Drew Peterson defense adds reinforcements to the team

Peterson defense expands team
September 17, 2009 5:27 PM

To help get a handle on some 40,000 pages of discovery documents in the Drew Peterson murder trial, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys have brought on a team of recent law-school graduates and third-year law students.

A court order allowing daily face-to-face visits with Peterson’s legal team was recently expanded to include Michael L. Raff, Anthony Nehme and Kendall Hartsfield.

Joel Brodsky, one of Peterson’s attorneys, said a third-year student named Melissa Anderson also is assisting.

“It’s the crème-de-la-crème,” Brodsky said of the Chicago-area law-school products, declining to say whether they are getting paid.

The team, with help from another group associated with Peterson’s Michigan attorney Andrew Abood, are about 80 percent of the way through the mountain of paperwork, Brodsky said…

–Steve Schmadeke

Read the story at Chicago Tribune Breaking News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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 tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Advertisements

173 thoughts on “Drew Peterson defense adds reinforcements to the team

  1. Ha!

    “He’s got rock star qualities about him,” says Glenn Selig, whose PR firm, The Publicity Agency, represents ……. He has a dynamic personality. He is swarmed for his autograph and for photos just like actors and other larger-than-life celebrities. People like him and believe he’s telling the truth.”

    *****

    Nope, he’s not talking about Drew Peterson …. not anymore. Glenn Sellit’s heart belongs to another — the disgraced ex-Governor Blagojevich.

    Sucks to be Drew Peterson.

  2. Rescue dug up a couple of Linked In profiles:

    Kendall Hartsfield

    Results-driven and detail orientated recent law school graduate possessing superior organizational and interpersonal skills with a diverse background, (including experience in areas of contract administration, civil and criminal litigation, finance, and education) seeking a challenging position in the legal field.

    Anthony Nehme

    Michael Raff

    Michael Raff’s Experience
    Law Clerk
    Brodsky and Odeh
    (Law Practice industry)
    August 2009 — Present (2 months)
    Coordinating discovery, assisting with trial preparation

    I thoroughly enjoy researching, writing motions and litigating. Using my 711 license I have been fortunate enough argue before judges on motions to suppress, and look forward to my first trial.

  3. “It’s the crème-de-la-crème,” Brodsky said of the Chicago-area law-school products, declining to say whether they are getting paid.

    Is Joel even getting paid at this point? No more paid interviews, no more endorsements for his restaurant, any percentage from royalties for that now bargain-bin book has got to be a pittance…

  4. Hmmm… What it may be?!

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2008cv05210/case_id-223640/

    Person v. Sheriff Department et al
    Plaintiffs: Richard A. Person and Service List
    Defendants: Sheriff Department, Bolingbrook Police Department, Drew Peterson, Nicor Gas Company, Tinly Prak Hospital, Edward Hospital, Billey Nelson, Bolingbrook Fire Department, Will County and Car lot

    Case Number: 1:2008cv05210
    Filed: November 20, 2008

    Court: Illinois Northern District Court
    Office: Prisoner: Civil Rights Office
    County: Lee
    Presiding Judge: Honorable Wayne R. Andersen

    Nature of Suit: P. Petitions – Civil Rights
    Cause: Federal Question
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Jury Demanded By:42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

  5. Could it be…someone from Lee County suing for an infringement of their civil rights after being arrested in Bolingbrook for running into a gas meter, who was rescued by the fire department paramedics, then brought to two different hospitals, and had their car impounded?

    WTF? And Drew wasn’t even on the force at that time.

  6. rescueapet :
    Cyrhla – What does the above information mean, exactly, as it relates to Drew Peterson’s murder charges? I’m lost.

    I do not know. I was just curious who could sue Drew when he was not a policeman anymore.
    BTW, Richard A. Person was arrested in April 2008 (AID/ABET/POSS/SELL STOLEN VEH). I thought it might be connected to the documents stolen from the ISP car.
    You can remove it, rescue.

  7. facsmiley :
    Now I think I remember some case where someone popped up and tried to sue Drew for police brutality at some time in 2008. Does anyone else remember that?

    Yes, I do. It was Timothy Brownlee.

