Peterson lawyers want help with discovery

law-school-for-dummies By:  —Steve Schmadeke – Chicago Tribune

Attorneys for Drew Peterson, charged with murder in the 2004 drowning death of ex-wife Kathleen Savio, were in court Thursday seeking help as they sift through more than 30,000 pages of investigative reports and hundreds of hours of audio recordings turned over by prosecutors.

Joel Brodsky argued six motions before Judge Stephen White, essentially asking that prosecutors be required to give more details about their theory of how Peterson killed Savio as well as “Cliff’s Notes” versions of the 9,470 investigative reports he has received.

“Are they saying my client held her underwater or knocked her unconscious or hit her over the head with a blunt object?” he said, later adding: “How did he do it? The state certainly has to prove that.”

John Connor, chief of the Will County State’s Attorney’s major crimes unit, argued that all that information was detailed in the reports given to Peterson’s lawyers.

“I’ve never seen a request like this in any homicide case I’ve participated in,” he told the judge.
White denied or continued the motions. He did tell prosecutors to give Peterson’s attorneys an estimated time that Savio was last seen alive as well as an estimated time her body was discovered in the bathtub of her Bolingbrook home.

Prosecutors also agreed to reveal whether any money or other consideration was given to Lenny Wawczak and his wife Paula Stark, former acquaintances of Peterson who Brodsky said in court Thursday wore wires and also videotaped his client.

Brodsky sought the same information about Thomas Morphey, Peterson’s stepbrother, who has said he helped Peterson remove the body of second wife Stacy from the couple’s home in 2007.

Brodsky said prosecutors have provided a list of 127 pieces of physical evidence in Savio’s death, including a Power MacIntosh 7200 computer, and a roughly equal amount of physical evidence in the disappearance of Peterson’s second wife.

Peterson has been named the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, but has not been charged with any crime.

White agreed to enter an order forbidding the state from listening to recorded phone calls between Peterson and his attorneys, something Connor said prosecutors already abstain from.

“If the state is listening in to an attorney-client phone call, they’re in big trouble,” said White, who also said he would allow Peterson’s attorneys to bring their laptops into the Will County jail, where Peterson has been held since his May 7 arrest.

Also, attorneys for JP Morgan Chase, which has been served two subpoenas for financial records related to the case, asked that the subpoenas be quashed. White is expected to take up the issue July 10.

An attorney forwarded calls to a Chase spokeswoman, who declined comment.

In a separate court filing, Country Mutual Insurance Co., the firm that underwrote Peterson’s $500,000 home liability insurance, has asked a judge to find that it is not liable to pay for Peterson’s legal fees or any damages that arise from a wrongful death lawsuit filed against him earlier this year by Savio’s estate.


Read Full Tribune Story

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Peterson lawyers want help with discovery

  1. Peterson trial witness list: 805 people

    June 25, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET — Saying Drew Peterson’s attorneys were attempting to simplify disclosure evidence into “CliffsNotes,” prosecutors thwarted the bid Thursday but will have to pare an 805-witness list down to the 50 most likely to testify.

    John Connor, the chief of the major crime unit for the state’s attorney, countered an eight-point motion from Peterson’s defense team that would help the accused wife-killer’s lawyers more easily navigate the thousands of pages of discovery evidence.

    “I think what the counsel is asking us to do is give them CliffsNotes on this,” Connor said, referring to the study guides that simplify books for students.

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky, argued that the first-degree murder indictment against Peterson was too vague.

    He wanted prosecutors to provide detailed descriptions of such matters as how Peterson allegedly drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio; whether he used any weapons or tools to kill her; exactly where and when the alleged 2004 murder occurred; and how Peterson may have gained entry to her home.

    “Was it a key?” Brodsky asked. “Was it, ‘Beam me up, Scotty’?”

    Connor countered that all of the information Brodsky is entitled to can be found in the discovery evidence already handed over by prosecutors. But Brodsky said it was too much for him and Peterson’s other attorneys to sift through.

    Judge Stephen White denied all the requests in Brodsky’s motion, but did tell Connor to come up with an approximate time Savio was last seen alive and about when her body was found.

    755 witnesses too many

    Brodsky also took issue with the 805 men and women listed as possible witnesses against Peterson. Connor is supposed to come up with the 50 most likely to testify by July 10, but was not forbidden from calling the remaining 755 at trial, which is scheduled to start Aug. 24.

