Drew Peterson defense to file motion barring Kathleen Savio’s cries for help

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE “HEARSAY LAW” UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Last night on CNN’s 360, Joel Brodsky’s newest BFF, Lisa Bloom, announced that on Monday, August 10, the defense team of Drew Peterson will file a motion (see above) asking that any “beyond the grave” statements from his deceased wife, Kathleen Savio, not be admitted into court.

Looks like they are going to challenge any citing of Public Act 095-1004 (the so called hearsay-law”) on two points.

First, they will say that the law is being used ex post facto against their client.

Secondly, they are going to claim that the law is unconstitutional in that it operates upon the idea of “Forefeiture by Wrongdoing”, meaning that if it can be shown that you killed someone to keep them from testifying then you forfeit your constitutional right to confront a witness.

Strangely, this is the third time in recent weeks that Lisa Bloom has obtained defense documents days before they are filed or made public and appeared on CNN claiming to have exclusive knowledge about the case. Is this Joel Brodsky’s way of getting around Judge Stephen White’s gag order?

During last night’s interview Bloom stated, “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.”

How can Bloom make a statement like that without having seen the discovery documents? Exactly what is her role in the Brodsky “White Noise” machine?

Bloom & Brodsky discuss May 8, 2009

Transcript from Anderson Cooper 360 – August 7, 2009

“Hearsay Law” Illinois public act 095-1004

~—————————————————————————————–~
~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>

Advertisements

146 thoughts on “Drew Peterson defense to file motion barring Kathleen Savio’s cries for help

  1. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE FROM KAREN CONTI

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

    QUESTION FROM BLOGGER NOWAY:

    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?

    KAREN CONTI’S RESPONSE:

    “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.”

  2. Lisa Bloom sure has changed her tune:

    Lisa Bloom 8-7-09 (on Brodsky’s motion)

    The second argument is, under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that Drew Peterson, like everybody else, has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. Allowing in this kind of statement from somebody, even if she’s a murder victim and can’t come in and testify, means he can’t cross- examine her and, therefore, that would be unconstitutional.

    I have to tell you, I think it is a strong motion on a gut level, on a moral level I think most people would like to see this kind of evidence come in at trial. But the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear. And the case law to the Constitution is pretty clear.

    Source: http://bit.ly/1adXJu

    Lisa Bloom 5-08-09 (before becoming mouthpiece for Joel Brodsky)

    …and there are already dozens of exceptions in every state to the hearsay rule. Something we have to memorize in law school. I can’t even keep them all straight. There`s maybe 30 or 40 exceptions, depending on the jurisdiction. This would be just one more that a murder victim calls out before her death and says, “If I end up missing, he`s the one who did it.” Nicole Brown tried to do it. It didn’t come into the O.J. Simpson case.

    We have woken up. We’ve evolved since that time. In some circumstances, the Illinois legislature says a jury should hear about that. And I praise them for saying that.”

    Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/08/ijvm.01.html

    This is just one example, there are many more converse statements.

    What is moral level, Lisa Bloom? gut level?

    I used to trust Lisa Bloom’s reporting.
    She and her Mom have something going on with Joel Brodsky. They must really think the public is that stupid.
    How unethical!

  3. I don’t know WHAT is up with her. Why is she talking out of both sides of her mouth?

    Thanks for reminding us of what she was saying back in May, Womenscorned!

  4. In the more than five years since Kathleen Savio’s death, there was no direct evidence of Defendant’s involvement in her death. However, in the face of public outcry, the State’s Attorney wrote a new law, the legislature adopted the law, and as a result of the passage of the law the State believed it finally had enough hearsay gossip, now disguised as admissible evidence, to bring an indictment against the Defendant.

    This is a legal document?

  5. Notice the motion keeps referring to it as “Drew’s Law” throughout the doc. Nice touch.

    a. Drew’s Law is Clearly Retrospective and Disadvantages the
    Defendant.

  6. “Here, it should be clear that the government has significant problems with bringing an indictment against Drew Peterson. It is a case with no eyewitness, no confession, no DNA, no sign of struggle in the deceased’s home, no location in the home where an expert could conclude there was an assault, no specific time of death, no instrumentality of death, no sign of forced entry into the home, an initial autopsy establishing an accidental drowning, a coroner’s inquest and death certificate that are consistent with a conclusion of an accident, and a second and third autopsy with no additional findings conducted on a body that had suffered significant water damage and decomposition. In addition, the Defendant has an alibi. Based on these essential facts, the State’s Attorney goes to the legislature and says, I can’t prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence I have, so lower my burden of proof, and if I can prove that the Defendant killed Kathleen Savio by this lower burden of proof, then I get to introduce hearsay evidence which is not subject to cross-examination at trial that would be otherwise inadmissible. And that is exactly what the legislature did with passing this law.”

    Fine then, let the SA just use the existing hearsay exceptions.

  7. Honestly, I’ve always thought it would be better to use that law when it comes time to try him for Stacy. Once he’s convited in Kathleen’s murder, it won’t be too hard to show a judge that Stacy was killed to keep her from testifying about Kathleen.

  8. Once again there is no LAW named Drews LAW. So the court may say, can’t find that one in the law book. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the butt. LOL

  9. I’ve posted the FULL, original paragraph of the SA’s press release. Notice, in the defense’s motion, they conveniently left out: as well as the investigation into the disappearance of Lisa Stebic

    Furthermore, it must be noted that these two investigations, as well as the investigation into the disappearance of Lisa Stebic, prompted me to draft a new law that will enable prosecutors across Illinois to use a murder victim’s cries for help as evidence at trial to convict her brutal killer. This common-sense legislation, which will become law in November, will enable prosecutors to bring previously inadmissible evidence to trial to ensure abusive murderers cannot profit from their wrongdoing. The new law will apply to crimes committed before its enactment. The provisions contained in this new law have recently been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court

  10. I truly think JB and company are very close to losing all credibility with the judge. Prosecution is going to make mince meat out of them.

    Once the attorneys credibility is lost, the judge has a big problem believing anything from the defense.
    Misspelled words and sloppy research shows disrespect for the court and I hope this judge recognizes it.