  8. Here’s the Brownlee case:

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2007cv07085/case_id-215449/

    Brownlee v. Peterson et al

    Plaintiff: Timothy Brownlee
    Defendant: Drew Peterson, Davi, John Doe and The Village of Bolingbrook

    Case Number: 1:2007cv07085
    Filed: December 17, 2007

    Court: Illinois Northern District Court
    Office: Chicago Office [ Court Info ]
    County: Cook
    Presiding Judge: Honorable Ruben Castillo

    Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
    Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

  9. facsmiley :
    Want to see another strange one?
    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv00447/case_id-199485/
    Riches v. Savio et al
    Plaintiff: Jonathan Lee Riches
    Defendant: Kathleen Savio and Drew Peterson
    Case Number: 3:2008cv00447
    Filed: January 22, 2008
    Court: California Northern District Court
    Office: San Francisco Office [ Court Info ]
    County: San Francisco
    Presiding Judge: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
    Nature of Suit: P. Petitions – Civil Rights
    Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Jury Demanded By: None

    Do not worry about it. That was a crazy man (in jail) who accused over 4.ooo people, incl. George W Bush, and whose name has been put into the Guiness Book.
    But I also got confused reading it at first LOL

    /MOD EDIT/ Hahah. I saw that and removed my post, but not quick enough!

  10. I’m looking at more of these Civil Rights cases that include Drew Peterson as one of the defendants and a number of them are from outright looneys – people who are also suing “area 69” and “the Nordic Gods” so…

  11. Please, look here
    http://www.bolingbrook.com/info/pdf/vb_age&min_11_20_07.pdf (p.17) and if you can tell me why a quotation mark was used in this sentence?

    […]CLOSING
    I, as Mayor, and the Board of Trustees, wish to express our deepest sympathy to the members of both the KATHLEEN SAVIO and STACY PETERSON families. I hope that these investigations come to a timely conclusion that allows each of you to reach a satisfactory closure to these tragedies.
    To the 119 sworn members of the Bolingbrook Police Department and their civilian support staff, I want to let each of you know that the Village Board and I have the utmost confidence in your professionalism and commitment to “serve and protect” the residents of Bolingbrook.

    Doesn’t is look a little bit strange/funny/I do not know?
    ——-

    Can you remember what comment Claar had on his mind?

    […]Mayor Claar spoke about Greta Van Susteren’s blog page and a comment that was posted during the board meeting. Clerk Penning explained that the criticism came from a resident on Pheasant Chase who wrote on Greta’s blog page.[…]

    (sorry, a little bit off topic, I know)

  12. Cyrhla, “To serve and protect” is the official motto of most police departments, so it seems that they are just calling that out.

    I don’t remember the other reference. I’ll poke around some if I get a chance.

  13. facsmiley :
    Cyrhla, “To serve and protect” is the official motto of most police departments, so it seems that they are just calling that out.
    I don’t remember the other reference. I’ll poke around some if I get a chance.

    Thanks, Facs, for the explanation. :).

  14. Apologies to Melissa Anderson at NIU law school. It appears she is NOT the Melissa Anderson working with the defense team.

    There is a Melissa Anderson at Chicago-Kent College of Law and since the other students were recruited from there, I assume that it is she who has joined Brodsky’s team. However, I’m going to wait for confirmation before linking to any more bios.

  15. facsmiley :
    Apologies to Melissa Anderson at NIU law school. It appears she is NOT the Melissa Anderson working with the defense team.
    There is a Melissa Anderson at Chicago Kent School of law and since the other students were recruited from there, I assume that it ishe who has joined Brodsky’s team. However, I’m going to wait for confirmation before linking to any more bios.

    What a coincidence! The one I found is also a third-year student as well.
    I am so sorry!

  16. Good reminder to all of us (me included) to check our facts and check the snark…at least until we’re sure who we’re snarking at. 🙂

    I’m sure for all of these students this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, paid or not.

  17. I agree with you, facs, about the opportunity they have. This is Brodsky_Buffon making a fool of himself using “crème-de-la-crème” expression in the context of the students. As for me, they can even write the motions and represent Drew in court:). I do not think Brodsky will let them have insight into really serious documents.
    There is nothing special about lawyers employing young people. I have nothing against this girl. I only hope she is ugly enough not to attract Drew’s attention and wish she had better techers than Brodsky LOL.

  18. When Kathleen Savio was (to be) exhumed or when the autopsy report was published (or rather its conclusion), Drew said “OK. You roll the dice, I roll the dice”.
    IMO, someone settles Drew’s bills to keeps his mouth shut. From the very beginning.

  19. If these law students are bright (and no doubt they are) they will quickly figure out the guy driving the bus isn’t (!!)

    It is always a danger if the Apprentice is smarter than the Master (!!)