    White also shot down Brodsky’s request for Peterson to take possession of the evidence against him while he is in jail. White said Peterson could review the evidence in the presence of his attorneys, who have been granted unlimited jailhouse visits with their client.

    Paid testimony?

    Brodsky also asked whether three key witnesses against Peterson were compensated by the state police.

    Brodsky named Peterson’s former friends Len Wawczak and Paula Stark, who clandestinely recorded their conversations with Peterson for seven months at the behest of the state police, and Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, who claims to have helped Peterson dispose of the body of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, in October 2007, as the witnesses he suspects may have profited from their statements.

    Brodsky asked whether Stark, Wawczak or Morphey were paid money or given consideration in regard to criminal charges that may have faced them.

    White said this issue would be resolved July 10.

    Joe Hosey Story

  2. If I recall, Brodsky had time to take on a new client that’s involved in what should be a high profile case involving the murder of a young Chicago Police officer. Had enough time to give a statement to the media. No wonder the Judge denies his bull crap motions.

  3. After reading this more fully, Mr. Connor’s remark that the defense wants “Cliff Notes” seems point on. It appears that the defense is overwhelmed, and wants only to get the main gist of this all, rather than go through the evidence and discovery and try and figure out just what the State’s case is.

    Also, did I understand this correctly? The defense wants Peterson’s home insurance policy to pay their fees?

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

  4. I wonder…Did any of the witnessed get paid by the state for the overhears ?

    I sure hope not. I don’t think that would bode well for the State’s case. JMHO

  5. Will Joel share his fee with the State if they do his job for him? 🙄

    I’ve only seen bloggers who claim to be in the know, saying that Lenny and Paula did not take a dime for their participation in the overhears, don’t know what the official statement by LE is.

  6. Brodsky sought the same information about Thomas Morphey, Peterson’s stepbrother, who has said he helped Peterson remove the body of second wife Stacy from the couple’s home in 2007

    Brodsky said prosecutors have provided a list of 127 pieces of physical evidence in Savio’s death, including a Power MacIntosh 7200 computer, and a roughly equal amount of physical evidence in the disappearance of Peterson’s second wife.

    Doh. Second Wife. *sigh*

  7. Ha, in other words, Brodsky has to act like a real lawyer now that his client has been charged, and he’s not liking it. If this doesn’t get him laughed out of court, I don’t know what will.

    IMHO, he’s bored with Peterson, he doesn’t want to be bothered with him anymore, and, most of all….

    wah, wah, wah, wah

  8. Oh, and as far as the evidence in his missing wife’s case, I bettcha they’re going to indict him soon for that too.

    Why else for this:

    a roughly equal amount of physical evidence in the disappearance of Peterson’s second wife.

    Funny, they want Peterson to have access, while in jail, to the evidence against him so maybe he can explain to them how it is he killed his ex-wife, rather than figure it out for themselves.

  9. No it sounds like to me the the (DP FROM LOGAN SQUARE) Brodsky wants his cake and eat it to? I know that the Savio famly will get justice one day I will be able to tell you all why I am so shure.

  10. “Are they saying my client held her underwater or knocked her unconscious or hit her over the head with a blunt object?” he said, later adding: “How did he do it? The state certainly has to prove that.”

    Maybe they aren’t. Not if they are building a circumstantial case. Joel wants them to make it easy for him. Why should they?

  11. I read on another board that the reason they gave Brodsky the evidence against Drew for Stacy’s death is that they are going to use it to prove he killed Stacy so she could not testify against him in Kathleen’s trial.

    And by doing that, they get the hearsay evidence from the pastor in.

    I’m not sure how that would all be connected because I’m still trying to wade through the legalese of that hearsay law!

  12. Noway, do you mean to say that some member of the prosection team actually wrote that on another board, or was it just some commenter’s opinion?

  13. From what I understand about how the hearsay law works, if Drew killed Stacy to keep her from telling what she knew, then the hearsay evidence from the Pastor could be brought up as evidence to prove that Drew killed Stacy. So the new law would come into play when/if Drew is charged with murdering Stacy.

    The same evidence (Pastor Shori’s testimony) could be entered into this current trial without any need for the new hearsay law.

