Will Drew Peterson’s murder trial be dismissed because of Harry Smith?

Last Friday, Drew Peterson appeared in court for the first time in almost two years. A new Judge was appointed to his trial for murder and his defense team also filed a number of motions which were then impounded.

One of the motions asked that the murder charges be dropped because of the testimony offered by Wheaton attorney, Harry Smith. Smith testified at the Grand Jury which indicted Peterson, and again later at a pre-trail hearing to test the admissibility of fifteen hearsay statements.

Peterson’s team says that by offering up testimony regarding Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson, that Smith violated attorney-client confidentiality and called it the “worst breach of attorney ethics”. They feel the breach is so grievous that not only should Smith not be allowed to testify at Drew’s trial, but that Peterson’s entire case should be thrown out of court.

Since Smith was Savio’s attorney, we can only presume that she is the client in question here, and there is no doubt that Smith represented Kathleen during her divorce from Drew Peterson, but their relationship ended abruptly with her death in the 2004, and he was officially dropped when the executor of Kathleen’s will (Peterson’s Uncle, James Carroll) informed him that his services were no longer needed.

Seeing as Kathleen had asked Smith to go to police in the event that she died and to tell them that Drew had killed her, it would seem that by talking, he is only fulfilling his obligations to his client, rather than breaching any confidentiality.

Of course it’s easy to see why Peterson’s defense would try to keep Harry Smith from testifying. He has a good deal of compelling testimony to deliver on the stand. He will testify that Stacy Peterson (not a client of his) spoke with him twice in the week before her disappearance. She told him that she wanted to divorce Drew Peterson and asked if she could get more money from the divorce if she threatened to tell the police what she knew about Peterson killing his third wife. She told him that “Drew was pissed because he thinks I told (his son) Tom that he killed Kathy”. Peterson told the media that he was “shocked” to learn that Stacy had had discussions with Attorney Smith.

Smith may also testify that at the time of Kathleen’s death, things were not going well for Drew Peterson in the later stages of his contentious divorce from Savio, and that Peterson was aware of it and angry. Smith testified at the pre-trial hearing that shortly before Savio was found dead, a judge had told him and Peterson’s attorney that she was about to recommend that Savio be allowed to keep the couple’s Bolingbrook home, receive a share of his police pension, child support and some money from the sale of a bar the couple had owned.

In march of 2008, Harry Smith gave a lengthy interview to Roe Conn on WLS-AM 890 in Chicago. At that time he could not mention what Stacy had told him about Drew killing Kathleen, but he gave a full account of his dealings with both Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson. It’s a good listen.

Acandyrose has a complete transcript of the above interview.

~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.~

Prosecutors appeal to Illinois Supreme Court in Peterson murder case

UPDATE 8/30/11: Joel Brodsky has filed a motion asking for Drew Peterson to be released from jail pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision. News stories and comments start here. The motion is embedded below. As an exhibit it also contains a transcript of the proceedings from July 7, 2010, when the State filed the certificates of impairment.

From the State’s Attorney’s office:

SPRINGFIELD – The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office today filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Drew Peterson. The petition was filed under seal to prevent potential jurors from hearing material facts and evidence in the case, thereby protecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office strongly disagrees with the Third District Appellate Court’s decision in July not to rule on the merits of its 2010 appeal in People v. Drew Peterson. As a result, the State’s Attorney’s Office is respectfully asking the Illinois Supreme Court to accept this appeal and rule on its merits.

~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.~

Peterson Grand Jury Ends

SOURCE:  GRAND JURY ENDS PETERSON PROBE

May 19, 2009

By JOE HOSEY

JOLIET — The grand jury investigating the fate of Drew Peterson’s last two wives wrapped up Tuesday with the testimony of potential star witness Thomas Morphey, a source said.

The grand jury’s 18-month term is set to expire Thursday, but the source said it finished two days early.

Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, said he could neither confirm nor deny whether the grand jury, which was hearing testimony regarding the murder of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, as well as the apparently unrelated disappearance of Plainfield mother Lisa Stebic, was in fact done.

