Why was Kathleen Savio’s third autopsy news last week?

Authorities exhume the body of Kathleen Savio at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Hillside, Ill.

Authorities exhume the body of Kathleen Savio 11/13/2007

Last week Lisa Bloom appeared on CNN’s Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell with a story about Dr. Michael Baden’s autopsy of the remains of Kathleen Savio, promising “jaw-dropping” and “gruesome” details. Then followed stories on CNN, CBS and numerous local news outlets.

For anyone who has been following the Drew Peterson cases, it was a bit of a déjà vu experience. There was essentially no new information in any of the reports. Since Dr. Baden performed his autopsy at the request of the Savio family in November 2007, he has made public his opinion that Savio was beaten, that she struggled, and that her drowning death was a result of an act of homicide.

So why were news outlets resurrecting this 20-month-old story? It appears that Lisa Bloom got possession of Baden’s actual report on his autopsy findings and a hard-copy of the document was enough to warrant a news story.

The report itself doesn’t appear to shed any new evidentiary light on what may have happened to Kathleen Savio during the last days of February, 2004. Yes, there are details about the condition of her remains that aren’t pleasant to read. Velez-Mitchell called these details “gruesome” but in reality they are only sad. Naturally, a body exhumed after three years in the grave will have undergone some decomposition, but that’s not what should be making us cringe or shudder.

What should be giving us goosebumps is the thought that she was murdered, that she predicted it and pointed out the man who would kill her to no avail, that she cried out for help and was ignored, that after her murder a sham of an inquest betrayed and insulted her and consigned her to the ground to wait for three years until yet another tragedy shed new light on her case.

So, we’ve heard these details and opinions before. Well, fine then. Why not hear them again? The story should be told over and over — even if it isn’t “news”. Kathleen’s family and friends live it every day.

REMINDER: If you have any legal/courtroom questions about the case for Karen Conti, please continue to post or email them and we’ll post her replies. Thanks!

~…………………………………………………………………………………………………..~
~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>

About these ads

145 thoughts on “Why was Kathleen Savio’s third autopsy news last week?

  1. I listened to this radio talk thing and had a few uncomfortable moments with some comments. For one thing, again, when I hear, sometimes, the cynical expressions of some, I wonder just what it is they are expecting to hear, or not hear, once this trial starts.

    Something went very wrong the first time when it came to investigating Kathleen’s death. It’s obvious that wrong MUST be explained by the State to justify why it’s right this time. Otherwise, of course, the defense will pick it apart to no end and ask the jury to disbelieve anything they hear about the second official autopsy. IMO, the initial investigators, and whoever the hell else was responsible for the first determination, are going to have to take the blame. They were wrong. They screwed it up, they let crucial firsthand evidence slip through their hands. Now, all will want to hear why that is. I don’t believe the defense can make the initial investigators, etc., into drunks, mentally unstable, drug using, money grubbing, misfits. In fact, the defense will prop up these guys to bolster the claim that they got it right the first time. It seems to me, the State will have to be the ones to point out where and why they screwed it up the first time. I’d sure want to know if Peterson was involved in this investigation meltdown, or if he was just one lucky duck. My question is, could he have had a hand in this pathetic investigation, or did the guys in charge of it mess it up all on their own?

    As to evidence, yeah, who wouldn’t want to be able to see a video of the murderer entering the house, then leave, coinciding with the time of death? Who wouldn’t want to hear the chilling voice of the murderer admit he’s the guy, and he wanted his ex out of his life, he wanted her share of the money, and he wanted her dead? But, that’s never going to happen. No murderer ensures that his horrible act is captured for later use at his murder trial. Guess the pieces of the puzzle, the motive, the means, the paper trail, will have to do it for the jury, as it probably has in other cases. What is that called – oh, yeah, circumstantial evidence.

  2. Hear! Hear!! I agree with Bucket. The two posts above are why I’m here so often; I love the truth, too. Thank you.

    He is closer than he has ever been to being held responsible for his crimes.

  3. I hope the jury accepts the State’s explanation for the screw up. I hope heads roll. From what I’ve read about Kathleen’s case, there were a lot of people who didn’t do the job they were being paid to do. And they need to get more than a slap on the wrist. Even if they have moved on to other jobs. IMO

  4. I agree Noway. I have never heard of such a collective stuff-up in my life. So many people dropped the ball on this one.

  5. From Who’s Who, Justice Cafe:

    Morphey, John: John Morphey (41 in 2008) is a brother to Tom Morphey, not related to Drew except through the marriage of their parent. He testified before the Grand Jury April 10, 2008.

    Morphey, Thomas C.: Thomas Morphey (40) is Drew Peterson’s step-brother through his father Albert Morphey’s marriage to Drew’s mother, Betty…
    ***
    If Thomas is Drew’s stepbrother, and John is brother to Thomas, wouldn’t John be Drew’s stepbrother, also? Or am I missing something (else) here?
    Thanks in advance, as always

  6. http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.trial.2.1105631.html

    CHICAGO (CBS) ―

    Drew Peterson’s murder trial could get moved out of Will County, as his attorney says he can’t get a fair trial there.

    Peterson is charged in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a dry bathtub. Her death was originally ruled an accident, but reclassified as a homicide following a 2007 exhumation.

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, told CBS 2 Tuesday night that media attention is jeopardizing his client’s right to a fair trial.

    When asked about claims that he and Peterson were seeking publicity, Brodsky said, “We would expect that would be the reaction from the (Will County) State’s Attorney’s office.

    “We went through and we picked a number of examples of media attention that were initiated by the State’s Attorney himself, or the police,” Brodsky added.

    Peterson has also been identified as a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who vanished in October 2007. He has pleaded not guilty to murder in the Savio case, and has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

  7. “May get moved out?” Yeah, if the Judge rules in Brodsky’s favor. But, then again, it might NOT get moved out. Just depends on how the reporter writes the line.

    I’m sure the Judge will ensure that Peterson’s rights are protected, in spite of the client’s own, as well as his lawyer’s, media hungry tactics. Brodsky is going to have to find some jurors that meet his criteria, otherwise, we’d never get to see him actually use his lawyer skills in a real trial. Only a circus media kind he’s been so good at pursuing. That’d be okay with me, though, as long as his client continues to cool his jets in his County accommodations.

    JMHO.

