking for $50,000 and offered to apply a decal with his signature on the bike. eBay removed the auction for violation of its “murderabilia” rules.
Three years ago: At the time Drew was arrested, he was preparing to fly out to the Bunny Ranch Brothel in Reno, Nevada, to see if he would be a good fit as head of security there.

Stacy Peterson

Today: Airings of the movie, “Drew Peterson: Untouchable” brought about some new tips and offers of assistance in regards to the search for Stacy Peterson. She is still missing.
One year ago: In August 2010, based on a tip, searches for Stacy’s remains took place near Peoria. No evidence was found.
Two years ago: Still missing with no sightings or communication from her.
Three years ago: Missing. No communication from her since October 28, 2007. Searches were ongoing.

~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.~

37 thoughts on “Three years since Drew Peterson’s arrest for murder. What has changed?

  1. I know that there are some that support Peterson, and while I don’t respect the ignorance that is commonly at the root of it, I do respect their right to their own opinions.

    That said, I just had to share this comment that a young Peterson supporter left on Joel Brodsky’s Facebook wall. I certainly hope this isn’t representative of the mindset of most of his fans:

    Monica Elle I just need to say: If any one of us wants this type of so-called “justice” applied to us, then you’re all good with this being applied to him. There is *zero* evidence against this UNlikeable guy; yet, he’s been incarcerated for NO reason the last three years. To my knowledge, there is no law against being a snarky asshole. If that were the case……….. need I say more?

    He will be acquitted, but still — people should not be imprisoned simply because nobody likes ‘em. That there is BOoooshit! If every person who hated me wanted to see me behind bars or get the death penalty, I’d have been dead long ago. Oh, wait .. what? You fuckers…….

    And people will be acting all surprised and beside themselves when he walks. Who ARE these people, in favor of media justice? You suck. Really, you do. I wish a WORLD of this crap upon every person who is in favor of this witch hunt justice. And, I trust I’ll be around long enough to see you suffer it. That’s how the universe works. (I don’t wanna read any pleas for donations for your cancer, k?) You judged this man before the evidence was in; you deserve your punishment.

    Really? People who don’t agree with her opinion should be ‘punished’ with a death by cancer…because that’s how the universe works?

    And what the heck is media justice? Never seen anyone convicted under it. Whether or not the public likes a person, the law still runs independently of popular notoriety(Casey Anthony). If she doesn’t like the way the Drew Peterson is depicted in the media, I’ve got two words for her: Craig Stebic.

  2. Media justice? Umm, isn’t that what Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, used for years to enable his client, get he and his client notoriety, fame, white noise justice, and just plain ol’ attention? I am sick and tired of these kinds of pea brains making idiot comments that mirror the kind of Peterson law that Brodsky has practiced in this case. Tried it in the media. That’s why you hear some say, “there is no evidence; his Constitutional rights are being violated.” I still haven’t heard Brodsky say Peterson is going to be a millionaire after this is all over, for a myraid of reasons, as some of the armchair lawyers have been spewing, but maybe he’s just not caught up with his array of attorney wannabes. .
    What is obvious, though, is that Brodsky has been shelved and is in the back row of what will be a very watched trial, and he’ll have to use the years of media justice he created to keep his reputation going. That makes me laugh.

    Anyway, if that’s the kind of moronic attention he wants on his Facebook, that’s his problem.

  3. Joel Brodsky. Lawyer. Years of experience. Just one thing. Are you smarter than a 5th Grader? Check out the way he spells INNOCENCE.

    Joel A. Brodsky ‎Monica Elle, it’s the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Its easy to talk about the presumption of innocense and the bill of rights, but its hard for unthinking people to see those rights granted to those they dislike. Freedom isn’t easy, its hard and requires eternal vigilance by those who truly value being free.

    What??????

  4. Yep. He still can’t spell the word “innocence”. But that’s the least of what’s wrong with his reply to that moron.

    All I can think of is one of the times after Christina Raines had split from Drew. She said that one of the reasons for her leaving was that she couldn’t take the endless scheming and plotting that Drew and Joel would do. All they were concerned with at the time was keeping Drew’s face before the public and making money while doing it.

