Your Thread – November 20

Hey everyone. I’ll give you all an update as soon as there’s news on the hearing today.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog.

About these ads

219 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 20

  1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-law_20nov20,0,373995.story

    State law allows hearsay evidence from murder victims
    Drew Peterson case may be affected if his wives’ statements are considered

    By Erika Slife and Ray Long | Tribune reporters
    November 20, 2008
    Whether they are hushed conversations or statements to police, remarks made by victims before they are slain can be entered as hearsay evidence in murder trials under a state law passed Wednesday.

    The law has the potential to affect the possible prosecution of former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson, who is the suspect in the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Will County State’s Atty. James Glasgow, who’s sought the law for months, said, “This is a bill that will help prosecutors across the state to utilize the statements made by murder victims . . . that previously would have died with them.”

    Glasgow declined to comment on whether the law directly pertains to the Peterson case, but did say that he would “use it aggressively wherever it applies.”

    The House voted 109-0 on the bill, which allows hearsay evidence into court in first-degree murder cases if the prosecution can prove to the judge at a pretrial hearing that there is a preponderance of evidence the defendant killed a witness to prevent his or her testimony. The House vote followed Senate approval a week before.

    Their votes meant lawmakers accepted changes proposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich that allowed the law to become effective as soon as the House approved the measure.

    Authorities have labeled the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, who was 23 at the time, a potential homicide. Her case spurred authorities to re-examine the 2004 death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40, whose case has been reclassified as a murder investigation.

    Loved ones of Stacy Peterson and Savio have said that the women had confided to them that they were fearful of Peterson. Stacy also allegedly told her minister that her husband had confessed to her that he had killed Savio.

    A special grand jury has been investigating both cases since late last year. Peterson, 54, has maintained he is innocent and has denied any wrongdoing.

    His defense attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the law will not greatly impact Peterson. Brodsky worked with lawyers to scrutinize the law.

    eslife@tribune.com

    rlong@tribune.com

  2. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1289783,4_1_JO20_HEARSAY_S1.article

    Peterson facing new law?
    Recommended (1) Comments

    November 20, 2008

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
    BOLINGBROOK — Drew Peterson is due in court this afternoon on a felony gun charge, the day after the state legislature passed a bill seemingly crafted to pave the way for his prosecution on a murder charge.

    In the days leading up to this afternoon’s hearing, rumors abounded about Peterson’s possible arrest in connection with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, but Peterson remained unfazed.

    “There’s rumors every time” he appears in court, Peterson said Wednesday. He called the hearing nothing more than “another day in beautiful downtown Joliet.”

    And it would be a stark contrast from the night before, which he spent in beautiful downtown Chicago after taping yet another television appearance. Peterson believed he would be appearing on “Dateline,” but was not sure if that was actually the program. He also did not know when the show would air.
    “The guys show up” to drive him to the set, he said. “I’m nothing but a prop.”

    A topcoat-clad Peterson was indeed picked up in a limousine about 1 p.m. Wednesday, his next-door neighbor, Sharon Bychowski confirmed.

    Savio investigation

    State police are investigating Savio’s March 2004 apparent bathtub drowning. When they first investigated the woman’s death, they found no indication of foul play.

    Then, in October 2007, Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished. Soon after, State Police Capt. Carl Dobrich called the young woman’s disappearance a “potential homicide” and named Drew Peterson a suspect in her possible death.

    This opened the door for state police to get another crack at finding any indication of foul play in Savio’s death, which officials now consider a homicide.

    ‘Drew’s Law’

    The legislation approved Wednesday by the Illinois House — commonly called “Drew’s Law” — may play into a possible prosecution of Peterson, although the bill’s author, State’s Attorney James Glasgow, declined to comment, saying he could not discuss specific pending cases.

    The law was crafted so statements of murder victims could be admissable in court if the victims were killed in order to silence them.

    Both Savio and Stacy Peterson reportedly complained to others that Drew Peterson might kill them. Savio sent an ominous letter to an assistant state’s attorney that read, “He knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”

    A minister, the Rev. Neil Schori, said Stacy Peterson confided in him that her husband killed Savio, and that he believed she remained with him “out of fear.”

    Double hearsay?

    Peterson was untroubled by the passage of the hearsay law, saying, “That doesn’t have anything to do with me.”
    His attorney, Joel Brodsky, has previously said the statements attributed to Peterson’s last two wives are “double hearsay.”

    Glasgow disputes this.

    “Double hearsay is when a statement is repeated to a third party and they repeat it to a fourth party,” he said.

    Glasgow called the new law, which was unopposed in the state House and Senate, a “powerful tool” and said, “I will be using this law aggressively wherever it applies.”

    RELATED STORIES
    • Hearsay exceptions

  3. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1289845,4_1_JO20_HEARSAY_S2.article

    Hearsay exceptions
    Recommend Comments

    November 20, 2008

    The new law allowing hearsay statements from murdered witnesses to be used as evidence joins about 40 other exceptions to rules requiring witnesses to testify in court. Other key exceptions:

    • Dying declaration: Statements from a dying victim naming the killer are typically allowed in criminal cases.

    • Child sex abuse: Young sex abuse victims aren’t required to testify in person. Their statements can be admitted as evidence during trial.

    • Elder Abuse: Statements may be allowed from elderly adults who can’t testify because of physical or mental disabilities.

    RELATED STORIES
    • Peterson facing new law?

    – Dan Rozek, Sun-Times News Group

  4. “There’s rumors every time” he appears in court, Peterson said Wednesday. He called the hearing nothing more than “another day in beautiful downtown Joliet.”
    —————————————-
    Hoping today is the day. GJ meets, decides all is good to go on Kathleen Savio case. Goes to court as his cocky self, and than BANG, an arrest!

  5. http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1289988,112008hearsay.article

    House unanimously passes ‘Drew bill’
    Recommended (1)
    Comments

    November 20, 2008
    By Dave McKinney and Dan Rozek, Sun-Times News Group

    Will County prosecutors on Wednesday got a new legal weapon they can use to investigate the murder of one of Drew Peterson’s wives and the disappearance of another.

    But it’s not clear if the measure unanimously approved by the Illinois House will lead to criminal charges against the former Bolingbrook police sergeant – or if the law will pass constitutional muster.

    The change in state law allows prosecutors to use at trial so-called “hearsay” evidence from witnesses who may have been murdered by a defendant to stop them from testifying.

    Pushed by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, the new law could apply to Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy, who vanished from their home in October 2007. Illinois State Police have labeled Peterson a suspect in his 23-year-old wife’s “potential homicide.”

    And a minister has contended Stacy Peterson told him her husband had killed his previous wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in a bathtub at her home in March 2004.

    The new law also might come into play in Savio’s drowning death. She had sent a letter to a prosecutor that said Peterson “knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”

    Glasgow insisted the law isn’t designed to target Peterson or any specific individual.

    “I expect to use this law aggressively in any case where it applies,” he said.

    The new law left Peterson, 54, unfazed as he prepared for a court appearance today in Joliet on a gun charge stemming from a police search of his home after Stacy vanished.

    “There’s rumors every time,” Peterson said Wednesday, adding that he expects his court appearance to be nothing more than “another day in beautiful downtown Joliet.”