  8. “We went through and we picked a number of examples of media attention that were initiated by the State’s Attorney himself, or the police,” Brodsky added.

    Cough! Splutter! Hack!

    Any judge who would look at the few press releases by the SA and compare them to the pages and pages of crap that have been released by Joel and Selig, the hours of radio and tv interviews, not to mention the “stunts” (challenging Geraldo and Chrissy’s ex to boxing matches, the job at the whorehouse, the “confession” to Mancow, etc.)and of course the book they arranged for Armstrong to write; and think that they were in any way comparable, would have to be a moron.

  9. Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised if the trial ends up being moved, but it won’t be because of any over-exposure brought about by the prosecution.

  10. Oh, Facs, what you said!!!

    But, IMO, there will be no “morons” or “uneducated laypeople” on Peterson’s jury, if they follow their beliefs in just who is qualified and worthy to hear the case. Peterson’s opinion of the people who sat on the special grand jury panel:

    Peterson also criticized the process that resulted in his indictment. He referred to the grand jury as “a bunch of laypeople” who are “uneducated on the points of law, rules of evidence and things like that.”

    Since the king of crap has no idea what the backgrounds of that panel were, then he is, IMO, a moron himself.

    What does he consider the individuals to be that were on the KS Coroner’s panel? Rocket scientists?

    So, where will they go, out of Will County? I doubt one can reconcile the idea that they must go to a rural area, because, mostly, they would be choosing from mere laypeople, you know, the hardworking, struggling kind. Nope, it’s obvious that the defense wants non-laypeople, the “educated” kind. My, my, the drama of it all.

    No morons.

  11. LOL JB must be talking about all those LKL, Today, Dr Phil etc appearances Glasgow has made. Oh. And of course, his ghosted book, James Glasgow Exposed.

    “..we picked a number of examples of media that were initiated by the State’s Attorney himself, or the police.”

    I’m trying to think what those would be. When they asked for witnesss to come forward? Haven’t we been frustrated when there were long long stretches with no news or police comment? No matter what they come up with it can’t be much, and certainly not on the scale of the All-Drew-All-The-Time-Mostly-With-Joel onslaught.

    But it doesn’t matter where he’s tried……..

  12. bucketoftea says

    “..we picked a number of examples of media that were initiated by the State’s Attorney himself, or the police.”

    ***********

    Maybe Brodsky can enlighten us through his story teller, Armstrong, and have Armie get on this and issue a PR. This way, we’ll all be as knowledgeable as the defense on the examples of the SA initiating media events. On the other hand, you can count on one thing for sure. Whatever Brodsky says, expect the opposite. His media track record speaks for itself.

    No charges against DP, ever, never. No bond reduction. No change in judges, as requested by SA. No gag order. No computer laptop allowed in jail with Drew. No discovery documents allowed with DP to read in jail.

    So, that should put that issue to rest, IMO. ;-)

  13. :D LMAO

    I wonder how the “number of examples of media attention that were initiated by the State’s Attorney himself, or the police” compare to the “number of examples of media attention initiated by Drew Peterson himself or his attorney.”

  14. I recall articles asking for help finding Stacy Peterson, and asked anyone with information to call law enforcement.

    I don’t recall that Drew or his lawyer initiated any of those, but I could be wrong.

  15. I think most of us laypeople can figure out that that statement by Joel was a slip of the tongue, because he’s got nowhere to go with it. It’s rather silly, actually, since I think most of us would have a very hard time trying to find the media events he’s referring to that were initiated by the SA. But, I guess that’s for Judge White to decide, heh, not us.

    We have some interesting lawyer responses to post a little later that we think some will find interesting.

  16. rescuapet, I remember DP criticizing the grand jury, but i can’t remember where he said that. Can i please have source?
    What does he think his jurors will be made up of..Laypeople.

  17. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30759276/

    “Do you have an idea what the state’s evidence is against you?” Lauer asked.

    “No idea. And the grand jury system seriously needs to be revised,” he replied. “I truly believe that if they wanted to they could have indicted you for this incident. What you have is a bunch of lay people that are in there and they have been sitting there for 18 months, and they are uneducated on the points of law, rules of evidence and things like that.”

  18. Thanks for posting that link, Facs. Sorry, I neglected to do that.

    Such wisdom coming from an ex-sergeant in a suburban police department. As though he, and others versed in the points of law, rules of evidence, are the only ones worthy of being on a grand jury panel. Especially his. Believes the grand jury system needs to be revised, but, ummm, waits until he’s indicted to decide that. Got along fine with it when he was on the other side, though.

    Well, for his liking, the jury will be stacked with cops, lawyers, forensic specialists/experts, and anyone else that knows the points of law, and rules of evidence. You know, like the ones that investigated him for over a year and a half, gathered evidence against him, and managed to get a two-count murder indictment against him.

    Oh, Drew, you are for to laugh.

  19. KAREN CONTI RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY QUESTIONS

    The questions posed to Karen Conti were based on this paragraph, as reported by Joe Hosey, in May, 2009:

    The grand jury indicted Peterson two weeks ago on first-degree murder charges in connection with Savio’s death, but no indictments are on file relating to either Stacy Peterson or Stebic’s disappearance, although they may be under seal.

    Pelkie declined to comment on whether or not the grand jury has returned indictments in either Stacy or Stebic’s case.

    QUESTIONS: Generally, speaking, is this a possibility? Why would an indictment be sealed, and not acted upon with charges against a suspect? Isn’t an indictment what the SA expects the GJ to return after presenting the preliminary facts?

    RESPONSE: It is possible that the grand jury returned an indictment that the the judge placed under seal. There are many reasons why the State’s Attorney would want to do this. They may want to continue their investigation without the public knowing there is an indictment. Also, they may want to counter the potential and eventual defense argument that, “if the States Attorney’s Office took so long to bring charges, THEY must have had a reasonable doubt, so YOU, the jury, should too.” They may also want to see what happens in the Savio case. Finally, they may be hoping that they will find Stacy’s body, which would bolster their case immeasurably.

    Karen Conti

    ***********
    Grand Jury Ends Peterson Probe
    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxvalleysun/news/1581433,Peterson-Grand-jury-concludes-JO051909.article

  20. Are judges allowed to laugh at defense attorneys in the courtroom? Or do they have to hold it in until they are in chambers?