    IMO

  14. I read on another board that the reason they gave Brodsky the evidence against Drew for Stacy’s death is that they are going to use it to prove he killed Stacy so she could not testify against him in Kathleen’s trial.

    Drew was not charged with the murder of Kathleen until after Stacy disappeared. Stacy’s disappearance brought unplanned scrutiny on Drew, resulting in the exhumation and re-autopsy of Kathleen. Then he was charged with her murder.

    So, isn’t that putting the cart before the horse by saying that Drew killed Stacy to keep her from testifying in the “Kathleen trial?” In fact, Stacy’s disappearance was a big factor in Drew being where he is today — charged with the murder of Kathleen Savio.

    These two matters are so intertwined and connected, it’s no wonder they uncovered evidence that points to Drew in her disappearance and death. Likely, it just so happens that she was pretty sure he’d come after her too after she probably used the circumstances of Kathleen’s death to get him to back off any trouble he might cause her during a divorce. But, honestly, I think he was so pissed that she had the audacity to finally move on and get him out of her life, that he wouldn’t have any of it, and that’s the reason he made her disappear.

  15. Rescue. 7:51pm I agree with you and have felt this before, that Drew will be indicted for the Stacy case also. When they removed the kids back in May, I really believe they finally felt they had enough on Drew to get a conviction.(And keep him in Jail) I think they thought long and hard about uprooting the children, and finally got all their ducks in a row.

    I think the testimony of Paula and Lenny, along with Tom Morphey will be devastating to Drew. I say this, no matter how Brodsky paints all these people. My hope is that they were not paid to get the information. On the other hand, I cannot see Lenny or Paula doing this for nothing. Informants are usually paid..so even if that were the case, I don’t think it is going to free Drew down the line no matter how loud the defence screams.

    Lastly, I do think Brodsky is bored now with the Drew Case per se. He knows what is going to go down, he just wants to move on and make money any way he can. He is a lousy lawyer in my eyes. I also wonder if Eric will come forward and tell what he knows? PJ

  16. I believe the person had no legal connection to this case and no legal expertise. But really, I don’t know that.

  17. If Drew did kill Kathleen and Stacy knew that, and she was going to divorce him and come forward with that information, could it be said that Drew killed Stacy because she would testify at the trial both Stacy and Drew believed was likely (knowing what they knew)?

  18. My own head hurts and I’m the one that typed that post. 🙄

    It’s clear in my head but I don’t know if it would make sense in the legal world.

  19. ….Also, did I understand this correctly? The defense wants Peterson’s home insurance policy to pay their fees?….

    I believe it is Drew’s insurance company itself who is asking not to be responsible for having to pay legal fees under the policy; due to the fact that he caused it himself!!

    And, Brodsky’s request for drew to get the evidence to peruse while he’s in the klink is probably so that drew can come up with good excuses for each line item and maniupulate every angle that they have on him.

  20. I guess there’s always something new to be learned, but the defense asking the judge to allow them to drop off a box or two of the State’s evidence with the defendant while in jail is a bit puzzling, to say the least. Isn’t that kind of screwy? If they are admitting they don’t have the time and manpower to go through the enormous amount of discovery and be ready for trial in two months, that seems pretty stupid to let the fox guard the henhouse? Oh, what an insane idea!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Where did the phrase,” Like a fox guarding the henhouse” start?

    DON’T LET THE FOX GUARD THE HENHOUSE – “Don’t assign a job to someone who will then be in a position to exploit it for his own ends. Said to one who entrusts his money to sharpers. The proverb has been traced back to ‘Contre-League’ (1589) and is similar to the Latin: ‘Ovem lupo commitere’ (‘To set a wolf to guard sheep.’) First attested in the United States in ‘Poet’s Proverbs’ (1924). The proverb is found in varying forms: Don’t put the fox to guard the chicken house; Don’t let the fox guard the chicken coop; Don’t set a wolf to watch the sheep; It’s a case of the proverbial fox guarding the chickens, etc. The idea is expressed in the old nursery rhyme: ‘Sleep, my little one, sleep. Thy father guards the sheep’.” From “Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings” (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

  21. Here is absolute proof that Len Wawczak and Paula Stark are two of the dumbest people on the planet. Wawczak and Stark said that they had Illinois State Police approval to go public with their undercover informant status. So what do they do? They come out through Joe Hosey and the Sun Times for free.

