Maybe Drew Peterson’s defense team should go “buy” the book.

The weapons charges against Drew Peterson were dismissed in November, 2008. However the State has appealed that decision and would like to pursue the charges again. Last Monday, August 3rd, Drew Peterson’s defense filed a new response to the prosecution’s decision to appeal a court’s dismissal of gun charges.

While one could question why attorney, Andrew Abood is filing a 30-page brief about the appeal of a dismissed weapons charge when his client is already in jail indicted on two counts of murder, it’s a little more concerning that some of the information given in the response is blatantly un-factual.

In particular, this quote from pages 29-30:

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.

For the record, there have been only two books published about the Peterson case. Neither of them was published by the Naperville Sun.

fatal-vows1Joseph Hosey, who reports for the Herald-News in Joliet, authored “Fatal Vows: The tragic wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson“. It was published by Phoenix Books.

The other book written about the Peterson case is by Derek Armstrong. It’s called “Drew Peterson Exposed” and it was written after Peterson’s publicist, Glenn Selig, went looking for an author to tell “Drew’s side” of the story. It’s published by Kunati Books.

exposed-book-coverPlease note that the book cover showing Drew attached to the “lie detector machine” is that of Armstrong’s book–the book  written after Drew voluntarily provided “hundreds of hours” of interviews and personal photos to the author. It should also be pointed out that the polygraph of Peterson took place at the offices of his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, and at Brodsky’s request. In fact the photo credit in the book reads, “Photo courtesy of Brodsky & Odeh”.

So, to be clear (since Abood is not), the photo in question was one that Drew Peterson actually posed for, taken by and provided to the author by Joel Brodsky…and yet the defense team is now using it as an example of how the jury pool has been tainted.

If Peterson’s defense team can’t get details like this straight, can we trust the accuracy of any of the information in those 37 pages?

When Joel Brodsky was asked to comment on such an embarrassing gaffe, this was his response:

I think it’s a very slight mistake. I took the picture for Drew and he gave it to author Derek Armstrong to prove Drew took the lie detector test, which was a prerequisite for Armstrong to do his book. The picture (part of the book cover) was later re-published in the Naperville newspaper and I also believe in the Joliet Herald and the Sun Times when Armstrong’s book came out. The Naperville Sun did not publish the book, but they did publish the picture of Drew on the lie detector. However, Joe Hosey, who works for the Sun Times Group, of which the Naperville Sun is a part, did in fact author a book about Peterson. The line in the brief should have read “The Naperville Sun published a story about Mr. Peterson, featuring him on the cover of a book connected to a lie detector machine.” This is not a big deal, and these things happen, (like when the New York Times has its daily “clarification and corrections” section every day on page 2 of its newspaper). Its not significant to the legal argument, and we will clarify the issue in the rebuttal brief.

UPDATE AUGUST 14: Two days ago, Abood filed a correction which reads:

The Naperville Sun even published a story about Mr. Peterson about a book featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

Now, the information has gone from false to nonsensical.

The original brief:

The letter of correction submitted August 12

Drew Peterson’s next hearing is on August 10.

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

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>


58 thoughts on “Maybe Drew Peterson’s defense team should go “buy” the book.

  1. Photo courtesy of Brodsky & Odeh IMO, this is priceless!

    WHO is writing these things? If they can’t get the facts right (and it is just sad that they cannot), IMO they should be fired.

    I sure would not want my life in the hands of someone who can’t be bothered to get the facts in my case straight.

    It’s a little scary. But maybe Drew can get a discounted hourly rate on the work they did on the motions/appeals.

  2. Remember what Blagojevich said, which they captured on tape, about the Senate seat he was trying to sell?

    “I’ve got this thing and it’s f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f***n’ nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it”

    Think this is what the SA’s office is saying….? 🙂

  3. I wish I was more familiar with what is covered in the first 28 pages of that document. I can only imagine that it must be as erroneous as the bit about the books.