    Maybe Judge White can get it out of his system before August when Joel asks for the change of venue based on the handful of media reports that were initiated by the States Attorney and law enforcement.

    LMAO if the States Attorney counters with the number of media reports initiated by Drew and Joel!

  21. Hmmm, all of the defense points in this case fit in one hand. Seems the gamesmanship used by the SA’s office is workin’ just fine so far – they’ve had over a year and a half to refine their case against DP, while the boys joked, laughed, promoted a bar and its wings, lined up a job with a whore house…..

    It’s the defense that is scrambling, whining and making goofy remarks that even a simple layperson (I like that word for today) can see through.

  22. When asked about claims that he and Peterson were seeking publicity, Brodsky said, “We would expect that would be the reaction from the (Will County) State’s Attorney’s office.

    *****

    Only the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office? Yeah, right.

  23. So the media can ask Joel a question and he can answer it without worrying about the gag order?

  24. That’s a good question.

    I know, in the past couple of weeks, Brodsky has responded to the media about his contention that Raines was asked out by a police detective investigating the case, which appears to have been a way of getting out this stuff through Armstrong, and now this, that they’re talking to the media and saying that they’ve collected instances of the SA’s office initiating media events.

    On the other hand, the SA’s office responded to Brodsky’s attempt to discredit the investigators in public, by saying it was not true. So, they, too, did speak out openly, even though it was a response to a “story” that Brodsky appears to have started.

    Maybe the SA should let him blow out his hot air, but officially complain, or do whatever is necessary, to bring it to the attention of the judge, and let him burn himself out. Then, let the media report that the Judge has taken notice of the defense speaking publicly, never mind that there’s a gag order in effect, and took steps to address it.

  25. So, according to what Hosey and Conti have told us, there could very well be a sealed indictment for Stacy’s murder.

    Interesting…

    And Thank You, Karen Conti, for your response!

  26. Brodsky’s got to know that if he’s able to produce “a number of examples of media attention that were initiated by the State’s Attorney himself, or the police” that the SA can easily respond with the far, FAR greater number of those initiated by the Clod Squad.

    So, move the trial. Brodsky’s problem is the entire state of Illinois is absolutely crawling with those laypeople he client despies. ;-)

  27. Yes, that is interesting that a sealed indictment could be out there.

    **Also, they may want to counter the potential and eventual defense argument that, “if the States Attorney’s Office took so long to bring charges, THEY must have had a reasonable doubt, so YOU, the jury, should too.” **

    This comment kind of confuses me. I see that as a reason to act on the indictment, not have it sealed. If they eventually use the information found in the grand jury, would a defense attorney not go for “they didn’t want to use this, they must not have been confident. Reasonable doubt.”

  28. Also, they may want to counter the potential and eventual defense argument that, “if the States Attorney’s Office took so long to bring charges, THEY must have had a reasonable doubt, so YOU, the jury, should too.”

    ******

    Charmed – I see it as an Ace in the hole. Assuming they have the indictment they set out to obtain, it seems to me that it would make sense to hold off charging Peterson with that crime simultaneously with the murder charges pertaining to Kathleen. Since his bond has kept him behind bars, and since his trial looks to be delayed for some time, he’s not going anywhere anytime soon, so they can still use resources to keep looking for Stacy’s body or follow up on leads. I think it’s kind of brilliant, since if they do charge Peterson later, his defense will, once again, be thrown off and have mounds of evidence to sift through. That ought to keep him in his special place for a few years, at least. Legally, according to the law, and his rights are not being violated.

  29. From twitter:

    issueswithjvm: In just a few mins…SEISMIC developments in Jackson probe, plus latest on Drew Peterson, Casey Anthony, and missing 8-year-old Idaho boy.
    39 minutes ago from web

  30. I see what you mean. I just don’t want him to have any reason to get away with this any longer. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the indictment is actually out there, but I have always thought it was strange they couldn’t get an indictment for Stacey. I really hope they would find her. I think someone mentioned before that if Drew really thought Stacy was alive and well that he would be pleading (in public) to her to come home, for the sake of the children.

  31. If my alibi to my previous wife’s murder had run off with another man, I’d sure be pleading with her (or having my lawyers doing it on my behalf) to come home.

    That is … if I didn’t have anything to do with that wife “running off with another man” anyway.

  32. I’m reading all this today with total incredulity.

    Joel Brodsky has something very wrong in his head. Is he for real?????

    The good thing is, as somebody said further up the thread, the SA can counter his ridiculous argument with examples of the media attention initiated by boobsky and his client.

    Totally gobsmacking.

  33. lenoreriegel: My dear friend Lisa Bloom breaking Drew Peterson news on Jane Velez Mitchell right now!
    about 1 hour ago from web

    ISSUESWITHJVM: Drew Peterson’s attorney says they won’t get fair trial unless there’s a change of venue. Blames it on “media bias.” Oh, really? More 2nite.
    about 6 hours ago from web

    Anyone happen to watch?

  34. Tee hee. Thinking about it, the police “initiated media attention” by executing the search warrants and arresting him, but they can’t blame the SA for revealing the existence of the witness who says DP approached them to kill Kitty. That only came out before the trial because JB fought the high bail.

  35. CNN – TRANSCRIPT
    JULY 29, 2009
    ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/29/ijvm.01.html

    Now, up next on “issues,” Drew Peterson`s lawyers want a change of venue for the suspected killer`s trial, claiming unfair media coverage. What? We will analyze that.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: In the spotlight tonight, an ISSUES exclusive about accused murderer and ex-cop Drew Peterson. The lawyers for this Illinois man, infamous for his bizarre and wildly inappropriate behavior, are said to ask for his murder trial to be moved to another county.

    Drew was charged in the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He`s still a person of interest in the sudden and mysterious disappearance of wife No. 4, Stacy Peterson.

    Drew`s attorney says the media attention is jeopardizing his right to a fair trial, but could Drew himself be the cause of that negative attention? You think? Listen to Drew talk to Matt Lauer on “The Today Show” about his behavior.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    DREW PETERSON, ACCUSED OF EX-WIFE`S MURDER: There`s no book written on how I`m supposed to act. You know, I mean, would it be better if I hid my head down and tried to hide my face and haunched over and had tears in my eyes? I mean, no, that`s just not me.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but what about him taking to his front yard with a video camera to videotape the media, creating a media circus? Should dodgy Drew get his murder trial moved?

