Will Drew Peterson’s trial be moved out of Will County?

Last Thursday Drew Peterson’s defense filed a Defendant’s Motion for a Change of Venue (see above). In it his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, claims that the media has “prejudiced the jury pool” of Will County against the defendant.

It’s noteworthy that most of the exhibits Joel includes in the motion are articles that he printed out from the Internet, and also that these print-outs aren’t of any local publications, but instead of stories from Fox, CNN, ABC, etc. The most local source he includes is MyFox Chicago and (Lisa Bloom, please take note) Chicago is in Cook County, not Will County.

So how do national and even international online sources contribute to a direct tainting of the jury pool in Will County? Brodsky’s exhibits prove only that the case has been widely covered by the media and that those who are interested can find ample reading material about it of they want to…by Googling.

Speaking of Google, it was interesting to see that the motion included some Google stats showing that the term “Drew Peterson” returns 2.95 million results, almost double the results for the term “Rod Blagojevich“. Forget for a moment that most people don’t know how to spell “Blagojevich” and instead think again about how this is relevant to the motion to change the venue from Will County. Well….it isn’t. That is, it isn’t unless Joel can show that his stats represent only searches made by the denizens of Will County.

Among other case precendents, the 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, it is interesting the most of the stories Joel provides as exhibits to argue his motion are actually mere statement of facts. Katheen Savio’s body is exhumed. A pathologist declares Kathleen’s death a homicide, Peterson is a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance. Peterson is arrested, etc. Since 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, they are examples of “factual publicity” and don’t do much to bolster his argument.

It will be interesting to see if Judge Stephen White takes into account the immense amount of media time that has been granted by Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky themselves; and by that I mean not only the interviews to “give Drew’s side of the story” but the horrendous and tacky media stunts they’ve indulged in since Stacy Peterson disappeared.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 14.

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>


45 thoughts on “Will Drew Peterson’s trial be moved out of Will County?

  1. Oke, let me be the first one to make a comment on Joels dilemma of Drew not being able to get a fair hearing in Will County and giving his reasons to Judge White as to why.

    Of course I’m left speechless again as to Joels reasoning and examples.

    As already mentioned above Joel demonstrates world wide Google searches for wanting the trial moved out of Will County (!!)

    HUH, How does that make sense Joel ??

    If someone in Afghanistan or Liberia googles the name Drew Peterson, that is grounds for the trial to be moved out of Will County and to Cook County or some other place in Illinois ?????

    Next the 5 most viewed stories:

    Drew is ahead of a story about a man with Osteogenesis Imperfecta, who is 3ft tall and preaches against self sabotage.

    For Joel to submit this in his motion, he obviously has irrefutable proof these stories were only read by people in Will County and not in Cook County or anywhere else in Illinois he wants the trial moved to.

    Joel must have been busy -LOL !

  2. I didn’t even address the nonsense about Media exposure as if you go out of your way to get your mug on t.v. and in the Media, regardless how tacky, insensitive and tasteless the subject, you cannot complain about it working against you at the same time (!)

  3. From Joe Hosey:
    “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.”

    I wish Joe had taken this opportunity to point out that Derek Armstrong is also represented by Selig….but ONLY with regards to Drew and his poxy Drew Peterson Exposed book. Oh, and his “knowledge”. lol

  4. I’m trying to find a letter written to Greta On the record, from a forensic student who explained how Kathy S. body could not have been in the position it was found in the bathtub if she had fallen. I know it was posted, but cannot find. Anyone else remember?

  5. That’s an interesting point, Bucket. Seeing as Selig’s PR company lists Kunati books as one of their clients, why do they only do media releases pertaining to the one title, “Drew Peterson Exposed”. According to Kunati’s website, they’ve got a whole slew of authors and titles to promote.

    Come to think of it, Derek Armstrong himself has plenty of titles to his name published by Kunati. Why does the Publicity Agency only promote the one about Drew?

    And they ask us to believe that Armstrong is simply an author who wrote a book about Drew, and that neither Drew nor Joel benefit in any way from the profits. It doesn’t add up.

  6. Crikey. I feel I need a lie down after them screaming at me like that.

    How do they get away with repeating the falsehood that the bill was called the Drew Peterson Bill. It wasn’t, right?

  7. I’ve only heard it being called “the Drew Peterson Bill” by the media. From what I’ve read, the law was originally proposed as a way to allow the testimony of the victims of gang “hits”.

    I would still like the see the case tried without use of Public Act 095-1004 (Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness). As Bloom pointed out, there are already many exceptions to the hearsay rule that are commonly used and could apply to a case of domestic violence.

    I would just hate to see a lengthy appeal process over it. If it took a long time, Drew could very well be allowed out of jail during the process.

