Drew Peterson: another hearing this friday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will County Circuit Court Schedule

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>


44 thoughts on “Drew Peterson: another hearing this friday

  1. Was just reminded that back in November of 08 07, Coroner O’Neil stated to the press that he didn’t agree with the finding of his jury that Kathleen’s death was an accidental drowning, but that he was unable to overrule their finding.

    According to O’Neil, a six-member coroner’s jury reviewed specifics of Savio’s death — including testimony from Savio’s family that aspects of the death were suspicious — and ruled the death as an accidental drowning.

    “Certain aspects of Kathleen Savio’s death raised concerns for me as well. In my professional opinion, having served at the time as coroner for 14 years, it was my opinion that, at the very least, her death should have been ruled ‘undetermined.’ The coroner’s jury, unfortunately, ruled otherwise,” O’Neil said.

    In 2004 law did not allow O’Neil to overrule the decision of a coroner’s jury. The law was changed in early 2007 to allow a coroner to bypass the jury process and rule on a death independently.

    “Had this option been available in 2004, the ruling in this case would have been different,” O’Neil said.


  2. Oh, yeah, he says? Maybe speaking up while the inquest was going on may have helped guide the panel, or answer any pressing questions they may have had. He may not have had the option to overrule, but he had the option of opening his pie hole for the sake of making things right. Whatever.


  3. Actually, it was November 8, 2007 that O’Neil came out in this article saying he didn’t agree with the original ruling by the jury. That was just ten days after Stacy vanished and prior to Kathleen’s exhumation. Sounds to me like he knew immediately after Stacy vanished that this was going to come back and bite him in the behind. I agree with Rescue –where was all of his concern to override the testimony of the ISP officer who convinced the jurors there wasn’t anything fishy going on with her death even though he wasn’t present at the death scene or her autopsy. And, wouldn’t you think he would have hesitated about a police officer who knew Drew sitting on the panel? I’m glad he did finally speak up in November, 2007, but where was he for the 3-1/2 years before Stacy came up MIA?

  4. It’s very hard to find a positive thing to say about the initial investigation and the inquest. Even those involved, if it was done “above board,” would have to agree how bad it looks now.

    I would think that untangling the original mess had to be a chore in and of itself, let alone gathering the crucial evidence needed to charge, try and convict the person responsible. If nothing else, the present SA and investigators certainly had their work cut out for them. Whatever may come of Drew Peterson, it sure was an uphill task for the State to sort this all out. Yet, if their mounds of evidence turns out to be enough to convict him, what does that say about the first chance they had, when it was all fresh?

  5. I agree, Rescue. It was surely his duty to advise the jury of his view (and say why!!!) or is he just acting as a moderator? weird.

  6. I totally agree with you rescue, he could have said something at the time. I find it very difficult to believe that he had no say whatsoever in how things panned out.

  7. Expect to see a whole lotta “CYA” and monday morning quarterbacking as this case proceeds.
    I still say everyone of those *officials* who were derelict in duty needs to go.

  8. “Certain aspects of Kathleen Savio’s death raised concerns for me as well. In my professional opinion, having served at the time as coroner for 14 years, it was my opinion that, at the very least, her death should have been ruled ‘undetermined.’ The coroner’s jury, unfortunately, ruled otherwise,” O’Neil said.

    * * * * * * * * * *

    So. Just what is the benefit of his 14yrs of experience to anyone? It would have been nice for the community who pays him to have had him open his mouth. I can understand a remark like that if it came from a coroner who was a mere spectator. How frustrating would that be to hear the details, compare it to your vast experience and not be entitled to voice your concern?….O’Neil looks like a jackass.

  9. 😦 😦 😦


    (B)Violent past, slain wife — but no arrests(/B)
    (I)Victim’s family leery of her spouse, who is not a suspect (/I)

    July 7, 2009

    BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist

    Two days before Irma Rodriguez was to be in court for a hearing in her divorce case, she disappeared from her Oak Forest home.

    One day before she was set to officially end her 13-year marriage to a man who once shot her during an argument over his girlfriend, Rodriguez’s body was found in the trunk of her car parked on a Midlothian street.

    She had been shot several times in the back.

    Police have no reason to suspect that Rodriguez was the victim of a random street crime. When she disappeared from her home, she left her purse behind.

    But throughout her troubled marriage, Rodriguez had complained of domestic violence. In fact, in 1997 her husband, Norberto Rodriguez, was fired as a Chicago Police officer after he was accused of shooting her during an argument. He was later acquitted in a bench trial of attempted murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, armed violence and aggravated battery.

    More recently, in seeking an order of protection, Rodriguez said her husband had threatened to kill her.