    Straight to the CNN legal analyst, bringing up this exclusive tonight, Lisa Bloom.

    Lisa, thanks for joining us.

    BLOOM: My pleasure.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: You have had the exclusive rights to view this motion before it`s been filed. Nobody else has seen it. What can you tell us?

    BLOOM: Well, that`s right, Jane. And I have it right here. It`s about to be filed tomorrow. I can tell you, it is detailed; it is thorough; it is voluminous.

    I mean, the first thing to draw from all of this is that Drew Peterson`s attorneys are putting up a serious fight for the freedom of their client. They`re leaving no stone unturned. This is the first of a couple of big motions that they`re going to file.

    And as you say, they want a change of venue. They want this thing out of Will County. That`s the county in Illinois that includes Chicago, and it includes Bolingbrook, where Drew Peterson lives, as well as Joliet, where he`s currently in jail. It, of course, would have to be somewhere else in Illinois.

    And what they say is, look, Drew can`t get a fair trial in Will County. There has been so much media coverage. If you do a Google search, they say, you get almost 3 million hits for Drew Peterson, more, by the way, than you get for Jane Velez-Mitchell. I checked.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Way more, way more. Who wants that kind of notoriety?

    BLOOM: Yes. That`s right, Jane.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes.

    BLOOM: And on that point, they say that the coverage is overwhelmingly negative: out and out articles calling him a killer, saying that he`s guilty, saying that he`s guilty of homicide, of killing Kathleen Savio, his third wife. And so they say the trial has to be moved to ensure him a fair trial.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, look, Drew Peterson is not shielding himself from media attention. He calls local radio stations from behind bars and makes jokes. Listen to this.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How`s your love life?

    PETERSON: My love life? I`ve got a lot of buddies here that are real anxious to, you know, wash my back in the shower, but you know, what`s that all about? You know, hey, I got it. You know, leave me alone.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you enjoying the showers?

    PETERSON: No, not at all. They`re cold.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How`s your bling? You get to wear bling every once in a while?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no.

    PETERSON: I get my bling coming and going out of the courthouse.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Lisa, will a judge consider all that?

    BLOOM: Yes. And by the way, that`s not mentioned in this motion. I`m sure in the prosecution`s response, that`s going to be brought up. But here`s what the defense would have to say about that. Drew Peterson has been the victim of such overwhelming negative media coverage that he`s trying to balance the scales by doing his own media appearances. He`s got a sense of humor. That shouldn`t be held against him.

    Bottom line, I think his attorneys have clamped down on that kind of an interview, because they know in their heart of hearts, that is not helping Drew.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but you know what? All those shenanigans are keeping the case in the media, and that could be good for the attorneys. Hmm. Do the math. Follow the dots.

    Lisa, thank you so much for that fantastic exclusive. Please come back to me with more of them.

  36. Naw, it’s just a coincidence that she gets her hands on a motion the defense is going to file the next day. Or, it fell out of the sky and landed on her desk, and she was then able to give the “exclusive” information to Jane Velez Mitchell.

    So, there you have it.

  37. Lisa Bloom makes me sick. I can’t believe she actually suggested drew has been courting the media to counter all the negativity about him.

    If he didn’t court the media in the first place, he would hardly be a blip on the radar.

    Lisa Bloom is a disgrace to the justice system and to women everywhere.

  38. They want this thing out of Will County. That`s the county in Illinois that includes Chicago, and it includes Bolingbrook,

    Little geography lesson for you, Lisa. Chicago is in Cook County.

  39. Bottom line, I think his attorneys have clamped down on that kind of an interview, because they know in their heart of hearts, that is not helping Drew.

    No, Judge Stephen White has “clamped down on that kind of interview”. Hasn’t Lisa Bloom heard?

    Is she seriously trying to pose as some sort of authority on this case? It’s pathetic.

  40. It IS pathetic Facs. What is in this for her? Why is she being so pro-drew? In fact, you don’t even have to be pro or anti-drew to objectively see that the defence have created this problem themselves.

    It’s quite amazing that she can sit there with a straight face and say poor old drew had to face the media to counter the bad publicity.

    Lets just look at that publicity:

    Win a date with drew – created by drew
    Boxing match with Mike – created by drew
    Flouting the new bedmate on nat’l TV – created by drew
    Writing a book – created by drew
    Publicly holding talks to work in brotel – drew again

    Sigh. The list could go on but I am tired and can’t be bothered. It’s so frustrating.

    Not one of the sample of publicity I mentioned above has ANYTHING to do with the case of Kathleen Savio’s murder or Stacy Peterson missing. Nothing. It was all about drew and his shit-for-brains lawyer trying to cash in and become famous.

    I am not a violent woman, however if I saw joel in a chicken wing bar I would be so tempted to throw a drink on him.

  41. Dear Judge White
    I think the defense isn’t taking your ban very seriously….they appear to want to create even more fuss now by leaking documents.(just how did Lisa Bloom get her hands on the motion if not from the defense, hmmm?)

    Aussie- I think I’d want to wing the chicken with a bar lol

  42. Correct me if I am wrong, but during a lot of Drew’s media appearances, on the radio and TV, Joel Bratface was sitting right next to him. Was that his way of clamping down?

  43. Aussie, those things you mentioned have everything thing to do with Stacy and Kathleen. If it were not for them no one would know or care who Drew was and he would not be “famous.” At least OJ was famous before he was a wife killer. Drew could have done anyone of those things before, but without Stacy and Kathleen no one would have cared. He is nothing without them. That is kind of ironic, isn’t it.

  44. Good morning, everyone.

    Is she their new PR guru now, taking over for Armstrong and/or Selig? This is pathetic:

    I mean, the first thing to draw from all of this is that Drew Peterson`s attorneys are putting up a serious fight for the freedom of their client. They`re leaving no stone unturned. This is the first of a couple of big motions that they`re going to file.

    Serious fight? Filing a motion for a change of venue, putting the blame square on the prosecutors, is serious? It’s a joke, not serious.

    What kind of arrangement could Bloom have made that she’s now getting firsthand knowledge of the defense’s filings, and appearing to be their latest cheerleader?

  45. “I mean, the first thing to draw from all of this is that Drew Peterson`s attorneys are putting up a serious fight for the freedom of their client. They`re leaving no stone unturned. This is the first of a couple of big motions that they`re going to file.”