  11. I wonder if the act of murder is an act innocent when performed…

    “A law is disadvantageous to a defendant if it criminalizes an act innocent when performed, increases the punishment for an offense
    previously committed, or alters the rules of evidence making a conviction easier.5”

  12. In addition, the Defendant has an alibi.

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

    And that is what ?

    His son getting on t.v. vouching his Dad was with them all weekened ?

    Stacy coming back from her sojourn to “somewhere warm” to reiterate his alibi for that weekend ?

  13. Based on these essential facts, the State’s Attorney goes to the legislature and says, I can’t prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence I have, so lower my burden of proof, and if I can prove that the Defendant killed Kathleen Savio by this lower burden of proof, then I get to introduce hearsay evidence which is not subject to cross-examination at trial that would be otherwise inadmissible. And that is exactly what the legislature did with passing this law.”

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

    This one is even better:

    Where did Joel Brodsky read the States Attorney said: “I can’t prove this case” etc and “I have to lower my burden of proof”

    Where exactly did the States Attorney say this to the Legislature ??

  14. SA also has a witness, who stated DP offered 25000.00,
    for a hit on KS. Also DP has some pretty sleazy friends who just might talk to save their own souls from jail time.

  15. Hmmm.

    There are at least 12 other states have passed similar statutes.

    The Illinois bill and those of other states came in response to a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found the right of a defendant to confront his accusers has a key exception: if the defendant acted with the intent to prevent that person from testifying.

  16. page 14

    In this case, 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6, the new hearsay law is clearly retrospective. In the State’s Attorney’s own words, the “new law will apply to crimes committed before its enactment.” The new law became effective December 8, 2008. The offense the Defendant is
    charged with is alleged to have occurred in 2004. The new law in question clearly applies to events which occurred before the law was enacted.
    *********************************************

    So when was it that murder was not considered a crime?

  17. “Here, it should be clear that the government has significant problems with bringing an indictment against Drew Peterson.

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

    That’s another corker !

    Drew is sitting in jail with a 20 million dollar bond on his head for no reason at all.

    The State just arrested him for the heck of it !

  18. TIME

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897831,00.html

    How Hearsay Evidence Could Help the Case Against Drew Peterson
    By Steven Gray / Chicago Tuesday, May. 12, 2009

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

    *********

    “ample evidence beyond the statements to support their case….”

    As it should be!

  19. After having received 6 large boxes of evidence and a list of over 800 potential witnesses, Joel Brodsky still states “the State has significant problems with bringing an indictment against Drew Peterson”, how many more boxes and witnesses does it take before Joel Brodsky thinks the State may actually have something of a case (!!)

  20. I’m trying to follow Joel, but it’s not easy.

    I think he is saying that because Kathleen’s death occurred in 2004, but was not determined to be a homicide until 2007, the prosecution cannot use a November 2008 law against his client.

    Does it matter that Drew was not arrested for that murder until May 7, 2009 (after the law was put into effect)?

  21. I’m not sure that the law is “clearly retrospective” to me. Yes, the crime was committed before the law was enacted by the charges were not filed before the law was enacted.

    My head is spinning. 😕

  22. I just can’t believe Joel puts such ignorant and childishly unqualified statements and innuendo in official Court documents (!!)

    Time and time again, the Court documents he submits are nothing short of bizarre and incomprehensible (!!)

  23. Does Joel actually comprehend Drew has already been indicted and sits in jail awaiting trial on murder charges ??

  24. I just don’t understand the logic of this defense. I do understand their filing a motion to challenge the hearsay law. Of course, it’s their duty to fully defend their client (although this defense is a circus, IMO).

    But, for an attorney who is selling the tale that this woman’s death is a certified, beyond a reasonable doubt, absolute accident, then why make a public statement such as this, when Savio’s boyfriend appeared before the GJ? A statement that appears to sound as though this lawyer actually places credibility in the idea that this is a homicide, and the bf looks about as suspicious as can be, in Brodsky’s eyes. Why does he make the bf out to be someone who should be a suspect, when, in all reality, his client is beyond suspicious?

    May 9, 2008

    “If he was smart, he took the Fifth,” Brodsky said of Maniaci. “If it was my girlfriend who was found dead, and it was declared a homicide, and I had the code to the alarm system, and there were no signs of forced entry, I would have a lawyer with me.”

    (acandyrose.com)

  25. Yes Rescue, that is the same as Drew and Joel quickly pointing the finger at Steve Maniaci to be the murderer and then saying the first autopsy was better because it was fresh and proved Kathleens death was an accident (!!)

  26. You find out your (ex) wife and mother of your children was callously murdered in her own home you say:

    “the first autopsy was better that proved it was an accident”

    As one does !!

  27. What a crappy job of research this defense did!

    “no sign of struggle in the deceased’s home, no location in the home where an expert could conclude there was an assault……a coroner’s inquest and death certificate that are consistent with a conclusion of an accident…”

    *************
    The only police officer called to testify that day about that possibility, saying quote, CORONER: “Any signs of a struggle noted at the scene?” or defense wounds?” – POLICE OFFICER: “No, there was not” – CORONER: “Any signs of a struggle or defense wounds?” – POLICE OFFICER: “No, there was not.” – “But the report also notes that the police officer was never at the death scene and was not present for the autopsy where eight separate injuries were noted on Savio’s body.”

  28. 1. KAREN CONTI’S RESPONSE:
    “I don’t feel comfortable commenting on another attorney’s ethics.
    =====================================================

    I find that quite irritating. Why is it that people in certain professions are so reluctant to admit they see bad behaviour in a peer? Doctors are very much like this as well.

  29. Why is Joel Brodsky pre-emptively bleating this Law is unconstitutional and disadvantages his client if there hasn’t even been a trial yet ?

    When was this law applied to his client to date that made it unconstitutional or disadvantageous, for Joel to already have evidence of such ???

    Where did Joel see “hearsay gossip made into admissable evidence” applied against his client ?

    At what point has the “Hearsay Law been disavantageously and unconstitutionally applied to his client for Joel to protest against its Constitutionality ??

    HUH ???

  30. Aussie, I don’t think we can expect professionals who may be seeing each other in the courtroom to publicly criticize one another.

    I think Karen is right to reserve judgement. Even Joel has always spoken respectfully about Glasgow’s professional abilities.

    I’m grateful for her candid response!

