Sun-Times puts up a fight – files motion to cover Peterson hearing

Sun-Times Media fights for open Peterson hearing
January 8, 2010 By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

The lawyers for accused wife killer Drew Peterson tried to throttle public access to a landmark evidentiary hearing less than two weeks away, but Sun-Times Media won’t give in without a fight.

Sun-Times Media attorney Damon Dunn crafted an emergency motion objecting to a bid by Peterson’s legal team to ban the public from a Jan. 19 pretrial hearing. Seth Stern, another Sun-Times Media attorney, plans to file the motion in Joliet this morning, Dunn said.

Sun-Times Media is The Herald-News’ parent company.

The Associated Press and the Tribune Co. have joined in the effort as well.

Peterson’s attorneys asked Judge Stephen White to shut the public out of the potentially explosive hearing to determine what — if any — hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial. Peterson was arrested in May and charged with drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004.

Peterson is also the sole suspect in the state police investigation of the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. State police believe Stacy Peterson, who vanished in October 2007, may be the victim of foul play, but have failed to find her body or to bring criminal charges in connection with their “potential homicide” investigation.

The request to kill media access is an abrupt switch in strategy for Peterson and his legal team. Both Peterson and the longest serving of his four lawyers, Joel Brodsky have pandered to the press, and two sources who had been privy to Peterson’s financial arrangements said Brodsky’s compensation for taking the case came exclusively from funds generated through publicity. Brodsky failed to return calls for comment on this allegation.

Seeking spotlight
Dunn’s motion points out Peterson’s apparent love of the limelight, saying Peterson “has been subject to widespread publicity for many years.”
“Indeed, (Peterson) has so actively sought the media spotlight that the Court has found it necessary on occasion to restrain him,” the emergency motion says.

White has taken steps to restrain Peterson. After the disgraced former Bolingbrook cop called from jail to a Chicago radio station to tell jokes, the judge forbade him from telephoning anyone not on an approved list.

White also put Peterson’s lawyers in check by issuing a gag order prohibiting them from discussing discovery evidence.

Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, declined to comment on the Sun-Times Media motion. Prosecutors also have yet to respond to the request by Peterson’s lawyers.

White is scheduled to address the motion by Peterson’s lawyers today. Stern was set to attend on behalf of Sun-Times Media.

Read the story at the Herald News
Damon Dunn bio

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Drew Peterson’s defense wants to bar public from January 19th Hearing

It seems that although six months ago Joel Brodsky stated, “I wouldn’t mind this case being televised… I would hope some larger media outlets would take a petition to the Illinois Supreme Court” and although in June he opposed a motion by the prosecution to seal discovery stating that he wanted the process to be as transparent as possible, Drew Peterson’s defense team no longer feels that way.

If you were thinking of getting your name added to the list to attend the hearing on January 19th, you might be in for a disappointment.

Lawyers want closed Peterson hearing By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
January 4, 2010

Barnum & Bailey want to shut down the circus.

Drew Peterson’s legal team has asked to bar the public from a potentially explosive hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at the former Bolingbrook cop’s murder trial.

Local attorney George Lenard, who signed on with the Peterson camp just last month, filed the motion Monday. Lenard failed to return calls for comment, but the motion signals an abrupt change in Peterson’s defense strategy, which had been marked by an attraction to the limelight and the airing of everything from secret messages and photographs that supposedly cleared Peterson of guilt to details of his love life and plans to make a 23-year-old local mother his fifth wife.

More often than not, Peterson’s lead attorney Joel Brodsky could be found at the forefront of the frenzy.

Brodsky appeared on numerous TV programs in the more than two years since Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished. Sources who had been close to Peterson and privy to his financial arrangements said Brodsky’s compensation for taking the case came exclusively from funds generated through publicity. Brodsky failed to return calls for comment on this allegation.

Less than three months ago, Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager for their chance to publicly cross-examine the state’s witnesses during the hearing. At that time, Brodsky said, “People’s assumptions are going to be turned on their head — it’s going to be 180 degrees.”