    That sounds exactly like Jowl Bratsky talking.

    She and her mom can both write a book about Drew now.

  46. You know, the bottom line here is we don’t give a rat’s ass that the defense is putting up a serious fight for the freedom of their client, at least not so that we have to hear Lisa Bloom tell us they are. If Peterson is good with it, then fine. What do the rest of us care that they’re leaving no stone unturned.

    Too bad the first crew that investigated Kathleen’s death didn’t leave any stone unturned. No, they had a police official telling a coroner’s panel that they were in the process of getting phone records to verify the ex-husband’s contentions that he was where he said he was, but we now know that was bullshit. Oh, but there was at least one rock that was unturned in Kathleen’s death investigation, and out from under it crawled a police officer on the coroner’s death panel that shouldn’t have been there. You know, the one who vouched for Peterson being a good guy and all. That rock.

  47. I really hope they will go after all of them. You cited a good example, Rescue, of the policeman saying they were waiting for the phone records….because that has to be a lie, and he who testified to it will have to have known that it wasn’t true….unless he was set up by colleagues who did. There really is no way around that one.

  48. Aw, pretty much, there’s no way around a few occurrences in the KS initial investigation. It seems to me, before they can get into the who and why of the DP murder trial of Kathleen, they have to deal with the prequel first.

    How did it go wrong the first time, who is responsible for that, and why did it happen. Even, what details from the first investigation should have stood out and, at the very least, cast doubt on the non-involvement of Peterson. Such as, if they felt, at the time, phone records were important to review to coincide with interview statements, why was it never pursued? IMO, before they move on to the here and now, they have to settle the mess from the past.

  49. This was all she shared from that voluminous document? LMAO

    Who didn’t know that Joel was going to file a motion for change of venue?

    Oooh, that Lisa Bloom is good! :D

  50. She sure put a spin on who was responsible for quieting Drew. And those attorneys will be putting up a serious fight for Drew’s freedom … as long as it doesn’t interfere with one’s vacation plans. ;) After all, what is one business day?

  51. You think Armie’s miffed? I mean, he’s the one who’s supposed to become famous leaking Boobsky’s crap, right? And then along comes Ms. Spawn-Of-An-Established-Media-Parasite (said m.p. just happens to represent Chrissy Raines)and she can get cable exposure for their tripe, leaving him on the sideline.

  52. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Drew-Peterson-Cant-Get-Fair-Murder-Trial-Here-Change-of-Venue-52083967.html

    The Drew Peterson Road Show
    Attorney asks to move murder trial elsewhere
    By ZACH CHRISTMAN
    Updated 12:21 PM CDT, Thu, Jul 30, 2009

    AP The man Chicago loves to hate, Drew Peterson, wants to take his murder trial on the road.

    Peterson’s trial is on hold while a judge considers his attorney’s request to move the proceedings elsewhere.

    Attorney Joel Brodsky filed the motion Thursday in Will County. Brodsky said that with all the media attention, trying Peterson here wouldn’t be fair.

    A judge will consider Brodsky’s motion at an Aug. 14 hearing, the Tribune reported.

    Peterson is charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. His fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007, and he is a suspect in that case as well.

    So, if the motion was filed today, and ABC reported on it yesterday morning…just why did CNN consider Bloom’s report to be some sort of exclusive?

  53. And didn’t she specifically mention yesterday they were filing “tomorrow?”

    I’m confused…

  54. Technically, she reported on it last night (Wednesday) so saying it would be filed tomorrow (Thursday) is correct.

    BUT we saw a story about it yesterday morning, so she was scooped…that is if you can have a scoop about something that everyone was anticipating all along. :)

  55. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/drew-peterson-asks-judge-to-move-trial.html

    Drew Peterson asks judge to move trial

    July 30, 2009 11:38 AM
    Drew Peterson’s attorney today filed a motion for change of venue for his client.

    Joel Brodsky earlier had signaled his intention of doing that, citing widespread publicity that would make it difficult for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to get a fair trial. Peterson has been indicted in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and is a suspect in the disappearnce of his fourth, Stacy Peterson. He denies any involvement in either case.

    A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 14.

    As of now, the trial would be held in Will County Circuit Court in Joliet.

  56. So, I wonder, then, is she the only attorney that was actually in possession of the Brodsky motion, or was it distributed to all? She referred to having it in front of her yesterday on that barking exclusive show yesterday. How come that is?

  57. KAREN CONTI RESPONSE TO BLOGGER QUESTION

    QUESTION: I was wondering if the Savio family would have a case against the city of Boilling[sic], Will County or the State of Illinois for messing up the first investigation?

    RESPONSE: Civil lawsuits against municipalities are very, very difficult. Municipalities have, what they call, “sovereign immunity” which dates back to the days when the King ruled and could not be sued for any wrongdoing. To sue the City or County or any of their officials for anything, a plaintiff would have to plead that the defendant was reckless or intentional in committing the wrongdoing–not just negligent. This would be nearly impossible unless you had evidence that the officials knowingly screwed up the inquest, investigation, etc. And then, what would the Savio family’s damages be? Emotional distress attendant to having the prosecution delayed? The defense would surely argue that the emotional distress was all attributable to losing Kathleen–not to failure to prosecute immediately.

    Finally, there has been talk that the Bolingbrook Police failed to take action while Kathleen was alive regarding the orders of protection and letters Kathleen wrote to them seeking help. Again, there have been suits like this brought and most have failed for the same reasons stated above. The statute of limitations would have run by now anyway.

    Karen Conti

  58. Of course, Judge White may have given permission for the obvious motion to be made public since it is what even “lay”people expected all along, even if the “lame”person thought it was news.

  59. Charmed – that’s true, but why Lisa Bloom? Why was she chosen by the defense to be the one to report that she was in possession of the Motion before it was even filed? Why not any local attorneys? Something fishy here.

  60. Then again, maybe Joel gave copies of his motion to a slew of reporters and these were the only ones who bothered to report on it?

  61. It does seem odd that she also is the one who somehow obtained Dr. Baden’s autopsy report.

    I don’t know, but it looks to me as if she’s being provided with documents. IMO.

  62. I don’t like it either, Facs. If it is true that Chrissy still considers herself engaged to pigman, who knows whether or how their respective lawyers cooperate?