    The new law allows a judge to determine whether statements made by a murder victim could be admitted as trial evidence if prosecutors prove the defendant is responsible for the witness not being able to testify personally.

    Because the Senate last week approved changes to the bill made by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the House action allows the legislation to take effect immediately.

    Before Tuesday’s House 109-to-0 vote for the new law, Peterson’s name came up. Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) pressed the bill’s chief House sponsor, Rep. Coreen Gordon (D-Coal City), on whether it related to the Peterson case.

    “I have no knowledge of that,” Gordon said. “When this bill becomes law, it would apply in every single case. It would apply to all victims.”

    The legislation is known as the “Drew Peterson bill” at the statehouse. A GOP staff analysis goes so far as to say it’s “in response to the Drew Peterson case.” But its Democratic sponsors have walked on legislative eggshells to avoid linking the ex-cop’s name to the bill.

    That likely is because of a provision in the Illinois Constitution that bars the General Assembly from passing “special legislation” pertaining to a specific person or business.

    The bill also could face challenges under the U.S. Constitu tion, where a recent decision seems to signal that Supreme Court justices want to limit the use of most hearsay evidence, legal scholars said.

    “We don’t really know what’s going to happen to it,” said DePaul University law professor Leonard Cavise, who noted there are a “whole raft” of exceptions to hearsay rules that have been deemed constitutional.

    Stacy Peterson’s family supports the law, even if it isn’t used to prosecute Drew.

    “Regardless of what happens to Drew Peterson, that’s a good law to pass,” said Pam Bosco, a spokeswoman for Stacy’s family. “It’s good for everyone in Illinois to have a law like this.”

    Contributing: Joe Hosey

    Hearsay exceptions

    The new state law allowing hearsay statements from murdered witnesses to be used as evidence joins about 40 other exceptions to legal rules requiring witnesses to testify in court. Some other key exceptions are:

    *Dying declaration: Statements from a dying crime victim naming the killer typically are allowed in criminal cases – a legal practice dating back centuries.

    *Child sex abuse: Children claiming to have been sexually abused aren’t required to testify personally. Their statements to social workers or counselors about abuse can be admitted as evidence during trial.

    *Elder abuse: Statements from elderly adults about physical abuse, neglect or financial fraud typically are allowed if the adult cannot testify because of physical or mental disabilities.

    Dan Rozek

  6. His attorney, Joel Brodsky, has previously said the statements attributed to Peterson’s last two wives are “double hearsay.”

    Glasgow disputes this.

    “Double hearsay is when a statement is repeated to a third party and they repeat it to a fourth party,” he said.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Good morning everyone! Thanks , hediddy!

    It’s going to be a busy day for some.

  7. Looks like they’re lining up their ducks.

    Remember the DP statement, “I should’ve had the b**** cremated”?

    Why in the world would he say that unless he didn’t want them to re-autopsy Kathleen? You might refer to an ex-wife that way, but not a deceased ex.
    In fact, a normal person might actually want to find the killer. Ex or not, that’s the mother of his children.

  8. I wonder……..How long will all three of DP’s trial’s last ?

    Hmm can you imagine the pages and pages and pages of transcipts.

    I wonder….Will the court reporter have to quit due to carpal tunnel syndrome ?

    Goodmorning and HAPPY GJ DAY ! :)

  9. I read on a blog yesterday that Rachel Mellon (Will County missing person) made an entry in her diary that her stepfather made inappropriate advances towards her. Hearsay!

    He was not seen walking the dog as he said he was that day she went missing, and he had scratches on him.

    I hope there is plenty of Hearsay Law about to shed light on many cases!

  10. Bucket – Everything that I see out there doesn’t include an exact court time – just a later in the day or in the afternoon.

  11. With the history of organized crime in Illinois, I’m surprised it wasn’t made a law long ago. But I suppose that’s federal crime and already covered under RICO.

    As usual, domestic violence and crime fall through the cracks. I hope this helps.

  12. Liz – good point. Chicago and many suburbs have lots of problems with gangs. I think that this law could have impact in that arena on an even larger scale than the DV cases.

    I know people are all worried like someone is going to use this new bill to get even with people they are mad at. However, wouldn’t they then have to put all of this false information out there and then kill themself in a way that frames the other person for their death for that evidence to be allowed?

    I don’t think that this law is going to be used on tons of cases.

  13. thinkaboutit: know people are all worried like someone is going to use this new bill to get even with people they are mad at.

    ********

    Yeah, but doesn’t this Hearsay Law mean that it’s got to be proven that a witness was killed in order to be silenced by testifying against a [murder] suspect?

    Plus, before any evidence would make its way to a trial, a judge would have to hear the reason why it should be allowed in a pretrial. He’d have the final world on that, right?

  14. You’re right think, its only in capitol murder, not likely to be used often. And only a suicidal person might try what you say.

    But look at the chicago murder rate this year–I wonder how many witnesses have been removed from the roster in local gang trials.

  15. According to court docket Dp’s court hearing is 1:30.
    PETERSON DREW W 11 20 8 405 130 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 1 Final
    PETERSON DREW W 11 20 8 405 130 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 2 Fina

  16. Rescue – That was my point. It isn’t like this can be used by all of the scorned women out there to get even with their man as some seem to think.

  17. rescueapet // November 20, 2008 at 9:57 am

    thinkaboutit: know people are all worried like someone is going to use this new bill to get even with people they are mad at.

    ********

    Yeah, but doesn’t this Hearsay Law mean that it’s got to be proven that a witness was killed in order to be silenced by testifying against a [murder] suspect?

    Plus, before any evidence would make its way to a trial, a judge would have to hear the reason why it should be allowed in a pretrial. He’d have the final world on that, right?

    ==============================

    Then how is this going to matter in the case of KS? They would have to say he killed Stacy. Why then wouldn’t they have arrested him for her murder.

  18. CHICAGO — The former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant suspected in his fourth wife’s disappearance is scheduled to be in court later in the day.

    Drew Peterson faces felony gun charges for allegedly possessing an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than allowed by state law. Thursday’s appearance is for a pretrial hearing.

    He hasn’t been charged in the 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    Click here for photos.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt is expected to rule on a request by defense attorney Joel Brodsky to compel prosecutors to turn over documents they compiled leading up to the charges against Peterson.

    Brodsky alleges that authorities are vindictively prosecuting Peterson because he was successful in winning court orders they’d fought.

    One of those compelled them to give Peterson’s guns to his adult son.

    Prosecutors dispute Brodsky’s contention.