  31. “But the report also notes that the police officer was never at the death scene and was not present for the autopsy where eight separate injuries were noted on Savio’s body.”

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

    The Police Officer couldn’t even tell if Drew was in uniform or not, so was Drew on duty or wasn’t he ?

    Did he act as an officer on behalf of BB Police Department the night Kathleen was discovered or did he not ???

    That ambiquity was conveniently left untouched and hanging in space, as were the whereabouts of phone records (!!)

    Why did they even bother with an inquest if crucial questions were left unanswered or deliberately side tracked !!

  32. SA Glasgow did say that the prosecution intended to file a motion stating their intentions to cite the new law. I don’t know if they’ve done so yet though. The prosecution isn’t making all of their motions public it seems. 😉

  33. “…I think he is saying that because Kathleen’s death occurred in 2004, but was not determined to be a homicide until 2007…”
    I believe it was Feb of ’08 with the exhumation and yet another 2 autopsies that the homicide was determined, wasn’t it?

  34. In the State’s Attorney’s own words, the “new law will apply to crimes committed before its enactment.” The new law became effective December 8, 2008. The offense the Defendant is
    charged with is alleged to have occurred in 2004. The new law in question clearly applies to events which occurred before the law was enacted.

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

    I find it hard to believe the States Attorney did say a law can be applied before its enactment, that does not make any sense and THAT would be unconstitutional.

    Joel needs to get his facts straight.

    Drew was ARRESTED in MAY 2009 for a crime committed in 2004.

    The arrest and upcoming trial are well after the enactment of the new law, so what is Joels problem ??

  35. JAH, LOL! Joel’s problem is Joel! Prpbably always has been, probably always will be, but but now there’s a dollop of Drew on top.

  36. It looks like Joel is saying if a crime was committed in 1965 and someone was arrested for it to-day, this person should only be tried according to laws applicable in 1965, otherwise the person indicted is being disadvantaged by using todays laws retrospectively. (!!)

  37. JAH – I’m sorry, but I’m not following your logic.

    The SA is attempting to apply the hearsay law to a crime that was committed before its enactment. Drew is charged with killing Kathleen in 2004, the law was enacted in 2008. What am I missing here? The defense is arguing that it is unconstitutional based on that premise. At least that’s one of their arguments.

  38. LOL, LOL, I like the way Joel thinks.

    It is so unreal – LOL, LOL,

    Is he going to try this one out on a Judge or the Supreme Court ??

  39. Is there any way to find out Joel’s standing in his law school, or how many times it took him to pass the bar exam?

  40. I guess I don’t really understand the basis for scoffing at either of Joel’s arguements in this new motion.

    The defense has every right to argue that this new law is being used “ex post facto” and is unfairly applied to his client. They may not win that argument, but they can certainly try. If Kathleen was indeed murdered, the crime took place well before the law was passed. However, Drew was arrested after the law was passed. I’m not sure if that makes any difference.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

    As for the non-constitutionality of the “forfeiture by wrongdoing”, I think that they are less likely to win on that point. The existing exceptions to the right to confront already accept it as a valid reason. The supreme court may agree that there’s no need for a new exception however…

    IMO

  41. Not being lawyers, we don’t know what case law the judge will rely on when making his decision, but it seems logical that the defense is saying this law was enacted after a crime was committed that he is charged with. What is wrong with that?

    BTW, I would hope that the State’s case is much more complex than this hearsay evidence. I think it’s agreed it will take a lot more than Kathleen’s fear of Drew to convict him for her murder. Any logical person could reason that her fear of him could have been conjured up by her own thoughts, for any number of reasons. That alone wouldn’t, nor shouldn’t, be definitive that he did, in fact, kill her. I’d be looking for many other factors that would give me no doubt that he was the murderer. I, personally, think that this is too highly emotional to be such an important element in convicting Peterson. Show me his whereabouts during the time she died, the validity of his alibis, the credibility of his statements/interviews with law enforcement during the investigation, whether the marks on her ankles could match any weapon he possessed, whether there’s anyone that he could have confided in about her death. Whether Stacy made any comments to Pastor Schori that could have been followed up on during the recent investigation that don’t jive with the recollections of those involved in the original investigation; i.e., the phone calls she made looking for him when he should have been home with her, like he said.

  42. So, whats actually happening today? Will they be arguing motions or just dropping the papers off for the motion?

  43. I think this is what the defense is claiming:

    Ex post facto law

    An ex post facto law (from the Latin for “after the fact”) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

    In reference to criminal law, it may…alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

  44. cheryljones Says:
    August 10, 2009 at 7:19 am

    “…I think he is saying that because Kathleen’s death occurred in 2004, but was not determined to be a homicide until 2007…”
    I believe it was Feb of ‘08 with the exhumation and yet another 2 autopsies that the homicide was determined, wasn’t it?

    Cherylrose, here is more detail on my train of thought.

    Kathleen’s body was exhumed November 13, 2007 according to acandyrose.com.

    “The body of Kathleen Savio was exhumed early today (Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2007) http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_recap3.htm

    The autopsies were conducted within a few days of each other, with Baden’s being on November 16, 2007.

    Baden immediately came forward on national TV and said his findings showed her death to be homicide.
    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1681906,Peterson-Savio-autopsy-struggle-JO072309.article

    The results of Blum’s autopsy were not released AFAIK.

    There was some goof-up with the hearsay law not having an effective date, but it was rewritten (otherwise it would not have gone into effect until July 1, 2009) and went into effect upon signing (November 19, 2008).
    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/#b

    The States Attorney may not have publicly announced that her death was a homicide until 2009 but I was going with the idea that they “knew” upon completing the autopsies. They did not charge Drew until 2009.

    So … do the laws in effect at the time of the accident (2004) apply? Or do the the laws in effect when it has been determined to be a crime (2007) apply? Or do the laws in effect when there is enough evidence to charge a suspect (2009) apply?

    Because the hearsay law was in effect when Drew was arrested . . .

    Sorry this is so long (or seems to be from my view) but I figured I should include all the sources that got me to where I am.

  45. Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why Peterson himself wasn’t part of the coroner’s inquest? If the purpose of the inquest was a fact-finding proceeding, since he was such an important element of her life, why wasn’t he a part of the inquest? How could that be? Her sister was there, her boyfriend, a police officer testifying on behalf of the ISP who wasn’t even at the scene or at the autopsy, but the ex husband, her children, weren’t.

