A day in court for Drew Peterson

By Danya Hooker

Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant suspected in his fourth wife’s disappearance, will be in court Monday to hear the conditions he must agree to before getting back his seized property.

His attorney Joel Brodsky will also be in court later Monday for the first hearing on a petition filed by four relatives of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, to have her estate reopened.

Peterson’s appearance will be his first since Brodsky petitioned to have the items returned in December. Will County judge Richard Schoenstedt in February ordered investigators to return Peterson’s two vehicles and computers.

Schoenstedt also ruled that Peterson could have back 11 guns but state police revoked Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification the next day, rending the order moot.

As part of his decision, Schoenstedt said Peterson would have to agree to a set of conditions. Peterson must agree, for instance, not to challenge the validity of any copies or renderings of his belongings if they are ever presented as evidence at a trial. Schoenstedt is expected to go over those conditions with Peterson on Monday.

Just hours after the property hearing, Brodsky will appear in court for the first hearing on a petition to reopen Peterson’s third wife’s estate.

Savio’s three siblings and father petitioned the court last month to reopen the estate in preparation for a possible wrongful death lawsuit. Drew Peterson’s uncle James B. Carroll was named executor of Savio’s estate following her March 2004 drowning, which was recently ruled a homicide.

Brodsky has said the petition should be thrown out on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations on filing a wrongful death lawsuit has long-passed.

“Even if it was a homicide, that doesn’t change the statute of limitations,” Brodsky said.

But Savio’s sister Anna Doman said she and her relatives have provided additional evidence that would justify extending the statute of limitations. Doman, along with her father, hopes to be named executor of the estate, in place of Peterson’s uncle.

“We were never able to (file suit) before because we weren’t in control,” Doman said. “He’s (Brodsky) grasping at straws.”


5 thoughts on “A day in court for Drew Peterson

  1. Surely the Statute of Limitations MUST START from the HOMICIDE investigations shown by both the 2nd and 3rd Autopsies…the initial BOTCHED investigagation MUST BE THROWN OUT!!!
    Interesting that we are only hearing about 11 guns…I thought 14 were confiscated BUT DP confessed to having > 20 including a “folding one” that he displayed on TV stating that the “cops” didn’t get “THIS ONE!”
    Without a “FOID” certificate DP is NOT ALLOWED to own any GUNS….HAND-EM-IN Drewpy…U of all people are not above the law!!!
    BY THE WAY…you have killed 2 wives without the use of GUNS…you clever SOB…you don’t need them!!!

  2. Please ask the Psychics/Mediums to get involved in the search for Stacy…the whole world knows that he murdered her and very cleverly disposed of her body..please help!
    Meanwhile DREWPY is trying to change his “Image”..{DOESN’T FOOL ME!}…whilst his DESPICABLE lawyer “pussyfoots” around the media!
    PURRRRRLEASE HURRY UP and take away his children for safekeeping….I am very frightened for them and ANY female who dates THIS DESPICABLE DESPOT!!!! {I am angry that he is getting away with at least 2 murders!!!}

  3. Both Kathleen and Stacy were SAINTS wrt their children…on the other hand DP only wanted to “slag” off his wives & children…now we are expected to see the “nice side” of him…”making peanut butter/jelly sarnies”…GIVE ME A BREAK!!!……both DP & Joel Brodsky are about as lovable as SATAN/OJ/ANS…Hurry up America & prove this “COP” DIRTY!!!!!!!! to the extreme!!!

  4. Brodsky isn’t “grasping at straws.” He’s got a firm grasp of the law. The reason Savio’s death was ruled a homicide is because of all the media attention this case has drawn. Until DP has been PROVEN GUILTY, you people need to back off. And shut up.

  5. Before I begin it is important for you the reader to understand that I am not a fan or a supported of Drew Peterson. I believe that if he broke any laws with respect to his missing wife or with respect to Kathleen Savio’s untimely end that the state will find the evidence necessary to convict him of those crimes. With that said, Drew Peterson is a recently retired law enforcement officer and as far as I can tell he has NOT violated any of the conditions as specified by the Illinois Firearm Owner’s act (430 ILCS 65). According to what I have read and heard a judge made a ruling that Drew Peterson can have his stuff back with the stipulation that he cannot dispute or deny any evidence obtained from them. i.e pictures of his cars. Shortly after the ruling was made, the district attory contacted the Illinois State police and requested that the FOID card or Firearm Owners Identification Card issued to Dennis Peterson be revoked. No grounds or reasons were publically stated. The illinois State Police responded by revoking Drew Peterson’s FOID card so he can no longer legally own or posses firearms or ammunition for them in the state of Illinois.
    The basis in the state law for revocation or denial is tied to the mental health of the applicant/owner, addiction to any narcotic substance, citizenship status and age, conviction of any felony, or any issuance of an order of protection in which a firearm was used or possessed as a basis for the granting of the order. I am NOT a lawyer, but I am a firearm owner and have been for some forty two years, What this action means to me is that if someone in the state of Illinois wants to remove my weapons all they have to do is to contact the state police and make the request. As I recall my elementary and secondary education, we as United States citizens are still innocent until proven guilty. Being proven guilty is the part of the law that the district attorny apparently ignored with Drew Peterson.
    If the state has the evidence to deny him the possession of his firearms, then the state probably has the evidence it needs to arrest and convict him……. but…. he remains a suspect…. free to roam about my neighborhood and prey on women who may sucumb to his (sic) charms.
    In my opinion he deserves to have his guns unless he falls under the criteria as defined by the Firearm Owners Identification law prohibiting him from having them.
    I think what is importaqnt here is that if the state can arbitrarily restrict Drew then the state can arbitrarily restrict….. fill in any name here. I believe that the second amendment to the Constitution of these United States grants the “right” to bear arms to its citizens, and there seems to be a direct conflict between that document and what the state of Illinois is doing in this case.

Comments are closed.