  4. Well, they’ve got six full business days before their court date to review the covers of both books and realize what complete BOZOS they will appear come August 14.

  5. Not sure they’ve got a court date yet for the weapons charge appeal process. Would they just lump it in with the murder hearings since it’s same prosecutor and same defendant? Probably different judge though, so…

  6. Yeah.

    The Honorable Richard C. Schoenstedt,
    Lower Court Presiding Judge

    and the first page states “ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED” so they may or may not get to argue looks like…

  7. *sigh* “prosecution” incorrectly spelled (in caps). Your passive aggression is showing, chaps.They’re clowns! Come on, they even look like clowns. I’m being completely objective here. I have eyes.

  8. They seem incredibly lame and so overmatched… I almost feel a drip of pity for the Drew Crew…

    Nope. No, I don’t.

  9. An oral argument is usually requested to clarify issues and answer any questions the Court might have, rather than rely only on written briefs.

    Think the Court will have any questions or need clarification in this matter? I think so.

  10. I’m a little speechless. I hope the SA is picking up all these ridiculous inconsistencies as well as Facs and Rescue are.

    Published by the Naperville Sun?! I’m a little speechless!!

  11. On page 3,it states [the ISP]…seized Mr Peterson’s firearms, including the firearm that is the subject…”
    and then follows with “…on information and belief, Mr Peterson’s son, Stephen…delivered the Colt to the Illinois State Police the next day.”
    On page 4, it states that the gun was “voluntarily surrendered…”
    Can it be both ways?

  12. Can the firearms be seized and then brought the next day? Can it be voluntary if a warrant was issued for its seizure?

  13. LOL … for the record, it was posted on a few boards I’m a member of, so the credit for finding it does not really belong to me. I just shared the wealth.

    Could these public displays of incompetence (IMO) by his lawyers possibly work in Drew’s favor?

  14. Could he claim ‘ineffective counsel’? Or does this pretrial behavior not count, and it’s only the behavior at trial? Then again, Drew would have to show that all his lawyers were ineffective, correct?

    INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. In analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the overriding concern is to determine whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the functioning of the adversary process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

    First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.

    Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Id. at 687. Review of counsel’s performance is highly deferential, and courts must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689.

    I guess this is another question for Karen.

  15. Some of those links on the Brodksy & Odeh site are pretty informative. I’m especially interested in this page:

    Article VIII – Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct

    Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity

    (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding.

    (b) There are certain subjects which would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, or a criminal matter. These subjects relate to:

    (1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

    So, wouldn’t some of the posts Joel Brodsky made at SYM made qualify?

    Author Topic: Peterson Case Discussion # 3 (Read 6,643 times)

    Joined: May 2008
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 167
    Re: Peterson Case Discussion # 3
    « Result #1 on Jul 26, 2008, 7:33pm »

    Did you see Len/Ashely’s new (July 26) post on the blog? More proof he is a bad liar. He starts out by saying that yes he did file a bankruptcy, but that was because of his sick mother, and that he voluntarily dismissed the case because he made arrangements to voluntarily repay the creditors. What a crock.
    Go to and you will see the actual bankruptcy court documents. Wawczak’s bankruptcy was dismissed on the motion of his mortgage bank because he and Paula Stark were trying to commit Bankruptcy Fraud. Documents don’t lie. This proves that not only is Wawcak a liar, but he is a bad liar. Wawczak says he can’t wait until I cross examine him at a trial. Well all I can say is too bad it will never happen because, now more than ever, I am sure Drew Peterson will never be charged.

    If that’s not publicly attacking a witness’ “character, credibility, and reputation” then I guess I don’t know what is.