    The trial is set to begin Dec. 8.
    Related

    *
    Stories
    o Drew Peterson Meets With Divorce Attorney
    o Drew Peterson Calls Missing Wife ‘Little Girl’ on Dr. Phil
    o A Year After Stacy Peterson Vanished, Husband Calls It ‘Just Another Day’
    o Attorney for Drew Peterson Denies Claims Charges are Pending
    o Drew Peterson Returns to Court on Gun Charges
    o Drew Peterson Failed Half a Polygraph Test on Missing Wife Stacy
    o Judge Won’t Dismiss Gun Charges Against Drew Peterson in Case of Missing Fourth Wife
    o Drew Peterson Attacked by Ex-Pal Who Says He Wore Wire
    o Drew Peterson’s Friend: I Wore Wires Because of Way He Acted After Fourth Wife Vanished
    o Drew Peterson Talks About Wife’s Disappearance, Grief on FOX News
    o Report: Drew Peterson’s Ex-Wife’s Family Doubts Her Signature on Legal Document
    o Radio Station Cancels Contest to Win a Date With Ex-Cop Drew Peterson
    o Ex-Cop Drew Peterson: Eligible Bachelor?
    o Experts: Despite No Body, Peterson Case Could Go to Trial
    o Grand Jury Wants to Review Will Between Drew Peterson, Ex-Wife
    o Drew Peterson Hires a Publicist, May Sell His Story
    o Police Investigating Letter Claiming a Sighting of Missing Stacy Peterson
    o Report: Anonymous Letter Claims Missing Stacy Peterson Spotted in Kentucky
    o Former Illinois Police Officer Suspected in Wife’s Disappearance Named in Brutality Suit
    o Investigation Reopens Into Death of Cop’s Third Wife After Fourth Wife Disappears
    Video
    o Drew Peterson talks to ‘Studio B’
    Photo Essays
    o Search Continues for Missing Chicago Mom
    o Drew Peterson
    o Missing Mom Stacy Peterson
    o Win a Date With Drew

    Peterson is also under investigation in his third wife’s drowning death, initially thought to be accidental but later ruled a homicide.
    PEOPLE WHO READ THIS…

    * * * * *

    I left the list of stories related because it’s mind-boggling

  19. teneleven said:

    Then how is this going to matter in the case of KS? They would have to say he killed Stacy. Why then wouldn’t they have arrested him for her murder.

    ****

    They only have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence so it is possible that they could do that in the KS case.

    But KS’s words could still be used as a witness to her own death. I think there are already hearsay laws that allow a person’s death bed statement to be allowed so it I am imagining this could be like an extension of that. They have her letters to the State’s Attorney, things she said to her lawyer, things documented in a medical report for an injury sustained, and the emergency order of protection. She can’t be a witness because she is dead and they just have to prove to the judge that he is guilty of her death by a preponderance of the evidence – so as you note it isn’t necessarily an easy thing and will not be able to used willy nilly in the court system.

  20. lizanne61 // November 20, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Maybe it will be a serial murder case.

    ****

    I had wondered if they would do one trial for both cases. I don’t think so though because I just think that they would still want to wait until they find her body or think that they are a t a point where the chances of any new evidence being found is pretty much nil.

  21. preponderance of the evidence
    n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

    I am confused. Sounds like preponderance of evidence is not guidelines in a criminal trial????

  22. teneleven – let me see if I can find the link. The criminal jury trial still requires beyond a reasonable doubt. But my recollection was that the hearsay law included wording that said preponderance of the evidence for the hearsay evidence part only.

  23. OK – Here it is from the Illinois Government site directly (I put the preponderance wording in all caps):

    ***
    Provides that the admissibility of the statement shall be determined by the court at a hearing outside of the presence of a jury. At the hearing, the proponent of the statement bears the burden of proving the wrongdoing BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
    ***

    Source: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2718&GAID=9&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=37188&SessionID=51&GA=95

  24. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,455129,00.html

    Drew Peterson to Appear in Court for Another Hearing on Gun Charges

    Thursday , November 20, 2008

    The former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant suspected in his fourth wife’s disappearance is scheduled to be in court later in the day.

    Drew Peterson faces felony gun charges for allegedly possessing an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than allowed by state law. Thursday’s appearance is for a pretrial hearing.

    He hasn’t been charged in the 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    Click here for photos.
    http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,2625,00.html

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt is expected to rule on a request by defense attorney Joel Brodsky to compel prosecutors to turn over documents they compiled leading up to the charges against Peterson.

    Brodsky alleges that authorities are vindictively prosecuting Peterson because he was successful in winning court orders they’d fought.

    One of those compelled them to give Peterson’s guns to his adult son.

    Prosecutors dispute Brodsky’s contention.

    The trial is set to begin Dec. 8.

    Peterson is also under investigation in his third wife’s drowning death, initially thought to be accidental but later ruled a homicide.

  25. In the case of Kathleen, prosecution would need to convince the judge that Stacy was killed in order to keep her from testifying against the suspect.

    If the judge accepted that to be the case, then Stacy’s testimony would admissable (her conversation wtih the Pastor in which she implicates Drew) in Drew’s trial for the murder of Kathleen, even though she is not around to be cross-examined.

  26. And here is one more interesting portion:

    ***

    (c) The murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered. If the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted.

    ***

    Source: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=9&SessionID=51&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2718&LegID=37188&SpecSess=&Session=

    So what this says to me is that hearsay from the victim of the actual trial is admissable if allowed. And that if the current trial is for the murder of someone else and a witness (or witnesses) to that crime were killed that hearsay from them could be allowed even if the defendant wasn’t already prosecuted for their deaths.

  27. I know I remember seeing somewhere that Stacy had a journal or diary of some kind. I many be wrong, but might that even be possible? Something on her computer?

  28. Bucket – I think you just have to go to the home page to see it. If you just click on the date it goes to the article about the hearsay law instead. I still see it.

  29. Any written letters or otherwise from a now deceased person who, in fact, said in such letters or otherwise that a certain individual threatened her or she feared would kill her, certainly would fit into this now passed law as hearsay.

    I don’t know how it gets much better than that. Kathleen wrote numerous letters about her fears and outright stated that Peterson would take her kids and/or kill her. She’s dead, it all came to be. Isn’t that a piece of the puzzle that fits?

  30. facsmiley // November 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

    In the case of Kathleen, prosecution would need to convince the judge that Stacy was killed in order to keep her from testifying against the suspect.

    If the judge accepted that to be the case, then Stacy’s testimony would admissable (her conversation wtih the Pastor in which she implicates Drew) in Drew’s trial for the murder of Kathleen, even though she is not around to be cross-examined.
    ======================

    This makes no sense to me as Stacy has not been declared dead.

  31. Rescue – We are in a world of technology now. Maybe she had said some things to people via via email, text messaging, MySpace, and/or FaceBook??

  32. teneleven – Someone doesn’t have to be legally declared dead to charge someone with their murder. They haven’t declared Caylee Anthony legally dead yet her mom sits in jail charged with her murder.

    You are right though – that lessens the chance that the judge will allow Stacy’s comments in for Kathleen’s murder. But Kathleen’s comments and letters will go in easier as she is definitely deceased.

    This is not going to be as simple a task by any means. It is just one more tool the prosecution has that they can try to use.

  33. Just a brief announcement of sorts to those who have made threats, veiled or otherwise:

    One benefit of having a paid membership at Flickr is having access to detailed and up-to-the-minute statistics about who visits your photo site, when they visit, which photos they view (say, of a private residence or vehicle, etc.) and which domains referred them (where they were linked from). So, anyone contemplating mischief should know that there already exists a record of your fact-finding photo forays which could be produced if needed as evidence of your involvement in said mischief.

    I now return to my usual programming.

  34. teneleven // November 20, 2008 at 11:03 am
    This makes no sense to me as Stacy has not been declared dead.

    ************

    She’s not been declared alive either. Her husband’s defense has not put forth any credible and valid indications that they’ve tracked her and can prove she’s alive. So, I can’t ignore that either.

