
Stephen Peterson
Ahead of a pending court date in Circuit Court for a judicial review of the decision that cost him his job, Drew Peterson’s son filed a multimillion-dollar federal lawsuit accusing Oak Brook’s former police chief of conspiring with another official to boot him from the Oak Brook police force.
Stephen Peterson was fired from the force in February of 2011, after his testimony at Grand Jury revealed that he had voluntarily accepted guns from his father in order to avoid their being confiscated during the investigation of the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.
Both Stephen and his father Drew Peterson have claimed that the officer was unfairly targeted because of his relationship to the murder defendant, although the complaint states that Sheahan’s animosity towards Peterson began even before Stacy’s disappearance. No explanation is offered for the alleged dislike.
You can read the new complaint below:
If you need a refresher, here are the charges against Stephen Peterson that ultimately led to his firing:
~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.~
A quick search turned up this snippet from Geraldo’s show on Fox:
Rivera’s statement may have been inaccurate, as Mucha later said he was never in a bar called Leo’s that night, but neither does Rivera mention anything about the purpose of the meeting. Are there further mentions of this in the transcript?
OK, that’s just weird. I thought that reading the actual complaint would explain this part a little better. it’s just weirder.
The five counts are:
Count I
Violation of Due Process under the 14th Amendment
Count II
Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relations
Count III
Breach of Contract
Count IV
Defamation and Slander
Count V
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
States Attorney’s office was not interviewing Police Officer Peterson, they were interviewing Stephen Peterson, son of Drew Peterson….while they are the same person they were not interviewing him as a police officer…which is why he should not have shown up in his uniform or driving the police cruiser…he may have been scheduled to be on duty at his job, but he was subpeoned to be at the grand jury, which should be treated like getting called for jury duty…you are given time off. I am sure the tax paying citizens of Oak Brook were glad to be paying his salary and gas to attend his father’s grand jury hearing.
The typo at the end of that is theirs, not mine…just saying… “to them” should be two word and the period goes inside the quotes.
Again, Officer Peterson was not testifying as a police officer and in these points should be referred by his full name or by “Peterson.” It appears they are adding importance by using “Officer Peterson.”
It was not Officer Peterson or Drew Peterson’s choice to decide what was pertinent to this investigation. To me it looks like he is hiding something, who knows if anything else was passed on, this is what they were caught with. A police officer, 2 in this case, should have known better. It looks bad to the citizens of a town if the police officer they are paying to serve and protect comes out looking like he is hindering an investigation, especially one of a missing mother.
One thing that has always really bugged me about the gun situation was that when officers came to Stephen’s house, he was able to tell them that he didn’t want to discuss things at his residence and that he would go to the station and bring them the guns, which he did do later, at his convenience.
I only wish there had been a warrant for Stephen’s house so that they could have seen what else he may have been keeping for his dad. We’ll never know now since officers left the house and he was allowed to dispose of anything he wanted to.
In my opinion there seem to be way too many references to Sheahan’s emotional state in the complaint. He is described as being “livid” in more than one place.
Maybe he was. Maybe Stephen’s actions infuriated him because they were loathsome and irresponsible. Where’s the crime in feeling that way?
Facs, since they don’t give any dates for any of this, re the girlfriend, its hard to figure out. I am surprised that there are not dates given for these things. I guess it is possible that that happened after his divorce from his wife and before Feb 2011….of course there is nothing stopping you from thinking the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree either.
I’m thinking that you’re correct in that. The book was mailed to the girlfriend he has since his divorce from Teresa. (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one)
What I don’t understand now is why, if Sheahan was trying to harass her, he would enclose his business card? It doesn’t make sense to me.
The author is a “Sarah Tomczak”. Is it possible there was some joke about the last name? I guess Sheahan will have to explain this one…
It must be nice to be a police officer and get the benefit of a disciplinary review before someone can fire you. At most workplaces you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. And good luck suing for a gazillion dollars.
http://www.toplawfirm.com/employmentlawFAQs.html
FYI:
More preparation ahead of Drew’s trial:
Chugging along to trial:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/13762824-418/bolingbrook-family-who-bought-savio-home-want-drewpeterson-trial-over.html
If the Hernandez’s haven’t been contacted yet about re-installing the tub, I have to wonder if it’s going to happen.
