Remembering Stacy Ann Peterson

October 28, 2009: Today marks the second anniversary of the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

Let’s try to remember this today and mark it in some way in our own lives. Her passing has meaning. Her absence is felt. Her family and friends mourn her, yet they have no closure and no justice.

*************************************************************************
On October 28, 2007, after ending a phone call with a friend, Stacy Ann Peterson was never seen nor heard from again. She’s lovingly and fondly remembered by her sister, family and friends as a wonderful, devoted mom, someone who loved to be with family, especially when gathering to celebrate a happy occasion, and someone who wouldn’t hesitate to help another, if needed. Stacy’s disappearance and ensuing story touched many people, including strangers who never knew or met her–strangers who devoted week after week to search for her, who became friends with her sister and family members, and vowed to keep looking for her until she was found.

Tuesday, October 27, the WE network show: “Secret Lives of Women” is airing an episode called “Loved & Controlled” which will feature three stories, one of them the Drew Peterson cases. Anna Doman and Cassandra Cales , will be talking about their sisters, Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson and what life was like living with Drew Peterson.

In the clip below, Cassandra looks back at Stacy’s life, and her disappearance.

And Anna Doman talks about the mysterious death of her sister.

Upcoming Air Dates:
Tuesday, October 27 at 10pm | 9c
Tuesday, November 3 at 11pm | 10c
Tuesday, November 10 at 4pm | 3c
Tuesday, November 24 at 8pm | 7c
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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>

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>

Kathleen Savio’s death inquest – a sister testifies

Susan Doman

If you’ve been following this blog, you know that we’ve been trying to locate the full transcript of the coroner’s jury inquest into the death of Kathleen Savio from May 1, 2004.

To date we’ve been able to share with you the pages containing the testimony of Herbert Hardy (pages 7-15). We’ve now located the first six pages of the transcript, in which Susan Doman (then Savio) testifies, and we’re pleased to be able to share them with you.

EXCERPT:

Q. Is there anything else you’d like to add, ma’am?

A. Yes. I just — it’s very difficult for my family because of my sister telling us all the time, and I can figure, everyone, everything — one that she has seen that if she would die, it may look like and accident, but it wasn’t. She just told me last week, and she was terrified of him. He always threatened her. He had her in the basement one time. He did, many, many things to her. He only wished for her to go away.
And it’s just very hard for me to accept that, what happened. His reactions after this were a laughing matter. Cleaning everything out, ready to get rid of the house. It’s very hard.

Sue Doman’s testimony is especially interesting at this time, as this Friday is the date of Drew Peterson’s next hearing in which the defense will be arguing against the constitutionality of the “hearsay law”.

View this document on Scribd

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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>

Lisa Madigan and James Glasgow file objections to Peterson’s challenging of the “Hearsay law”

Lisa Madigan and James Glasgow

On September 4th, Illinois’ State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, and Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, filed separate objections to motions filed by Drew Peterson’s defense team, which challenged the constitutionality of the so-called “Hearsay Law“.

The objections maintain that the new statute violates neither ex post facto nor confrontation right principles.

Even if you normally have a hard time wading through legal documents, I’d urge anyone with an interest in this case to read through these objections. The quality of the research, the clearness of argument and the absence of silly evidence (i.e., quoting of Google searches) is in striking contrast to the motions that have been filed thusfar by Peterson’s defense.

UPDATE 9/11/09: The defense has filed a response to the objections by the State. It is the last motion to be filed regarding this issue before the hearing on October 2. Scroll down to read the reply. All of the motions can be found on the documents page.

Attorney General’s Filing of Objections to Defendant’s Motion to Declare 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 Unconstitutional

View this document on Scribd

State’s Attorney’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Declare 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 Unconstitutional

View this document on Scribd

UPDATE – Filed September 11, 2009: DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE RESPONSES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE WILL COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

View this document on Scribd

~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>

Will Drew Peterson’s trial be moved out of Will County?

View this document on Scribd

Last Thursday Drew Peterson’s defense filed a Defendant’s Motion for a Change of Venue (see above). In it his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, claims that the media has “prejudiced the jury pool” of Will County against the defendant.

It’s noteworthy that most of the exhibits Joel includes in the motion are articles that he printed out from the Internet, and also that these print-outs aren’t of any local publications, but instead of stories from Fox, CNN, ABC, etc. The most local source he includes is MyFox Chicago and (Lisa Bloom, please take note) Chicago is in Cook County, not Will County.

So how do national and even international online sources contribute to a direct tainting of the jury pool in Will County? Brodsky’s exhibits prove only that the case has been widely covered by the media and that those who are interested can find ample reading material about it of they want to…by Googling.

Speaking of Google, it was interesting to see that the motion included some Google stats showing that the term “Drew Peterson” returns 2.95 million results, almost double the results for the term “Rod Blagojevich“. Forget for a moment that most people don’t know how to spell “Blagojevich” and instead think again about how this is relevant to the motion to change the venue from Will County. Well….it isn’t. That is, it isn’t unless Joel can show that his stats represent only searches made by the denizens of Will County.

Among other case precendents, the motion cites Murphy vs Florida in which the Supreme court explained that “in deciding whether to grant a motion for a change in venue, it is important to examine whether such publicity is ‘largely factual publicity’ as opposed to material which is ‘invidious or inflammatory’.”

So, it is interesting the most of the stories Joel provides as exhibits to argue his motion are actually mere statement of facts. Katheen Savio’s body is exhumed. A pathologist declares Kathleen’s death a homicide, Peterson is a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance. Peterson is arrested, etc. Since these news stories simply report on Drew’s arrest, or quote from a letter Kathleen has written or even if Glasgow outlines what the state is going to attempt to prove, they are examples of “factual publicity” and don’t do much to bolster his argument.

It will be interesting to see if Judge Stephen White takes into account the immense amount of media time that has been granted by Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky themselves; and by that I mean not only the interviews to “give Drew’s side of the story” but the horrendous and tacky media stunts they’ve indulged in since Stacy Peterson disappeared.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 14.

REMINDER: If you have any legal/courtroom questions about the case for Karen Conti, please continue to post or email them and we’ll post her replies. Thanks!

~…………………………………………………………………………………………………..~
~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>