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

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

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

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

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

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

He did not speak again during the hearing.

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

Peterson is next due to appear in court Aug. 14, when his attorneys will try to have the case moved outside of Will County and to challenge the constitutionality of a hearsay law passed last year that allows Savio to testify “from beyond the grave.”

No new trial date has been set.

Speaking outside court after today’s hearing, Brodsky said the defense team “can’t digest all the information” prosecutors have given them without more time.

He said prosecutors have agreed to hand back to Peterson ownership documents for his two vehicles, a motorcyle and a lightweight aircraft.

Peterson intends to “dispose of” the vehicles to fund his defense, Brodsky said.

Peterson has been in custody since his arrest on May 7 and has pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.

— Kim Janssen

Date with Drew’s fiancée?
July 14, 2009
By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s lawyer followed up a routine court appearance Tuesday by claiming that a state police detective had asked the accused killer’s on-again, off-again fiancee on a date during the investigation.

Defense attorney Joel Brodsky told reporters that a detective had asked Christina Raines to a “dinner and a movie.”

Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004.

His fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007. He faces no charges in her disappearance.

Peterson, who remains in custody at the Will County Jail on a $20 million bond, is scheduled for an Aug. 24 trial.

~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>

72 thoughts on “Drew Peterson waives right to speedy trial. Lawyer charges improper ISP conduct towards fiancée.

  1. I saw Brodsky giving an after-court interview today, which is perfectly stated in this article:

    Daily Herald

    Drew Peterson lawyers to challenge hearsay law named for him

    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
    Published: 7/14/2009 3:44 PM

    Hoping to thwart prosecutors, Drew Peterson’s lawyers said Tuesday they will challenge a new “beyond the grave” hearsay law nicknamed after the former Bolingbrook police officer.

    The move is expected to delay the start of Peterson’s trial on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40, who mysteriously drowned in her bathtub in March 2004.

    Initially slated to begin Aug. 24, lawyers agreed to push trial back as the defense studies more than 40,000 pages of documents and other evidence it recently received from prosecutors.

    A new trial date has not been set, but lead Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky warned the hearsay law challenge is so crucial, both sides may appeal up to the United States Supreme Court.

    “The state would have to stop the prosecution in its tracks and seek an appeal,” Brodsky said if Will County Circuit Judge Stephen White agrees with him. “It would require, I believe, Drew’s release.”

    Brodsky also said he will file a change-of-venue request to move the trial out of Will County due to the intense publicity – much of which Peterson fueled himself through national media appearances and other antics.

    The so-called Drew Peterson “beyond the grave” law allows a judge at a pretrial hearing in a murder case to determine whether hearsay evidence – testimony or documents that quote someone second hand who is not available in court – may be admitted at trial.

    Prosecutors must prove in the pretrial hearing those statements are reliable and that the defendant’s wrongdoing made the witness unavailable to testify. Brodsky argues it runs contrary to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront his accuser in court for cross examination.

    In DuPage County, prosecutors successfully invoked the hearsay law in the Oct. 9, 2004, fatal shooting of a 17-year-old Warrenville girl who was killed shortly after accusing an acquaintance of battery. The man, Joshua Matthews, 24, if facing first-degree murder charges.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow pushed for the hearsay law as Peterson was under investigation in Savio’s death and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who hasn’t been seen since Oct. 28, 2007.

    Peterson, 55, has not been charged in Stacy’s disappearance.

    Prosecutors have said Savio told relatives of repeated murderous threats from Peterson. They allege Peterson killed Savio because he faced “financial devastation” from the couple’s ongoing contentious divorce as he tried to begin a new life with Stacy – with whom he had an extramarital affair – and their baby. Glasgow said Peterson even offered someone $25,000 to kill Savio months before her death.

    Peterson has remained in the Will County jail since his May 7 arrest on a $20 million bond. In court Tuesday, Peterson appeared subdued; his trademark grin gone. He did not speak other than answering two perfunctory questions from the judge with a polite “yes, sir.”

    Peterson is due back in court Aug. 14. He also sought Tuesday the return of several seized titles to his vehicles, a trailer and a lightweight airplane with the hope of selling the property to help pay for his defense.

  2. Peterson’s attorney asks for more time

    July 14, 2009 (WLS) —

    Drew Peterson’s murder trial is being delayed after he waived his right to a speedy trial Tuesday.

    Peterson was scheduled to stand trial August 24th on charges that he murdered his third wife Kathleen Savio. On Tuesday, Peterson’s attorney asked for more time to review some 40,000 pages of evidence.