  20. Case Number: 1:2008cv05210
    Filed: November 20, 2008

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

    These are Civil Rights cases.

    Police Departments etc get sued all the time over supposed infringements of peoples Civil Rights and these cases would have commenced before Drew left the Force.

    In essence there is nothing sinister about them, unless of course they have the potential of being the tip of a previously uncharted iceberg (!!)

  21. cyrhla :
    When Kathleen Savio was (to be) exhumed or when the autopsy report was published (or rather its conclusion), Drew said “OK. You roll the dice, I roll the dice”.
    IMO, someone settles Drew’s bills to keeps his mouth shut. From the very beginning.

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

    Looks like they can’t be too worried about Drews mouth as they haven’t been very keen to cough up $ 2.000.000.00 to secure his release from his lonely prison cell (!)

  22. After all is said and done, it’s a dirty job (defending Drew Peterson), but somebody has to do it. Just be sure to get hosed down frequently, and read the teaching guide, How to Slime Someone’s Character for Dummies.

  23. Drew said “OK. You roll the dice, I roll the dice”.

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

    It may just mean Drew has some utterly “revealing” character assassinations up his sleeve, such as everyones driving, drinking, drug use, sexual habits and how much he arrested and/or helped all these ungrateful people over time as that seems to be his overall tune when cornered or put to task.

  24. Looks like they can’t be too worried about Drews mouth as they haven’t been very keen to cough up $ 2.000.000.00 to secure his release from his lonely prison cell (!)
    ……..

    Drew is just a little fish in this bowl, but IMO he has some information that might be troublesome for some people. The reason they did not pay this 2 million is that it would put Drew in trouble with the Revenue Office (or they do not love Drew enough to pay it! LOL) . What a policeman is able to save 2mln bucks?!

  25. grandam :
    I guess the students are the ones who did such a great job, on writing of last court motions. LOL

    * * *
    We must be fair here…it’s not as if they had anything to work with.ROFL

  26. bucketoftea :
    I was wondering if it’s possible to trace back to see who exactly first published the tag “Drew’s Law”. According to Fox here it says they (the defense) dubbed it thus
    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/Drew_peterson_motion_illinois_hearsay_law
    It might be fun to see if it can be found.

    I think Fox is right. I do not know a law named after the offender so I do not also think Glasgow or anyone from LE would have used such an expression to introduce it.

  27. In the recent Yale murder of Annie Le, I read some legal defense strategies that may be used in Clark’s defense.

    The evidence is so overwhelming …. That likely leaves Clark’s attorneys with going after how that evidence was gathered – rather than what it showed – and have prosecutors defend their decision not to seal the lab building …. You attempt to attack the investigative process as well as the conclusions,” said William Dow III, a prominent New Haven-based defense lawyer, who does not represent anyone in this case.

    **********

    Well, well, in the Peterson defense strategy, we’re getting a lesson in opposites.

    Kathleen’s death scene was walked through, trampled on, and quickly decided as accidental. It wasn’t sealed, and if it was, it sure wasn’t for long. If either side has a reason to attack the investigative process or conclusion, it’s the prosecution. The defense has certainly made no bones about the contention that they think the original investigation and/or conclusion was just fine with them. They’re good with the way the death scene was processed, the way it was investigated, and the way the Coroner’s panel ruled it. No problem with them that one of the Coroner panel members was an active police officer that shouldn’t have been there, or an ISP official was testifying to circumstances he had no first-hand knowledge about (death scene/autopsy absence).

    In Peterson/Savio, those aligned with the defense say there’s no evidence linking him to Kathleen’s murder. Only hearsay and less-than-believable witnesses.

    The investigation showed that she sustained a gash to her head, she was covered in bruises, and she drowned by being incapacitated and unable to free herself from a tub full of water. An investigation that the defense agrees with, and has said so via their many media appearances.

    So, IMHO, I guess if a defense talking head can use the strategy that the investigative process and/or conclusion in a murder charge can be attacked to sway a jury in their favor, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might be, the prosecution in the Peterson/Savio matter can do the same, no matter how underwhelming some think the evidence is.

    Pity the souls who have been unfortunate enough to be part of Drew Peterson’s life, because it seems that if they’re not sympathetic to him and his ways, they’re drunks, substance abusers, misfits, money grubbers, street rats. Just waiting to be attacked.

  28. Oh, so maybe I misunderstood something when it was posted here. I mean a woman who said on her blog that she was copying documents on KS and SP and so on long before Drew was arrested.
    I hope everything is OK with me and I really saw it here.;) LOL.