I wonder if the jury itself will wonder why they weren’t allowed to see the actual tub? After all, it works both ways. Any of them could get into the tub and see if either side’s contention of how Kathleen died can be reconstructed. Rather than rely on their own instincts or observations, they’ll have to choose between either the defense’s or State’s experts to come to a conclusion. Since the State considers the tub the “murder weapon,” I think this is a puzzling ruling by the judge. Why would he be concerned about letting them see the actual murder weapon?
IMO, I think this judge took away the option of letting them make an informed decision about the tub using their own observations.
“They said she was a good mother, friendly. A good person,” Marleni said. “She was like an angel, they said,”
That doesn’t sound like the neighbor thought of her as a hellcat.
Rescue, I concur on your last statement.
If the criteria is “Would this be helpful to the jury”, how can you not let them see the tub? It’s not prejudicial–it’s physical evidence.
Maybe they can do their own video with someone the same height, and weight as Savio. Show this person getting in and out of tub, and show there is no possible way she could of fell, and drowned in the tub like that. I don’t see why the judge wouldn’t allow a demonstration on video showing how physically hard this would be for her to have fallen, and in that position.
07/16/2012 Notice of Motion
07/16/2012 Impounded Document-MOTION TO ADMIT (FILED UNDER SEAL)
07/16/2012 Notice of Filing OF SUBPOENA
FYI, the wrongful death suit is still open:
Case Number: 2009L 000326
Case Status: Open Case
Open Date: 04/21/2009
Case Title: SAVIO HENRY J vs. PETERSON DREW
Case Type: LAW
File Type: Wrongful Death
Closed Date: N/A
Future Court Event:
09/10/2012 9:00 am WCCA 311 Case Management
(PR NewsChannel) / July 16, 2012 / CHICAGO
The Drew Peterson defense team announced the launch of a new web page that contains important information for news outlets and reporters covering the upcoming trial of the former Bolingbrook, Ill. police sergeant.
The new website is http://www.petersondefense.com.
The website is the “public war room for the Drew Peterson defense team,” according to the page.
It’s where the media should go to find information or to inquire about interviews with the defense team or those associated with the defense team. More items will be added to the web page in coming days and weeks and as situations warrant.
The web page currently contains biographies for each of Peterson’s lawyers: Joel Brodsky, lead defense attorney; Steve Greenberg; Ralph E. Meczyk; Joseph R. Lopez; Darryl Goldberg; and Lisa M. Lopez.
The Drew Peterson defense team (www.petersondefense.com) webpage also contains other resources for reporters, news outlets, and interested members of the public.
The Drew Peterson defense team has plans to utilize the latest in technology to disseminate information to reporters and news outlets, where appropriate. Also, any interested member of the public who is not part of the jury pool is also welcome to take advantage.
An RSS feed, available on the webpage, is designed for those who wish to receive news releases from the defense team right on their smart phones or computers.
The defense team plans to Tweet statements, press releases and other items of news value via the The Publicity Agency’s Twitter handle @publicityagency.
The web page also contains a sign up form for those wishing to receive press releases via email. Press releases also will be posted online and appear in search engines.
The media relations, web page and Twitter channel are being handled by The Publicity Agency. The PR firm has represented Drew Peterson and the defense team since 2007.
Jury selection begins July 23.
Drew Peterson has been in jail since his arrest in May, 2009. The story has received national and international attention.
For more information, please visit http://www.petersondefense.com.
Direct link: http://www.prnewschannel.com/2012/07/16/media-alert-drew-peterson-defense-team-launches-new-web-page-in-advance-of-trial/
SOURCE: Drew Peterson Defense Team
Now Joe Lopez doesn’t have to send me whiny e-mails any more because I’m not giving equal time to the defense team.
http://thepublicityagency.com/drew-peterson-defense-team-online-media-kit/#legal
New post is up now!
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/drew-peterson-murder-trial-the-defense-team/