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.

Drew loses big. Change of venue denied, hearsay law upheld in Peterson case.

Drew Peterson defense team arrives at the Will County courthouse. Photo - Warren Skalski

Hearsay law upheld in Peterson murder case
October 2, 2009 4:32 PM

A Will County judge today upheld the state’s new hearsay law, which prosecutors plan to use in their murder trial against Drew Peterson.

Under the law, which took affect in December, prosecutors plans to submit as evidence letters and statements by Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, to friends and family before she was killed in 2004.

Peterson’s attorneys have argued that the so-called “Drew’s law” violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses; goes against state and federal constitutional provisions against retroactively applied laws; and “erodes the presumption of innocence” by asking a judge before the trial even starts to find that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.

But Judge Stephen White sided with prosecutors and allowed the law to stand.

Peterson’s attorneys said they would notify prosecutors whether they intend to introduce their own hearsay evidence by Oct. 29, their client’s next court date.

Peterson, in custody at the Will County Jail in Joliet, is also considered a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Eearlier, Peterson lost his bid to move his murder trial outside of Will County.

Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has argued that widespread publicity would make it difficult for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to get a fair trial in Will County.

The motion cited stories about Peterson that ran in the Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post and local television stations.

Some of the stories detailed the order of protection Savio took out against Peterson and the letters she mailed out before her death. The motion argued that they exposed jurors to “highly significant information which may not be admissible at trial.”

Peterson’s attorneys also objected to a 2008 press release from the Will County state’s attorney’s office that announced that results of an autopsy on Savio’s exhumed remains concluding her death was a homicide.

The complete autopsy was not released, only the manner of death, which his attorneys said “prejudiced the jury pool in regards to the most contested fact of the entire case — namely the manner of death.”

– Steven D. Schmadeke

Read the story at the Chicago Tribune

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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 defense team starts blog

(Click to see full size)

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 28: That was fast. The blog that is the subject of this post is no longer there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just noticed that a site which formerly contained links to Drew Peterson’s defense documents (and is still entitled: Drew Peterson Documents) has now morphed into a blog with updates about the Peterson case.

Members of the Peterson’s defense team already send out frequent press releases, update the Abood Law and Brodsky & Odeh web sites with news and legal briefs, and Joel Brodsky continues to grant radio interviews even though Judge Stephen White has asked to preapprove all media appearances by all attorneys involved in the case.

The judge issued specific guidelines to Peterson’s attorneys on pre-trial publicity and media interviews, asking that the lawyers inform the judge of any pre-arranged media interviews and supply him with copies of any press releases sent out on the case.

Why does the defense continue to court the public even after filing a motion for a change of venue which complains that “media overexposure” has made it impossible for their client to obtain a fair trial of his peers?

Should we be expecting a return of the Drew Peterson Defense Fund website, where “For the cost of a few cups of your morning coffee, you (could) help to ensure that Drew can afford to support his ongoing legal defense” and “find his missing wife”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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 defense adds reinforcements to the team

Peterson defense expands team
September 17, 2009 5:27 PM

To help get a handle on some 40,000 pages of discovery documents in the Drew Peterson murder trial, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys have brought on a team of recent law-school graduates and third-year law students.

A court order allowing daily face-to-face visits with Peterson’s legal team was recently expanded to include Michael L. Raff, Anthony Nehme and Kendall Hartsfield.

Joel Brodsky, one of Peterson’s attorneys, said a third-year student named Melissa Anderson also is assisting.

“It’s the crème-de-la-crème,” Brodsky said of the Chicago-area law-school products, declining to say whether they are getting paid.

The team, with help from another group associated with Peterson’s Michigan attorney Andrew Abood, are about 80 percent of the way through the mountain of paperwork, Brodsky said…

–Steve Schmadeke

Read the story at Chicago Tribune Breaking 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>

Suffer the Consequences, Drew Peterson?

Some of us have discussed how we have perceived the defense’s motions as being silly, at times. Such as asking for a change of venue when the defendant, and Joel Brodsky (scroll down slightly to his 5/3/2008 thoughts on media exposure), have done anything but avoid the media, making it difficult, so the defense says, to seat an unbiased jury in Will County. Some of us may also be wondering if they should suffer the consequences of their actions, as if it’s fair to expect the Judge to grant their request, when it was their own doing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karen Conti was able to answer some questions for us involving pretrial motions. In the end, the obvious is noted. Regardless of how and why this defendant currently finds himself in unfavorable situations, the defendant is, and should be, entitled to a fair trial process.

Q: Of course, it’s understood that credibility with the judge and/or jury is important. In the case of pretrial motions and oral arguments, what will the Judge be looking for? Are case cites only part of what he’ll base his rulings on? If not, what other factors does he consider in pretrial motions? If there are case law cites that support each side’s legal position, how does the judge make a final determination? Does attorney credibility weigh-in in determining whose case law cites are more on point?

CONTI: In ruling on pretrial motions, the judge relies heavily on what the statutes and cases decided in the past interpreting the law say. The judge, in deciding some issues, has great discretion. It depends on the issue. Attorney credibility does not weigh in except that judges will tell you that when an attorney is not honest in interpreting a case or misstates facts, the judge loses confidence in the integrity of the pleadings and will question whatever that attorney files. But, for the most part, it is up to the judge to check the attorneys’ research and make sure that both attorneys are accurately and fairly making their arguments.