  29. Well, I’m not sure about anyone in particular, except for acandyrose.com. That site is amazing, it’s a wealth of information, and it has just about every possible newspaper story, document and fact that you could imagine, cataloged and easy to navigate.

  30. rescue-

    Excellent points on the Savio investigation. So sad someone in the BBPD didn’t step up and correctly investigate.

    I’m surprised that at Yale University the building wasn’t better secured. Have they yet determined if he also set off the fire alarm to clear the building so he could hide the body? One strange character!

    It’s sad to think that a murder case comes down to loop holes in the system. If Drew was the officer on the scene and failed to secure it, I would take that into account as a juror. (Guess JB won’t be choosing me. Darn!)

  31. The evidence is so overwhelming …. That likely leaves Clark’s attorneys with going after how that evidence was gathered – rather than what it showed – and have prosecutors defend their decision not to seal the lab building …. You attempt to attack the investigative process as well as the conclusions,” said William Dow III, a prominent New Haven-based defense lawyer, who does not represent anyone in this case.

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

    Too right, rescue

    Here is Drew driving around in his patrol car (was he in uniform or not ?, ISP at the inquest can’t answer that) rounding up his friends, neighbors and plucks a locksmith out of the sky, to make them all go into Kathleens house first to see if she is oke (!!)

    Next he is standing around as “First-Officer-On-The-Scene” (so was he in uniform or not ?) telling arriving investigators to “treat the scene with respect” etc, so in what capacity was Drew at the scene in the first place ?

    Maybe Joel has a good explanation for that one !

  32. facsmiley :
    cyrhla, I think you mean the ISP intern’s blog. AFAIK, she finished her internship shortly before DP was arrested. I believe she has moved on to other things. Her posts about wading through the paperwork and having to hurry, were one of the first indications that an arrest was imminent.
    http://usesherbrain.blogspot.com/

    Thanks a lot, facs . That is what I meant LOL.

  33. cyrhla :I wonder if James B Carroll may be in trouble as the executor of the (old) will?

    IMO, no one will bother going after him for anything. More likely the Savio family will continue to pursue the wrongful death suit.

  34. Morning!

    I probably shouldn’t, but it makes me mad to think of anyone involved getting away with anything. For instance Droop notarising his own docs (although now I think about it I suppose that will be cited somewhere along the line as part of the Savios’ or insurance companies’ or mortgager’s actions)

  35. I missed Joel Brodsky being interviewed on Dana Pretzer’s Scared Monkey’s show on September 6th, but just now downloaded and listened to it. Here are my notes (for the most part not exact quotes).

    What have you been busy with:
    40,000 pages of documents/police reports and another 20,000 in grand jury transcripts. “We were able to get a number of law students to assist us in going through everything.”

    Change of Venue:
    Judge is set to rule on October 2. Presumptive prejudice and actual prejudice. Judge will rule on presumed prejudice, but even if he rules that it doesn’t merit a change of venue, once the jury selection process is underway, if the defense can’t find any jurors they like, the judge might rule based on actual prejudice and grant the change of venue later.

    Hearsay Law:
    We’re saying that there’s a law in Illinois, recently passed, kind of referred to as “The Drew Peterson Law”, and the State’s Attoreny admits that it was in response to the Drew Peterson case and the Stebic case, and that he drafted this law in response to these cases. What they are trying to say is if someone kills a spouse in order to prevent them testifying in a domestic violence case, then what the spouse said at any time to any body would come in as evidence at the murder trial.
    (He goes on to say that the law allows gossip and statements made during contentious divorces to come in to trial and that it’s wrong).

    Status of that arguement:
    There will probably be another appeal after the hearing, but w’ell probably see a decision before the end of october.

    How is Drew:
    I saw him last week. My partner saw him today. He’s patient. Drew’s a strong man. He doesn’t complain. As a law enforcement officer, he knows the legal process. He knows that things take time and people don’t jump, because somebody’s locked up. People have to sit for six, eight, ten months. He’s doing OK.