    How do you declare one dead or alive? Facts, evidence, data, records, right?

    So, prove she’s alive by witnesses, records and sightings.

    Prove she’s dead by police lab work, cadaver dogs, witness statements prior to the victim’s last sighting.

    Who shall prevail?

  35. rescueapet // November 20, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Any written letters or otherwise from a now deceased person who, in fact, said in such letters or otherwise that a certain individual threatened her or she feared would kill her, certainly would fit into this now passed law as hearsay.

    I don’t know how it gets much better than that. Kathleen wrote numerous letters about her fears and outright stated that Peterson would take her kids and/or kill her. She’s dead, it all came to be. Isn’t that a piece of the puzzle that fits?

    ****

    This is why I wonder if the prosecution would even try to include Stacy’s comments to the pastor. I think that since Stacy has still not been found that it opens the door to more appeals that could drag this case on for years and years and years.

    Heck – Stacy was Drew’s alibi and he cannot bring her to the witness stand so her being out of the picture hurts his defense already anyway, right? And if they did get the phone records and can see that Stacy’s phone did call Drew’s phone many times the night that she provided an alibi for him then they can point to those holes in the defense. (Note: I don’t know what evidence they have or don’t have this is just a hypothetical point.)

  36. I think that the prosecution make sure that their ducks are in a row before attempting to admit Stacy’s testimony.

    Drew is most likely going to have to get Stacy declared dead before he can get that divorce he wants (seeing as he can’t prove she left willingly) so…

  37. No problem – teneleven. I’m not an expert on this by any means so please note that these are just my understanding of what I’ve read.

  38. Comparing Casey Anthony sitting in jail for a capital murder charge is, indeed, a parallel to this case.

    We pretty much have a good idea what the Florida cops have, the lab results, the trunk air results, the smell of death. It’s not a huge leap to figure out that the baby girl is dead, and her mother is the likely suspect.

    What’s different about Peterson? The public doesn’t have a fraction of the knowledge of what’s in law enforcement’s hands. The Hearsay Law might not factor in half as much as many think it may. Maybe it’s only a minute portion of it. We just don’t know.

    Racing minds, taking sides. It’s just a bunch of bloggers talking.

  39. Gee thanks Rescue and here I thought I have been here trying to help solve this case. Dang
    so much for my superpowers. ;)

  40. rescueapet // November 20, 2008 at 9:18 am

    I read on a blog yesterday that Rachel Mellon (Will County missing person) made an entry in her diary that her stepfather made inappropriate advances towards her. Hearsay!

    He was not seen walking the dog as he said he was that day she went missing, and he had scratches on him.

    I hope there is plenty of Hearsay Law about to shed light on many cases!
    _________________________________

    I remember this too Rescue. It is all here – says he kissed her and touched her inappropriately – seems I can’t copy and paste the text.

    http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/mellon_rachel.html

  41. The Florida rules are very different. They have to release everything that is submitted and I still don’t have a clue how the media could get their hands on the jail recordings so quickly.

    For the record my only comparison between these cases was that it is possible to be charged with (and even found guilty of) a person’s death even if no body is found and the person hasn’t legally been declared dead. It’s just harder to prove.

  42. Facs – I’m sorry about what the content of your post at 11:10 has indicated. Sorry that it’s taken such a personal turn of trying to uncover your personal information for unsavory use. Really, that is scary for all of us.

  43. I wonder….Is a reality show in the making ??

    Hmmmmmm….something along the line of
    Hens vs SYM ??

    note to self : come up with better name for
    show ;)

  44. Wonder – name calling is what it is. Maybe hurts some feelings, but that’s about it. The other stuff – scary.

    This is a blog, not a court of law. On a blog, we can say Drew Peterson is guilty. In a court of law, it his jury. Not rocket science.

    cluck, cluck

  45. Name calling never bothers me personally. This is not kindergarden folks. Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

    As for anyone posting personal information on bloggers…well everyone has an opinion on it and here is mine….ITS WRONG period. You won’t see me involved in anything like that.

    Besides, with my magical powers I already know where everyone is and who they are ;) j/k

  46. Dear Facs – You’re terrific. I’m really sorry
    e-nastiness has come your way, but I was so impressed by & proud of your responses; fast, fearless (at least you sounded that way), straight, and true. And all without descending into their ugly pit. Yay, Facs!

  47. Rescue, I think it would be WONDERFUL to do that for you, however with all magical powers they can’t be used for monetary gain…blah blah blah you get the jest…I wonder why I even have these powers sometimes :)

  48. Wonder – BTW, I’ve seen a past blogger here post her own personal information, namely an email address, marital status, career information, reason for returning from out-of-state to Chicago, right here on WP.

    Wow, was I surprised to see a repost on another blog that she’s complaining her personal information is being posted by others. Merely overlooks the fact that she was the one that posted her own personal information in the first place, then cries foul.

    Why?

  49. I wonder…….Could said person have a disease such as Multiple Personality Disorder ?

    That would be my politically correct response.

  50. Wait til I start showing up at the hearings and start reporting back to you. If I can just get past all the flirting that goes on around there, heh?

  51. Oh, Rescue – I know you’d be a hit, but I confess my dream image would be you, facs, bucket, basherette, wonder… all of you there and reporting back w. huge smiles. You know, the “Best News Team Coverage!” the way they do for rain in Southern Calif. :-)

  52. Think – I’lll bet that CRS can be a GREAT power and very healing at times. You’ve given me a new goal; I want CROPS (Can’t Remember Other People’s Sh*t). :-)

  53. btw – Didn’t mean to leave anyone out of that fantasy image of mine… you’re all there, whether I listed your name or not. You’re a great community and have been generous to me. Seeing the passage of the hearsay law yesterday w. so many of you was really fun- thanks.

  54. It would be a fascinating experience, and I have every intention of showing up for at least one, maybe a few, in the future. Just to get a glimpse of what’s going on and how it all works. I’ve never been able to sit on a criminal or civil jury, since working for lawyers myself, and having a husband in law enforcement, doesn’t make lawyers doing the picking very secure, LOL.

    I’d be sure to report back, but leave all the personal and chit-chatty stuff out. You’d only want to hear the bantering and rulings anyway, right? Not which reporter is flirting with Drew?

  55. Awww Rescue what’s the fun if we only get the real news?

    LOL on the CROPS!! I’m going to lunch with the lady that introduced me to CRS and I’m going to spring that one on her somehow during my lunch!

  56. I won’t lie. I would read anything you write Rescue, but I am more interested in the rulings and proceedings. Save the gossip for if it ever gets slow…;)

  57. Coffee – alas, when I was 22 or 23, I could have had a shot, who knows.

    But, of course, as with all of us, we mature, we compose ourselves, and we gain more dignity and self-respect about ourselves. Maybe not so for some, but I’d venture to say the majority of the women that blog here (and I do mean that) would be projectile vomiting quite frequently. Hens or non-hens, I’d say.

    cluck, cluck

  58. bucketoftea // November 20, 2008 at 10:52 am

    What happened to yesterday’s complete thread?
    I can’t find it

    FYI, the calendar link for November 19 does bring you to the Your Thread section but the Hearsay Bill story is first. You just have to scroll. It threw me off too.