Brodsky also said, “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses” and boasted that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

Hearsay evidence to be aired in Drew Peterson’s “mini trial”

Drew Peterson and the Scheme Team on their way to court

On January 19, 2010 a hearing is scheduled to air the hearsay testimony that may be admitted in Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of his ex-wife, Kathleen Savio. This “trial before the trial” will be important since so much of the evidence for the prosecution is expected to be circumstantial. This hearing will also be the first time the judge has heard the hearsay testimony that could be admitted under Public Act 095-1004, which makes an exception for hearsay from witnesses who were murdered in order to keep them from testifying. Statements from Savio, her friends and relatives, and a pastor who received the confidences of Peterson’s third wife (missing since October 2007 and presumed dead), could all play a big part in convincing a jury of Peterson’s guilt.

We asked Illinois attorney, Karen Conti of Adamski & Conti LLC, for her take on the upcoming hearing. This is what she had to say:

Karen Conti

We are pretty much on uncharted grounds. This law is new so I am not aware of any such hearing that has ever been conducted. The way the law reads, it seems that the judge here must find that there is a preponderance of evidence that Peterson’s actions silenced Kathleen and whether the hearsay is otherwise reliable. This is a much less rigorous burden than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is used at civil trials and means that if it is more probably true than not true that Peterson killed Kathleen, the burden is met. It seems the prosecution would also have to show that Stacy’s disappearance was caused by Drew in order to use her words which were spoken to the pastor. If allowed in, Stacy’s words would be very compelling to prove that Peterson killed Kathleen as I believe they include Drew’s admission that he killed her in the bathtub after returning home from her house with bloody clothing on. As to how the hearing works, I do not know. It would have to include the prosecution putting on witnesses and allowing Peterson’s lawyers to cross examine them.

This will give Peterson’s lawyers a real advantage at trial in that they will get to hear what the witnesses are going to say ahead of time. There will be a court reporter present and if the witness deviates from that testimony at trial, he can use the prior testimony to impeach.

I am certain that the jury in the full trial will not get to hear that the judge made a ruling that there was a preponderance of evidence that Peterson killed Stacy or Kathleen. The jury will only get to hear the hearsay testimony and will probably know that there was a prior proceeding that caused some of the witnesses to have testified previously.

This hearing will go a long way toward revealing whether the prosecution has good evidence to prove Peterson’s guilt in that they must put on all evidence that is persuasive. They cannot hold anything back because the admission of hearsay testimony at trial is crucial and will probably be the most compelling evidence.

Many thanks as always to Karen for taking the time to help us out!

Greg Adamski and Karen Conti host their own legal talk show, Legally Speaking, on WGN Radio 720 each Sunday from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. They also presented a mock trial of Drew Peterson last Spring which resulted in a hung jury.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Stebic lawyer added to Drew Peterson defense team

Stebic lawyer now representing Drew Peterson
December 14, 2009 9:18 AM

A lawyer who has represented Craig Stebic, suspected in the disappearance of his wife Lisa, has taken on another high-profile client: Drew Peterson.

George Lenard has joined the criminal defense team for Peterson, who is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky says Lenard has been consulting with the defense team for months.

“His 21 years of experience in criminal defense will make Drew’s team stronger,” Brodsky said. “There is a tremendous amount of work that we have been doing. At every court appearance, the state’s attorney office has at least five or more people appearing on the case.”

Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is being held on a $20 million bond in Will County on charges that he killed Savio in 2004. Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy has been missing since October 2007. Peterson has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this month, Lenard accompanied Stebic in a Will County courtroom as prosecutors dropped a complaint charging him with threatening a neighbor during an argument over fireworks.

Authorities have said Stebic remains a person of interest in the disappearance of his wife Lisa, who hasn’t been seen since April 30, 2007. The couple had been in the process of a divorce. Stebic has denied any wrongdoing.

Read the story at the Chicago Tribune

Drew Peterson defense seeks notes to contradict Savio letter

Peterson attorneys seek notes of Savio statement
December 4, 2009 3:01 PM

Kathleen Savio

Attorneys for Drew Peterson, charged with murdering his third wife Kathleen Savio, alleged in court Friday that a sworn statement she made to an insurance-company lawyer contradicts her account that Peterson broke into their home in 2002 and threatened her with a knife. Peterson’s defense attorneys are seeking a copy of the notes made by an attorney working for Country Companies Insurance. Three letters written by the attorney have already been turned over to the defense team, said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky.