    I want to be clear here: Norberto Rodriguez has not been named a person of interest or a suspect in his wife’s murder.

    Still, Irma Rodriguez’s relatives are convinced that the husband had something to do with her death.

    They point to allegations of domestic violence as evidence that the husband should be viewed as a likely suspect.

    “I talked to him plenty of times,” said Joel Tirado, the slain woman’s brother-in-law.

    “Irma was afraid to leave him because she felt she had no out. She was a Christian and she really did try to make her marriage work. Although she left him a couple of times, she would always go back,” Tirado said.

    “The last time she went back to him we were all shocked,” he said.

    Given the couple’s violent past, Irma Rodriguez’s family thought police would be able to make a speedy arrest.

    “I don’t understand how they don’t have anything, that they don’t have a suspect,” he said.

    “Her husband already attempted to kill her once, and there are other domestic violence incidents, but he is not even a suspect.”

    Tirado is puzzled.

    He doesn’t have to look very far to see a comparable situation in which a husband was deemed a “person of interest” and there was no body.

    In 2007, Lisa Stebic disappeared from her Plainfield home on the day that she mailed her attorney a petition seeking to evict Craig Stebic from their home.

    Three months later, Will County police named Craig Stebic a “person of interest” in what officials believed was foul play.

    Stebic’s body has not been found.

    When Stacy Peterson disappeared in Bolingbrook, all eyes focused on her husband, Drew Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant.

    It took less than two weeks for the Illinois State Police to declare Peterson a suspect in his fourth wife’s disappearance.

    Although Stacy Peterson’s body also has not been found, Peterson was recently indicted on a murder charge in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Savio’s 2004 death was originally ruled an accidental drowning.

    “I don’t understand what the difference is,” Tirado said.

    “I spoke with the state’s attorney. I spoke to the police officer. Neither one of them has anything that they can go by. It is an ongoing investigation and they are not going to share any information,” he said.

    According to Tirado, initially a witness came forward and claimed to have seen Rodriguez driving his wife’s car on the day she disappeared.

    But that witness has since recanted, Tirado said.

    “Police say they don’t have enough evidence to bring charges. I just find that hard to believe.”

    A spokesman for the Cook County state’s attorney’s office described the Rodriguez case as an “active police investigation,” but declined to discuss details.

    Meanwhile, next week Tirado and his wife, Rodriguez’s sister, will seek permanent custody of Irma and Norberto Rodriguez’s 14-year-old son.

    Irma Rodriguez’s family has put together a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of her killer.

    “She was a non-aggressive, lovable, lovable person,” Tirado said.

    “We don’t want this case to be put on the back burner. We want justice for her.”
    Related Blog Posts
    Norberto Rodriguez Armed and Dangerous?

  10. Hey Faxy!!


    It was just over a month ago. I remember seeing it and thinking “here we go again” 😦 in the sense an ex-cop abuser/murderer.

    Hmmm. Could that really be David Turvey? If he thought he would get a jailhouse interview, he may not have been paying attention lately. Even if it would only be planned to be made public after the trial, I can’t see the judge risking it, can you?

  11. They would surely be listening unless Judge White recognises their filmmaker/subject confidentiality. 🙂

  12. …oh, I take that back…Mancow would.lol BTW I like how the tags list on the front page says ” mancow missing”

  13. Hah, without his ‘edgy and controversial’ cash cow, he is sort of missing. At least missing from our conversations, my ears and this blog. It’s refreshing!

  14. What the hell is up with that Rodriguez case? That’s appalling. I wonder how the guy ended up being acquitted after he shot her that first time? I wonder why he hasn’t been named a person of interest in her murder? Sounds a bit fishy to me.

  15. Where on the will county docket does it show the hearing is the 14th? The date is still 7/10 on the docket i’m reading.

  16. Grandam, AFAIK, the web site is updated every Monday only. This isn’t the first time a hearing has taken place at a time that didn’t appear on the website.

    You can trust Theo’s information.

  17. Oh my God, how sick and twisted is this?!


    FOUR people have been charged over a sickening scam in which bodies at an historic African-American cemetery were dug up and dumped in weeds or reburied in occupied graves.

    Three gravediggers and a manager have been charged with dismembering a human body.

    “Authorities – who have said it could take months of further investigation to get to the bottom of the scheme – allege the four desecrated more than 300 graves at the famous Burr Oak cemetery in Illinois so that they could resell the plots.”


    It makes me think of one of my earlier theories about where the killer put Stacy. I always wondered if he put her in a cemetery.

  18. FYI – if you have a link that is too long, there is a site where you can shorten it.

    It’s tinyurl.com

    This site will take any url and shorten it into a more manageable one.

Comments are closed.