    He also informed the judge he plans to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called “hearsay law” that will allow prosecutors to use Savio’s words as evidence.

    “I believe if the hearsay law is found unconstitutional the state will have to stop the prosecution in its tracks and take an appeal of that decision… it’s that essential to their case,” said Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney.

    No new trial date has been set.


  3. How do these two compare, and how does Brodsky challenge the “new” hearsay law if it doesn’t fit with this case? There are already hearsay laws in place ~ tried and true, so what makes this one the one that will be used in this case?

    In November, 2008, an Illinois bill – known as the “Drew Peterson bill” – was passed that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove the defendant killed a witness to prevent them from testifying. The new law basically allows victim witnesses to “testify from the grave.”

    IMO, if anything, he killed Stacy to keep her from testifying against him, should he have denied freeing her from the marriage, and her telling LE that he murdered Kathleen.

    Here, in Kathleen’s murder case:

    Prosecutors have said Savio told relatives of repeated murderous threats from Peterson. They allege Peterson killed Savio because he faced “financial devastation” from the couple’s ongoing contentious divorce as he tried to begin a new life with Stacy – with whom he had an extramarital affair – and their baby. Glasgow said Peterson even offered someone $25,000 to kill Savio months before her death.

    Just trying to keep this all straight. Isn’t that argument about the hearsay law for another trial, another time?

  4. Do my Harpie friends agree w. Jowlsky’s assessment of the State’s case? Do you think the prosecution doesn’t have a case without that hearsay law?

    Or is this akin to Blobsky’s amazing ability to ascertain that the State had “no case” prior, of course, to them dumping those scores of thousands of pages of docs?…

    (I hope/think they must have so much on him by now… I hope it will be enough no matter what)

  5. I’m wondering where in those 40,000 pages he found the date invitation.

    I’m also confused still about the hearsay law. I thought the law was more important to get Stacy’s word via Neil Schori in there. Kitty’s is well documented, and I think at least Kitty’s letters(!) would be admissable as things stand.

    Anybody think DP will be released pending Supreme Court appeal? Why? He’s no less dangerous, in fact more so, seeing as he has virtually nothing left to lose.

  6. See, Coffee, to me, the hearsay law in this case has me wondering why it’s even coming up.

    IMO, Kathleen was murdered by Peterson for greed. She stood to take what he thought should be his, and she was interfering with his new life. He killed her for financial reasons. How does the new hearsay law fit in with that, since she wasn’t about to testify against him in a trial.

    The hearsay evidence in Kathleen’s case is her written notes, letters and journals that she feared Peterson was going to kill her. Aren’t there already laws that address this particular situation, not the one that’s being called Drew Peterson Law. The DPL is, to me, about allowing hearsay in from, say, Stacy’s family, friends, and pastor, that she feared he’d kill her because she knew he murdered Kathleen.

  7. Blobsky’s blathering didn’t make sense to me (so what’s new, eh?)because I’ve had similar understanding as you explained above, Rescue & Bucket. I also thought the hearsay law was more key in prosecuting SlimeBoy for the second of his Wife-Murders.

  8. Oh no! It’s a worse disaster… the vehicles were listed as reasons why he wouldn’t abscond in his bail application, so when they go, he’ll be losing that many reasons why he wouldn’t abscond. Uh oh, Jowly not thought that through…

  9. Yes, well, going into Peterson’s financial records and dealings leading up to the bifurcated divorce proceedings indicates, which we all know, that Peterson was screwed financially due to his divorce from Kathleen. We know he used Stacy as an alibi, and we also know that she told Pastor Schori about details of Kathleen’s death. Even if they don’t use the hearsay of Pastor Schori, surely, he gave them information and details via Stacy that they used to further investigate Kathleen’s death. What does it matter how they went down certain paths, but, rather what they found once they got there?

    Hearsay, schmearsay, to me, it doesn’t matter. Yeah, it’s important that Kathleen left behind letters and notes saying she feared the dipshit. But, even if that were not allowed into evidence, the fact remains, she’s dead, someone murdered her, someone had a motive and means, and there’s not yet anything pointing to someone else. Otherwise, you’d have to believe that she was unbalanced, set him up with her false writings, and knowingly had some other stalker she knew of, but would rather frame him for her perceived fear of death. Makes no sense, does it?

  10. Bucket, to answer your question, I haven’t yet seen an extended video interview version where he refers to the date request, nor anything that details what his mouthpiece wrote about, when he said Raines was “allowed” to read emails and chats. (That one makes me laugh every time. “Allowed” to read. I didn’t realize she had that ability. Otherwise, she would have read the newspapers and magazine articles about what, and I don’t be who, she decided to hump for fun.)