They are seeking two others as well as notes the attorney made during Savio’s August 6, 2003, sworn statement. Brodsky said the documents should not be protected by attorney-client privilege because Country Companies has twice turned them over to prosecutors.

“When the defense issues subpoenas, then all of a sudden (it’s privileged),” said Brodsky, who said the notes could be crucial to demonstrating that certain hearsay statements not be admitted at trial.

Mark Ruda, an attorney for the insurance company, said the letters were turned over by mistake.

“The disclosure was inadvertent,” he said. “There was no intent to waive privilege.”
Judge Stephen White said he would look over the documents and issue an order, but said that “at this juncture” it appeared the notes would be protected.

A hearing before Judge White to determine whether hearsay evidence would be allowed during a jury trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 19.

– Steve Schmadeke

Read the story at the Chicago Tribune

Derek Armstrong may have to turn over Drew Peterson tapes

Self-publisher, Derek Armstrong

Drew author not protected
November 26, 2009By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
JOLIET — Prosecutors want a Canadian publisher who penned a book about Drew Peterson to stop playing reporter.

Derek Armstrong, the operator of Kunati Publishing and the author of the account “Drew Peterson Exposed,” invoked journalistic privilege when the state police contacted him about testifying before a grand jury in November 2008.

But prosecutors filed a motion Tuesday claiming Armstrong was no reporter when he was supposedly “spending hundreds of hours interviewing key players” in the Drew Peterson case.

According to the motion, “Armstrong was not a reporter” since he was not “collecting, writing or editing news for publication” on a full or part-time basis.

In some situations, news reporters are protected from handing some information over to police or the court. That privilege isn’t ironclad and doesn’t extend to all people who write.

Armstrong failed to return calls for comment, as did Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky.

Strapped for cash, Drew Peterson tries to auction his house.

The Peterson home

Peterson’s house going to auction block?

November 11, 2009

BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist

Scoopsville: Huh? Sneed hears an attorney for jailed murder suspect Drew Peterson is hoping to rent out/auction off Peterson’s empty Bolingbrook home for broadcast use during his upcoming trial!

“We are thinking it could be an excellent site for a news broadcast during the trial,” said attorney Walter Maksym, who filed a federal suit against JP Morgan Chase bank recently for suspending Peterson’s access to his $220,000 credit line.

“It would be a perfect place for someone like Geraldo Rivera. Don’t you think?” Maksym told Sneed.

Peterson, who is in jail charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, was hoping to use the credit line to post part of his bond, pay his attorneys and hire expert witnesses. The credit line was authorized in 2005 and suspended by the bank in May.

“If he can’t pay for his own defense, the taxpayers could wind up paying for the enormous cost of the defense,” Maksym said. “I’m not handling his murder case. I’m working with his attorney Joel Brodsky, who is vigorously defending him, and we are looking for any way possible to raise money so Peterson won’t be denied a fair trial. The bank severed his credit line because Peterson is being detained for trial, and we believe it violates federal law.”

Auctioneer Leslie Hindman tells Sneed she received a call from Maksym on Tuesday wondering if she might auction off “the use of Peterson’s house as a site for broadcast during the trial.”

Quoth Hindman: “I said, ‘No. I’m not interested in doing such a thing. It would be much too weird.’ ”

The Peterson home, which once housed his missing fourth wife, Stacy, and four children, has been vacant since Peterson was incarcerated in May.

Read Sneed’s column at the Sun-Times
Read the story at NBC Chicago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Savio inquest juror, Jim Pretto: If we had known…

Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.

“There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.

“We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”

We’ve all seen the complete inquest transcript now.  Yes, there was no testimony or evidence presented to the jurors to indicate that foul play might be suspected.  In fact, ISP Officer Herbert Hardy said otherwise.  One panel member (Dennis Pratl) made it personal, and said Drew Peterson was a good guy.   Yet, Jim Pretto wishes they had listened more to Kathleen’s family. The jurors did not hear about Savio asking for a restraining order against Peterson, and they were told by the ISP officer that there were no insurance policies involved. They did not hear about the police being called eighteen times to intervene in their disputes.