    And now I’ll catch up.

  59. So, for the courtroom observers of late ~ look over your shoulder sometime – you never know who may be in the courtroom trying to rescue a real synopsis of the proceedings. :)

  60. Honestly, I think DiP is going to marry a bleached blonde grandmotherly type who will watch the kids while he hunts jailbait. Completely oblivious.
    Then he’ll leave her with the kids while he sails away to Aruba with the “little girl.”.

  61. DANYA & All Regular Posters Here – Finding this board and becoming familiar with your views and styles have been great for me at a tough time. Proof there are thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable, interested and interesting people out there has been better for me than watching live streaming puppies! Thanks.

  62. lizanne61 // November 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm
    Honestly, I think DiP is going to marry a bleached blonde grandmotherly type who will watch the kids while he hunts jailbait. Completely oblivious.
    Then he’ll leave her with the kids while he sails away to Aruba with the “little girl.”.
    +++++++++
    Geez, liz – That sounds so absolutely and completely repulsive, it’s probably right up DP’s alley!

  63. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/20/Possible_Ill_law_may_impact_Peterson_case/UPI-32271227202532/

    Possible Ill. law may impact Peterson case

    Published: Nov. 20, 2008 at 12:35 PM

    SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Nov. 20 (UPI) — The Illinois House has given final approval to a measure that may result in ex-police officer Drew Peterson being prosecuted on homicide charges.

    The Chicago Tribune said the House unanimously passed a proposal Wednesday that would allow hearsay evidence to be used in first-degree murder trials if it can be proved the defendant killed someone to stop that person from testifying. The law takes immediate effect.

    Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, disappeared in October 2007, but not before she allegedly told her minister Peterson had admitted to killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Family and friends of Peterson’s last two wives also allege the women discussed their fears regarding Peterson, the Tribune said.

    Savio was found dead in her bathtub in 2004 and there has been some question regarding the details of her death. Peterson, 54, has been named a person of interest in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    The Chicago Sun-Times said the law was pushed by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who said it would directly apply to Stacy Peterson’s disappearance and suspected death.

    People who read this also read …
    Illinois Senate OKs hearsay evidence
    Drew Peterson’s stepbrother returns
    Candlelight vigil held for missing mother
    Wife still missing after one year
    Progress cited in Savio, Peterson cases
    © 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  64. thinkaboutit2 // November 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Awww Rescue what’s the fun if we only get the real news?

    LOL on the CROPS!! I’m going to lunch with the lady that introduced me to CRS and I’m going to spring that one on her somehow during my lunch!

    Hmm … could you tell her you read on the Internet that they have done additional studies on CRS, and you now know you have advanced CRS, also known as CROPS.

  65. Off Topic Post

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Prominent Orlando attorney Mark NeJame told WESH 2 News Thursday that he is withdrawing as attorney for George and Cindy Anthony, whose daughter is charged with murdering their granddaughter.

    In an interview with WESH 2 News reporter Bob Kealing, NeJame said he was frustrated with the direction the Anthonys have taken, especially that they continue to contend that Caylee Anthony is alive.

    http://www.wesh.com/news/18025590/detail.html

  66. I’m thinking J Leving would feel the same way about taking on the DP/JB shenanigans. Leving sounded like his concern was first for finding what happened to Stacy, and that he had advised DP to find a real PI, like his.

  67. I don’t think Leving is eager to help a murderer divorce his victim. If Drew could prove that Stacy had left willingly and is still alive, I’m sure he’d be happy to help.

    Leving has built a rep as a lawyer who represents loving dads…not murderers.

  68. danyahooker Going in chambers to discuss discovery. Judge granted discovery on vindic pros but not selective less than 20 seconds ago from txt

  69. Re: The video.
    I thought we were all done with this but I’ll say it again in order to clear the air.

    Someone sent me a video/animation and told me that if featured Amanda. When Amanda was online here I posted a link and asked her if it was her. I also pointed out that I thought it was creepy.

    Amanda jumped to conclusions, delved into my personal life and posted here with a user name consisting of my license plate number. She was banned. As far as I’m concerned that’s the end of that.

    Recently , I was made aware of some threatening posts from another party and that was why I made my ‘public service announcement’ this morning. I just wanted to make sure that this other party was aware that their sleuthing has not gone undetected and that it is in fact documented. Again, as long as nothing unfortunate occurs…that’s where it ends.

  70. Well, your clearing of the air doesn’t sit right. It think you posted the video as a slap at Amanda for not agreeing with you. But that’s just my opinion.

  71. Bucket, I think Joel was trying to use two defenses. One would be vindictive prosecution and the other was selective prosecution. Vindictive would be based on LE being mad and placing charges because Drew got his guns back. Selective would have related to them charging him when they didn’t charge other cops (or Drew’s son) when they made the same transgression.

    So, if I understand it correctly the judge granted discovery on the one defense but not the other.

  72. Discovery of exactly what though ? All the overhear information ? Or stuff they would have gotten anyway ? This is confusing to say the least !

  73. For some reason I first read Danya’s “Vindictive pros” as “vindictive POS”.

    That would be some defense…

  74. First of all, the Judge acknowledged during a prior gun case hearing that he had a whole slew of surveillance tapes that he was going to be listening to and/or watching, in order to decide what pertained to the gun case or not, remember?

    So, why wouldn’t he have just said he’s got overhears, and that’s it? Why was he being “selective” in saying he was going to be listening to them to see what was relevant to the gun case? Why not just say – here, you can have them all? So, I don’t think it would appear they’ll get the whole nine yards.

  75. I don’t think overhears are likely unless they have them of ISP detectives saying “Let’s go frame him, boys”.

    I agree totally with Facs the other day. Gun illegal, keep it off streets, obliged ,in a way, to prosecute.Voilá.

    Who was de-selected from prosecution? Stephen? They want to know what if anything there is on Stephen?

  76. Here is what I found:

    ***
    Brodsky is requesting that prosecutors turn over documents from the time leading up to the charges against his client.

    Related links
    The search for Stacy Peterson Photos
    Drew vs. the media Photos “This timeline proves with more than sufficient evidence that the reason to do this is to punish Mr. Drew Peterson for exercising his constitutional rights,” Brodsky said.
    ***

    Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-13-nov13,0,4066872.story

    I think his argument is that by seeing all of these documents then he can show that they didn’t even think of the gun charge until AFTER they knew they were going to have to give the guns back or something like that. But if they succeed then they could possibly see all documents from the beginning of the case.

    I’m sure they went to chambers to duke out exactly which documents they will get to see. I’m sure that the prosecution will fight tooth and nail to not let him see something ahead of time.

  77. Maybe it will force the prosecution’s hand and they’ll have to announce “unrelated” charges sooner than later, since they might be giving up more in this discovery than they originally counted on?

  78. TAI, Joel was very adamant about a certain timeline or sequence of events when he was explaining the vindicitve prosecution defense on Pretzer’s radio show. So what you’re saying would make sense.