    When asked how she had come to get engaged to Peterson, Christina responded, “It was never an engagement.”

    “What was it, then?”

    “It was more like a stunt.”

    “A stunt?”

    “Yes.”

    “On whose part?”

    On Drew’s, so he could be in the media,” Christina said. “He had told me that his lawyer had wanted him to be in the media and wanted to propose to someone at a restaurant.”

  5. And does she seriously believe that Drew Peterson is in jail because people don’t “like” him? A trial judge and three appellate justices deliberated on each of the motions that were submitted asking for Peterson’s release during appeals and each and every time those motions were denied. Does she think that all of these judges ruled that way out of simple “dislike” for the man? that’s just inexcusably stupid on her part.

    Leave it to Brodsky to address that hate-filled rant as if it was some level headed argument to back up her (clueless) opinion. The woman thinks that people who don’t agree with her should die while she lives on to mock them. How does that jive with her deep seated love for basic American freedoms? Funny, Joel didn’t address that bit…

  6. Facs, about the only way to answer to that bit of info you’ve posted is: :roll:

    A reminder of the nonsense that went on day in and day out. Selling a Harley, getting engaged, trying to rent out Peterson’s house to the media as a headquarters to cover the trial, using Peterson to plug his personal liquor/food establishment on the radio, the April Fool’s joke, Win a Date with Drew, the whore house security boss job, setting up a website to get donations for Peterson’s defense…..

    It doesn’t get much uglier, does it?

  7. Isn’t it easy to agree, if one is informed and answers intelligently about this case, that this case has been tried in the media from the moment Brodsky stepped into the limelight? Those that whine about the lack of evidence are only repeating the constant bs repeated by Brodsky for the benefit of the public. I’ve had one or two people say in my presence that there is no evidence. Yet, when I’ve asked them if they know about certain testimony that’s come out, or about the whole investigation of Kathleen’s death, they have no clue. Most haven’t taken the time to get the facts straight. While that’s okay, since it’s complicated, they’ve only soaked in the soundbites they’ve heard repeated by Brodsky, with pretty much no rebuttal by the SA. Until the other day, when he said to count the statements made by the defense that are correct.

    Now, it’s time to get down to the facts, in court, the right way.

  8. The latest information that stands out for me is the motion that deals with the unethical attorney-client privilege that Atty Smith is to have violated.

    Unethical? Brodsky played Peterson like a fiddle, and Peterson basked in the glow of the attention. If ever there were unprofessional and questionable tactics flying about, this has to be a no-brainer example of that.

    Not to mention that Brodsky did an interview with a legal blog wherein he admitted to going against the usual practice of keeping a client down low and quiet. His white noise. I hope the prosection slaps it all back in their faces come trial time. You reap what you sow. If they wouldn’t have provided the bat, there’d be nothing to knock them over the heads with. We’ll see….

  9. At the pre-tiral hearings the state already played a video of clips with Drew giving contradictory statements. Wonder if that will be shown at trial?

  10. After 3 Years is Drew Peterson Checking Out of Jail?

    One way or the other, whether he’s going to prison or back home, it looks like Drew Peterson won’t mark a fourth year in the Will County jail.
    By Joseph Hosey
    Three years ago today, a small army of police descended on Drew Peterson as he drove away from his Bolingbrook home, and a small army of media was there to record it.

    Three years later, the press is back, as the attention-starved Peterson was recently in court for the first time in nearly a year and a half. Peterson may have appreciated the coverage, but unfortunately for him, the disgraced former cop was still stuck in jail waiting on his murder trial to finally start.

    The good news for Peterson, 58, is he likely won’t be spending another year in segregation in the Will County jail. His trial on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, is all but certain to begin before the year is out, ending a lengthy legal saga of appeals and arguments over the legitimacy of hearsay evidence.

    During Peterson’s latest court hearing a mere three days ago, the accused wife-killer looked noticeably older. His hair has gone whiter since the day he was arrested, his face now gaunt behind the beard he let grow out.

    But his appearance aside, Peterson is doing great in jail. At least according to one of his five attorneys, Joel Brodsky.