  63. Of course, I have no knowledge of anything improper, but IIRC, Lisa Bloom didn’t used to have any sort of special access to docments relating to this case.

    (Back before her mother was Chrissy Raines’ attorney?…)

  64. Just wondering if handing over ;) your motion to move a case to a different county to the media (or to an atty with media access) and the reason for the move is because of media coverage you have to move isn’t sort of….moronic?

  65. If it’s the judge’s responsibility to ensure a fair trial, an alternative to moving it from Will County would be to bus in jurors from another county.

    I don’t want Drew to be able to claim he couldn’t get a fair trial no matter how responsibly he and his moronic lawyer are for that.

  66. What exactly does this mean, I wonder? “Exclusive rights?” As I understand it, if she had it before it was filed, it’s a violation of the gag order. Or isn’t it? Who’s running this circus anyway?

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: You have had the exclusive rights to view this motion before it`s been filed. Nobody else has seen it. What can you tell us?

  67. Rescue, that’s probably what Joel told Lisa. And every other reporter to whom he gave a copy.

  68. Addressing the media after Peterson’s arrest:

    “We’re going to vehemently and vigorously defend this case. It’s a circumstantial case at best,” Brodsky told NBC Chicago. “If you recall, Drew Peterson already took a polygraph exam regarding Kathleen Savio’s death for that book Drew Peterson Exposed and passed the polygraph exam totally.”

    Yesterday, this is what Bloom said:

    I mean, the first thing to draw from all of this is that Drew Peterson`s attorneys are putting up a serious fight for the freedom of their client. They`re leaving no stone unturned.

    Strikingly similar, heh?

  69. Noway – I have knowledge that the motion was given out today, as it was filed. If she was given a copy beforehand, it’s my understanding that may be in violation of the gag order.

    We’re working on getting a copy of that Motion for our bloggers.

  70. Even if the motion wasn’t anything other than a piece of paper at that time?

    Does it not become a legal document until it’s filed?

    I guess those are questions you could pass onto Karen.

  71. So, providing copies of filings to a reporter prior to presenting to the Court is Boobsky’s work-around for not being allowed to give interviews?

    If yes, seems he’s once again proving that those professional ethics-thingies other people pay attention to are solely for chumps.

  72. Well, if the defense gave out a copy of their Motion prior to filing it, and if it’s against the judge’s gag order ruling, then I guess it’s up to the State to make the judge aware of it. But, again, it would seem that it’s not right that the defense can hand out it’s motions before they’re filed to whom they feel is worthy. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

  73. Maybe Brodsky specifically went to the judge and told him he was going to hand out his motion to Lisa Bloom so she could report on it the day before the filing, heh? The judge did say he wanted to be notified before any interviews, etc., so……..

  74. Coffee, that’s what I was thinking — questionable ethics on Joel’s part, but I don’t know whether he violated the gag order.

  75. Whatever it was, questionable ethics, violation of the gag order, do you think he’s endearing himself to the judge? Maybe he doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the judge thinks, who knows. Maybe he’s falling on his sword to pursue what he thinks is a brilliant defense of his poor excuse of a client, no matter what cost. This guy’s a real trip, no matter how you look at it. He’s unorthodox and unprofessional, but he’s a perfect fit when it comes to Peterson.

  76. As to the question as to Brodsky being right there w/Drewpy…”clamping down”?
    Nah-IMO, it’s Broadway Brodsky’s way of getting his mug out there for all the world to see…and of course…remember. I’m surprised he doesn’t hold his office phone # on a placard.
    I have an idea that whenever Broadway looks at Drewpy he sees nothing but dollar signs, due to all the cases he’s going to be getting in the future.
    Hey-is there any way we can find out if/what Brodway’s being paid?

  77. charmed4sr Says:

    July 30, 2009 at 6:34 am
    Aussie, those things you mentioned have everything thing to do with Stacy and Kathleen. If it were not for them no one would know or care who Drew was and he would not be “famous.” At least OJ was famous before he was a wife killer. Drew could have done anyone of those things before, but without Stacy and Kathleen no one would have cared. He is nothing without them. That is kind of ironic, isn’t it.

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

    Of course you are right, what I meant was, he didn’t do those appearances to even talk about Stacy or Kathleen. They were all about him and his pecker.

  78. coffeeocity Says:

    July 30, 2009 at 11:07 am
    I’m searching for a “Layperson” avatar.

    facsmiley Says:

    July 30, 2009 at 11:30 am
    Good luck!

    noway406 Says:

    July 30, 2009 at 11:37 am
    Coffee, you should be able to find a photo of Joel somewhere.

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

    LOL Noway, you crack me up :-)

  79. July 30, 2009

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
    JOLIET — There’s no justice for Drew Peterson in Joliet, the accused wife killer’s lawyer claimed Thursday.

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, filed a motion to have Peterson’s murder trial moved out of Joliet
    Brodsky conceded that extensive questioning of potential jurors should be given a shot. But once that fails, he wants Peterson’s murder case to hit the road.

    Brodsky has been threatening to file a change of venue motion since shortly after Peterson was charged with murder in May.

    In his motion, Brodsky blamed the media for having “prejudiced the jury pool,” and claimed the Internet search engine Google returned 2.95 million results for Drew Peterson.

    “This is almost double the amount of results of a Google search for ‘Rod Blagojevich,’” according to the motion.

    Peterson and Blagojevich share more than millions of Google results. The disgraced former Bolingbrook cop and the disgraced former Illinois governor are represented by the same Florida-based publicist. Brodsky’s law firm is also represented by the publicist.

    Brodsky failed to return calls for comment Thursday.

    Murder trial
    Brodsky’s motion will be argued in court Aug. 14.

    The start of Peterson’s trial on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, is expected to be tentatively scheduled as well.

    In addition to facing murder charges in connection with Savio’s March 2004 death, Peterson is the sole suspect in the state police investigation into his fourth wife’s disappearance. State police believe the missing wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished in Oct. 2007, is the victim of a “potential homicide.”

    Allegations of prejudice
    In his motion to have the murder case moved, Brodsky took a shot at Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s office for a Feb. 21 press release titled “Pathologist declares Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide,” which he claims “prejudiced the jury pool in regards to the most contested fact of the entire case — namely the manner of death.”

    Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, pointed out that Peterson’s “name is not even mentioned” in the release and argued prosecutors have done nothing to poison the jury pool.