  11. Jackpot. This explains the whole hearsay issue in question. Excellent article!


    Tuesday, May 12, 2009

    How Hearsay Evidence Could Help the Case Against Drew Peterson

    By Steven Gray / Chicago

    “Testimony from the grave.” That’s what prosecutors are calling a key part of their strategy against Drew Peterson, the former Illinois police officer arrested last week on charges that he murdered the third of his four wives. It may sound like just another melodramatic turn in the tabloid tale of Peterson, who has been under a cloud of suspicion since his petite fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in the fall of 2007 after reportedly telling relatives that she wanted to leave what she described as an abusive relationship. But the prosecution’s strategy against Peterson, 55, could in fact be based on a controversial new Illinois law that allows for the admission of hearsay testimony.

    The 2004 death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, was originally ruled to be an accidental drowning after her body was found in her bathtub. But after all the media attention on Stacy Peterson, 23, Savio’s body was exhumed, and a coroner reclassified her death as a “homicide staged to look like an accident.” All the while, Drew Peterson gave frequent, rambling interviews, professing his innocence in both cases and taunting investigators; he even went so far as to angle for a spot on a reality television show to be set in a Nevada brothel, and brought his new 20-something girlfriend into the home he shared with his two young children by his still-missing fourth wife as well as his two teenage sons with Savio. (See the top 10 crime stories of 2008.)

    But on May 7, Peterson was arrested at a traffic light near his brown-brick home on a cul-de-sac in Bolingbrook, Ill., a suburb about a half-hour’s drive west of Chicago. In a press conference, Will County’s state attorney, James W. Glasgow, indicated that Illinois’s new hearsay law would help the case he would prosecute. He did not specify which statements he would use to ask a pre-trial judge to allow before a jury. Prosecutors may try to enter as testimony Stacy Peterson’s alleged statement to her pastor that her husband had confessed to killing Savio. But the statements more likely to come into play are from Kathleen Savio. (See the top 25 crimes of the century.)

    In a 2002 letter, Savio told a prosecutor that after learning of an alleged affair between Drew Peterson and the future Stacy Peterson — then still a minor who worked in the police department — she sought a restraining order against her husband. Then, she wrote, Drew Peterson confronted her by “striking me with his hand and chasing me though [sic] the house with a police stick.” She added, “He knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or Kill [sic] me instead.” Savio’s death came as negotiations were going on for a financial settlement in the couple’s divorce.

    For years, courts have allowed certain types of hearsay testimony. However, matters became complicated in 2004, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Crawford v. Washington, a case involving a husband, Michael Crawford, convicted of stabbing a man he claimed tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. After having initially complained about her husband’s actions, the wife declined to testify, citing marital privilege. The central issue was the admissibility of the wife’s statements to police officers just after the incident. Could it be considered evidence or was it hearsay? In the majority opinion, which reversed Crawford’s conviction for assault and attempted murder, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that allowing the statement as testimony violated the husband’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” — in other words, to cross-examine the witness.


  12. Then, in the case of Giles v.California last year, the Supreme Court ruled that statements to law enforcement officers are admissible as testimony if the defendant is found to have caused “unavailability.” In that case, Dwayne Giles was convicted of fatally shooting his ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie. He claimed to have acted in response to threats on his life. California courts allowed as testimony Avie’s previous statement to police that he had, in fact, threatened her. A provision of the state law allows out-of-court statements to be admitted if the declarant is unavailable (or, in this case, dead) at the time of the trial. The Supreme Court’s ruling essentially confirmed the legal concept known as “forfeiture by wrongdoing.”

    Last fall came Illinois’s new hearsay law — coincidentally, one of the last pieces of legislation signed by Rod Blagojevich before he left office in disgrace. The law seems to resemble the increasing number of statutes across the country essentially codifying the Giles decision. “A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant … intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal proceeding,” the law states.

    Those two Supreme Court cases, along with Illinois’s law, may give Will County prosecutors key openings in their quest to invoke some of Savio’s statements. To succeed on that front, prosecutors must first focus on aspects of the Giles ruling that give particular consideration to statements from victims of abusive relationships, including those ending in murder. So in pre-trial hearings, prosecutors must quickly examine Savio’s frame of mind when she crafted her statements. Among the questions they will likely explore: How fearful was Savio for her life, and that her children would be taken away? Did she intend the letter to someday be used as courtroom evidence? Prosecutors will also raise the isolation factor: Savio was probably, for a time, intimidated by the likelihood that her allegations would at least initially be investigated by her estranged husband’s fellow Bolingbrook police officers. “With all of those little facts added together, the judge would have to decide whether the reason he kills her is to keep her from testifying by a preponderance of evidence,” says David A. Erickson, director of the criminal-litigation program at Chicago-Kent College of Law and a former appellate court judge.