    My media guru told me that if they had gone to either the National Enquirer or TMZ, and agreed to come out exclusively through one of those outlets, they would have been paid at least $1,000,000.00, (thats one million dollars!!!!) for the exclusive rights to come out with that story! Thats right, Len and Paula just blew a million dollars.

    Maybe not so dumb after all, Joel?

  22. I remember that post, Noway. Out of one side of his mouth Joel was claiming that witnesses were just hangers-on lying to the media to get money, and out of the other side he was taunting L&P for not making money when they could have.

  23. FYI, Steve has made some corrections to his story:

    There may be more, but I just went to read the whole story and saw this change:

    Brodsky sought the same information about Thomas Morphey, Peterson’s stepbrother, who has said he helped Peterson remove the body of fourth wife Stacy from the couple’s home in 2007.

  24. Ah, good, with the “fourth” wife!

    That quote you posted, Noway, from Brodsky, is a good find! Isn’t it so obvious how unprofessional and unprepared Drew’s lawyer is proving to be. Proving what we’ve been saying all these months. Letting his client run the show, failing to control him, and now getting deluged with 40,000 pages of documents relative to evidence against his client that he’s unable to keep up with. It’s an impossible task for him to be prepared for trial in two months, but he’s had more than a year and a half to have gotten some idea what was coming. Instead, it seems he didn’t bother to investigate for possible incriminating evidence against his client, he appears to have relied on the lies his client fed him. Insisted repeatedly that he’d never be charged. Posted on a blog, encouraged his client to do radio gigs, take a couple of polygraphs, contribute to a book, hire a pr agent to set up Mr. Mom videos, encourage a stunt about getting engaged, use him as a pawn for interviews in exchange for plugging his own personal bar. This lawyer should be in the future law school text books on how to act like a disgrace.

  25. Before the hearsay law can be used I think they would have to prove that he killed Stacy.
    I also think Joel is going to jump ship on Drew. I am willing to bet Drew doesn’t have any money. The Savio family filed that lawsuit at the perfect time. A 300K suit and control of the rest of the assets doesn’t leave much for a defense team to live on. I see a public defender coming down the road.

  26. Oh my God! I’m sorry for my reaction, because this relates to the murder of an innocent woman, but I just laughed my ass off. Laughed at Brodsky, that is. Again, this begs the question: how on earth did this guy pass the bar????????

  27. facsmiley Says:

    June 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
    It seems clear to me that Joel Brodsky either doesn’t want to do the job of defending a client against a murder charge or has no idea how.

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

    My money is on “no idea how”.

  28. Good morning all!

    Still ROFL. Stop, Joel, you’re killing me.

    Were each of the 127 pieces of physical evidence given any fee or consideration? *ha*ha*ha*

    Have they been given the evidence re Stacy’s murder because on the 10th of August they’re going to show the judge that he killed Stacy to stop her testifying against him in Kitty’s murder? Isn’t that the way the new law works?

  29. No motion to move the trial or replace the prosecutor? I guess he’s had to admit he wouldn’t have time to chase these. It’s really sucking to be Joel 😀 and he can’t call a press conference to complain about it now.

  30. Good morning!

    Paula and Lenny clearly stated they did not take any money.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6284855
    […]
    Peterson was also talking Thursday. He says his former friends are just trying to make some quick cash.
    […]
    “How can we be in it for the money? We haven’t made any money. And anybody we’ve been talking to doesn’t pay money,” said Wawczak.
    Wawczak and his wife deny Drew Peterson’s claims that they turned on him for the dough. The Bolingbrook couple say they had several reasons to help investigators. For Wawczak, some of it was personal. His own father was murdered when he was 9 years old. A witness came forward to find the killer.

    “Because of her… this guy is, you know, in Dixon Correctional Center for 200 years. So, I stepped forward partly because of that and because I felt something was wrong, you know, it was the right thing to do,” said Wawczak.

    Wawczak and Stark say they came forward after observing Peterson’s behavior after his fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared. The couple says he would sneak away from his own house to go to theirs. He called it a “safe house.”

    “Every time he would come here, he would take his battery out of his cell phone and we would be like, ‘What are you doing?’ And he was like, ‘They can’t trace me here,'” said Stark.
    […]

    ————

    How could we expect Drew or Brodsky to think someone can do anything for free? Brodsky would sell his wife to get some bucks 😉

    Though I can imagine it is very time-consuming to get through all the evidence, I think Brodsky’s enquiries (besides just to keep the State Attorney busy) are to have a point of reference (=the timeline) to abolish and base the defense on it. How can Nurse Pauly look for any miraculous witness if he doesn’t even know where to put him/her?