    Will Drew’s media antics hurt him in the long run:
    I don’t think it’s going to be an issue at the trial. We’ve not received anything that says anything Drew said in the media is going to be used against him in the trial. That tells you something. I think it’s kind of worked in his favor. People have seen Drew. Maybe they hate him because he doesn’t project the type of way he should be projecting. He doesn’t act the way people think he should be acting in this circumstance. But having seen that, I think people say Ok he’s a little bit different but I’m still not willing to send somebody off to jail for the rest of their lives simply because they’re not acting in a way I think they should act. I want to see evidence. When it comes to trial, that’s what you’re going to see. A jury that wants to see…Here in Illinois we’ve heard a lot of innuendo and we’ve heard a lot of goofballs from people like Len and Paula but now let’s put your cards on the table. Show us the hard evidence. Anything to do with Kathleen’s death. let’s see it and when no evidence like that comes forward, I think we’ll have a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

    If you want to listen, the show is still up here.

  36. Doesn’t the last answer sound as if he’s saying he thinks Drew will be able to get a fair trial? If he has such faith that a jury will only look at the evidence present, why is he requesting a change of venue?

  37. If you listen to the show Joel goes on and on about the hearsay law as it applies to cases where people lie or exaggerate during a divorce and the danger that it will be admitted as testimony. He actually said you’re going to see all these cases where the people later say “Hey, I was just upset”. Ummmm….except in cases where they are DEAD?

    It’s weird how removed Joel’s perception of the hearsay law is from what the law actually SAYs. Sometimes I wonder if he’s even read it.

  38. I want to see evidence. When it comes to trial, that’s what you’re going to see. A jury that wants to see…Here in Illinois we’ve heard a lot of innuendo and we’ve heard a lot of goofballs from people like Len and Paula but now let’s put your cards on the table. Show us the hard evidence. Anything to do with Kathleen’s death. let’s see it and when no evidence like that comes forward, I think we’ll have a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

    What is hard evidence? A videotape of the actual murder? Heh, defense attorneys even twist that kind of evidence around so as to make a confused mess of it all.

    As I see it, say it’s thundering and lightening outside, and it’s dark. The weatherman has been predicting storms, so one would assume this is a storm going on. All of a sudden, you might hear a deafening thunder nearby, not knowing what to think, but thinking something scary just happened, judging by the sound you heard, maybe seeing the sky light up.

    Later, you see that a nearby tree is sliced in half and damaged. The tree was fine previous to the storm, but now is destroyed. You conclude that a lightening bolt must have struck it, destroying it. Shreds of tree all over. But, can you be absolutely sure, even with all the knowledge you have of these kinds of circumstances, of seeing a damaged tree that was standing tall before the storm? Knowing that lightening does strike and cause this kind of damage? You come to a conclusion based on reason, intelligent thinking. A tree stood early in the day, but now is gone. But, you have no absolute proof, because you didn’t have a camera pointed at the tree at all times to capture what may happen to it in the future. You reasonably conclude that around the time you heard a deafening sound during the storm, it must have been when lightening could have struck it.

    Making conclusions based on knowledge isn’t so far fetched, is it?

  39. So what was supposed to be Kathleen’s motivation in lying about her fear of her ex-husband and predicting that he would kill her? It’s not like the courts award you more money in the settlement if you are afraid of your ex. Or is he really trying to say that she planned on being murdered and the whole idea was an elaborate practical joke so she could have the last laugh on Drew from the grave, when he gets wrongly indicted for her death and so she wins?

    I can’t imagine a more ridiculous argument. The hearsay law setting a prcedent that motivates people all over the state to spread lies about their estranged souses just on the chance that they will die and be able to exact cruel and wrongful revenge. Puhlease.

  40. Yes, Facs, I agree with that question – what did Kathleen mean to accomplish by going around and telling everyone that if she died, she wanted Drew Peterson, and no one other, to be held responsible? I mean, it’s hard to do a happy dance about an accomplishment like this, telling all that would listen that your ex-husband was going to murder you, when you’re dead and can’t see the fruit of your labor. If this all sounds beyond ridiculous, it is!

    He would have prevailed if she were still alive, after having tried to destroy his character, and looked like a scorned woman out for revenge. Might not his cast of defense characters have pounced on her instability by showing that she was vindictive and merely trying to destroy him? Instead, she’s dead. I don’t care what the defense says, it’s awful hard for Kathleen to look vindictive when she’s dead and he had years to dance on her grave.

  41. I share you feelings, bucket (though, I probably shouldn’t but how not to get mad? 😉 ).

    In 1997 Kathleen’s signs a will witnessed by two friends of Drew (who paid him visit at that very moment…) and appointing Drew’s uncle an executor. Coincidently, it happens when Kathleen (according to acandyrose) starts getting letters on Drew’s cheating on her and is abused by her husband.