    But isn’t asking a judge to consider and then admit such statements into a trial essentially asking him or her to cast the defendant as guilty before the case even reaches a jury? Supreme Court Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised this issue in response to the majority opinion in Giles (also authored by Scalia). They wrote, “Equity demands something more than this near circularity before the right to confrontation is forfeited, and more is supplied by showing intent to prevent the witness from testifying.” (See a pictorial history of Supreme Court nomination battles.)

    Meanwhile, experts say it will be far trickier for prosecutors to admit Stacy Peterson’s apparent statement to her pastor mainly because he was not a law enforcement officer — and the Supreme Court rulings dealt only with statements offered to police.

    Will County’s Glasgow calls the new law a “significant step forward in the prosecution of these types of cases” but concedes, “We’ve got a tough road ahead of us.” Prosecutors say they have ample evidence beyond the statements to support their case. For now, Peterson remains in a Will County jail on $20 million bond. If he is found guilty, he could face a 60-year sentence. Precisely when Peterson’s trial will open is unclear.

    In the meantime, there is the case of his missing fourth wife. The Will County grand jury has two scheduled meetings left to decide on charges. Even if the panel fails to come to a resolution, prosecutors are expected to continue their investigation. So, in some ways, this may all be a simple prelude to an even greater Drew Peterson spectacle.

  13. By that, I mean the waiving of the right to a speedy trial. One can’t help but think if drewpy had a real lawyer from the get go, he would be indeed going to trial next month.

    Anyone wanna bet that Brodsky will end up dropping off? I have a feeling the money is going to dry up soon, and then so will the boobsky’s interest. If he can’t whore himself out to the media to talk about the case and isn’t getting the dosh – what’s in it for him?

  14. Aussienat said, ” I have a feeling the money is going to dry up soon, and then so will the boobsky’s interest. If he can’t whore himself out to the media to talk about the case and isn’t getting the dosh – what’s in it for him?”

    Maybe he thinks he can get a date w. Chrissy? ;-P

  15. Yes, Aussie, I agree, that I never, ever, thought the trial would go forward in August. It has nothing to do with Peterson’s guilt or innocence. It’s about the purported evidence against him.

    The defense asked for, and the judge refused, to allow Peterson to have access to the evidence in jail with him. Because of that, he cannot read or go over any of the papers unless someone on the allowed defense team brings it to him to go over. That means, the defense has to pour over every single piece of paper, abstract it, get to the important parts, and then bring them to Peterson to review. I believe there is over 9,000 different reports or interviews. It would be, IMO, humanly impossible to do this, day in and day out, interview the witnesses, take statements and do their own investigations, yet be ready in what is now a matter of weeks. Maybe they’ll be ready for trial in August, but that would be August, 2010.

    By then, they might just be ready to hit him with Stacy’s disappearance and death.

  16. I have been wondering about Stacy. Do you think without a body they will have enough? Because I’m thinking if they don’t find her, nothing short of a confession will hang him for that one.

    I wish he would confess, but he won’t. I watched a true crime show recently (it might have been Forensic Files) where all the evidence was overhwelming. It was as good as actually catching the guy in the act, yet he participated in the program from his jail cell, straight-faced and protesting his innocence and offering up all sorts of wild theories as to who the real killer was.

    I can see DP doing the same thing. He’ll never admit he killed her because in his mind, he didn’t do anything wrong.

  17. Rescue, I just re-read what you wrote about the judge not allowing Peterson to have access to the evidence in jail with him.

    Why is that? Wouldn’t that speed the process up, or am I just dumb LOL

  18. Aussie – because, I assume, that is not jailhouse procedure for any defendant. By asking the judge for permission, that would appear to be asking for something outside of the rules, or whatever you might want to call it. In other words, they were asking the judge to change the rules for their defendant, including allowing him access to a laptop computer. What they were asking for, essentially, was another hand to help then go through the mounds of evidence. Who better than the subject of the discovery?

  19. ***Updated***
    Drew Peterson murder trial delayed
    July 14, 2009

    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter

    Too much information — including more than 40,000 pages of investigative reports — is delaying Drew Peterson’s trial for the 2004 murder of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Peterson and his attorneys agreed Tuesday to postpone his scheduled Aug. 24 trial for Savio’s bathtub drowning death so they have time to study thousands of pages of police reports, forensic evidence and electronically recorded conversations.

