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 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>

Why was Kathleen Savio’s third autopsy “news” last week?

Authorities exhume the body of Kathleen Savio 11/13/2007

Last week Lisa Bloom appeared on CNN’s Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell with a story about Dr. Michael Baden’s autopsy of the remains of Kathleen Savio, promising “jaw-dropping” and “gruesome” details. Then followed stories on CNN, CBS and numerous local news outlets.

For anyone who has been following the Drew Peterson cases, it was a bit of a déjà vu experience. There was essentially no new information in any of the reports. Since Dr. Baden performed his autopsy at the request of the Savio family in November 2007, he has made public his opinion that Savio was beaten, that she struggled, and that her drowning death was a result of an act of homicide.

So why were news outlets resurrecting this 20-month-old story? It appears that Lisa Bloom got possession of Baden’s actual report on his autopsy findings and a hard-copy of the document was enough to warrant a news story.

The report itself doesn’t appear to shed any new evidentiary light on what may have happened to Kathleen Savio during the last days of February, 2004. Yes, there are details about the condition of her remains that aren’t pleasant to read. Velez-Mitchell called these details “gruesome” but in reality they are only sad. Naturally, a body exhumed after three years in the grave will have undergone some decomposition, but that’s not what should be making us cringe or shudder.

What should be giving us goosebumps is the thought that she was murdered, that she predicted it and pointed out the man who would kill her to no avail, that she cried out for help and was ignored, that after her murder a sham of an inquest betrayed and insulted her and consigned her to the ground to wait for three years until yet another tragedy shed new light on her case.

So, we’ve heard these details and opinions before. Well, fine then. Why not hear them again? The story should be told over and over — even if it isn’t “news”. Kathleen’s family and friends live it every day.

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>

Drew Peterson waives right to speedy trial. Lawyer charges improper ISP conduct towards fiancée.

Chicago Breaking News (Chicago Tribune/WGN)
Drew Peterson murder trial delayed
July 14, 2009 1:32 PM

Drew Peterson’s murder trial won’t be going ahead next month as planned, after he waived his right to a speedy trial today.

During a hearing at the Joliet courthouse, Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky told Judge Stephen White that the defense team needs more time to review some 40,000 pages of evidence.

Peterson was scheduled to stand trial Aug. 24 on charges that he murdered his ex-wife Kathleen Savio in 2004. But White canceled that trial date today, after asking Peterson whether he understood that he was giving up his right to a speedy trial.

Peterson, wearing blue jail scrubs, stared down at his lap and replied “Yes, your honor.”

He did not speak again during the hearing.

Prosecutor John Connor, head of the major crimes unit of the Will County state’s attorney’s office, did not object to the trial delay.

Drew Peterson and Empathy

Dr. Keith Ablow, psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author.

by Dr. Keith Ablow

When Drew Peterson was brought into court on charges that he murdered his third wife Kathleen Savio, he was in a good mood. He yelled jokes to reporters about how “spiffy” his red prison jumpsuit was and called his shackles “bling.”

Peterson is, of course, also a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson, his fourth wife. He insists he is an innocent man.

Think of how you’d respond to being dragged into court on murder charges, especially if you were wrongly accused. You might be terrified or confused or enraged at the injustice of your plight, but you wouldn’t be all smiles, spewing one-liners.

So how can Drew Peterson do it?

To have any hope of understanding Drew Peterson, one first has to understand human empathy. Empathy is the ability to resonate with the feelings of others to such an extent that one actually experiences some of their joy or grief or anxiety. It is a remarkable and inexplicable quality that we too often take for granted. The fact that a friend can be brought to tears by a loss of yours, that you can intuit and share the worries or hopes or pride of your partner in life, or that the hunger of children thousands of miles away could spur you to action on their behalf is a tribute to this miraculous force.

Empathy does even more, though. It helps us contain our anger and our destructive impulses, because we can imagine how it might feel to be the object of that rage. It also helps us gauge what is appropriate language and behavior in various situations, again because we can imagine how others are likely to respond to us. We can put ourselves in the shoes of our friends or neighbors or loved ones.

Drew Peterson: another hearing this friday

UPDATE July 8: Hearing rescheduled for Tuesday, July 14th.

NAME                 DATE     ROOM    TIME      CASE   
PETERSON DREW W     7  10  9  402     930     09CF001048
PETERSON DREW W     7  10  9  402     930     09CF001048

Drew Peterson will be in court again this Friday, July 10, for a motions hearing. At that time Judge Stephen White should rule on continued motions and hear any new ones.