    I really, really think he needs to stay behind bars.

  8. Grandam – I do, yes, remember of which you speak. Maybe it’s on a candyrose. I’ll do a quick check.

    How about those pundits. That one female attorney, whoever the hell she is, is a wicked witch. I believe she could see a complete video tape of an actual murder, and she’d still scream and yell the loudest that it’s not going to cut the mustard. When are these pros going to realize that calm, appropriate responses will be fine, not screaming and yelling, and stuff they pull out of their …….

  9. I can’t wait to hear the explanation for this:

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: “And I should tell the viewers that after you called me with this — and frankly, I missed it, and I thought it was extraordinary – – good work, Mark — but we went back and looked at the transcript from the coroner’s jury, the one from May 1. And just so that the viewers know, is that the Illinois State Police, Herbert Hardy, was testifying, and he says, in part, “The only thing we’re waiting for now is some phone records, to find out if certain phone calls were made when they said they were made.” – “There’s another part where even a coroner’s juror member said to the witness, to the Illinois State Police witness, “Are they verifying the phone records, correct, that the calls were made?” The witness, “Yes, those take quite a while to get. So yes, we’ve got phone records coming from her phone, his phone, Steve’s phone and the rest of it. So yes, we still have to verify that.”

  10. Oh, no! Here’s that “laypeople” term again. You know, the one Drew hates. Only, this time, it was the “laypeople” that ruled his ex’s death an accident. Now what?

    JAMES: Well, in reviewing the evidence at hand, we did decide that it was an accident due to the fact that we were laypeople and were not medical examiners or anything like that. So with the evidence that we had, we determined it wasn’t natural, of course, and we — also being laypeople, we could not decide whether it was a homicide. We just felt that there was not enough evidence there that we understood for it to be a homicide, so naturally, we declared it an accident.

  11. When I go back and see these discussions, it makes me cringe!

    VAN SUSTEREN: So was there any part of anybody who thought, Hey, maybe this is a homicide, looking at the autopsy picture — autopsy report, looking at all the blood in the tub?

    JAMES: Well, I think as being panel members, and also being laypeople, we just — we didn’t have the expertise to determine how the bruises occurred. And I think that was one of the reasons why we just dismissed the bruises. Or we didn’t dismiss them, but we just said that we did not know how the bruises occurred.

  12. It is strange to me that a coroners jury would be made up of lay people who wouldn’t know how to interpret bruises and injuries and that no expert was available to them.

    How many states use coroners juries, and are they always made up of laypeople? I found that coroners juries consist of 6 people but not much more of a description than that.

  13. See, that’s the thing. Why wasn’t someone available to these people to explain how the bruises that were on her coincided, or didn’t, with the “fall” into the tub? It just defies logic, doesn’t it?

    Also, this one particular man, James, said, a number of times, they were just “laypeople.” Who would’ve ever imagined that the “laypeople” would be the exact group that Peterson would chop down when the GJ handed down their indictment?

    So, the defendant says the laypeople got it wrong when they indicted him because they don’t know the rules of evidence.

    The defendant is sticking with the first autopsy/death investigation ruling that Kathleen died by accident, even though the laypeople didn’t know jack squat about what they were doing, and no one bothered to guide them. Those laypeople, I guess, he feels got it right.

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

  14. Oke, to get back to Joels interpretation and analogy why Drew can’t get a fair trial in Will County, I googled Peter Rabbit (the fictional Beatrix Potter character) and it came up with 2.640.000 results.

    According to Joel, googling Drew yielded 2.950.000 results, thus being conclusive proof Drew can’t get a fair trial in Will County (!!)

  15. Google Results 1 – 10 of about 3,520,000 for drew peterson innocent. (0.40 seconds)

    Peterson arrested on murder charges – Chicago Breaking News
    How can you arrest an innocent man based speculation? Sure, his wives are missing or dead but Drew Peterson is innocent, he is simply a victim of the …
    Drew Peterson’s Son: Dad Is Innocent
    May 11, 2009 … CHICAGO — Drew Peterson, charged in the death of his third wife and suspected in the disappearance of his fourth, soon might face another …
    DREW PETERSON IS INNOCENT !!!! – Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

  16. Google results for “Drew Peterson is a murderer”:

    Results 1 – 4 of 4 for “drew peterson is a murderer”. (0.44 seconds)

    That’s 4 as in … four.

    Looks like Drew Peterson can get a fair trial in Will County.

  17. Judgin said:
    Google Results 1 – 10 of about 3,520,000 for drew peterson innocent. (0.40 seconds)

    Facs said:
    Results 1 – 4 of 4 for “drew peterson is a murderer”. (0.44 seconds)

    That’s 4 as in … four.