Several questions arise about these claims made by Pretto.  Who exactly was responsible for making sure these important issues were presented to the jury panel?  Or, in the alternative, who was responsible for making sure they were not presented to the jury panel?   Oversight or out-of-sight.  Which is it?

At the time of this juror’s interview, Anna Doman said:  “I think we’re closer” to justice. “I just wish it was four years ago.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Civil case against Drew Peterson to proceed

Peterson civil case can proceed

October 14, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — A Will County judge ruled Wednesday that the civil lawsuit against Drew Peterson can proceed.
The family of Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson.

The former Bolingbrook police officer is also charged in criminal court with murdering Savio.

Peterson’s attorney had asked that the judge issue a stay on the Savio family’s civil case pending the outcome of the criminal case.

“The judge didn’t stay the case, didn’t freeze the case. But he also said that Drew or indicated that Drew can take his Fifth Amendment privilege in answer to any question or any pleading,” said Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney.

Savio’s death was originally ruled an accident, but the case was determined to be a homicide after Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy disappeared.

Read the story at ABC7/WLS, Chicago

Thanks TAI, for posting the news.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Exclusive: Michelle LeFort, Lisa Ward’s co-author speaks out.

Author, Michelle LeFort

UPDATE 4:18 pm: It would now appear that Victoria Connolly and Lisa Ward have received cease and desist letters and that Joel Brodsky may have sent one to Ms. LeFort at an old address. We’re going to need to hold off on any further questions for a bit.

Since the news broke that Drew Peterson’s former step-daughter, Lisa Ward was speaking out and writing a book with allegations of abuse, there’s been plenty of discussion, here on the blog and elsewhere. We’ve wondered, why is she speaking up now? Why is she writing a book? Who is this author she is working with? Why is Drew’s lawyer hopping up and down and barking like a terrier?

Co-author, Michelle LeFort emailed us this morning with the answers to some of the questions we have been asking.

As for the “cease and desist” demand that Joel Brodsky announced he has issued against the author, she states that she, Vicki Connolly, and Lisa Ward, “have never been given a cease and desist letter-not one of us.” As to Joel Brodsky’s public claims that money is the motivating factor in coming forward, LeFort denies it. “We have made NO money as Mr. Brodsky, wonder attorney, might suggest and all hold down respectable jobs.”

LeFort does not believe that by speaking out, they are endangering the case against Drew Peterson.”We refuse to violate any testimony in this fiasco. Peterson needs stopped. We are trying to believe justice has the opportunity to prevail.”

This morning Ms. Lefort also posted a comment at Justice Café. We paste her comment here in toto, for you to read.

I am Michelle LeFort. I’m sorry that we cannot comment on some of the questions that you raise in this blog and that the administrator asked me to comment on. I am happy to make a statement and had emailed as well.

Vicki (the correct spelling) had a car accident March 1, 1990 in Naperville unincorporated. She did NOT date Jeffrey Archer (personally verified by his wife, his parents and Vicki as well.) Jeffrey was killed, and had been having an affair, but it was with someone else and his wife knew about it. It could have been misconstrued to have been Kathleen Savio, but, again, it was not someone who had anything to do with this case according to his wife.

(NoWay –hello, Darlin)

Lisa and Vicki have not come forward until now, because they are afraid. The legal team for Drew Peterson isn’t even the worst of it, but the sheer unabashed fear they faced for the duration of the time they spent with Drew. Money and Power are all I have seen in researching this case for nearly two years as HIS motive. We have waited to come forward for the very reason that Brodsky is proving all over the Internet-it comes down to name-calling. EVERYONE who says anything negative about Peterson is called a liar. Please tell me you see the antics. Are either of these men capable of rigorous honesty? They bash everyone. We really didn’t want to see our names smeared in the headlines with everyone else’s. We are human; we have feelings; we have fears; we are not backing down, just trying to do the right thing. We commend Cassandra, Anna and Sue, Neil, Steve … we understand what you go through and we’re sorry.