At Peterson’s last hearing Joel Brodsky argued six motions before the judge. He asked that prosecutors be required to give more details about their theory of how Peterson killed Kathleen Savio as well as summaries of the 9,470 investigative reports provided to the defense. This was denied. The judge also denied the request that Peterson be allowed to retain evidence against him while he is in jail.

At the last hearing Judge White asked the prosecution to reveal if payment or other consideration was given to Paula Stark, Len Wawczak or Thomas Morphey in exchange for their testimony. He also agreed to enter an order forbidding the state from listening to recorded phone calls between Peterson and his attorneys; although John Connor, chief of the Will County State’s Attorney’s major crimes unit stated that prosecutors have not been listening in.

The prosecution was also asked to produce a list of the fifty witnesses most likely to be called to testify, from over 800 witnesses originally named.

Will County Circuit Court Schedule

~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>

TruTV/True Crimes ~ Drew Peterson: Wife Killer?

From the Tru-TV Crime Library

Death Foretold

By: Chuck Hustmyre
 

Kathleen Savio

BOLINGBROOK, Ill.—Kathleen Savio predicted her own murder. She told her sister it would be made to look like an accident. She even named her killer, her ex-husband, police sergeant Drew Peterson. Not long afterward, Kathleen Savio, 40, was found dead—drowned in a bathtub, her long dark hair matted with blood from a one-inch gash on the back of her head. The county coroner ruled her death an accident. She was Drew Peterson’s third wife.

With Kathleen’s death, Drew Peterson got control of a million-dollar life insurance benefit for the couple’s two sons, and he inherited all of his ex-wife’s money and property, including her suburban Chicago home and her half of their joint business investments. Kathleen’s dire prediction to her sister was not the first time she foretold her own murder. In November 2002, two years before her death when her divorce from Peterson was at its nastiest, Kathleen wrote to the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office, begging the prosecutor to charge Peterson with breaking into her home and holding a knife to her throat.

Kathleen wrote that her police sergeant ex-husband was furious over having to pay her child support. “He knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away,” Kathleen wrote. “Or kill me instead.” In the end, prosecutors now say, he did both. Three years later, Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared.

Drew Peterson’s would-be hitman revealed?

From Fox News Chicago

Updated: Friday, 26 Jun 2009, 10:08 PM CDT
Published : Friday, 26 Jun 2009, 9:18 PM CDT

34 year-old Jeffrey Pachter is a warehouse worker who got to know Drew Peterson in the mid-90s when they both worked for a cable wiring company, that according to Pachter’s wife.

Peterson at the time was moonlighting from his job as a Bolingbrook Police Sergeant.

Pachter, who was 18, had been charged with criminal sexual abuse for his relationship with a girl who court records indicate was 13-to-16 years old.

Peterson reportedly helped Pachter get court records that later resulted in Pachter pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

When prosecutors arrested Peterson and charged him with the 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, they alleged he tried to hire a hit man in late 2003, while divorcing Savio.

Pachter’s wife, whom Jeffrey is now divorcing, said he never mentioned it at the time.

But late last year when Pachter tried to reconcile with his family, he told her all about it.

According to Mrs. Pachter, Jeff said Peterson called one night and offered him $25-thousand to kill Savio but he said no and no money was ever paid.

He only told one person at the time. That friend, she says, kept the secret until Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy disappeared, and then he went to police.

Pachter is vacation with his parents in Wisconsin.

We reached his mother by phone and she said they had no comment.

Read the story at Fox News

Thanks, Lola, for spotting this!

UPDATE June 28:

Public records show that Jeffrey Pachter was charged with a crime, paid his dues, and that the case was closed in 1995.

09-29-1995 0001 4650 TERMINATE SENTENCE – SATISFACTORILY

In the eyes of the law, Jeffrey A. Pachter “satisfactorily” paid his debt to society 15 years ago.

The public records show he has no further cases of criminal sexual abuse on his record. DuPage County records show that his only active case is that of the current divorce: Case Number 2009D 000064.

Case Title IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY A PACHTER AND NICHOLE K PACHTER

~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>

Three court dates for Drew Peterson this week

Peterson has three court dates this week, Wednesday the 24th at 9:30, Thursday the 25th at 1:30 and Friday the 26th at 9:30.:

PETERSON DREW W 6 24 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Return Date
PETERSON DREW W 6 24 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Return Date

PETERSON DREW W 6 25 9 402 130 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Motions
PETERSON DREW W 6 25 9 402 130 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Motions

PETERSON DREW W 6 26 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Return Date
PETERSON DREW W 6 26 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Return Date

http://www.willcountycircuitcourt.com/

Thanks, Noway, for the info.

~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>