    His defense team, though, indicated they plan an aggressive defense, including launching a pre-trial legal challenge against a controversial new state “hearsay” law that allows statements Savio purportedly made before her death to be used at Peterson’s trial.

    And, Peterson’s attorneys also contended that an Illinois State Police investigator acted improperly by asking out Peterson’s girlfriend — a potential witness in the case — following his May 7 arrest.

    “It’s bizarre beyond belief,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said after Peterson’s court hearing.

    Will County prosecutors quickly brushed aside Brodsky’s allegation, saying state police investigators did nothing wrong in trying to talk to Christina Raines about the case.

    “It’s absolutely a ridiculous assertion,” said Charles Pelkie, a spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

    Peterson, 55, remains jailed while awaiting trial.

  20. Hmm.

    I guess I need to read more about this investigator asking Chrissy out, but since she said she would do Mancow when Drew was right next to her in the studio, I can certainly see her agreeing to dating an ISP officer with Drew locked up.

    I mean Drew doesn’t really expect her to sit around and cry, does he?

  21. Then again — if Chrissy thought there was winter air and summer air in tires, and cannot calculate simple percentages in her head, and all the other wonderful things her coworker has shared with us — would she know a date from an invitation to come down to the station and talk about her relationship with Drew?

  22. “You have two officers who have had multiple professional contacts with Christina Raines. They told her they would leave the door open to talk to her at any point, whether it was during business hours, whether it was after business hours, whether it was over coffee, lunch, dinner, whatever made her comfortable,” he said, stressing that two investigators were always present with Christina Raines and calling their offer to meet with her “good detective work.”


    Apparently not. :lol:

  23. Now, this is funny!!!!

    Raines’ father, Ernie Raines, was shocked by Brodsky’s claim.

    “This is news to me,” Ernie Raines said. “What is Joel trying to do?”

    Ernie Raines thinks he has an idea.

    “So this is what (Brodsky’s) going to use for his defense, my daughter and this detective,” Ernie Raines said before lashing out at the lawyer for messing with “the wrong family.”

    “I’d like to see him face-to-face. I would kick the (expletive) out of him right now, and I wouldn’t worry about going to jail,” he said. “If I see that (expletive), I would take him apart. He’s a (expletive) scumbag just like Drew.”

    Chrissy Raines had been visiting Peterson in the county jail, but her father said he put a stop to that.

    “When I went over there, I told her (Peterson’s) a scumbag. I told her she’s ruining her life,” Ernie Raines said. “I told her, ‘Don’t go over there anymore.'”


  24. That’s hilarious and just so typical of boobsky’s style. I would think: “whether it was after business hours, whether it was over coffee, lunch, dinner, whatever made her comfortable” is probably quite typical when dealing with a potential witness, such as Chrissy.

    More white noise. Isn’t this in violation of the gag order??

  25. It is hilarious.

    If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black:

    Brodsky also said he believes state police protocol “does not include dating a witness as a proper method” of investigation.

    I don’t think using a client to hawk chicken wings and promote the lawyer’s personal liquor establishment is a “proper method” of defense, and I doubt the Bar Association thinks it’s proper “protocol” either.

    At least we know the chicken wing caper is true. Asking us to believe what he says, or what Chrissy Raines says, is a stretch, no?

  26. ROFL I thought it would be something like that. It does look as if Blobsky is not quite taking the Judge’s ban on talking seriously. I think they are still tied to DA financially over the book (they still have an interest in it selling).

    I wonder if they notified the judge in advance about that press release, or if they claim it doesn’t count because it’s DA. Brodsky is such a little pig.

  27. They behave like little boys and girls (if we include Christina) who think people are stupid and naive… Christina’s stories will not be taken seriously becase she was in a close relation with Drew. Even if she provided alibi for him ;).

    I find it really entertaining how all the stuff they had planned before and they had been so confident about goes up in smoke :).

    I wonder – and sorry if it was answered before – if this is Brodsky or a judge who appoints a particular place. And another thing: was it cleared if Paula and Lenny were paid for the cooperation with the police? I absolutely believe they were not but it would be great to hear officially that Brodsky is meandring again.

  28. Good morning.

    It’s weird that none of the goings on in the court proceedings yesterday were reported on, other than the speedy trial issue. Wonder, as well, about the witness payment question the defense raised. The only other thing mentioned was shortened witness list.