  16. Another blatant example of Joel breaching the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct is when he released a portion of his discovery materials to Paul Huebl and then made public the name of a witness (Mike Kurdenok). Anyone who thinks that Huebl acted alone in doing this, needs to reread the post from last August 20, at Huebl’s blog:

    The search warrant was turned over just today to Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky in discovery material. The name was redacted by Joel Brodsky until such time as he can interview this witness. This excerpt was found on page 10 of the 12 page affidavit.

    This was followed by a post the next day in which Huebl “outs” the witness by name, gives his address and states that he contacted him by phone.

    Just before Stacy Peterson disappeared according to what Mike Kurdenok, 38 told police is that he had drinks with Stacy Peterson one night after school…I’d certainly have visited the neighbors at Kurdenok’s house located at 410 4th Ave in Coal City IL and asked them if they ever saw Stacy Peterson before or after she was reported missing…I Called Kurdenok myself at his home telephone number. I told him I was a private investigator working on this case and he quickly slammed the phone on me.

  17. It would be a little ironic if Joel’s white noise resulted in some kind of punishment for his unprofessional conduct.

    IMO 😉

  18. Does anyone know who actually enforces these rules? Because it looks to me like boobsky has violated every ethical code there is and it doesn’t look like anybody is pulling him into line!

  19. Another totally bizarre document – 30 pages long this time and full of irrelevant legal jargon that has nothing or precious little to do with the subject at hand (the gun charges) or can one address everything and anything and whatever is on ones mind at the time in a request to the Judge for an oral argument as that’s what it looks like here – LOL !

    After reading the above 30 pages, I’m still not sure what point the Defense team is trying to make (providing there is one)other than they’ve managed to utterly confuse themselves in this avalanche of meaningless words and quotes and other than comparing apples with oranges, nothing has been achieved in this marathon document – LOL, LOL !!!

  20. Sorry to wander away from such a riviting topic, but I was wonder what the searchers are up to these days. I really had hoped that they would find Stacy. My heart just aches for her family.

  21. I honestly don’t think Stacy will be found by searchers.

    I’m still suspicious about the storage locker. I watched a Cold Case Files the other night where an abusive husband said his wife up and left him.

    They finally found the wife in a barrel in a storage locker. He had covered her body with somethihg to disguise the smell = I can’t remember what the chemical was. I think that’s exactly what drew planned to do when he tried to get Tom Morphey to rent the locker.

    I just think he found another way to rent that locker and that’s where she is.

  22. Aussie, unless he got spooked when it didn’t work out at the first place. It also would have meant bringing yet another person in on his secret (if he didn’t want it in his name)…or falfifying his own ID.

    I’m sure they’ve asked around at the storage facilites and Tom must have indicated which one Drew drove him to.

  23. Strangely enough, tipped off once again by a tweet about Lisa Bloom on CNN…

    Peterson attorneys to file motion
    Friday, August 07, 2009 | 10:52 PM

    (CHICAGO) (WLS) — Drew Peterson’s attorneys will file a motion on Monday asking a judge find the so called hearsay law unconstitutional.

    Peterson is accused of killing his third wife Kathleen Savio.
    Prosecutors plan on using statements that she reportedly made to family members in Peterson’s trial. Savio reportedly told her family that Peterson would try to kill her.

    A new state law passed last year makes it easier to use hearsay statements from victims who were allegedly killed to prevent them from testifying against their attackers.

  24. That Lisa Bloom really rubs me to wrong way.

    This latest defence tactic just smacks of desperation.

    It’s a little curious that they are wasting so much time filing silly motions when they have a defence to prepare. I wonder if universities across America are currently using boobsky and co as a case study in their Law101 classes – on what NOT to do.

    IIRC, wasn’t there a third partner in the law firm? I could have sworn it was called Brodsky, Odeh and something. Maybe their third partner bailed out when they saw the damage the shenanigans of the past almost two years has done.

    Or maybe my memory is playing tricks.

  25. My bad memory again! I just did a quickie google search and it looks like it was always just Brodsky and Odeh.

  26. If I were Odeh I would jump ship right quick. We should just start calling Lisa Bloom “scoop.” She suddenly sure seems to be the go to girl for this case.