  46. Noway – which then takes us back to what I said. What case law will the judge rely on when making his decision? Isn’t that what this is all about? We know the circumstances, the timing of the crime, the enactment of the law. But, judges rely on case law cited by both sides when making their final decision.

  47. “It is a case with no eyewitness, no confession, no DNA, no sign of struggle in the deceased’s home, no location in the home where an expert could conclude there was an assault, no specific time of death, no instrumentality of death, no sign of forced entry into the home, an initial autopsy establishing an accidental drowning, a coroner’s inquest and death certificate that are consistent with a conclusion of an accident…”

    “Did you find any signs of foul play during the course of your investigation?” O’Neil asked.

    “No, sir,” Hardy said. “We did not.”

    There were no indications of a burglary or home invasion, no weapons in the house and, according to Hardy, no signs on Savio’s body or in the home that a struggle had taken place.

    “Everything seemed to be in order,” he said. The only possible exception was an unmade bed with some books and magazines on it. “Nobody related to us that they saw anything unusual in the neighborhood those last few days.”

    ******

    This is what the defense is relying on then? Officer Hardy’s testimony at the inquest? Is he a witness for the defense, or for the State? Just wondering…..

  48. ~snipped~
    “Did you find any signs of foul play during the course of your investigation?” O’Neil asked.

    “No, sir,” Hardy said. “We did not.”

    I can’t remember now … Was he the one who hadn’t even been at the scene?

    If so, who is the “we” he speaks of?

  49. Excerpts from ‘Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson’

    “O’Neil ran the show at Savio’s inquest, but the star player at the proceeding was Special Agent [Herbert] Hardy of the Illinois State Police. Hardy was dispatched to testify, even though he only played a small role in the investigation of the woman’s death. He did not talk to Peterson or Stacy, and he never met with friends or family of Peterson and Savio. He also did not attend Savio’s autopsy and never made an appearance in the second-story bathroom of 392 Pheasant Chase Drive to inspect the death scene. Yet he was the representative the state police selected to attend the inquest of a police sergeant’s former wife, who died mysteriously in the midst of an acrimonious divorce…..

    Hardy never laid out a specific scenario about what state police believe immediately preceded the fall in the tub. Had Savio, at the end of her bath, stood to unplug the drain but slipped before she could do so? Had she slipped getting into the tub? State police didn’t say; perhaps it was not something that could be determined.”

  50. Seriously, after reading Hardy’s testimony at the inquest it seems like his only actual involvement was going to door to door and talking to the neighbors.

    Can’t the prosecution subpoena the actual officers who were in the house that day?

  51. http://www.wbbm780.com/Drew-Peterson-is-back-in-court-SEE-MOTION/4973607

    Drew Peterson is back in court
    Regine Schlesinger Reporting

    CHICAGO (WBBM) — Drew Peterson’s lawyers go back to court in Will County this morning for a status hearing on the murder charge against him in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Meanwhile, WBBM’s Regine Schlesinger reports they’re trying to strike down the Illinois law that goes to the heart of the prosecution’s case. For their case against Peterson, prosecutors are relying heavily on so-called testimony from beyond the grave.

    It’s permissible under a recently-enacted state law that allows the use of hearsay evidence under certain circumstances.

    Prosecutors would introduce testimony from others, alleging that Kathleen Savio had told them that Peterson had threatened her and that she feared for her life. In their motion to strike down the law, Peterson’s lawyers argue it would allow gossip, innuendo, rumor and back fence scandal to masquerade as evidence…

  52. Selig’s Press Release

    [SNIP]

    …Peterson’s lawyers, Joel Brodsky, Reem Odeh, and Andrew Abood, have said that the state statute is unconstitutional and can’t be used against Peterson because it was passed four years after the events he is accused of were alleged to have occurred. It is also a violation of the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses.

    “Any attempt to introduce evidence through this statute violates the ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution,” says Andrew Abood, one of Peterson’s defense attorneys. “This ill conceived law would also deny Mr. Peterson his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, in violation of recent US Supreme Court rulings”, according to Joel A. Brodsky, Mr. Peterson’s lead counsel.

    A date for hearing on the motion has not been set.

  53. I always thought there must have been some good reason investigators and Glasgow’s office never named Peterson a suspect in Kathleen’s murder — not even a person of interest, as they did in the Lisa Stebic case. I assumed that it had something to do with the timing of the Hearsay Law, and the timing of the evidence as it was coming in and being presented to the Special Grand Jury before they were ready to hand down the indictment which resulted in his arrest.

    I have to believe Glasgow and the lawmakers in Springfield were carefully watching the Jensen case in Wisconsin while they were crafting Illinois’ Hearsay Law. Wisconsin prosecutors were able to use that state’s Hearsay Law (which was also signed into law several years after the crime) to convict Jensen of murdering his wife.

    Let’s hope Glasgow and the legislators in Springfield didn’t leave any loopholes in Illinois’ Hearsay Law that will allow Brodsky to gain any momentum. I’m just so amused that Brodsky is so obviously proud of their motions that he’s posting them on their website for all the world to see and admire — before they’re even officially filed with the Court. I have this visual of him being so impressed with his own genius that the buttons on his shirt are popping off like popcorn.

  54. OK, here’s a link to a story about the correct case mentioned by Sugar. 😳

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/21/jensen.verdict/

    [SNIP]
    Julie Jensen, the victim, had given a neighbor a letter pointing an accusing finger at her husband should anything happen to her.

    She also made foreboding comments to police and to her son’s teacher, saying she suspected that her husband was trying to kill her.

    Her letter, read aloud in court, said in part: “I pray I’m wrong + nothing happens … but I am suspicious of Mark’s suspicious behaviors + fear for my early demise,” the letter says.

    Read the letter

  55. OMG, there’s pages on this case with google, and I don’t want to take this off-topic. Mark Jensen murdered his wife, Julie, on 12/3/98 with anti-freeze. Julie had written a letter foretelling of her demise at her husband’s hands. Mark was arrested in 2002, and it wasn’t until 2007 that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that her letter would be allowed in at trial. The trial took place in early 2008, and he was convicted (February) and sentenced to life in prison.