    I am really disappointed Brodsky did not ask for the pictures or a movie of 29th Feb. with the exact time display showing how Drew was killing Kathy. LOL
    If only this bathtub could talk…

  31. Just as I thought, more nonense from J.Brodsky & Co.

    For nearly two years Joel has been mouthing the State has nothing on Drew, the State has no case and what they do have is just hearsay/double hearsay.

    Now they have Discovery, Joel starts whining the State is overwhelming them with evidence (!!) and they want the simple Pre-School, or color by numbers version so Joel can understand it !!

    Hmmmm well if Drew was in bed the night Kathleen was murdered and one of Drews children already provided an airtight alibi for his Dad, what is there for Joel to whine about ??

  32. Brodsky also took issue with the 805 men and women listed as possible witnesses against Peterson. Connor is supposed to come up with the 50 most likely to testify by July 10, but was not forbidden from calling the remaining 755 at trial, which is scheduled to start Aug. 24.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Hahahahahaha, Joel Brodsky took issue with the 805 men and women listed as possible witnesses.

    Wouldn’t the number of witnesses and amount of documents indicate the evidence in a case, rather than what someone finds an “acceptable” amount ????

  33. This statement was made by Brodsky just after Drew was arrested. My question is, how could he even make a statement like this before he even knew what was coming? Shaking head.

    May 8, 2009 – Larry King Live

    KING: What are you up against, Joel?

    What’s the basic, biggest problem you face here?

    BRODSKY: Oh, probably the negative, you know, kind — the negative opinion that most people have of Mr. Peterson. It’s really not the evidence. At best, the state has a weak circumstantial case — at best, with questionable forensics and relying on hearsay — on a law that’s probably unconstitutional.

    So it’s not the legal problems that really — or the factual problems of the case that concern me. It’s just simply the negative connotation that people seem to have about Drew.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/08/lkl.01.html

    June 25, 2009

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky, argued that the first-degree murder indictment against Peterson was too vague……..

    ……..all of the information Brodsky is entitled to can be found in the discovery evidence already handed over by prosecutors. But Brodsky said it was too much for him and Peterson’s other attorneys to sift through.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    IMO, Peterson and his main defense attorney have fat egos, and enabled each other. They jockied for media attention, and now, thanks to all the fun and games, Peterson can’t bond out, the evidence against him is overwhelming the defense, and there’s no where to go now but down.

    The defense isn’t looking or sounding very confident these days. In fact, they look pretty pathetic if they had to motion the Court to force the prosecution to help them.

  34. The prosecution gave Joel 6 boxes containing 9400 documents, a list of 805 potential witnesses and Joel says hmmm the Prosecution is too vague how Kathleen was murdered !

    So according to him the 9400 documents don’t contain adeqate documentation regarding Kathleens murder ???

    How many more documents does Joel require before he feels it is explained properly ??

  35. BTW – How does Joel Brodsky know the first-degree murder indictment against Peterson was too vague if he can’t possily read through all the documents in the first place ???

    It may all be explained on page 9399 – LOL !

  36. I just have the feeling the closer we get to the trial date, the more bizarre Joels behavior and requests are going to be and once the trial has started his Courtroom behavior is going to be extremely disruptive and completely off the wall as he won’t be able to handle the pressure of a case of this magnitude.

    Joel is way over his head already and the case hasn’t even started yet !!

  37. Good morning everyone,

    does anyone know why there is return date in court today at 9:30?

    Sorry if the answer has been posted, I may have missed it.

    Thank you.

  38. JAH – there are almost 40,000 pages of documents. There may be over 9,400+ multi-page documents, but, to be clear, there are, as I said, nearly 40,000 pages, including transcripts of recording.

    So, again that leaves me wondering how Brodsky could make such a bold statement that he wasn’t worried about any legal problems before he even knew what was coming.

  39. cattessa – a “return date” is the option for a defendant to answer a filing without appearance in court. So, I am assuming the defense had until today’s date to answer a particiular something that was filed and required their response. All contain a return date.