    “Drew is happy that he can see the light at the end of the tunnel,” said Brodsky.

    But that light might still be a good three months down the tunnel, and possibly even farther off than that, from what Peterson’s legal team was saying last week. Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, on the other hand, maintained that prosecutors were prepared to go to trial immediately.

    “Ready to go,” Glasgow said.

    So in the space of a year, Peterson’s murder case has gone from limbo to the apparent fast track. At least one relative of his slain third wife has expressed relief that Savio’s case will find closure. But the mystery surrounding the fate of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, remains no less murky this May 7 than on any May 7 in the previous four years.

    It was the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, who would be 28 if she is still alive, that motivated the state police to re-examine Savio’s March 2004 death and ultimately charge Drew Peterson with murder.

    At the time she went missing, however, the state police were quick to call Stacy Peterson the victim of a “potential homicide” and to name her much older husband the sole suspect in their investigation. That was more than four years ago, and they have yet to arrest the sole suspect, or anyone else, in connection with the Stacy Peterson case.

    Master Sgt. Tom Burek, a spokesman for the state police, said the increased media scrutiny sparked by activity in the Savio prosecution precluded him from releasing information on what is going on with the Stacy Peterson case, but he insisted that things were in fact going on.

    “The investigation is still active and continues to move forward,” Burek said.

    Burek also said unidentified human remains found in Hodgkins near the Stevenson Expressway and LaGrange Road last month are “unrelated to our investigation.”

    Whether the Stacy Peterson case ever makes it from active investigation to active prosecution is impossible to determine. But the once-accidental death of Kathleen Savio looks like it will be presented to a jury as a murder case between three and four years after her husband was jailed on charges that he killed her.

    Asked about this stretch his client has already spent behind bars, another Peterson attorney, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, said, “Well, that’s a long time for doing nothing.”

    http://shorewood-il.patch.com/articles/after-3-years-is-drew-peterson-checking-out-of-jail

  11. Burek also said unidentified human remains found in Hodgkins near the Stevenson Expressway and LaGrange Road last month are “unrelated to our investigation.”

    Oh, for crying out loud. Why not just say they are or are not Stacy Peterson? I read that and sounds as though it is not, but then again, I could just as well think that is a very puzzling way of not answering the question directly. What the heck does “unrelated to our investigation” mean? I guess that’s like calling the most likely person involved in a serious crime a person of interest, rather than the suspect.

    Geesh.

  12. I took it as not Stacy, but it does seem odd that they aren’t giving out any further info on it. I do hope that is one of the missing from the area and some poor soul that no one has missed. I think that would be sad.

  13. charmed, I agree. Just shaking my head at the answer. Instead of just saying, no, the remains are not Stacy Peterson, he says the remains are not related. Could it be that they may not even have an identification either? I suppose that’s possible, since the remains are being examined by a forensic anthropologist. Oh well.

  14. See, this is another thing:

    Master Sgt. Tom Burek, a spokesman for the state police, said the increased media scrutiny sparked by activity in the Savio prosecution precluded him from releasing information on what is going on with the Stacy Peterson case, but he insisted that things were in fact going on.

  15. I mean to say, I could take this as meaning those remains have not been identified yet, and if that’s the case, those remains are not related to the investigation of Stacy’s disappearance.

    See what I mean? He did not say those are not Stacy’s remains. It’s a bunch of gobbledegook, IMO, as far as I’m concerned.

  16. Let’s just assume and take it for sure that those remains are not Stacy.

    But, let’s consider that if they were Stacy, what would the ISP and the SA’s office do with that discovery? Can you imagine the chaos that would cause now that the Peterson/Savio trial is about to go forward? If Stacy’s remains were found now, irregardless of this recent discovery, I can’t imagine the stir that would come of it. I just wonder what the LE officials would do if she were found, I guess. In identifying the remains that were found, how long could a scientist delay the findings when trying to make his identification? Months and months?