    BRODSKY: Yeah, it is. We’ve asserted, one of the defenses we’ve asserted is that, it’s called “vindictive prosecution” or saying that the state police caused this charge to be brought because Drew went into court and got his weapons back – the guns that were his property. They were taken in the search warrant. After the police had the opportunity to process it as evidence and record it and do all the ballistics tests and everything that he went and got it back. And they didn’t want to give it back at first, then they went and they pulled his firearms owners license and then after that, I forgot in order for the guns to go back to his kids, his son Steven, another police officer, that he was charged and I really think that this charge is simply brought by the state police to punish him for exercising his rights to get his property back – his weapons. I think we’ll be able to show that to the jury and if we do the jury will have to come back, they’ll be instructed to come back with finding him not guilty.

  79. I’m sorry I have no link for you, but I’m sure I recall saying at the time of the arrest that they knew about the gun, but understandably had more important fish frying, then: gun illegal, not to end up on streets, etc, et voilá encore.

  80. Then again then now that the Hearsay Law is in place why would they wait anyway?

    I’d imagine that many of the documents and the overhears they have would pertain to both wives’ murders.

  81. Well, after re-reading that above from Facs, I want to know when someone is going to argue on behalf of Kathleen Savio that she was being punished just for being the ex-spouse of Drew Peterson, and had not only her rights taken away, but her life. Huh, when is that going to happen?

    I think the jury will have to come back with a very different verdict that what Brodsky expects here with the gun charge.

    And, that is JUST MY OPINION.

  82. …every once in awhile the horror of a phrase like “would pertain to both wives’ murders” smacks me between the eyes and just takes my breath away.

  83. from wbbm radio
    Bones Found In Burned-Out Car

    (GARY, Ind.) A rusty, burned out car hidden in a northwest Indiana cornfield contained human bones, but few other clues to help police determine what happened there.

    Gary police officers discovered the car shortly after noon Wednesday at the northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Chase Street near the Small Farms apartment complex, just west of the fire and police training facility.

    The car, which appears to be either a Chevrolet or Oldsmobile, was parked facing east, its windows gone, the color lost due to fire and the elements.

    Lake County deputy coroners took possession of the bones, which they will forward to University of Indianapolis forensic anthropologist Dr. Stephen Nawrocki.

    While searching the car, police found a cell phone that had been burned, as well as a set of keys investigators hope someone will recognize.

    Detective Cpl. Arturo Azcona said a round metal ring contains four keys and a heart-shaped holder with a heart pendant hanging from it.

    “It’s too burned up to tell what color it was, but maybe someone will recognize the hearts and help us identify this person,” Azcona said.

    Sgt. William Fazekas said detectives with the department’s Auto Detail division will inspect the car. He hopes they can find a vehicle identification number to help determine the owner of the car.

    Investigators said they will be checking missing persons reports for anyone who hasn’t been seen since sometime late this summer.

    Because of the condition of the car and the plants around it, police believe the fire was set sometime before the area flooded in mid-September

  84. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/vindictive-prosecution-defense-allowed-for-peterson.html

    Judge allows defense for Drew Peterson

    November 20, 2008 at 2:54 PM | Comments (0)
    A Will County judge Thursday permitted former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson’s legal team to use “vindictive prosecution” as a defense in Peterson’s gun case.

    As part of that defense, Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky is asking that prosecutors turn over all documents leading up to Peterson’s May arrest for owning an assault rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches mandated by state law.

    Peterson, 54, is the suspect in the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who was 23 at the time.

    Police seized the weapon while executing a series of search warrants late last year in relation to her disappearance.

    Attorneys for both sides are meeting in chambers with Judge Richard Schoenstedt to discuss pending motions.

    Jury selection for Peterson’s gun hearing is scheduled to begin Dec. 5.

    –Erika Slife

  85. http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=112008&newsid=193

    Some “Hearsay” Testimony Now Permissable

    Testimony from witnesses who are now dead can be considered at Illinois murder trials, under a new law that’s now in place, with both houses of the General Assembly having accepted the governor’s minor amendatory veto. The parameters of this law, an exception to hearsay rules, fit the specifics of the investigation into Drew Peterson. The former Bolingbrook police officer has been questioned in the disappearance of his wife, Stacy, more than a year ago. Authorities are also looking into the death of one of Peterson’s ex-wives.

    The House sponsor, State Rep. Careen Gordon (D-Coal City), says as a former prosecutor, the law is a big step for victims’ rights — and it’s a law other states have adopted as well. She would not say whether the law is inspired by the headlines, not even mentioning Drew Peterson’s name.

    State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) noted it’s interesting Gov. Rod Blagojevich changed the law so it’s effective immediately — rather than Jan. 1, about six weeks from now. State Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) >also had some misgivings about a law that looks like it’s motivated by one case that’s in the news. Fritchey cast a “present” vote.

    The governor’s change to S.B. 2718 passed the House on Wednesday 109-0. The Senate accepted the amendatory veto lst week, 55-0.

  86. Joel’s argument is baloney.The gun charge was only one of a few other potential charges which heretofor have not been prosecuted. Like fraudulently notarising his own documents, but they had to keep the gun off the streets…….

  87. Okay – so am I reading this right? The defense can proceed on that theory, but the Judge hasn’t yet ruled on what, exactly, the prosecution has to turn over to the defense?

  88. He’s a defense lawyer though – his job is to do everything possible to get as much information possible to poke holes in the prosecution’s argument.

  89. That is what they’re in the Judge’s chambers arguing about, then, right? What motions the defense filed asking for discovery, and what the Judge is going to give them.

    I got it now.

  90. *sigh*, yes, that is true. His defense is FINALLY doing what they’re supposed to do – defend the man with all their might in Court, not on the blogs or in the press.

  91. Wouldn’t you be concerned if your attorney was unclear on what constitutes double hearsay? I realize Joel is going to drag out everything he can to defend his client, but appearing ignorant on the matter of legal terms just can’t be a good strategy.

  92. I totally love that exchange about double hearsay….sounds like Groucho Marx. I have suspicion that there is no legal definition for double hearsay. LOL

  93. Glad to hear the states attorneys office, did not turn over anything. So be it, on the dropped gun charges. IMO, this may not be a bad thing. Opinions?

  94. Crikey. Think of how the poison dwarf and the suspect will be smugging it up now. Pride goeth before a fall.

  95. teneleven // November 20, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    Charges dismissed and no arrest………

    Well, there goes my theory on how things were going to go. :roll:

  96. bucketoftea // November 20, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    I totally love that exchange about double hearsay….sounds like Groucho Marx. I have suspicion that there is no legal definition for double hearsay. LOL

    Maybe it’s like a double negative. And two negatives make a positive. ;)

  97. charges dismissed? So, um, the prosecution doesn’t have to turn over ANY discovery then, heh? That’s interesting in and of itself.

    There was enough to get this far, or the Judge wouldn’t have wasted anyone’s time. I guess we’ll see how Brodsky reports it. Or, um, that court watcher.

  98. I was right:

    Gun charges dismissed against Drew Peterson
    November 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM | Comments (0)

    Gun charges against Drew Peterson were dropped today because the Will County state’s attorney’s office refused to comply with a judge’s order to hand over all documents leading up to its decision to arrest Peterson on those charges.

    Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky asked that prosecutors turn over all documents leading up to Peterson’s May arrest for owning an assault rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches mandated by state law.

    Peterson, 54, is the suspect in the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who was 23 at the time.

