Mock trial video: People v. Drew Peterson

The long-awaited trial of Drew Peterson starts tomorrow with opening arguments scheduled to start at 9:30. Unfortunately, the proceedings will not be televised as Will County still does not allow cameras in their criminal courtrooms.

However, back in May of 2009, while Drew Peterson was just beginning what was to be a three-year detainment in a Joliet jail, the cameras were rolling when the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, and WGN Radio’s Legally Speaking presented a mock trial which consisted of closing arguments as they could be presented during Peterson’s actual trial for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Attorney and co-host of Legally Speaking, Attorney Karen Conti presented arguments for the prosecution; while Attorney Joseph Lopez argued for the defense of Peterson. A year later Lopez would join the defense team, but at this time he was not officially representing Drew Peterson.

Quite a bit of time has passed since this mock trial, which ended in a hung jury. We now know that there will be very little mention of Stacy Peterson, and that a fair amount of the hearsay has already been barred from the trial. Nevertheless, it’s fascinating to hear the arguments much as they could very well be presented during the actual trial and to peek into the deliberations of the jury as they weigh the evidence about a possible murder versus the original ruling of a slip and fall that ended in the drowning of Kathleen Savio.

~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

28 thoughts on “Mock trial video: People v. Drew Peterson

  1. BTW, Joe Hosey is on In Session today doing a bang-up job of countering the hours of defense double-speak that we’ve been subjected to for the last week.

    Good to hear from someone who really knows the case inside and out and can give accurate examples to show Kathleen’s death investigation was so horribly botched.

    A nice break from that broken record we get from Joel Brodsky.

  2. If a link is available later, can you please post it? Thanks!
    I agree, I’m tired of hearing the “created”stories JB tosses out in almost every media interview. It’s nice to see some reporters finally correcting him.

  3. In Session doesn’t seem to post much video online. I tend to put it on and then DVR it to watch at night but I catch bits when I’m walking through the room.

  4. It just grates on my nerves when they get some attorney or pundit who obviously isn’t very familiar with the case. Dead giveaway is when they mispronounce names and then regurgitate some sound bite that the defense has been serving up.

    That’s a “fast-forward” interview for me.

  5. In the mock jury video, the guy with the “personality” who tells the story about his diabetic acquaintance who fell and hit his head and died, with no blood spatter is a prosecution nightmare.

    I hope if there’s a guy like that on Peterson’s jury that someone will pipe up and remind the room that Kathleen Savio was not diabetic.

    The last thing you need is a juror pulling anecdotal evidence out of his ass.

  6. I caught the end of one of the InSession clips on the case. Missed Hosey. Joel B. once again is trying to gloss over Peterson’s financial gain after Kathleen’s death by saying how much it costs to raise kids. He left out a few fiancial facts. Typical! I wish someone who truly knew all of the facts in the case had a feed into the earpiece of the reporter. I think she did a good job of questioning, but I wish InSession had basic fact sheets to pull up, or maybe Justice Cafe bloggers to help fact check. : – )

  7. Another false claim by Brodsky on In Session. Stacy had absolutely no education, according to JB. Hmmmm… I thought she was in a nursing progrom at JJC. Stacy could have supported herself and the kids with that career choice and child support. Her lifestyle might have changed, but she could have managed. IMO

  8. JB was attempting to convince the viewers that Stacy felt trapped and could not support herself and four kids. (Yes, he included Tom & Kris.) He used “no education”, her mom running away, etc. I wish someone in the media would correct that her mom is missing.

  9. Sister: Family would change Stacy Peterson’s name
    11:31 AM

    CHICAGO (AP) – The sister of Drew Peterson’s fourth wife says family members who believe she was murdered would change Stacy Peterson’s last name if her body is ever found.

    Cassandra Cales spoke recently to The Associated Press as opening statements in the 58-year-old ex-cop’s murder trial were to start Tuesday. Peterson is charged in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of Cales’ older sister, Stacy Peterson. Drew Peterson hasn’t been charged in her case. He has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

    Cales believes her older sister was killed and says she’s hopeful her remains will be found someday.

    If that happens, she says the intention is to change her name back to her maiden name, Stacy Cales.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8754799

  10. While I understand Cassandra’s feelings on that, I think for the children’s sake she should leave it alone.

  11. I’m not even sure that a family member can do that, unless it can be shown that the deceased person wanted their name to be changed. I’ve seen cases where a transgendered person’s name is changed after to death, but in those cases they had lived their lives under the name, just never had it legally changed while living. Like going from Glen to Glenda.

    But I can certainly understand why Cassandra would feel the way she does about it.