    This is, of course, just wild speculation on my part, but I think anything is possible. Remember, who would have thought that Kathleen Savio’s violent death would turn out to be re-opened and her ex-husband charged with murder? That’s all I’m saying. :-)

  17. Oh, and one other thing. Joe Hosey was interviewed on InSession the day of Peterson’s hearing, and the subject of the remains did come up. Joe Hosey said that a source of his from the time Stacy’s been missing had mentioned looking in an area that is in close proximity to the area where these remains were found. In fact, I also have been told that someone mentioned the same thing to one of the past searchers.

    I wanted to justify why I took such an extreme interest in the discovery of those remains, and why I’m kind of flustered about Sgt. Burek’s response.

  18. I guess it could mean they don’t have an answer as to who it is yet. But the fact remains it was someone and their family has a right to know. I just seems weird to me how quiet it has been. Other bodies or search sites where bones (even animal bones) caused the press to come out in force.

  19. Yes, charmed, exactly. Remember when a bone was found on a bank of the DesPlaines River? There was speculation with that discovery. It seems that the discovery of these remains, in such a close area to the Peterson home, didn’t cause the stir of interest it did in the past. BTW, as I said before, that location is off the expressway, and there are other local missing people that could be tied to these remains.

    Those remains belong to some poor soul.

  20. Master Sgt. Tom Burek, a spokesman for the state police, said the increased media scrutiny sparked by activity in the Savio prosecution precluded him from releasing information on what is going on with the Stacy Peterson case, but he insisted that things were in fact going on.

    “The investigation is still active and continues to move forward,” Burek said.

    That’s good to hear!

  21. Could Burek mean, its not his investigation yet, because now its the anthropologist investigation?
    You know, the old chain of command.

  22. Drew Peterson doesn’t want jurors to hear about Stacy’s disappearance

    Updated: May 7, 2012 5:28PM

    The disappearance of Drew Peterson’s fourth wife will loom large if he goes to trial this year for the death of his third, but his lawyers don’t want jurors to hear anything about it.

    Peterson’s legal team is asking Will County Judge Edward Burmila to bar the mention of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance “or possible death” during his trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio, which could start in a few months.

    They also asked Burmila not to let prosecutors convict Peterson for Savio’s death “upon innuendo.”

    They made their requests in a batch of pre-trial motions filed as the former Bolingbrook police sergeant returned to the Will County courthouse for the first time in 1-1/2 years. The motions, currently sealed, underscore the argument lawyers made to reporters when the hearing ended.

    “They have no physical evidence saying Drew Peterson was there,” defense attorney Steven Greenberg said of the prosecution. “They have no witness who can put Drew Peterson there. They can’t even get anything consistent about whether it was an accident or not.

    “So they have no evidence. So all they say is, ‘Hey, they were getting divorced, she’s dead, he must have done it.’”

    And Peterson defense lawyer Joel Brodsky calls Stacy Peterson’s October 2007 disappearance “irrelevant.”

    He doesn’t think prosecutors will object to leaving it out of the Savio trial, even though it was her disappearance that first prompted investigators to go back and look at Savio’s death. The incident was originally ruled an accident after Savio was found dead in a dry bathtub.

    Savio’s body was exhumed after Stacy Peterson disappeared, and her death was ruled a homicide after an autopsy.

    Leaving out Stacy Peterson’s disappearance could get problematic in the courtroom because she purportedly made some of the disputed hearsay statements allowed into the trial last month by an Illinois appellate court. And jurors might notice when Stacy Peterson doesn’t appear in the courtroom to testify for herself.

    Peterson’s defense team has said it’s not done fighting the hearsay statements, though, either.

    Chuck Pelkie, a spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow, said motions from the Peterson defense team are under review and will be addressed “at the appropriate time.” Glasgow didn’t get into the facts of the case when he spoke to reporters Friday, but he didn’t completely ignore claims from the Peterson team that he has no evidence.

    “The defense lawyers have said how many things to you?” Glasgow said. “And how many things that they have said to you have been right? Count ‘em. We’re ready for trial.”