    Police seized the weapon while executing a series of search warrants late last year in relation to her disappearance.

    –Erika Slife

  99. I think that Joel’s move was a smart one here. He boxed the prosecution into the corner which would basically forced their hand to fold.

    I’m curious to know if the prosecution dropped the charges or if the judge did. Doesn’t that make a difference as far as to whether the prosecution can bring the charges up again later? I know that there is double jeopardy and all but I think that only matters if it actually gets to trial right??

  100. Well, we now know that the defense didn’t win the day as far as their brilliant jury selection, case law, and trial tactics.

    The prosecution wouldn’t show their hand. And you can take that to the bank.

  101. I’m copying it here so you don’t need to hop out of the thread and back:

    Felony weapons charges against Peterson dismissed

    November 20, 2008 · 1 Comment
    A Will County judge Thursday dismissed two felony weapons charges against Drew Peterson.

    The decision came after the judge ordered the state to turn over documents relating to its decision to originally charge Peterson.

    The state refused to comply with the order, at which point Judge Richard Schoenstedt was forced to choose between either dismissing the charges or holding Assistant States Attorney John Connor in contempt of court.

  102. It does make you question the whole gun charge.

    The State must have known they would not turn over any discovery and that the charges would either be dismissed or that John Connor (a good lawyer, according to JB) would be held in contempt.

    So. where. do. we. go. from. here?

  103. The murder cases are the main thing and if turning over the discovery materials could jeopardize them…then good move on the part of the prosecution. Good move on Joel’s part if his main goal was to get Drew out of the weapons charge.

    But I know he really wants those discovery materials.

  104. I think that the State really didn’t think Brodsky’s argument would stand. I guess vindictive prosecutions are a b*tch.

    Now they need to just focus on the other cases I guess. That is obviously not happening that soon or else they would have handed the documents over since they’d be getting them soon anyway.

  105. Did Brodsky & Co. really get what they wanted?

    I guess so, if Brodsky is going to adhere to his constantly stating that there will not be any other charges forthcoming (Kathleen and Stacy), and the gun charge has been dropped.

    I guess not if he wants to see the prosecution’s evidence so far, which isn’t going to happen with this case.

    Noway – good things come to those who wait!

  106. bucketoftea // November 20, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    The dismissal sort of frees up everyone’s calendar.
    *********************

    LOL. Certainly does!

  107. I’m sure we can look forward to a full round of interviews with the gruesome twosome for a few days, so keep your fingers ready in case. :)

  108. I still wish I could have been in those chambers for the drama.

    Judge Schoenstedt: You MUST turn over the documents!

    Asst SAConnor: I will NOT turn over the documents!

    Judge Schoenstedt: You MUST turn over the documents!

    Asst SAConnor: I will NOT turn over the documents!

    Judge Schoenstedt: In that case, Sir, I must hold you in CONTEMPT OF COURT!

    Asst SAConnor: (exposing his throat) Do as you must Your Honor! I will NOT turn over the documents!

    Judge Schoenstedt: (pen suspended in the air) I…I…I hold you in conte…..Awww Eff it! CASE DISMISSED!

  109. I think that may be the first genuine smile I’ve ever seen on Drew. As for Joel…he looks a little like a cartoon character.

  110. “Schoenstedt dismissed the charges, making Peterson a free man. The state’s attorney’s office has vowed to appeal.”

    So…what would be different the next time, I wonder?

  111. “Schoenstedt… ordered the Will County state’s attorney’s office, at the request of Peterson’s attorney’s, to give the defense a “narrow and limited” copy of e-mails, memos and other documentation relating to the decision to charge Peterson.”

    So now we know what the materials were.

    I’m stopping now. I hate to post alone.

  112. Sorry, facs, I’m in between making dinner and blogging.

    That usually happens with Noway and her three-posts-in-a-row rule thing, idea, alone

  113. Well, I am tired of listening to all of them! I’m sick of listening to a poor excuse of a man trash and slime the mothers of his boys and daughter, and his attorney going right along with it, even though he never met either woman personally. I’m tired of them making book deals and doing tv interviews, without either woman having the luxury of defending themselves. I’m tired of listening to the uncovering of documented facts that Kathleen was a physically abused woman who was afraid of being killed by her ex-husband.

    I’m sickened by the fact that the children were publicly allowed to sugar-coat their dad on Dr. Phil but they have not been allowed to, likewise, publicly make statements that honor the memories of their mothers.

    If the Will County prosecutors don’t have enough evidence to go forward and charge Peterson with any crimes, then they should step up to the plate, admit it and stop this merry-go-round. Their piddly secret-coded press releases are wearing thin. Because thinking Drew Peterson is guilty isn’t going to cut it. If these two womens’ fates go into the continuous Will County unsolved pile, well, that’s just great.

    If they got out-lawyered by Brodsky, then they better one-up him next time, or just STFU. At least, for a change, the defense did it right, they did their maneuvering in a court of law. Now, they can just STFU too.

  114. Yes, disappointed in today’s hearing. The one thing that stuck in my head is that the gun charge has NOTHING TO DO with either the Kathleen Savio or Stacy Peterson case.

    Wonder how long it will take Will County to appeal this decision.

    What are the next steps that Glascow will take? Any word from out of the GJ?

  115. Right on, Rescue.

    I think the reason it’s been so good for me to listen to all of you here is that, like you, I’m so incredibly fed up with being unable to do anything much but listen to the rest of it. You’re right. Someone with authority needs to do right by these two women and their families.

  116. Hi WSF. It’s not just a matter of being disappointed in today’s hearing. Hey, the prosecution lost the battle, but, maybe not the war. The point is, in my opinion, their schtick is getting real old.

    Having faith in a legal body to bring someone suspected of a disappearance/presumed homicide, is not reaching. In fact, it’s expected of them. Someone’s death gets ruled a homicide, and a woman falls off the face of the earth, you expect, you demand, that your elected officials find, charge and convict the person/people responsible. Since Peterson is the only focus of their investigations to date, it’s only reasonable to believe them when they continuously say over the course of a year that they’re confident the investigation is moving along. Believe them and believe in them. That’s not asking for anymore than is required of them.

  117. Coffee – I’m not sad, I’m mad. But, the defense did what they had to do, in the right place for a change, the Court. Nothing to pick apart about that.

    I do think, though, that this gun charge is seeming to be similar to what the Florida authorities did with Casey Anthony. They charged her with neglect, but have now dropped that after charging her with capital murder. She also has those fraud charges pending against her, which, when you think about it, is low on the totem pole compared to her current situation.

    I still think this was an in-his-face tactic to keep him where they wanted him for a while. I just don’t know, one way or the other, if the prosecution was aware of what was coming or not. Never heard of not turning over discovery and getting a case dismissed. But, with Peterson’s case, anything’s possible. Case dismissed over lack of compliance is one thing, I guess. It wasn’t a jury decision.

  118. givarat // November 20, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Rumor has it the GJ is going over 7 months of Lenny tapes.

    I wonder…..Who hasn’t figured this out on their own ?

  119. I don’t know how much this is worth, but here goes:

    Book Author Breaks News in Drew Peterson Trial
    Date Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 09:18PM

    STORY COURTESY CRIME REPORT USA.