  56. This is an exact quote from Joel Brodsky about the hearsay matter:

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

    Amazingly, this is exactly, word-for-word, as it was reported to be on WGN News just now, as though it were carved in stone by the legal gods.

    Since the defense is always moaning and whining about the media’s biased coverage against their client, I’d like to know what they’d call this bullshit? The media just pulled this exact quote out of the horse’s ass, er, mouth.

  57. It’s pretty clear that this is the game they’re playing right now. It’s really all about Joel using the threat of Drew’s (temporary) release to keep Glasgow from appealing the motion.

    They’ve been dangling this “Drew could walk if we challenge the hearsay law” fright-tactic since May 8th.

    IMO, Joel thinks that Glasgow is so sensitive to public opinion that he’ll back off just in order to keep Drew in jail.

    I guess we’ll see…

  58. Good point there, Facs. But, my logic tells me that Brody’s own track record has been utterly woeful so far, and his only success, if you want to call it that, came when the judge dismissed the gun charge because of the discovery issue. Not because of Brodsky’s brilliant lawyering, but because the State’s strategy was to keep the defense from knowing what exactly they were sitting on!

    So, all this public noise he’s making is just more of his ridiculous, self-absorbing media coverage. You know, all dressed up and nowhere to go.

  59. That’s interesting, Rescue, because that’s precisely what happened in the Jensen case. The trial court judge initially agreed with the defense’s claims that it denied Jensen the right to face his accuser. They did not have a Hearsay Law in place in Wisconsin at that time that allowed Julie’s pleas from the grave to be heard; it took them until 2007 for legislators to pass the law and to be argued all the way through the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Things proceeded rather quickly thereafter. Brodsky seems to be assuming that Judge White is going to agree with him, but he fails to recognize that Illinois’ Hearsay Law is already in place to consider when Judge White makes his ruling. I have my doubts that they’re going to get anywhere with the post de facto argument. I believe that argument would apply when it comes to sentencing if there’s a conviction, but I can’t imagine that argument is going to stick when 12 other states have been successful in applying their Hearsay Laws for admitting similar pleas from the grave similar to Kathleen’s.

  60. We should ask Karen about it. From Googling I’m not getting a lot of information. If it’s such a common thing, I would expect to be finding more about it.

    The cases I’m finding are ones in which prisoners who previously had no bail were being allowed to bond out during an appeal process. Drew already has the option to bond out if he can scrape up the $2 million so I don’t see how that would apply to him. Would they lower the bond to make it more feasible?

    I can’t imagine any scenario where they just open the doors and send him out with a smile and a wave.

  61. Well, one question I still have is how the SA got such a high bond, an unusually high bond, for that matter, and has managed to keep it from being reduced in order to allow the defendant to bond out? What is holding him in there if the State’s case is so weak and is relying so strongly on an “unconstitutional” law, and little to no evidence? Doesn’t make sense, does it?

  62. Facs – Brodsky has said previously that they would again ask for a lower bond as the case progressed, and it was shown that the State’s case was weak and didn’t justify the high bond. We’re being led to believe by the defense that the majority of the State’s case relies on the evidence that is within the scope of the hearsay law. Which gets you to their next point – that, without it, the State’s case is nothing but for this hearsay evidence. Therefore, the case is weak, and a reduction in bond should be set, allowing the defendant to bond out.

    Does that sound logical?

  63. It looks like she had already successfully gotten a reduction in bond from $500,000 to $150,000 and had bonded out.

    February 23, 2007

    “The driver charged with causing the deadly crash that killed five Oswego teens is expected to be released from jail later today after a judge slashed her $5 million bail.

    A wheelchair-bound Sandra Vasquez sought a lower bail as she made her first court appearance in Kendall County to face reckless homicide and aggravated drunken driving charges resulting from the Feb. 11 crash.

    Judge Thomas Mueller allowed Vasquez’s parents to post the $150,000 equity in their Aurora home as bail to secure their 23-year-old daughter’s release from jail.

  64. She’d been under house arrest:

    Colton said that there are no restrictions on Vasquez’s activities and she is no longer under house arrest.

  65. I have to imagine that Drew as a defendant is looked at differently than Sandra Vasquez. The huge reduction in bail that she was granted and the fact that Drew’s has remained at $20 million, shows me that the judge believes he should remain in jail…at least for now.

    Again, this is completely my opinion. I’m the last person to claim any sort of legal expertise and I’m waiting just like everyone else to see what the judge decides.

  66. ~snipped~

    This was found by someone and posted on another board. I can’t take the credit for finding, only for the snipping and posting here.

    Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his or her continued detention or being held to bail.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_VI/ArtVI.htm#601

    Here’s hoping for compelling reasons for his continued detention.

  67. Will County Circuit Court Schedule week of August 10,2009

    VARSEK LAWRENCE E. 8 10 9 900 WCCA SAVIO HENRY J 09L 000326 CIVJ
    SAVIO HENRY J 8 10 9 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case

    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 8 14 9 930 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW 8 10 9 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case
    PETERSON DREW W 8 14 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 14 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Status

    CARCERANO STEVEN 8 14 9 900 09SC000500 Employer

    ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 18 9 WCCA 130 08CH003585 Motions
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 19 9 900 04F 000340 Hearing
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 31 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 31 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 8 31 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON PAUL 8 4 9 WCCA 930 06AR000451 Hearing
    ROBINSON PAUL J 8 27 9 305 900 07DT002024 2319322 DRVG UNDER INFLU OF 1 STATUS –
    ROBINSON PAUL J 9 16 9 900 06SC003656 Employer

  68. IMO, Glasgow’s too smart to let Brodsky try to push the state into an appeal.
    The judge will not declare it unconstitutional because that is up to the supreme courts. He will tell them they have a right to appeal after the trial.

  69. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1709167,Peterson-hearsay-law_JO081009.article

    [SNIP]

    Peterson talkative

    On Monday, Peterson appeared in Will County Judge Stephen White’s courtroom. When the judge addressed his case, Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood, Peterson’s lawyers, said they wanted to discuss scheduling issues privately. So White, the two lawyers, Glasgow and Will County Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor went into the judge’s chambers.