The grand jury indicted Peterson two weeks ago on first-degree murder charges in connection with Savio’s death, but no indictments are on file relating to either Stacy Peterson or Stebic’s disappearance, although they may be under seal.

Pelkie declined to comment on whether or not the grand jury has returned indictments in either Stacy or Stebic’s case.

PETERSON GRAND JURY HEARS WIRE TAP TESTIMONY

Thomas Morphey and Lenny Wawczak take a break from testifying.

From NBC 5 News…

PETERSON GRAND JURY HEARS WIRE TAP TESTIMONY
By DICK JOHNSON

Updated 11:30 AM CDT, Thu, May 14, 2009

The former friends of Drew Peterson who allegedly wore wire taps to record potentially incriminating conversations with him are before a Will County grand jury today.

The grand jury is in its final two weeks of work toward a possible indictment in the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy.

Also in front of the grand jury is Thomas Morphey, Drew’s stepbrother, who claims he helped carry a blue plastic barrel out of the Peterson home, which he now believes contained Stacy’s dead body.

Read the story at NBC Chicago News

BTW, Steve Carcerano also appeared before Grand Jury today.

MAY 15 UPDATE: Mike Robinson also testified at yesterday’s Grand 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 is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Drew Peterson: Mommy’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.

This morning Drew Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky made the local morning show circuit to respond on air to the Savio family filing a wrongful death suit against Peterson.

On Fox’s Good Day Chicago show Drew made an embarrassing blunder. While leading into questions about the wrongful death suit, host Jan Jeffcoat asked a few questions about Peterson’s children, including what Drew tells them regarding his missing wife, Stacy’s, whereabouts. “What do you tell your children when they say, ‘Where’s Mommy?’ What do you say to them?” Jeffcoat asked.

Drew responded, “She’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.”

With some surprise in her voice, Jeffcoat asked, “Why do you say she’s not coming back?” Peterson quickly did a one-eighty, “I don’t say she’s not coming back.”

As the video feed switched to still images of Stacy and her children, Jeffcoat pursued the question, “You just said, “I tell them she’s on vacation. She’s not coming back.” Drew began to backpedal saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean that. She’s on vacation…and we don’t know when she’s coming back. My little girl keeps asking when she’s coming back and I keep telling her I don’t know.”

Jeffcoat then expressed that it must be heartbreaking for Drew. He responded, “It is for me, yes. But it’s become commonplace for the kids”

If it’s so commonplace for the kids, why is it that his little girl keeps asking when Mommy is coming back? If it’s so heartbreaking for Drew, why does he have an ongoing relationship with a young woman who according to Drew “comes and goes” from his home and in and out of the children’s lives? How does he explain that to his children?

Fatal Vows – Update on Susan Murphy Milano’s New Show

Fatal Vows by Joe Hosey

Yesterday, Susan Murphy Milano debuted her new blogttalk radio show. Rescueapet and I were invited to ask some questions about the Drew Peterson cases of her guest, Joe Hosey as was Delilah from Peace4theMissing.  We tried to ask the questions that people posted here, so I hope you heard yours answered.

Not everyone was able to hear the show or to download the MP3, and have asked us for a synopsis, and I started to write one but I just sort of ended up transcribing the Q & A portion of the show plus a little more.

Here you go:

Intro by Susan MM: Lies women tell themselves as they endure daily abuse, the secrets they hold close to their hearts for fear their true identity as battered women will be revealed and the life they lead until one day we all read about them with our morning coffee, suddenly vanished without a trace, their lifeless bodies discovered.

Q: What is the status of the Grand Jury?

JOE: After the eighteen-month term is over they’re going to have to have to let them go, by law. They’d have to empanel a whole new Grand Jury and bring them up to speed and I think that would take an awful lot of time after eighteen months of testimony to bring an entirely new Grand Jury up to speed. I would hope that, you know you hear from State’s Attorney’s office that there’s going to be an imminent resolution. He didn’t say ‘imminent’, he said pending resolution. I would hope that’s coming soon but I hope it’s before this Grand Jury term expires.