    Drew Peterson Exposed Author and journalist Derek Armstrong first broke the news from an exclusive source—on a morning radio show in Chicago—that it was likely Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt would dismiss charges.

    Crime Report USA Correspondent Derek Armstrong, Staff Reporter

    Drew Peterson with attorney Joel BrodskyA source close to the Peterson case disclosed to this correspondent that the State is ready to indict Drew Peterson in the alleged homicide of Kathleen Savio.

    On the talk radio show, The Sandee and Clint Show on WKRS 1220AM at 10:30am today, this reporter stated that he believed the state would prefer to dismiss charges against Peterson than to produce documents requested by Peterson’s defense team. “I believe the charges will be dropped as a strategic move to protect a future homicide case.”

    The source indicated the state was “very concerned they would lose on the Leosa Exemption, and are concerned about releasing information to the defense at this time.”

    Drew Peterson seemed as glib and “sociopathic” as ever as he emerged from the courthouse and kissed his lawyers Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood on the cheek.

    Judge Left With No Choice

    Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt was left with “no choice but to dismiss the case” after the State indicated it would not produce the documents requested by the defense to reply to the Vindictive Prosecution defense.

    Defense Throws Down Gauntlet

    Peterson’s defense team Joel Brosky (left) and Andrew Abood (right)In an interview by phone, minutes ago, Joel Brodsky appeared to throw down the gauntet: “This is the first case in Illinois history where a State’s Attorney was asked to turn over its internal documents for a vindictive prosecution defense. We put on an extremely vigorous defense to demonstrate to the State that if they chose to bring other charges they’ll have a major battle on their hands.” He went on to describe the long line of “Drew Victories”, from the official misconduct case in 1985, when Peterson was still an officer, to reinstatement as an officer after he was fired.

    An Indictment Still Coming for Savio Homicide

    This reporter’s confidential source indicated “charges will come, if not today, then soon.” The source indicated the indictment was only slightly motivated by the new hearsay law that took effect today. The hearsay law may allow the prosecution to present hearsay from witnesses such as Pastor Neil Schori — who indicated he was told by Stacy Peterson that Drew admitted he killed Kathleen Savio.

    More Compelling Evidence

    “The more compelling evidence,” the source said, “were the transcripts of the property settlement for the Drew Peterson, Kathleen Savio divorce.”

    The withdrawal of charges today on the lesser gun charge seems to be a move to protect prosecution documents from the defense.

  120. The source indicated the state was “very concerned they would lose on the Leosa Exemption”?

    That’s odd since that was not the defense that Brodsky pursued today. He was granted the motion to pursue a vindictive prosecution defense. He’s been talking about vindictive prosecution since Nov 1st and that is the defense that was used in the mock trial.

  121. In an interview by phone, minutes ago, Joel Brodsky appeared to throw down the gauntet: “This is the first case in Illinois history where a State’s Attorney was asked to turn over its internal documents for a vindictive prosecution defense. We put on an extremely vigorous defense to demonstrate to the State that if they chose to bring other charges they’ll have a major battle on their hands.” He went on to describe the long line of “Drew Victories”, from the official misconduct case in 1985, when Peterson was still an officer, to reinstatement as an officer after he was fired.

    If I were with the State’s Attorney I think that might make me all the more determined to go after the guy…

  122. We put on an extremely vigorous defense to demonstrate to the State that if they chose to bring other charges they’ll have a major battle on their hands.”
    ***********

    Well, duh, I would think so. Isn’t that what the hired guns get paid big bucks to do for their client – put on an extremely vigorous defense. I mean, they’re not going to sit on their butts and stare at the Big Bean outside of the law firm’s window all day and play poker, are they?

    Tishhhhhhhhhhhhh

  123. BTW, the new image links were all broken on that site and the article is badly in need of spell checking. Gauntet?

    I was going to contact Derek about it but I wasn’t sure which of his personas to get in touch with – novelist, publisher, private investigator, correspondent, staff reporter, or senior famewhore. Man, I thought Drew loved the limelight but this guy is something else…

  124. I’ve been told that the judge, Richard Schoenstedt, is a former Bolingbrook court judge and that Drew had dealings with him when he (Drew) was on the right side of the law (as a cop).

    Would it be a conflict of interest for this judge to preside over Drew’s court proceedings?

    I don’t know, and am hoping a legal type will let me know.

    P.S. I hope the State realizes that Drew is free to roam about the country.

  125. Noway, you mean like some sort of personal conflict?

    Because unless that’s the case I thought judges are always considered impartial and beyond reproach. So I don’t think any past legal proceedings would be seen as a conflict of interest, right?

    If you find out what the past was…let us know.

    As for Drew being free to travel, I’ll be the State is well aware of it. Of course the travel restrictions didn’t seem to have much of an impact on him anyway these last few months: Florida, New York, Los Angeles…were there more?

  126. Back in May (that’s right, isn’t it), who would have thought that there’d be a gun charge against DPeterson in the first place? Even then, the blogs were sizzling with different opinions about why, and what the outcome would be.

    Maybe it will be appealed as they say, and maybe an Appellate Court will overturn the ruling, and the prosecutor’s will refile.

    Otherwise, it must not be that much of a concern to them if they’re willing to let it get dismissed over emails and documents they’re not willing to turn over.

    Who knows?

  127. I find it funny that Armstrong talks about himself in the third person. It’s like the Seinfield episode with Jimmy.

    Nancy Grace (hahaha at first I typed in Nancy Drew) said that Drew said something to the effect of he’s going to Disneyland at the hearing. I think it was when they had Joe Hosey on the phone and he confirmed that. This is all just funny to him I guess.

  128. I guess this was dismissed without prejudice which means they can refile the charges at a later date:

    [QUOTE]Prosecutors can appeal to a state appellate court, but if they lose they cannot refile charges against Peterson, Brodsky said.[/QUOTE]

    Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455129,00.htm

    So they have two routes they can take. They say that they are going to appeal the ruling but I wonder if it is better to wait and refile so they can regroup or do so at a later time when showing their documentation wouldn’t matter.

  129. Rescue – I hope he takes his kids on vacation. I think it was more of a joke than serious. He probably feels like he won the lottery right now.

    Bottom line though is that he is free to go where ever he desires since he doesn’t have any legal restrictions or charges against him at this time.

  130. facsmiley // November 20, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Noway, you mean like some sort of personal conflict?

    Because unless that’s the case I thought judges are always considered impartial and beyond reproach. So I don’t think any past legal proceedings would be seen as a conflict of interest, right? …

    Yes, I think it would depend what kind of relationship the judge had with Drew. If they were drinking buddies, yes, conflict of interest. But if their relationship was strictly on a professional level, the no conflict of interst. IMO

    And of course (duh) the State would have done their homework too. If they thought the judge should remove himself, they would have said so.

  131. NG was adamant that the prosecution shouldn’t have to turn over their “work product” but that isn’t what the judge was asking for was he?

    She does tend to talk over people to make her point. I guess you just sign on knowing that’s going to happen.

  132. On , NG one attorney on the panel said the prosecutors wouldn’t refile the case. He said they’ll charge him with murder, and throw these charges back in there later.

    NG wasn’t speaking of the judge kindly for what he did. Wooo, did she rip him.

Comments are closed.