    “The state’s attorney has adopted a very strict interpretation of the Supreme Court rules regarding pretrial publicity,” Pelkie said. “We follow both the spirit and the letter of those rules.

    “We release only information that the public has a right to know,” Pelkie added. “We’ve taken every step possible to ensure that this office did not contribute to the media frenzy that surrounded this case.”

    Brodsky and Peterson, on the other hand, have plunged head first into the media frenzy, with both attorney and client making numerous TV appearances since Stacy Peterson’s disappearance nearly two years ago.

    Even after his arrest on the murder charges, Peterson continued to thrust himself into the public eye by calling an AM radio station from the county jail to tell jokes.

    A judge has since forbidden Peterson to call anyone but those on a pre-approved list.

  80. If Joel is trying to say that his client can’t get a fair trial anywhere (I mean, what does a Google search have to do with Will County?) I guess the only solution is to let him go.

    Seriously, if the media has truly oversaturated us with stories about the case, how is moving Drew’s trial to a different part of the state going to help?

    Drew is going to be tried by a jury of his peers, no matter where the roadshow ends, and any bias on the part of that jury will be 95% due to the incessant pimping of Drew Peterson carried out by Joel Brodsky and Glenn Selig.

  81. Good point Noway. Hopefully the prosecution will also raise that point at the motion hearing. That is, if the judge doesn’t laugh the motion out of court.

  82. I think it would be a shame to move the trial because it would be appropriate for his own community to pull the trigger (or not, of course)

  83. noway406 Says:
    July 30, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    There are 39 people in the U.S. named Drew Peterson

    There are 1 or fewer (whatever that means!) in the U.S. named Rod Blagojevich.

    http://howmanyofme.com/search/

    That could explain some of the difference in the number of hits on Google! LOL

    * * * *
    ha ha ha ha ha …..and all the entries that just have unrelated to each other “drew” and “peterson”.

    Broadway Brodsky- ROFL, I love that, cheryl!

  84. Good morning.

    Whoever on that defense thought of Googling Drew Peterson and comparing it to Rod Blagojevich should go back and have to re-do the first year of law school. That’s just a layperson’s opinion, though. Mixed into all of those millions of results, say about 300+ hits or so, you will find silly reasons to laugh at the goof who came up with this idea. ROFLMAO.

    Here is result #365 from the term Drew Peterson in Google:

    Roger Tory Peterson: A Biography – Google Books Result
    by Douglas Carlson – 2007 – Biography & Autobiography – 296 pages
    1 Throughout his life, and especially during difficult times, Peterson drew comfort from this truth of the continuity of the natural world, especially as it …
    books.google.com/books?isbn=029271680X…

    Better yet, here is a result above that one, #362, a book:

    How They Got Into Harvard: 50 Successful Applicants Share 8 Key … – Google Books Result
    by Harvard Crimson (COR), Staff of the Harvard … – 2005 – Education – 192 pages
    Drew Peterson. He wasn’t very vocal, but he was a tall, strong farm kid with a big wide smile.” James headed up the support structure for Drew, …
    books.google.com/books?isbn=0312343752…

  85. In the one instance where the defense takes the Will County State’s Attorney to task, it is for the release of a portion of the Pathologist’s report that declares Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide. They sum up that it’s prejudicial against their client because, instead of releasing the entire report, which the State’s Attorney didn’t want to do since it was “part of the ongoing investigation,” the defense says the State’s Attorney “had no problem releasing a small portion of the autopsy report…”

    In other words, to read this is to assume the defense is making an argument that the State’s Attorney prejudiced the jury pool by releasing only a certain part of the autopsy, but not all of it.

    Okay. Whatever.

  86. Again, it’s noteworthy that most of the exhibits Joel includes in the motion are examples of articles that can be read on the Internet.

    If I were judge I’d say that it doesn’t show any direct tainting of the Jury pool in Will County. It only shows that the case has been widely covered by the media and that those who are interested can find ample reading material about it…Internetwide.

    If I were a denizen of Will County and had no interest in the case; according to the exhibits in this motion, it seems as if it would be pretty easy to remain unbiased as long as I didn’t Google the term “Drew Peterson”.

    *shrug*

  87. Honestly, not to help out the defense here…but, rather than exhibits from FOX and CNN, you’d think Joel would have provided examples of stories from the Joliet Herald News, or Suburban Life Publications if he wanted to show that the local jury pool was tainted.

    IMO, his exhibits are without value.

  88. I Googled “Drew Peterson” and “Illinois” in an effort to eliminate entries that included “Drew” or “Peterson” in any geographical location.

    Result: 56,600

    I Googled “Rod Blagojevich” and “Illinois” in an effort to eliminate entries that included “Rod” or “Blagojevich” in any geographical location.

    Result: 1,040,000

    I don’t guess my results mean anything more than Joel Brodsky’s did, but it sure is fun to Google! :D

  89. Facs you rock! …and well done, Noway. Shrewd cookies both!

    Broadway Brodders reminds me very much of the tabloid broadcasters….nevermind the accuracy or logic, feel the roar! Perhaps he has missed his true calling.

  90. It really cracks me up that examples he cites of headlines are, um, uh…just true facts, like his arrest.

  91. Bucket, that’s another thing that struck me. If the stories are factual, they really don’t seem very useful as exhibits.

    Joel’s own motion cites Murphy vs Florida in which the Supreme court explained that “in deciding whether to grant a motion for a change in venue, it is important to examine whether such publicity is ‘largely factual publicity’ as opposed to material which is ‘invidious or inflammatory’.”

    So if these news stories simply report on Drew’s arrest, or quote from a letter Kathleen has written or even if Glasgow outlines what the state is going to attempt to prove, then it’s still just “factual publicity”.

  92. Anything he cares to bring up, you can cite the many occasions they were on tv radio etc to counter. That was their plan, wasn’t it? Put his side of the story out there? I suppose if that plan had “worked” they wouldn’t feel they had to ask for the change of venue.LOL

    Much of what they said was invidious and inflammatory about the victims.

  93. More Voir Dire: Creating the Jury questions:

    Question: Have you ever watched “Drew Peterson” and his barrister, Broadway Joel Brodsky discussing “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE on any of the following tv shows… Today, Good Morning America, Greta, Dr. Phil, LKL, JVM-Issues, Nancy Grace, WGN-TV, etc.?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes, I have … lots of times.