  40. He is kind of acting like my kids when they don’t want to clean their rooms. But mom…..can’t you make the bed, would you put these toys up on the shelf, could I have a friend help me. I want money, but I don’t want to do anything to deserve it. I think Joel is bored by the Peterson case. Its not becoming the money maker he thought it would be. He is ready to move on, so if he could just get someone else to do the work part, he won’t mind taking any credit, if there is any.

  41. I think Glasgow’s move to collect so many documents was simply great. It does not allow Brodsky to ask for ‘quick’ trial.

  42. Wecome Tom (upthread),

    “Before the hearsay law can be used I think they would have to prove that he killed Stacy.”

    The way the law is worded, they wouldn’t have to prove it to a jury, just to the judge within a reasonable doubt. AFAIK

  43. I wonder how Drew is feeling about his lawyer using the Cliff Notes Defense (aka the Yada Yada Yada Defense).

    If my ass were on the line for murder, I’d sure want my lawyer to do a top-notch job and read through everything the State had. Couldn’t he hire some law students or something? Offer to pay them in chicken wings? 😉

    I wonder what all those lawyers and legal-types who were (allegedly) supporting Joel and his media blitz say about the “there are too many pages and too many witnesses” whine.

  44. I wonder if I were a lawyer and had a client who has a house, two cars, two motorbikes, a plane, 60.000$ pension and other assets… would I be willing to help him for free? If additionally this client kept me so busy so that I had no time for other clients?
    As long as Brodsky could have earned on interviews and all the publicity stuff that was OK. Now, with the gag order and the book selling below any average expectations, I think he is not going to be Drew’s lawyer for a long time. No matter who is going to terminate this agreement…

  45. Drew could surely help them dig through those 805 names as far as who has what against him and who would be key witnesses.

    I guess that’s what the Prosecution had in mind. 😉

  46. facsmiley Says:
    June 26, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Hire some law students and promise them that they can all write books and be famous one day… 😉

    ———–
    If it was legal, he would probably send those students to defend Drew too 😉

  47. noway406 Says:
    June 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    IMO they would do a better job, cyrhla.

    ———-
    For sure 🙂

  48. Jowlsky comes through with yet another first!! Never heard of an attorney requesting Discovery for Dummies.

  49. Thank you judgin for the most baffling criminal defenses and rescue for the correction on the amount of paperwork Joel has to read through.

    Is anyone ever going to ask Joel what he thought was going to happen once he received discovery ??

    Did Joel really think the States Attorney sat with his feet on his desk for 18 months, waiting for a whim to arrest Drew on ??

    ISP’s Sergeant Burek and the States Attorneys office gave Joel plenty of warning this was a VERY BIG investigation, but it appears that has fallen on deaf ears.

    I find it hard to believe these 40.000 documents do not contain information the last time Kathleen was last seen alive or the official time of her death,considering that is grass roots investigative stuff.

    What is the point of providing Joel with all this info if he doesn’t care to read any of it, but goes and waste Courts time with his childish whining and sulking !!

  50. Absolutely, what is the point of giving the defense all of this stuff if they are whining they can’t handle it all? Why didn’t Brodsky use his time wisely, rather than mucking it up for over a year and a half?

    The point is, there’s no way possible the defense is going to be prepared for trial in August. No way. The only reason I see them proceeding is because their client wants his right to a speedy trial. That must be one of the reasons why they motioned the court to allow them to give possession of the discovery to Peterson to help them sift through it. See if anything he reads will jog his memory into letting the defense attorneys in on how he killed his ex-wife. Er, how the State is theorizing he killed her. I don’t know what’s going to happen next, but it sure seems like the defense might be in a turmoil. Brodsky isn’t exactly laying low if he had the time to take on a new client, rather than refer him to another criminal attorney. You’d think he’d be in overload just dealing with the client he has, and any others the firm might have. I just am at a loss to understand why they let themselves get in this mess. It’s a fact that every piece of paper they have been given has to be read and abstracted. How are they going to do that and be prepared by August, unless they spend every waking moment doing it? Hmmmm.

  51. Drew could save his lawyer all kinds of time if he would just tell the State how Kathleen was killed.

    Then Joel wouldn’t have to read through all the discovery and they could eliminate the need to interview lots of witnesses.

  52. Why hasn’t Drew asked Glenn Selig to put a plea out there for Stacy to show herself so he (Drew) and the kids wouldn’t have to go through this?