    Well. That’s that, then! Excellent work!

    But can Peter Rabbit get a fair shake in Will County?

  18. Oh, Bucket, that’s hilarious!
    Wonder why I keep seeing a couple of high schoolers in a broom closet doing the Google of Drew Peterson and being paid w/a basket of wings-to share?
    Oh-and using their own laptops, of course. I just can’t see Broadway Brodsky et al sitting there doing their own scut work.

  19. 😀
    Well, as long as we’re talking about pointless Googling, I googled Stephen White.

    Results 1 – 10 of about 29,200,000 for stephen white. (0.17 seconds)

    Apparently the judge is much more well-known that Drew. Does that mean he cannot issue an impartial ruling?

  20. Never mind that many of those articles are not about the judge in this case, but going along with Joel’s connecting of the dots to Drew no matter who the article is about …

    Okay, I’m done now. LOL — I’ve wasted enough of my time making fun of Joel on this one.

    *Waiting patiently for his next announcement.* 😉

  21. Took a look at the SA’s press release announcing that the conclusion of Kathleen Savio’s second autopsy was that she was a victim of homicide, and it’s true, there is no mention of Drew Peterson anywhere on it.

    Looked at another press release from the SA’s office–the one addressing the anniversary of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance (October 2008)–and again, no mention of Drew anywhere on it.

  22. This is being discussed on some other blogs and God love a duck, his lawyers suck. IMO

    Read the part about the Naperville Sun publishing a book. I think it’s p. 33/37

    Also, the number of Google hits for “Drew Peterson” stated in this document is 419,000 (at least). LOL — I guess the same rules apply as last time. Doesn’t matter if they have anything to do with this Drew Peterson.

  23. My first thoughts when reading this motion were “Is he kidding?” We all know ‘ole JB is a clown but this seriously takes the cake. What a joke he is. There is certainly desperation in the air. Heck, let him have a change of Venue – We would LOVE for him to come on down to Texas! We don’t mess around with the death penalty!

    Oh Joel – BTW …. you seem to have forgotten to add all of the articles written about your client and his buddy Mancow. Oh, and the ones with his buddy Steve Dahl – Remember that one? Win a date with Drew? 🙄

  24. Heh, hopelessness does bring on desperation.

    Yes, let them have their change of venue. Let the murderer be convicted on the evidence, the facts, the unbiased.

    Waiving hi to Harleyjoey!

  25. PRNewsChannel.com
    Peterson Appeal Brief Released

    August 05, 2009 – thepublicityagency.com

    Bolingbrook, Ill. / Drew Peterson’s defense team today released briefs responding to the prosecution’s decision to appeal a court’s dismissal of gun charges against Drew Peterson.

    On Nov. 20, 2008, the Will County Circuit Court dismissed an indictment against Peterson for possession of a firearm with a barrel length of less than 16 inches.

    The Abood Law firm and the law firm of Brodsky and Odeh responded in a brief filed in the Appellate Court for the Third District.

    Oral arguments are pending with reply briefs from both parties due in the upcoming months.

    To download the briefs:


    Media Contact:
    Glenn Selig
    The Publicity Agency – http://www.thepublicityagency.com
    Phone: (813) 300-5454 or (813) 948-7767
    Email: glenn@thepublicityagency.com (BlackBerry)

  26. No one can deny the Chicago Tribune and the Naperville Sun have reported on this case regularly. The Naperville Sun has even published a book about Mr. Peterson, featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

    WTF? That’s completely bizarre. If they mean Joe Hosey, he writes for the Joliet Herald-News and his book does not feature any such picture. However, the cover of Derek Armstrong’s book does feature such a photograph, taken in JOEL BRODSKY’S office, at a polygraph session arranged by JOEL BRODSKY.

  27. Is Abood just trying to make sure he sucks up his portion of the retainer? Why even bother with the weapons charges at this point? They’re trying to put away your client for MURDER.

  28. How could they possibly confuse Joe Hosey’s and Derek Armstrong’s books?!?! How absolutely stupid will they look when that is answered by the prosecution with something eerily similar to facs’ “wtf?”

  29. I’m amazed at all this. I couldn’t believe what I was reading either. That Armie guy is the one that wrote the book with Drew sitting at a table, taking a poly. You know, the one that his lawyer claims he advised against, but is now singing praises about, since he says it showed truthful when it came to Kathleen.

    OMG, what is wrong with these people? Are they kidding us?

  30. You know, Abood has, on a number of occasions, praised his murderous client, saying he’s focused, smart, knows the rules of evidence, la, la, la.

    Ooops, I guess he forget to get Drewies input on this mess. ROFLMAO.

    Joe Hosey NEEDS to do a story about this!!!!

Comments are closed.