    Peterson’s lawyers are also challenging evidentiary hearing testimony from attorney Harry Smith, arguing he violated attorney-client privilege when he testified about conversations he had with Savio and Stacy Peterson. More motions could be filed before Peterson returns to Burmila’s courtroom May 17.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/12378785-418/drew-peterson-doesnt-want-jurors-to-hear-about-stacys-disappearance.html

  23. And Peterson defense lawyer Joel Brodsky calls Stacy Peterson’s October 2007 disappearance “irrelevant.”

    He doesn’t think prosecutors will object to leaving it out of the Savio trial, even though it was her disappearance that first prompted investigators to go back and look at Savio’s death. The incident was originally ruled an accident after Savio was found dead in a dry bathtub.

    If Brodsky is right in saying that he doesn’t think the prosecutors will object to leaving out the fact that Stacy has disappeared, then will the prosecution also object to any mention by the defense that Stacy gave Peterson an alibi that night? Remove all mention of it? Because, it no longer is relevant, since her disappearance, according to Brodsky, is irrelevant.

  24. I can totally see not mentioning that Stacy is missing during the trial for Kathleen’s murder. The case has to be argued on its own merits.

    But Stacy’s remarks about Drew killing Kathleen and how she was coached to provide him with an alibi absolutely have to be heard, IMO, and it sounds as if they are going to be.

    If the jury wonders why Stacy isn’t testifying in person, well…let them draw their own conclusions.

  25. The phone records will likely indicate that Stacy’s phone was calling Drew’s phone when he said he was home. Wives don’t usually use their cell phone to call husbands’ cell phone if they’re in the same house, but this is the Peterson household we’re talking about. AAMOF, it was one of the important items they were waiting for, that the ISP sergeant referred to in his inquest testimony, which we know never came to be. Is that one of the pieces of evidence the defense claims doesn’t exist?

  26. The defense repeatedly says there is no evidence, and it is regurgitated by some of the commenters on various boards. At this point, it doesn’t really make any difference how many times they say it, and whether or not there is any validity to that constant portrayal of the prosecution’s case. The evidence, or lack of it, isn’t for Greenberg’s or Brodsky’s supporters to judge. Not any more.

  27. The evidence is what it is. It’s never been about what the public thinks or how the case is presented in the media. Sound bites don’t win court cases any more than made-for-TV movies do. It all depends on what happens in that courtroom.

  28. “They have no physical evidence saying Drew Peterson was there,” defense attorney Steven Greenberg said of the prosecution. “They have no witness who can put Drew Peterson there. They can’t even get anything consistent about whether it was an accident or not.

    “So they have no evidence. So all they say is, ‘Hey, they were getting divorced, she’s dead, he must have done it.’”

    That’s the opening argument? That’s fine, but does it really matter to them if Peterson killed his wife? No. It matters to them whether or not the State can prove it, or give the jury grounds on which to convict him. Does a lawyer say a case is lost if there IS an eyewitness to the crime? I doubt it. He goes on a search and destroy mission to disspell the eyewitness’s account. Come on. This is all smoke and mirrors. It’s a joke.

  29. Updated: April 17, 2012 10:48AM

    The blues have hit accused wife murderer Drew Peterson, who’s spent three years in jail awaiting trial for the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Gone are the wisecracks, jovial patter and jailhouse rock.

    What a difference a few weeks makes. Glasgow was right. Listen to what the defense says, and count how many times they’re right. This would be one of them, since Peterson’s day in court was his time to shine like the Bozo that he is.

  30. You’re right, Rescue. Haven’t they spent the last three years working hard to sell us the “Poor Drew!” scenario? I guess the PR people didn’t update Drew on the current persona to adopt in court.
    Oh, that’s right..his true agenda is to self-sabotage and make sure he rubs people the wrong way because…he’s such a “joker”!
    Seriously, these last three years in jail have bought Drew the one thing he could never give himself. A measure of public sympathy, but Drew doesn’t know enough to play along.

  31. One minute he’s down in the dumps and depressed, according to one of Sneed’s latest columns, and the next he’s the class clown.

    Such a pathetic group. Or is it just Peterson and Brodsky who are stupid enough to piss all over themselves, and stink because of it?

  32. Michelle Sigona ‏ @MichelleSigona
    Just spoke w/ Drew Peterson defense lawyer Joel Brodsky, he thinks when the trial date is set it will go much more quickly than people think

    *shrug*

    Who ever said it would be long?

Comments are closed.