  27. She’s earned the right to be called “Sleazy” Bloom, IMO. It’s very clear that she’s aligned herself with Brodsky and intends to let the world know every time he has a brain fart via her CNN connection. It does appear Brodsky is craving attention and feels the need to beat his chest everytime a new motion is prepared so it can be sensationalized and leaked to the public before it’s even officially filed. Brodsky must be reeling with excitement over his own genius that he’s out-foxed Judge White’s attempts to limit his appearances/interviews on TV — with such legal television powerhouses as Sleazy Bloom and Gloria Allmouth and their CNN connections in his corner — sensationalizing his “powerful, thorough” plans to hand the prosecution “fatal blows” to their case against Peterson. Never mind that matter of the $20 million bail; he’d like us to believe he’s already made Judge White see things his way and he’ll spring Drew from jail with his magical maneuvers by cornering Glasgow into a constitutional crisis/appeal with the Hearsay Law. Guess we’ll only have to wait a couple more days to see if this new “fatal blow” challenge to the prosecution is more successful in getting their facts right than their last motion. In the meantime, I wish Sleazy Bloom would blow her nose and clear her throat before she brings us her next big Peterson exclusive as Brodsky’s mouthpiece.

  28. OK. At the end of page 28, where the subject is change of venue, there is the following statement:
    “Mr Peterson’s arrest was so public that three helicopters and a crowd of news reporters followed him on his way to surrender to the trial court’s arrest warrant.”
    Does this refer to the May 7 arrest when he was stopped on the street? If so, they are saying Drew was aware of the impending arrest and had left the house to turn himself in???
    Sneaky pete way of inferring that, (if that’s the occurrence.)


    Many bloggers are curious about the defense’s unorthodox behavior, and there are questions that come up repeatedly about Brodsky’s ethics/professional behavior.


    Could he claim ‘ineffective counsel’? Or does this pretrial behavior not count, and it’s only the behavior at trial? Then again, Drew would have to show that all his lawyers were ineffective, correct?


    “I don’t feel comfortable commenting on another attorney’s ethics. However, we have a strong code of ethics that governs our honesty, and many other areas of our conduct. We cannot act to bring the practice of law “in disrepute.” I am certain that the judge and states attorney will not hesitate to report defense counsel’s conduct to our licensing commission (Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission–ARDC) if they deem Joel Brodsky’s conduct to be unethical. In fact, if you are an attorney involved in the matter and you see certain types of unethical behaviors, you have a duty to report them and, if you don’t, you could suffer some punishment yourself.

    I don’t know who published the book–could it be that technically, he is right and the newspaper did publish it? If not, that is something that, if done inadvertantly, is stupid, but if done intentionally is false and a problem. And the idea that there is a complaint about a book that Peterson voluntarily commissioned and posed for the cover, that is an argument that, put it this way, I would not make in a million years.

    But, believe me, this will not be lost on the judge. And the judge will take this into consideration in how he treats defense counsel. You never want to lose credibility with the judge. And if you are right and this is a book that was participated in by Peterson, this judge will be angry and will question what the defense says throughout this litigation.

    Ineffective assistance of counsel is a hard argument upon which to win a new trial. Although many suspect lawyers play stupid to get a reversal down then line, this never happens. Why would you take that chance, especially knowing how rarely these arguments win? There have been lawyers who sleep at trial and the appellate court upholds the conviction. I do not know of a lawyer who would purposely play stupid. At the end of it and even if Peterson did get a new trial, he is still in jail and still on trial and this time with a conviction behind him. The concept of ineffective assistance does apply to pretrial conduct (I’ve seen it applied to pretrial investigation and preparation activities). Brodsky’s conduct will likely be deemed to be a “trial tactic” which is never ineffective assistance.”