    Peterson chose to remain in the courtroom. During the half-hour they were gone, Peterson chatted with court personnel and some of the reporters who were sitting in the gallery. One reporter asked Peterson about his children, and he said they recently had returned from a trip to the Wisconsin Dells and were getting ready to return to school.

    Jail life wasn’t too bad, Peterson said. The food wasn’t as terrible as some people say, he added. But one thing did bother him.

    “The isolation is kind of irritating,” Peterson admitted.

    Besides that, boredom is a problem, he said. He can’t go outside and he doesn’t get much exercise. Bill Murray’s “Stripes” is screened pretty often.
    [SNIP]

  70. I guess I missed this bit back in May:

    “Two previously unmentioned people — Timothy McCarthy and Clinton Charles Van Nocker — have been granted daily, face-to-face access to Peterson, according to an order signed by Judge Kinney.”

  71. This pertains to nothing new, but I found one of the prosecution’s motions from May 27, to limit Drew’s contact while in jail.

    “In addition, on May 24, 2009, defense attomey Joel Brodsky came to the Will County Adult Detention Facility at approxituately l:l0 p.m. for a contact visit with defendant. At l:20 p.m. defense attorney Brodsky began playing a card game with defendant during that contact visit.”

  72. Let’s not lose sight, Drews Bond could be so high and they won’t let him out because of what evidence is in the 6 boxes and the fact he was a Police Officer at the time of these “incidents”.

    They are held to a higher standard as they are supposed to “serve and protect” and hold a position of TRUST in the Community

    Because of his status as a Police Officer, we also don’t know what level of corruption is at stake.

    Just because Joel Brodsky says it’s all hearsay, double hearsay, gossip made into evidence and the State doesn’t have a case or a weak case at best and the Hearsay Law is unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean it is so.

    The Hearsay Law is already in place, it is not called “Drews Law”.

    When was this law applied to Drew for Joel Brodsky to state the hearsay law was enacted to specifically disadvantage his client ??

  73. I have a question (maybe a stupid one, I don’t know)

    Since Judge Schoenstedt has been presiding over the gun charges, is he still going to hear any appeals, since that is a seperate charge alltogether from the murder charges or is he completely off the roster for anything to do with charges involving the State Attorney/Drew/Joel ??

  74. JAH, if you look at the weapons charge appeal, you’ll see it was addressed to Judge Schoenstedt. He’s the judge for the weapons case, so he’ll continue to preside over that, AFAIK.

  75. Peterson speaks with ABC7
    By Sarah Schulte

    August 10, 2009 (WLS) — Attorneys for Drew Peterson want the Illinois hearsay law declared unconstitutional. Such a move would prevent the prosecution from presenting a key piece of evidence against Peterson when he goes on trial for the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    The state’s hearsay law will allow prosecutors to present statements Kathleen Savio made to others before her death.

    During a brief court appearance, Drew Peterson chose to stay in the courtroom while his attorneys and prosecutors went behind closed doors to discuss scheduling issues.

    Peterson was quite talkative as he sat in chair with his legs and arms shackled. The former Bolingborook cop was willing to answer questions about his kids and his time in jail.

    Drew Peterson has been behind bars since May 7, the day he was charged with his four wife, Kathleens Savio’s murder because Peterson is a high profile inmate and an ex-cop, he has been segregated from the rest of the will county jail population, which Peterson says is irritating.

    While attorneys were in the judge’s chambers today, Peterson stayed in the court room and talked with reporters about his three months in jail.

    I asked him about the food, Peterson said,” the food is not bad, I eat everything in front of me.”

    Peterson says he does not exercise because he does want to exercise in the same clothes he must wear all day…fighting boredom is his biggest challenge. As for reading, Peterson told me, “I hate reading”, but he does watch TV. Peterson said, “I’ve seen Stripes several times so if I start to talk like Bill Murray you’ll know why.”‘

    Peterson did get serious when I asked him if wants the case to drag on or go to trial as soon as possible. He responded by saying, “I want to get it done.” But the case is already delayed because of motions filed Peterson’s attorney’s are trying to get the new state hearsay law declared unconstitutional.

    “A criminal law cannot relate back it cannot change the rules of evidence in middle of game offense prior enactment,” said Joel Brodsky, Drew Peterson’s attorney.

    The law, known as Drew’s law, was passed last year, four years after Savio’s death. Joel Brodsky also believes the law is unconstitutional because he says a defendant has the right to a confront a witness in court. In this case, prosecutors may use statements from Savio. Former prosecutor and state rep. Dennis Reboletti sponsored the bill.

    “We are just following prior precedent and case law in other states, passed a very solid constitutional law,” said Reboletti.

    The hearsay law exists in 12 other states. Peterson’s attorneys will argue against the law in court this Friday. Without the law, the defense call the state’s case against Peterson ‘dead man walking.’

    Prosecutors say their case against Peterson does not hinge on the law, they say they have a mountain of evidence against Peterson.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6958203

  76. JAH, if you look at the weapons charge appeal, you’ll see it was addressed to Judge Schoenstedt. He’s the judge for the weapons case, so he’ll continue to preside over that, AFAIK.

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

    Thank you facs, that’s exactly what made me wonder as I suppose one has to address an appeal to the at the time presiding Judge since one can’t very well address it: “To Whom It May Concern” – LOL

    Can the States Attorney now object to this Judge in this case also, or does he not have that option here ?

  77. Joel Brodsky also believes the law is unconstitutional because he says a defendant has the right to a confront a witness in court.

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

    That’s exactly what this whole Law hinges on.

    If you kill your witnesses,it is a guarantee they will never be able to confront you in Court (!!)

    That’s why the 2004 amendment by the Supreme Court came into be, which Joel conveniently forgot to mention !!

  78. I love that drewpy is finding the isolation a problem. I’m just loving it!

    It still makes me giggle to think that he was so sure that if he got arrested he would be in jail “one day, tops”. LOL

  79. This One:

    The Illinois bill and those of other states came in response to a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found the right of a defendant to confront his accusers has a key exception: if the defendant acted with the intent to prevent that person from testifying.

  80. aussienat Says:

    August 10, 2009 at 7:33 pm
    I love that drewpy is finding the isolation a problem. I’m just loving it!