Q: So it’s still going on?

JOE: Yes, I believe until the first week of May. If my memory serves me, I believe Drew was at the first session of the Grand Jury and that was the first Wednesday after Stacy was reported missing or the second Wednesday. That would have been the first week in November and that would make eighteen weeks the first week in May.

Q: When Joe was last on your radio show he mentioned that he was surprised that Drew hasn’t been arrested yet and it seems like Joe does know some things that we don’t. Why is Joe wondering why Drew has not been arrested?

SUSAN: What happens is you can’t dilute the importance of a case. Sometimes you can allude to things, you want to say things. You want to keep the integrity of the case. You want to keep the integrity of you as a journalist. Am I wrong Joe?

JOE: No, you’re absolutely right. I’m doing the best I can to get the things that I know in the paper. Maybe if I did a better job they’d be in there by now, but I’m doing the best I can. Also, things that I hear and I don’t know if they’re true I’m still working on trying to find out if some of the things that I’m told, if I can prove them. I can’t just repeat things that I hear.

SUSAN: Joe is part of a list of very credible reporters who will only report the facts because if he doesn’t it’s really going to hurt because he’ll be brought in for questioning himself. He could be subpoenaed to the Grand Jury for articles he’s written or things that he has said, and that’s why everybody has been so careful.

The Peterson Grand Jury: Weighing the Witness Testimony

MORPHEY’S GRAND JURY WORTHINESS

Comments have come up recently about Grand Jury appearances, after Tom Morphey went public with his knowledge of the events leading up to and after the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.  Mr. Morphey has stated that he has not given testimony before the Grand Jury.  Drew Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has offered the reason for this, based on his own interpretation.  He has determined, in his ultimate wisdom, that Mr.  Morphey is not credible, and that he “has a documented history of severe mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction.”

While Brodsky may say he’s relying on information provided to him, he seems to be the only one in the public that has specifically mentioned multiple suicide attempts by Mr. Morphey.  When doing an appearance at one time on Fox’s OntheRecord, Brodsky said that Thomas Morphey had attempted suicide “many” times in the past, and was not reliable. While he was on TV saying that, Greta got an email from Thomas Morphey’s sister, who said that was a blatant lie. He had “never tried suicide before.”  We have not found any references to Mr. Morphey’s “many” suicide attempts in the media, other than coming from Brodsky himself.  Wouldn’t it just be wiser, sound more reasonable, to say if and when Mr. Morphey does testify at a potential trial, Brodsky will submit evidence that disputes these implications?  No, instead, a man’s mental stability, references to medication he has been prescribed, and name calling is the rule of the day.  “Fantasy.”  “Delusional.”

CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL RECORDS

Funny guy, that Brodsky is, since we are all covered under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which “provides federal protections for personal health information held by covered entities, and gives patients an array of rights with respect to that information.”  In other words, unless one specifically gives another a Medical Authorization to freely obtain one’s medical records, they are private. Confidential.  We here assume Mr. Morphey did not give Brodsky a Medical Authorization to legally obtain his medical records, so we must assume Brodsky is full of himself and is merely making up the accusations of Mr. Morphey’s multiple suicide attempts to deflect attention from his  crime-suspect client. What is the word that comes to mind, the one  defense lawyers hate?  Oh, yeah, “hearsay.”  Brodsky must be relying on “hearsay” to make those bold statements repeatedly about Mr. Morphey’s “many suicide attempts”.  Unless Brodsky comes out with proof and can verify he has legally obtained authentic medical records relating to Mr. Morphey, we can just assume it’s all smoke and mirrors, once again. 

Health Information Privacy

Grand Jury Update

Stacy Peterson’s uncle Kyle Toutges said authorities were curious about his niece’s character and marriage while he was being questioned Thursday by the special grand jury investigating her disappearance.