  30. BLOOM: In my opinion, this is the strongest evidence in the case. Kathleen’s statements, “If anything happens to me, he did it.” There’s no DNA evidence linking Drew Peterson to this crime. There’s no forensic evidence.

    Is this the defense’s way of getting out the idea that the State’s case is weak, through Lisa Bloom? How does she KNOW that there’s no DNA evidence, no forensic evidence? Has the defense divulged the discovery evidence to her so that she can comment on the case like this with personal knowledge?

  31. She used to call me up on her phone — on her cell phone and go, “Anna, you’re going to think I’m crazy, but somebody’s following me.”

    I’m like, “Who is it?”

    She goes, “I don’t know.”

    I said, “Is it Drew?”

    Like, “No, I don’t know.” And this — all the time this is what happened. She’d be going to school or going to work or whatever. You know, and most people were thinking she was crazy.

    At least they’ve got Ric Mims to back this up, since he’s admitted that he did follow and watch Kathleen for Drew.

  32. Yep, Rescue, it appears that she’s the official mouthpiece for the defense these days. The clips leading up to that segment on 360 last night were billing it as a “bombshell exclusive by Lisa Bloom” that could be the “fatal blow” to the prosecution’s case against Peterson. She does make it sound like she has all the “inside poop” from the discovery when she’s making statements like she made last night. She laid it all out — no DNA, no forensic evidence, no sign of a struggle; but she knows all about the family members who will provide him with alibis. She’s gloating that she’s gotten a sneak peek before the prosecution has seen it. They don’t have any idea what the prosecution’s response will be, but they are already gloating a “win” for Drew to be released pending an appeal. She’s sounding as ridiculous as Brodsky in these little schemes they’ve cooked up to circumvent Judge White’s intent to put a sock in Brodsky’s mouth. I really hope Judge White puts a stop to this BS.

  33. Lisa Bloom and Joel Brodksy must be aware that there are hearsay exceptions that existed and have been successfully used prior to the passing of Public Act 095-1004. Forefeiture by Wrongdoing is an “accepted exception” to the constitutional right to confront a witness. How on earth are they trying to make it seem as if this is some revolutionary, wacky new threat to the constitution?

    Hearsay exceptions that apply only where the declarant is unavailable

    forfeiture by wrongdoing: the party against whom the statement is now offered (1) intentionally made the declarant unavailable; (2) with intent to prevent declarant’s testimony; (3) by wrongdoing. In plain English, if you get rid of a witness, statements they made can be used against you.


    Prosecutors use ‘Drew Peterson’ hearsay law in Warrenville murder
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff

    Published: 5/14/2009

    Fourteen days before she was fatally shot, 17-year-old Sade Glover accused Joshua L. Matthews of punching her in the face.

    The teen filed a battery complaint with Warrenville police that next day.

    A DuPage County judge ruled Thursday a jury will be allowed to read Glover’s handwritten police statement and other evidence of the alleged battery in Matthews’ trial on first-degree murder charges.

    Prosecutors relied on the so-called Drew Peterson “beyond the grave” hearsay law to convince the judge the evidence is admissible. It is believed to be the first time the law has been used since its recent passage.

    Matthews, 24, who despite lacking legal experience is acting as his own attorney, fought the move. He said it runs contrary to the 6th Amendment, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront his or her accuser in court.

    In his ruling, Circuit Judge Perry Thompson found prosecutors proved Matthews likely killed Glover so that she was unavailable to testify against him in the battery case and that allowing that evidence of motive doesn’t prohibit Matthews from getting a fair trial.

    Prosecutors Steven Knight and Paul Marchese had to prove their case with a preponderance of the evidence, the law states, which is a lower burden than a trial’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    “He killed her so that she couldn’t testify,” Knight said. “He can’t profit from his own wrongdoing.”…

  35. Why in heavens name would he do that? Putting it on PR news should have been enough, plus L. Blooms loud speaker.

Comments are closed.