    The next hearing is when Brodsky will argue his motion, I believe, about getting the trial moved out of Will County. I assume he’ll argue about where he’d want it moved to, so it would seem that the judge will rule on that, including the defendant’s choice of where.

  29. Sorry, I’ve forgotten to say good morning :)
    Soooo, good morning, and thanks for the info rescue :)

    I’ve just read an article about moving a trial to another county. If you think it is too long and takes too much place, please delete this post.


    Judge: Scotty Adam’s trial will be moved from county


    Topeka Capital-Journal, The, Mar 31, 1999

    COUNCIL GROVE — The trial of a convicted murderer now charged with killing his girlfriend’s infant son will be held outside of Morris County, a judge ruled.

    Scotty Adam had been scheduled to go on trial in mid-May in Morris County, where 16-month-old Timothy Post was fatally beaten in his Council Grove home. The baby died Oct. 22, 1998, in a Wichita hospital. At a hearing Tuesday, defense attorneys said they had surveyed 200 Morris County residents and found that more than 90 percent were familiar with the case — and that72 percent believed Adam was guilty of killing the baby. On those grounds, Morris County District Judge David Platt ruled that Adam couldn’t get a fair trial in Council Grove. The Kansas Supreme Court now will select the county in which the trial will be held. Dates for the trial then will be chosen. Adam is charged with felony first-degree murder and felony child abuse in the death of the infant, with whose mother, Jessica McAuley Post, Adam was living at the time. Adam has pleaded innocent to both charges. In a July 1993 trial, Adam was convicted by a Morris County jury of second-degree murder and aggravated robbery in the stabbing death of Scott O. Sanders, 19, a Kansas State University freshman from Junction City. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. However, in 1995, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed Adam’s conviction saying he didn’t receive a fair trail because of improper jury instructions and suppression of evidence. A second trial also was moved in that case. A Marion County jury convicted him in February 1996 of involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to three to10 years in prison and was paroled on April 11, 1996. He finished his parole two years later, state correction officials said.

    I found it interesting because they say the decision was based on the poll made by the lawyer.

    I think Brodsky will have no problems with moving the case to another and remote county if he bases the motion on the poll on Derek’s site.


    What do you think about adding more positive votes there to take this tool out of Brodsky’s hand? LOL

  30. I’d be surprised if the judge based any decision on a random Internet-wide poll sitting on a hack author’s site.

    You’d be hard pressed to take the findings of that poll and make any connection to the potential jurors of Will County.

  31. Didn’t Brodsky use some comments from readers in one of his motions before the court? Something to do with the bond reduction, I think. Didn’t work out too well for him, as none of his motions have.

    BTW, Fox News this morning reports that Brodsky told the judge they need “at least a month” to continue to go through the State’s evidence. This was the first time I heard anything mentioned about how long the defense is looking at, timewise, regarding a delay in proceeding.

  32. Whatever poll on Drew would be taken into consideration, Brodsky cannot expect it to be positive for his client because the point is that from the very beginning Drew has done everything to spoil his image and all the facts are against him. However, the judge must do everything to be sure the trail is fair, so DA’s site or any other may be used by Brodsky, also all the sites like ours, and so on. Drew’s explanation as for his appearance on TV was sort of defense, so I do not think a judge can make any use of it though I would love to, of course!

    Our judgement is not based on Drew’s picture and gossips and prejudices, right? Both Kathy and Stacy were only afraid of Drew.

    I wonder what place of trail they would be satisfied with. The hell would be a perfect place but I do not think Lucifer would like to have Drew there.LOL

  33. For a lawyer who dances around and spews his utter dislike for the hearsay law, it’s pretty lame that he’s using hearsay from Raines that she was asked for a date by a police detective. Pretty obvious he’s a hypocrite. Unless, of course, he’s got undercover, court approved, recordings to verify that. But, if it’s on the word of a 23 year old putz head who moved in with a murder suspect and admitted she’d “do” Mancow on the airwaves, I think we can see how far this tall tale will get him.

    Brodsky also says that the State’s case will crumble without the hearsay evidence, yet, he admits they need at least another month to review the State’s evidence. How can he, on one hand, say the case will crumble, without having the benefit of having explored all of the evidence turned over?

    He’s continuing to use this line of thought as looking to get his client out on a lower bond.

  34. And they made this stunning claim: that a state police detective offered to take Peterson’s fiancée Christina Raines to dinner and movie.

    Craig question: If you’re going to meet with someone to gather evidence what is wrong with doing that in a social setting?

    Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s Attorney: Well, perhaps if you wanted to take someone out to dinner to talk about the case, that would be one thing, but not dinner and a movie.

    Damn. That just takes the fun, then, out of this place. Located in Woodridge, a nearby suburb of the cast of characters. Guess Joel isn’t up on the latest movie experiences, heh? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    The Hollywood Blvd Cinema is the Worlds First & Best Premier Movie Going Experience, with full service to each and every seat in our fully integrated Restaurant, Bar and Movie Theater.

    In other words, dinner and a movie.


  35. She did not only say she would do Moncow but also made that stupid and out-of-place (?) joke about the bathtub. It went with such a contrast with her first TV interview where she seemed to feel sorry for what had happened.
    Once Drew said she must not leave him. It is really telling to me. I still think she helped Drew to get rid of Stacy. Time will show.

  36. ROFLMAO! ;D

    My guess is that Chrissy took “our conversation will be recorded” as an invitation to a movie. Dinner was the offer of a Diet Coke and a Hershey bar.

    Joel is basing his comments on the combined genius of Derek Armstrong and Chrissy Raines?

    God help us! LOL

  37. Having some issues up there with my bolding. LOL

    According to Drew, Chrissy’s diet consisted of cigarettes, chocolate, diet pop and beer but he (Drew) bought her vitamins and was trying to get her to eat healthy.

    See? You don’t have to offer her much to make her think you were offering her dinner.

    I guess the promise of the conversation being videotaped, and there you have it: dinner and a movie.

    ~ Issued resolved, Noway ~

  38. Why doesn’t Joel get Armie to write a PR about having stashed away the real killer, the one who really had the means and motive? Why subject us to these silly sideshows about dates, and a crumbling case to be? Or why doesn’t he get Armie to release electronic records of Drew’s that prove he was where he told the cops he was before, during and after the time Kathleen ended up dead in a bath tub? Why is Brodsky’s means of defense, in any of the cases I’ve seen him speak out on, blaming the cops for everything that’s wrong with their clients, or on wayward family and friends? How come Brodsky conveniently gives a pass to the original investigators for the serious problems uncovered about their handling of Kathleen’s death, but he gives a media interview about an alleged offer of a date?

    Oh, give us a break.

  39. Christina’s ‘confession’ has nothing to do with the case of Kathleen and it is not subject to the gag order. Brodsky is messing again to distract people’s attention from the point IMO and tries to be in the media (or he knows that Stacy’s case will be another problem for him very soon).

  40. rescueapet Says:
    July 15, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Know where we can get some awesome chicken wings and a beer? One place I heard of recently has closed. Anyone?
    At Brodsky’s office? ;)

  41. What “evidence” did Joel want to keep with Drew? Something other than the papers?

    Do they give multiple copies of discovery to the defense? Would 3 boxes be copies of what was in the other 3?

  42. Noway – the only things I know of that the defense wanted Peterson to have with him in jail are the discovery docs turned over to them, and a laptop computer. I consider the papers “evidence,” in that they’re the basis for the State’s case. I guess the laptop was supposed to be used for word processing, unless Mr. I Gotta Have It requested some porno loaded onto it.

    I’ve never heard of either side of counsel giving duplicates of anything to the other. In fact, neither side goes out of its way for the other, at least as far as the lawyers I have ever been involved with. If one side has papers the other side wants that they’re willing to turn over, usually, the requesting attorney goes to the office of the other and looks over the papers, or a copy is made and the requesting attorney pays for the copies. It’s a cut-throat attorney world out there. They don’t give up their stuff readily. They never, ever, give up their work product either. That means, their personal notes. Only official correspondence, court filings, notices, etc.

  43. At the conclusion of the hearing, prosecutors turned over six cardboard boxes containing two copies of discovery documents numbering 9,464 pages each. Peterson’s attorneys have a week to surrender their discovery evidence to the state.


    I guess they were feeling generous?

    And since that would only bring them to 28,392 then I guess the ones Joel just got brought them up to the 40,000?


    We have over 40,000 pages of discovery that’s been tendered to us. Some of it we didn’t get until the last few days,” Brodsky said of his decision to capitulate and postpone the murder trial originally scheduled for Aug. 24. A new date for the trial has yet to be set.

  44. Hmmmm. Never saw the “two” copies mention before. Thanks, Noway.

    I’m surprised about that, but that’s what it says. I did see the Brodsky mention of just getting additional discovery, and I was surprised he didn’t whine, as he usually does, about that.

  45. I didn’t remember that Joel wanted Drew to have his own laptop while in jail. There is only so much room in my head for information! And some of it is taken up by useless stuff.