  12. Last minute motion filings:

    07/30/2012 Impounded Document-AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE (FILED UNDER SEAL) FILED
    07/30/2012 Impounded Document-MOTION IN LIMINE & EXHIBITS (FILED UNDER SEAL)

  13. Brodsky says on Facebook that he’s “polishing and putting the finishing touches on the opening statement right now. Yesterday it was a bit long – 1hr 20 min – so I had to cut some parts and shorten others. ”

    Maybe he should ask Atty Greenberg to take a look at it. ;)

  14. Prosecutors say Peterson killed Savio because he feared their pending divorce settlement would wipe him out financially. And they believe he killed Stacy because she knew about Savio’s death.

    The hurdles that prosecutors face aren’t insurmountable, Kathleen Zellner, a Chicago-area defense attorney.

    It may be enough to demonstrate with circumstantial evidence that the only explanation for Savio’s death is that Peterson killed her.

    “If you can show motive and opportunity, they could get conviction,” she said.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/19151077/2012/07/30/testimony-begins-tuesday-for-peterson-trial

  15. OMG, Joel Brodsky is disgusting. He held a press conference at a “kick-off” celebration for a friend’s talk radio show”.

    Sorry, I’d tell you more about the article but I couldn’t get past the second sentence.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-lawyer-brodsky-talks-of-trial-at-cigar-store-appearance-20120730,0,407356.story?track=rss

    Peterson’s lawyer said jurors should not expect Peterson to take the stand.

    “As I sit here today, I would tell him not to testify,” Brodsky said. “But one thing about trials that I learned over 30 years is that you never know what’s going to happen. Surprises happen all the time.”

    http://www.suntimes.com/14110449-761/drew-petersons-lead-lawyer-says-he-is-ready-for-case.html

  16. To celebrate the pre-launch of the new television series, “America’s Instant Townhall with William J. Kelly” this August on ION Network, Join Bill Kelly and the cast with a smooth cigar or two.

    Special guest noted attorney Joel Brodsky

    The Chicago Cigar Club will meet this Monday, July 30, 2012 at Tesa Cigar at 1039 W. Lake Street in Chicago.

    …Mr. Brodsky will discuss some of his most controversial legal cases beginning at 6:00 p.m. and the difficulties in representing a controversial client. Mr. Brodsky currently represents Drew Peterson, who is currently on trial in Chicago and whose case has received national attention. He will also share his insights on the movie massacre suspect.

    http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2012/07/a-new-conservative-tv-show-come-celebrate-with-us-im-in-this-show-too/

    Dog and Pony will also be featured.

  17. Joel can puff away at his cigars. Pushing around a portable oxygen tank in his later years and experiencing shortness of breath will be a real highlight in his career. IMO

  18. I thought Joel’s opening statement was being compared to the Gettysburg Address by his “team”. An hour and a half? Lincoln only used a little over two minutes. Joel still needs to cut 1 hour and 27 minutes of BS. Could be a long night for his “team.”

  19. One other thing on the am InSession program today was Brodsky and Lopez’s response regarding Stacy. Both said they would address Stacy’s disappearance in the trial if need be. Greenberg just listened and said nothing. Interesting. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

  20. ” …Mr. Brodsky will discuss some of his most controversial legal cases beginning at 6:00 p.m. and the difficulties in representing a controversial client. Mr. Brodsky currently represents Drew Peterson, who is currently on trial in Chicago and whose case has received national attention.”

    1) Would you want to be sitting in a jailcell awaiting trial, knowing your lead attorney is out partying, sharing stories, and smoking cigars, instead of focusing on your case?
    2) Will Joel address his own personal “controversial” legal cases?

  21. stilllearning,

    1) It just reminds me of when Peterson was arrested and Joel was in NYC doing a media hit. Rather than rush back to Chicago, he let Drew sit in jail alone for days, waiting for a postponed indictment date.

    2) No but he might share a picture of himself hunting boar and posing with Mancow.

  22. 1) Who can forget that supportive move on Brodsky’s part? NYC-major TV spots. Decisions! Decisions! Decisions! LOL

    2) Do stop! LMAO Mancow resurfaced recently on one of those new Chicago mornigh programs. Couldn’t figure out why. Maybe he was a filler.

  23. chinchillachain, That’s a strange assertion to make.

    The Peterson defense has never said anything about this, and if it were the case it would be an excellent thing to bring up in court.
    Also, it wasn’t mentioned in autopsy reports nor at the coroner’s inquest.
    No close family member has ever mentioned this publicly.

Comments are closed.