    Question: When was the first time you saw “Drew Peterson” and/or his barrister, Broadway Joel Brodsky discussing “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE on any of the following tv shows… Today, Good Morning America, Greta, Dr. Phil, LKL, JVM-Issues, Nancy Grace, WGN-TV, etc.?

    Potential Juror from Will County: October 29, 2007, the day 4th wife Stacy disappeared, and a zillion times after that on every tv channel.

    Question: Have you ever watched Steven Carcerano, alleged friend who allegedly found Savio dead in her bathtub discussing “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE on any of the following tv shows… Today, Good Morning America, Greta, Dr. Phil, LKL, JVM-Issues, Nancy Grace, WGN-TV, etc.?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes, I have … lots of times.

  94. Question: Have you ever listened to “Drew Peterson” and his barrister, Broadway Joel Brodsky discussing “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE on any of the following radio shows… Mancow, etc.?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes, I have … lots of em

    Question: Have you ever read news articles where the “Drew Peterson” and his barrister, Broadway Joel Brodsky made statements on “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes, I have … lots of em

    Question: Have you ever watched a news or press conference after a court hearing by “Drew Peterson” and/or his barristers, Broadway Joel Brodsky, Andrew Abood, Rheem Odeh, John P. Carroll, discussing “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes, I have … lots of em … they’re always on tv!

    Question: Have you ever seen or heard his Public Relations people Glen Selig, Derek Armstrong, discussing “Drew Peterson’s” INNOCENCE?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes, I have … lots of times.

    Question: Have you ever seen ‘evidence’ presented of “Drew Peterson’s” guilt or innocence?

    Potential Juror from Will County: No, I have not. Trial did not start yet.

    Final Question: Do you like chicken wings?

    Potential Juror from Will County: Yes.

    OK, you’re good.

  95. Well hmmmm, if my memory serves me well – didn’t Drew and Joel supposedly get together themselves because of a t.v. appearance by Drew ????????

  96. bucketoftea Says:

    July 31, 2009 at 1:32 pm
    Whoops. Joel didn’t date his signature.

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

    In Drew and Joels world one can always add the date a few years later, post date or pre date, whatever is most advantages at the time (!!)

  97. Did Joel include this google news on Drew Peterson in his motion ??

    “Drew Peterson, 18, of Red Deer, ordered deep-fried Oreos last year and liked them. He forked over $5 for a dish of them. “They’re like an Oreo but really “

  98. bucketoftea Says:

    July 31, 2009 at 1:32 pm
    Whoops. Joel didn’t date his signature.

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

    Oke a serious question this time:

    Isn’t an official document to be nul and void if

    a) someones name is misspelled
    b) incorrect address
    c)undated or signature undated/not witnessed
    d) incorrect time or date

    with # d I’m particularly referring to the
    incorrect time re the autopsy (the “fresh” one), whereby according to the time, the autopsy was performed several hours before the person was officially declared deceased (!!)

  99. JAH, in a previous discussion on this topic, I thought it was posted (but don’t know by whom) that minor typographical errors did not affect the validity of the document.

    I’m not sure whether all of the above are considered minor typographical errors, but I’m guessing they are.

    Maybe this is a question for Karen?

  100. I think neglecting to date your sig is not the same as a typo, exactly. A little passive aggression from the man holding the key to peace in the middle east?

  101. As far as the motion, that Joel didn’t date signature on, I think the clerk stamped date and time received on first page.

  102. That Sheppard case Brathole cites, is that the notoriously wrongly-convicted Dr Sam Sheppard? (early 50s, etc)

  103. Hi Grandam….I think that’s different from dating your sig still. But I know nothing. LOL

  104. Hi bucketoftea, I don’t know either, it was just a thought. Maybe someone will know whats legal on that point.

  105. Call me bucket ;-) I suppose it would be alright, because their date stamp (date of filing), it just seems like bad manners. lol

  106. I’m not sure whether all of the above are considered minor typographical errors, but I’m guessing they are.

    Maybe this is a question for Karen?

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

    Thank you for your reply but the items I put forward are not considered minor typographical errors, such as for example typing payed instead of paid as Joel Brodsky did in a previous document presented to the Courts as those errors only show inadequate spelling skills (!) by a supposed professional, but do not alter the meaning of the document.

    However, a typographical error in someones name in an official document can get a case thrown out of Court, as does a typograpical error in an address.

    I don’t know about not dating your signature, but to have an autopsy listed on an official document as having taken place several hours before the person in question was actually deceased is a HUGE error that should never have gone unnoticed, as this means (in official terms) an autopsy was performed on a person that was still alive (!!)

    Why was this sloppy paperwork never picked up on as much as Drews sloppy paperwork of notarizing his own documents, the bizarre date on the will, etc etc.

    Why can an answer be accepted in an official hearing, ISP did not know if Drew was in uniform the night Kathleen was found dead, even though he acted as “first officer on the scene” when paramedics arrived ??

    Nothing makes sense and nobody ever seemed to have checked any paperwork for accuracy, which is always a big deal in any official documentation (!!)

  107. I think if these errors were indeed serious enough to make the motions, etc. inadmissable, it would have happened by now. Obviously, that hasn’t occurred.

    Personally, I’d hate to see the process held up by typos and admissions.

    If you like, Jah, we can ask Karen Conti about missing date and how important it is or the innacurate time/date on the autopsy, but I think we may already know the answer.

  108. You’re so right, Justie. I really can’t get over him being allowed to notarise his own stuff. Riflippindiculous.

    Being inaccurate accidentally on purpose is a useful strategy for deceit, however. Spelling errors etc can be interpreted as basis for doubt as to a record’s accuracy overall, even its authenticity.Things can end up lost through weird indexing. Also, the longer an “inaccuracy” survives, the less likely it would be re-examined. I wonder if Eyesforlies would agree that sometimes the “mistakes” can be unconsciously revealing, as well.

  109. Well, I found this.

    But I don’t think it’s very useful since it seems to contain a typographical error. ;) I think it should say it would have no bearing on the case.

    What impact does a typographical error have on legal document?

    None unless the error directly affected the decision of the matter. For example, if a defendant’s name was misspelled but the defendant did prove to be the person in question it would have bearing on the case.

Comments are closed.