    After all, Stacy was Drew’s alibi for the time Kathleen was killed.

    If she came back, I bet she could clear this whole thing up.

  53. Noway, I picture Joel reading your comment and slapping himself in the forehead….doh! wish I had thunk that!

  54. I am beginning to think Joel Brodsky actually believed his own bs by saying for 18 months the State has nothing on Drew, etc etc etc and as a result lived in ignorant bliss with plenty of time on his hands to act stupid and infantile until he actually did come in posession of the avalance of discovery and now can see for himself the State really means business (!!)

    Well hmmm Joel, if you take on a high profile case, you may actually have to end up doing an honest days work for a change and the bad news is you’re most likely never going to get paid for any of it as this case is never going to make you into a celebrity, win, lose or draw as it is nearly always unknown or seemingly insignificant witnesses that will steal the show with their revelations and out of the 805 potential witnesses you’re not going to know who that is going to be because you and Drew always under estimate the intelligence of your opponents – BIG MISTAKE !!

  55. BTW – Drew and probably even more so Joel are obviously extremely concerned about the extent and content of Lenny and Paula’s overhears for Joel to actually publicly busy himself with the notion of what and if Lenny and Paula have been paid.

    The overhears must have really hit a nerve for Joel to so easily give himself away like that !!

  56. charmed4sr, if I can be the cause of Joel slapping himself in the head or elsewhere, I call it a good day. 🙂

  57. Oh, pooh with Brodsky wanting to know if Lenny or Paula got paid for their wire-taps. As if anyone gives a rat’s ass how it was done, rather than what was said on the tapes. Personally, I think Brodsky getting paid for writing a motion that asks the court for help in defending their case is a joke in and of itself.

    Brodsky used up all his shock value when he came out swinging against Lenny and Paula. His rendition of their legal problems, Peterson making ugly innuendos about Lenny’s wife. What a stupid thing to do in the public, rather than saving all of his torpedoes for trial. Now, about all he’s got left to say about them is what he can about how they got involved in the wiretaps, maybe getting paid. As if anyone cares about that.

    What a crummy lawyer. Drew deserves him.

  58. Judge Stephen White denied all the requests in Brodsky’s motion, but did tell Connor to come up with an approximate time Savio was last seen alive and about when her body was found.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The above motion is rather peculiar, since an investigation always starts from the time a person was last seen alive and the time of death as they are two pivotal points, so it’s hard to imagine this was not in Discovery for Joel to file a motion over.

    Why does the Judge pamper to Joels frivolous motions instead of telling him to read whats in Discovery and to stop wasting the Courts time !!

  59. Oh, pooh with Brodsky wanting to know if Lenny or Paula got paid for their wire-taps.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Joel is wanting to stop Lenny/Paulas/Thomas Morpheys evidence from being heard in Court by way of discrediting the Prosecutions manner in which it was obtained.

    Joel already made the same noise when it became known Lenny and Paula made overhears on behalf of ISP.

    Joel and Drews favorite Judge already gave Joel a heads up at the time, the tapes did exist and were “quite extensive”.

    That was a nice/subtle hint from the Judge !!

  60. noway406 Says:

    June 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm
    Drew could save his lawyer all kinds of time if he would just tell the State how Kathleen was killed.

    Then Joel wouldn’t have to read through all the discovery and they could eliminate the need to interview lots of witnesses.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    LOL, Yeah, hahaha, Joel would be better off asking his client how he killed Kathleen.

    It would save him from having to file all these bizarre motions and get stressed about having to read and above all understand thousands upon thousands of documents by the end of August !!

  61. Hey all check this out !

    Drew Peterson’s Would-be Hit Man?
    June 26 2009, 10:08 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.
    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson_murder_for_hire_pachter

  62. Way before DP’s arrest, DP and Brosky said they were prepared for an arrest, if I remember well… it was said in some interview…

    Now, I WONDER, why in the world, they can’t follow-up, knowing everything the state said long ago..\THEY WERE INVESTIGATING..
    After all,
    The only thought that comes to my mind, is that Brodsky and AL……just want to make a show of all and make money on it..so sad, BECAUSE they are litterally obstructing JUSTICE by their actions.

    I hope that some lessons will be learned with this case, for advancement of the benificial cause of democracy.
    Let’s stop abuse at the TOP!!

Comments are closed.