    It still makes me giggle to think that he was so sure that if he got arrested he would be in jail “one day, tops”. LOL

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

    Yeah, his Prophetic statement to Christina:

    he “would go to jail for a couple of days and get bailed out”

  81. Hey, another older motion from the prosecution:

    Glasgow’s motion to seal discovery and preclude dissemination of discovery documents.

    This was filed May 27, 2009

    [Excerpt]

    “…2. Some potential state witnesses have expressed concern that their names and addresses will be publicly revealed in the discovery filings in this case and that as a result they will be contacted by the media. These witnesses are also concerned about possible public harassment.

    3. These concerns are not unwarranted. In December 2007, some documents regarding an investigation of defendant were stolen from a locked Illinois State police squad car in a garage.

    Around April 2009, copies of some of these documents were purportedly obtained by the local Fox news station. On May 5, 2009, Fox News contacted a potential witness, whose name appeared in those documents and requested that she comment on her role in the investigation…”

  82. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/drew-petersons-attorneys-launch-attack-on-hearsay-law.html

    (excerpt)

    “The new hearsay law … would allow gossip, innuendo, rumor and back fence scandal……”

    But a spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office said the law was specifically drafted to meet constitutional muster, and added that similar laws have been enacted in more than a dozen states.

    “Mr. Glasgow is eager to argue this motion and he believes thoroughly that he will prevail as to the constitutionality issues,” said spokesman Chuck Pelkie.

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky countered, “It’s not that often that a county judge declares a law unconstitutional but I don’t think he has a choice. It’s an ill-conceived law that’s been subject to a lot of legal criticism.”

    Brodsky said that if Judge Stephen White rules the law unconstitutional, he hopes Peterson could be released on bond.

  83. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

    Section 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is
    amended by adding Section 115-10.6 as follows:

    (725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 new)

    Sec. 115-10.6. Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness.

    (a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.

    (b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

    (c) The murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered. If the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted.

    Reading this anew, it looks as if this law actually could bring Stacy’s comments (via pastor schori) into play in Kathleen’s murder trial. The prosecution would need to convince the Judge first that Stacy had been killed by Drew in order to silence her.

    Wouldn’t that be something?

  84. Hi everyone. I wanted to post a response from Karen Conti about the issue that we seem to want the answer to — that is, will Peterson be released from jail if the prosecution loses its argument based on the new hearsay law. That is what Brodsky has said – that Peterson will be released from jail due to the length of time an appeal would take, and that the prosecution’s case would be weak due to no other evidence.

    Here you go — draw your own conclusions! I have. 😉

    QUESTION:
    The defense has filed a motion regarding the recently passed Illinois Hearsay Law. The defense contends that if the prosecution loses, the trial will come to a grinding halt due to the weakness of their case outside of this hearsay evidence. Also, they contend that the prosecution will absolutely appeal if they lose, thus, Peterson will be able to be let out of jail during this appeal process.

    Is this, in fact, the case? What would have to occur for Peterson to be released?

    But, would the appeal come after the trial, or would the trial also be delayed due to their appeal? It is confusing, in that, in either case, the other will appeal, so how does that affect the upcoming trial?

    RESPONSE FROM KAREN CONTI:
    I don’t know the answer. I know what Brodsky is contending will happen if the case goes up on appeal, but I don’t follow his reasoning that this will allow Peterson out on bond. I can’t really respond intelligently to an argument I don’t get!

  85. Facs had a good point recently about this white noise crap. Looks like Brodsky is trying to use this to promote his favored response, rather than the truth. He wants people to think this is what will happen, and that the State’s case is weak, at best. Beating his chest and making a lot of noise seems to appeal to him. But it doesn’t win his argument, and it doesn’t get his client out of jail.

  86. LOL @ Karen Conti. Thank you for the vid above of Lisa Bloom. What is she like??? I get the feeling that you just have to load a CD in the back of her neck after inserting a coin.

  87. Joel Brodsky seems to overlook Drew was arrested for the MURDER of his ex-wife and not because the Hearsay Law was Constitutional or not.

    How can he even say this Law disadvantages his client if it hasn’t even been applied to his client in any shape or form.

    Besides didn’t he say his client has a watertight alibi ??

  88. Karen Conti’s response is gold!

    I wonder if Judge White is practising his poker face. I imagine it would be quite difficult for him not to laugh out loud time and again when he has boobsky in his courtroom!

  89. If Drew had gotten himself a lawyer that was professional, articulate and presented motions on behalf of his client that were sound and cohesive, it would have given his case and himself a degree of credibility that would work in his favor.

    With Joels bizarre reasoning and loose cannon arguments it only compounds and affirms the equally unbalanced actions of his client (!!)

  90. They’ve been dangling this “Drew could walk if we challenge the hearsay law” fright-tactic since May 8th.

    IMO, Joel thinks that Glasgow is so sensitive to public opinion that he’ll back off just in order to keep Drew in jail.

    I guess we’ll see…

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

    Sorry, I don’t understand why would they have to release Drew if Joel Brodsky successfully argued the Hearsay Law is unconstitutional.

    At best it would not allow “hearsay” statements to be used at trial, but the trial hasn’t started yet, so why would they have to let Drew go considering he’s sitting in jail awaiting trial on murder charges.

    Am I missing something ??

  91. Awright Rozak! If you can’t make them respect the law on the street, a judge has the power to enforce it in the courtroom. Rozak upheld Drew’s high bail, didn’t he?

  92. Just would like to make a comment. If Joel thinks his google search is going to get him a change a venue he is nuts. Does he think only Will County has access to these google searches? We are talking all over the world people can google Drew Peterson! What would be the difference here, Chicago, another state or Country? Anybody can google him up and read up on it. Joel shouldn’t of been doing so many t.v. interviews, radio broadcasts, and books along with his client. If anybody tainted the jury pool it is Brodsky and Peterson themselves.

  93. Still rofl here cause I’m quite sure Glasgow is on top of it also and has the stats on just how many times Joel, and Drew themselves willingly, called up themselves wanting to do a tv show, news article, radio broadcast. Seriously who do they think their fooling here?

  94. I’m not sure how the story mentioned would apply to DP’s case since I didn’t think Baden’s autopsy would be used at trial.