  46. I am going to be so mad if the trial gets moved. Surely the judge will have enough common sense to realise that it is totally the defence’s fault that they are so notorious. If they feel they can’t get a fair trial due to said notoriety, well….bad bloody luck, I say!

  47. Chryla, you are forgetting that Drew had a quite a few girlfriends before Chrissy was every on the scene. I don’t believe for a minute they were intimately involved before Stacy.

  48. rescueapet Says:

    July 15, 2009 at 11:09 am
    Know where we can get some awesome chicken wings and a beer? One place I heard of recently has closed. Anyone?


    Really?? His wing bar closed down? Oh that’s hilarious. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

  49. You know, Aussie, I guess the place I’m at is as long as he’s sitting alone with his thoughts, without the ability to laugh in spite of his kids’ mothers being dead and/or missing, I’m good with that. What will come, well, it will all work out. He will have his day in court, and, the way I look at it, if he can’t explain why he was where he shouldn’t have been, or wasn’t where he should have been, then the men and women picked to render his verdict will get it right. I really believe that. I like to think they’ll look past the character assassinations of the witnesses against him, and see there’s a reason to put him away because he can’t explain away circumstances that are troubling. Drew Peterson couldn’t walk amongst the rest of us without causing chaos or darkness, and I doubt that the jury of his peers will think he can live a non-destructive life to come!

  50. Rescue, I have to agree with that. The only chance he would have of convincing a jury – one that was unaware of who he was – would be if he could actually behave like a decent human being during the trial, like a man who is genuinely upset that his former wife was murdered and his children are without a mother.

    As we know, he is incapable of that. His arrogance, lack of empathy, his joking ways, his abhorrent way of referring to people as though they were objects and not humans; it will all serve to bring him down. If I were on a jury and was sitting on the fence about a persons guilt, I have to say, if the defendant behaved like drucifer, I would absolutely believe he were guilty.

  51. I just had a thought. Will the fact that his fourth wife is missing and he is a suspect be allowed to be brought up at trial?

  52. Hey Rescue, I didn’t think about that. It will have to come up I guess. Yeah, the jury are going to just love this guy!

    Being in jail must be KILLING him! Especially with the gag order. I bet he is none too pleased about shifting the trial date. It’s like a kid waiting for xmas – he would have been looking forward to his big place in the spotlight and now he has to wait. Ha.

  53. I’m sure that Joel has assured Drew that the delay is a good thing and that he’ll spring him in due time. There’s no case. The charges will be dropped. It’s all just going to dry up and go away…

    I just don’t see that happening though.

    I would love to see the defense pouring hours and hours into challenging the new hearsay law only to find out that the prosecution doesn’t use it. IMO they don’t even need to resort to it in Kathleen’s case. There’s plenty of precendence in DV cases for making simple exceptions to hearsay law.

  54. Hi Guys. Greta posted this response from Glo about Chrissie –

    From: Gloria Allred
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:02 PM
    To: Miller, Jeffrey; O’Connor, Kerry
    Subject: Chrissie Raines

    Dear Jeff and Kerry,

    Last night Greta ran a story about my client Chrissie Raines who is the fiancé of Drew Peterson. Unfortunately before the story was run no one contacted me for a response. I represent Chrissie Raines in the criminal case of People v. Drew Peterson and I am her spokesperson. Enclosed please find my response to the allegation that Greta ran on her show involving Ms. Raines. I hope that Greta will be able to run my response. Thank you very much.

    “Chrissie has not had dinner with or gone to the movies with any police officer other than Drew Peterson and she has no interest in doing so. She does not feel that she was “hit on” by any police officer.

    We do not think there is a basis for filing a complaint against any police officer and we have no plans to file such a complaint.”

    Very truly yours,

    Gloria Allred

    Allred, Maroko & Goldberg


  55. Just who is in charge of that defense circus anyway? Geesh. What a bunch of Bozo the Clowns. Do they even know what they’re doing, or what they’re even talking about?

    I hope Facs is right, and the defense is making all this noise and snorting about the new hearsay law, only to find out the State has enough other evidence and won’t even use it.

  56. I don’t care for her either, and I certainly have no use for her dipshit of a client, Chrissy Raines. But having Brodsky pass along more character assassinations instead of leaking out something that really proves his client is being wrongfully charged is more than enough!

    The chicken wing man has struck again, and he’s melting.

  57. Yeah – Chrissy the FIANCEE. As if that is something she should be proud of. :roll:

    I’m thinking ‘ole Brodsker is worried.

Comments are closed.