Court date for Drew Peterson

Looks like a new court date for Drew Peterson.
Anyone know what “return of” refers to?

PETERSON DREW W 9 1 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Return of
PETERSON DREW W 9 1 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Return of

I’ll update the post if and when I get any more information.

~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 hearing delayed. Potential jurors brought into court.

Peterson hearing delayed; potential jurors called in

August 14, 2009

From Staff Reports
JOLIET — An expected hearing on a motion for a change of venue in the Drew Peterson case was delayed this morning when the judge told the courtroom he planned to bring some 240 potential jurors into the courtroom.

Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged with murder in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Will County Judge Stephen White said this morning that the jurors would be brought into the courtroom in groups of 60. He did not indicate if arguments on the motion for a change of venue would be heard later today.

White said he planned to give the potential jurors instructions, similar to those in any other case, about presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

Potential jurors also would be admonished about avoiding media reports about the case, White said.

Jurors also will be given a questionnaire that among other things lists some 493 potential witnesses in the case. Potential jurors will be asked to indicate if they have any connection with them.

All reporters were then ordered out of the courtroom.

Andrew Abood, an attorney for Peterson, objected to what he called a “closed courtroom.”

Karen Conti, Adamski & Conti, LLC

White replied that there simply was not room for the potential jurors and the crowd of reporters.

Story at the Sun-Times

Remember, if you have a question for Karen Conti, ask it on the board or email us. Karen will appear on Fox news on Monday to comment on the latest developments.

~———————–~
~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 defense to file motion barring Kathleen Savio’s cries for help

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE “HEARSAY LAW” UNCONSTITUTIONAL

View this document on Scribd

Last night on CNN’s 360, Joel Brodsky’s newest BFF, Lisa Bloom, announced that on Monday, August 10, the defense team of Drew Peterson will file a motion (see above) asking that any “beyond the grave” statements from his deceased wife, Kathleen Savio, not be admitted into court.

Looks like they are going to challenge any citing of Public Act 095-1004 (the so called hearsay-law”) on two points.

First, they will say that the law is being used ex post facto against their client.

Secondly, they are going to claim that the law is unconstitutional in that it operates upon the idea of “Forefeiture by Wrongdoing”, meaning that if it can be shown that you killed someone to keep them from testifying then you forfeit your constitutional right to confront a witness.

Strangely, this is the third time in recent weeks that Lisa Bloom has obtained defense documents days before they are filed or made public and appeared on CNN claiming to have exclusive knowledge about the case. Is this Joel Brodsky’s way of getting around Judge Stephen White’s gag order?

During last night’s interview Bloom stated, “In my opinion, this is the strongest evidence in the case. Kathleen’s statements, ‘If anything happens to me, he did it.’ There’s no DNA evidence linking Drew Peterson to this crime. There’s no forensic evidence.”

How can Bloom make a statement like that without having seen the discovery documents? Exactly what is her role in the Brodsky “White Noise” machine?

Bloom & Brodsky discuss May 8, 2009

Transcript from Anderson Cooper 360 – August 7, 2009

“Hearsay Law” Illinois public act 095-1004

~—————————————————————————————–~
~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 is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Maybe Drew Peterson’s defense team should go “buy” the book.

The weapons charges against Drew Peterson were dismissed in November, 2008. However the State has appealed that decision and would like to pursue the charges again. Last Monday, August 3rd, Drew Peterson’s defense filed a new response to the prosecution’s decision to appeal a court’s dismissal of gun charges.

While one could question why attorney, Andrew Abood is filing a 30-page brief about the appeal of a dismissed weapons charge when his client is already in jail indicted on two counts of murder, it’s a little more concerning that some of the information given in the response is blatantly un-factual.

In particular, this quote from pages 29-30:

No one can deny the Chicago Tribune and the Naperville Sun have reported on this case regularly. The Naperville Sun has even published a book about Mr. Peterson, featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

For the record, there have been only two books published about the Peterson case. Neither of them was published by the Naperville Sun.

Joseph Hosey, who reports for the Herald-News in Joliet, authored “Fatal Vows: The tragic wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson“. It was published by Phoenix Books.

The other book written about the Peterson case is by Derek Armstrong. It’s called “Drew Peterson Exposed” and it was written after Peterson’s publicist, Glenn Selig, went looking for an author to tell “Drew’s side” of the story. It’s published by Kunati Books.

Please note that the book cover showing Drew attached to the “lie detector machine” is that of Armstrong’s book–the book  written after Drew voluntarily provided “hundreds of hours” of interviews and personal photos to the author. It should also be pointed out that the polygraph of Peterson took place at the offices of his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, and at Brodsky’s request. In fact the photo credit in the book reads, “Photo courtesy of Brodsky & Odeh”.

So, to be clear (since Abood is not), the photo in question was one that Drew Peterson actually posed for, taken by and provided to the author by Joel Brodsky…and yet the defense team is now using it as an example of how the jury pool has been tainted.

If Peterson’s defense team can’t get details like this straight, can we trust the accuracy of any of the information in those 37 pages?

UPDATE AUGUST 14: Two days ago, Abood filed a correction which reads:

The Naperville Sun even published a story about Mr. Peterson about a book featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

Now, the information has gone from false to nonsensical.

The original brief:

View this document on Scribd

The letter of correction submitted August 12

Drew Peterson’s next hearing is on August 10.
~—————————————————————————————–~
~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 is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>