Toutges said he testified for about an hour, during which investigators asked him where he thought his niece might be in light of her husband’s comments that she had left him for another man and is “where she wants to be.”

“The only other place she would want to be is in heaven with her sisters,” Toutges said. “If she was on this earth, she would want to be with her kids. That’s where she would be.”

Grand Jury Update

Attorney Thomas Glasgow speaks to reporters Thursday after his client Jennifer Schoon (background) testified before the special grand jury investigating the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and the March 2004 death of Kathleen Savio.

Jennifer Schoon, the former girlfriend of Drew Peterson’s son Steve testified before the grand jury Thursday.

Schoon and her attorney Thomas Glasgow exited the Will County Court Annex building at about 12:45 p.m.

“(Schoon) was the girlfriend of Steve Peterson and lived in the house with Drew Peterson and Steve Peterson during the time that Kathleen Savio’s body was discovered,” Glasgow said.

Glasgow said Schoon testified extensively but declined to comment on the content of the testimony.

*UPDATE* Drew Peterson’s teen son testifies before grand jury

By Danya Hooker
dhooker@mysuburbanlife.com

Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio’s 13-year-old son Kristopher testified Thursday before the grand jury investigating the death of his mother and the disappearance of his step-mom.

Kris Peterson arrived at the Will County Court Annex building at about 11 a.m. in the passenger seat of a black sports utility vehicle. Authorities ushered him directly into the building.

More than five hours later, Drew Peterson stood outside his home waiting for his son’s return and said authorities were wasting their time interviewing the teen.

“Ninety-nine percent of the people they’ve called have been unnecessary,” Peterson said.

The boy’s testimony, his first appearance, came just two weeks after his older brother Thomas, 15, made the journey from Bolingbrook to the Will County Court Annex building in Joliet. Peterson said neither boy knows anything about the circumstances of their mother’s March 2004 drowning or the Oct. 28 disappearance of their step-mother Stacy Peterson.

Peterson said authorities questioned Thomas about his home life.

“We didn’t talk about it in any great detail,” Peterson said. “He went there and answered questions as best he could and said a couple of times he had them laughing.”

Peterson said his younger son appeared to be holding up well before being taken to testify.

“I think he’s pissed off it’s ruining his day,” Peterson said. “When Kris is on his own time, he doesn’t want to be bothered.”

A few minutes later, the black SUV pulled in front of Peterson’s home and Kris exited the vehicle, looking decidedly not enthused.

“I have a headache,” Kris Peterson quietly told his father.

Father and son talked and joked briefly before the exhausted teen went inside to change out of his suit and tie.

“Kris is fine,” Peterson said. “Kris is tough but he’s 13, you know, come on.”

Police first interviewed both boys in November at the Will County Children’s Advocacy Center. Peterson said he had brokered a deal with the state to allow the interviews in return for a promise to keep them out of the grand jury process.

Shortly after the testimony, police subpoenaed both boys to testify before the grand jury and Peterson hired attorney Robert Novelle to represent them. Novelle then filed a motion to quash the subpoenas.

“Once again, state police went back on their word and re-subpoenaed them,” Peterson said. “It’s a shame I had to get them a lawyer just to protect them from the state police.”

Although the boys were not allowed to review their previous testimony from the advocacy center, Peterson said he believed both were given immunity in the event any of their statements appeared contradictory.
Peterson will make his own journey to Joliet Monday for a preliminary hearing on a felony weapons charge.

Police charged Peterson May 21 with felony unlawful use of the weapon. The charge alleges Peterson personally bought and owned the weapon, which has a barrel that is shorter than the minimum 16 inches required.

The gun was one of nearly a dozen police seized from his home in November while investigating his wife’s disappearance, which police are calling a potential homicide. Authorities recently reclassified Savio’s death as a homicide but have yet to name a suspect.

Peterson has maintained his innocence and has not been charged with a crime in either case.

“I still, to this day, don’t have a clue what they’re going to do to me,” Peterson said.