  95. Here’s the beginnig of Goldblatt’s story. It’s long so I won’t paste it all here….

    Drew Peterson, Greg Long: Six Degrees of Separation
    Updated: Thursday, 13 Aug 2009, 5:59 PM CDT
    Published : Thursday, 13 Aug 2009, 5:59 PM CDT

    BY JEFF GOLDBLATT – WFLD
    It is said there are six degrees of separation between all of us, but the link between Drew Peterson and Greg Long is downright uncanny.

    Long believes the connection is so remarkably significant, that he made a plea for help after realizing the coincidence.

    Long and Peterson now are both behind bars. Both men are fighting murder charges. And the lives of both men could come down to what one man had to say. That person is forensic pathologist, Dr. Bryan R. Mitchell.

    Mitchell is the man who, for Will County, performed the original autopsy on Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. On March 1, 2004, Savio was found dead at her home in a waterless bathtub, soaked in blood. After examining her body, it was in Mitchell’s opinion, that Savio’s death could be “ascribed to drowning.”

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson_greg_long

  96. I don’t see how a case involving heavy drug and alcohol use could possibly be related to Kathleen’s. Her toxicology came back clean.

    Is he just trying to say that Mitchell is bad at what he does?

    Dr. Mitchell never returned our multiple phone calls as well as a fax requesting an interview. But Will County Coroner Patrick O’Neil says he’s very satisfied with Mitchell’s work. As far as we can tell, Mitchell has never been professionally reprimanded on sued, at least not yet.

  97. It’s sweeps month. All of the 10:00pm news programs are doing their investigative stories. I’m not sure what Fox is getting at with this story. Is it that because a convicted criminal is questioning Dr. Mitchell’s methods, and he’s the same pathologist who autopsied Kathleen, there’s reason to question his methods with her autopsy too?

    Oh, the drama.

  98. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/drew-peterson-court-trial-move-081409-53173227.html

    Will Drew’s Trial be Moved?
    NBC Chicago

    Friday is D-Day for Drew’s Road Show

    Attorney: Drew Peterson can’t get fair trail in Will County
    Updated 5:45 PM CDT, Thu, Aug 13, 2009

    We’ll find out Friday if Drew Peterson will be able to take his show on the road.

    The man charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and suspected of having something to do with the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, filed a motion in Will County last month to move his trial.

    The request cites the saturation of coverage in newspapers, on television and online which, according to his attorney, makes it difficult for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to get a fair trial.

    Of course, Peterson hasn’t exactly shied away from the attention. Remember, he didn’t seem to mind being arrested and charged with murder at all.

    “I should have returned those library books,” he told police when he was arrested in May, and while being escorted into jail, he joked about his “bling.”

    “Three squares a day and this spiffy new outfit, how could I complain?” he cracked.

    His comedy routine continued during a seven-minute collect call into WLS Radio’s Mancow & Cassidy Show.

    He’s even taken his story nationally, which sort of makes the request to move the trial seemingly a bit disingenuous.

    If unmoved, the trial will be held in Will County Circuit Court in Joliet.

  99. I just wonder if Judge White is going to agree millions of Google hits worldwide for the name Drew Peterson is just cause for the case to be moved out of Will County (!!)

    It does make sense to Joel Brodsky (!!)

  100. “He’s even taken his story nationally, which sort of makes the request to move the trial seemingly a bit disingenuous.”
    *************
    Um, no. Not “seemingly,” but “obviously.” Not “a bit disingenuous,” but “outrageous!”

    imho, anyway

  101. Also how the Prosecution and Media tainted the Jury pool by Drew and Joel actively seeking interviews and inviting participation in shows, games,reality shows, radio shows and magazine articles.

    It’s all the Prosecutions fault (!!)

  102. Oh yeah and the Prosecution doesn’t have enough for an indictment (!!), the States Attorney doesn’t have a case and therefore asked to lower the burden of proof so he could apply the hearsay law which was especially enacted to disadvantage Joels client and allowes hearsay, double hearsay, gossip and innuendo, but Joels client has an alibi, there’s nothing to link him to the crime and besides the crime was committed before the enactment of the Hearsay Law, so the Hearsay Law doesn’t apply and the Hearsay Law is unconstitutional, so they can’t keep Drew in jail (!!)

    LOL, LOL !!

  103. The most amazing statement in this particular motion by Joel Brodsky (well it is all amazing what he writes) is that he declares “the State doesn’t have enough for an indictment” and he states this as his client has been sitting in jail for the past three months on an indictment for 2 counts of murder with a 20 million dollar Bond on his head.

    So can Joel please clarify why he thinks Drew is sitting in isolation in a jail cell for the past three months ??

  104. LOL They’re all just jealous of Drew. Waaa. The mean big boys are prosecuting him maliciously because they wish they were half as dashing and as full of tales of naughty cop japes and romantic scrapes.

    …btw does it come as a surprise to anyone that DeePs hates to read?

  105. If he doesn’t have control of the TV and no computer access, and he doesn’t want to exercise…what else is there to do but read? They aren’t going to be giving him any knitting needles…

  106. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-drewpeterson-cour,0,439480.story
    Chicago Tribune

    Drew Peterson to argue change of venue

    JOLIET, Ill. – The question of whether Drew Peterson’s murder trial should be moved out of Will County is expected to be discussed at a court hearing.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant who is charged in the 2004 slaying of his third wife Kathleen Savio is scheduled to be in a Will County courtroom Friday. His attorneys have already filed a change of venue motion.

    Peterson’s attorneys argue that the case should be moved because of what they call extensive and inflammatory media coverage.

    One issue that may come up is all the media attention that both Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky have courted. Both have talked extensively to the press and have appeared on radio programs and national television shows.

  107. Good morning, everyone.

    I can’t help but think that, no matter what happens with this upcoming trial, Peterson has been given the opportunity to be isolated with his thoughts, to reflect upon his ex-wife’s death, be apart from his children, fear what might be coming, without any idea what his future is going to be. Seems like what Kathleen endured–the unknown, the fear, not knowing what was coming.

    Damn, if that isn’t sweet that he’s getting a taste of his own medicine, because whether or not it’s decided by a jury that he’s guilty of murdering her, he sure didn’t have any compassion for her, and her death was a welcome event in his life.

Comments are closed.