    Then (just a few months after she just learns Drew has an affair with Stacy) she appoints Ortinau (former BB police officer and Drew’s friend)to represent her about the estate at 6 Pheasant Chase Ct. [Coincidently, again, the timing of the signing of this document agrees with Kathleen’s complaint that she was forced to sign a document (sic!) in presence of BB policeman.] And it is authorized by Drew!

    A little bit strange that no one of Kathleen’s friends or family was involved, but only Drew’s…

    Kathleen dies and though her sister claims she left a new will, it cannot be found and Drew not only submits the old one to the court just two weeks after KS death, but also empties her house on the day of her burrial. The two of his buddies, who had witnessed the will in 1997, sign affidavit (August 11, 2004) that is notarized by another police officer (BTW, is it true that they testified before the judge in person?]. Judge appoints Carroll for the executor and Carroll fires Smith. Even though Richard J Kavanaugh, Public Administrator of Will County and the Administrator of the Estate of Kathleen Savio, says that “the actions of the Executor were not in the best interest of the Estate or its beneficiaries.” Drew is given all the assets.

    If we add to that the way the investigation was run and how quickly it was finished, it is really hard to believe that Drew isn’t a fortunate man. Isn’t it rediculous that ISP was called to the crime scene because a police officer is involved, but then let this officer rule on this scene? Isn’t it a shame that Hardy testifies that he could not see any signs of fight while Kathleen’s autopsy states she was covered with bruises? that he did not know if Drew was wearing a uniform? that there was another police officer on the panel? that they did not summon Mary Pontarelli to the panel? that they devoted just 30 minutes to consider the case? that they simply hid the evidence (I don’t believe they were so stupid!).

  42. No matter how the defense cuts it, reducing a dead woman, who consistently proclaimed her fear of death at the hand of her ex-husband, to nothing more than a vindictive, story telling ex-wife, sounds as odd a defense as can be. To be so vindictive that she wanted her last act in life to be that her ex-husband be charged with murdering her. Even though she might have had visions she’d gash her head, fly around the room aimlessly without spilling a drop of blood anywhere on the floor, the floor that was missing her discarded clothes and dry, clean towels for her bath, and then fall erratically into a tub full of water. You know, the bath tub she drowned in. Flying around the room that had an obstacle that was the cause of her gash, but left no skin tissue on it at all to confirm the accident. Could that be because the object that caused the gash was mobile, and it was taken with the killer? Could the object she gashed her head on have been wiped clean? Not a strand of hair left behind on the object that gashed her head? But, in the end, even though it was a long road, a long wait for Kathleen during her burial, she is able to rest now knowing that her wish came true – that Drew is being charged with her murder. Won’t she be excited if he’s actually found guilty?

    Sounds crazy, heh? It is.

  43. Maybe we should ask Drew to provide recordings from the crime scene. Any recordings from the bugs he used to install would be accepted, too. LOL

  44. Oh well, maybe Joel is just trying to assert that if Kathleen’s testimony is allowed into court it will set a precedent and every time a divorced person dies, their family will try to pin it on the ex, using letters and statements from the deceased to prove that they ‘did it’. Pretty farfetched.

    I don’t see this hearsay law allowing for that. Again, I’ll say that IMO existing exceptions will allow most of Kathleen’s testimony into court. But I think the new law would be the only thing that might let Stacy’s conversation with Neil Schori in, however.

    The new law allows testimony about a crime from a person who was killed in order to keep them from testifying in that case (which wouldn’t normally be allowed because you can’t cross examing a dead person, but in this case, the murder means they forfeit the right to cross examine).

    Were Stacy still alive and present today, she would be able to testify in court that Drew told her he killed Kathleen. If a prosecutor can convince the judge that she was killed to keep her from doing that, then her testimony will be allowed and the ‘hearsay’ of Neil Schori may be admittd.

    To me the new law wasn’t enacted to specifically target domestic cases.

  45. Hmmm… What it may be?!

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2008cv05210/case_id-223640/

    Person v. Sheriff Department et al
    Plaintiffs: Richard A. Person and Service List
    Defendants: Sheriff Department, Bolingbrook Police Department, Drew Peterson, Nicor Gas Company, Tinly Prak Hospital, Edward Hospital, Billey Nelson, Bolingbrook Fire Department, Will County and Car lot

    Case Number: 1:2008cv05210
    Filed: November 20, 2008

    Court: Illinois Northern District Court
    Office: Prisoner: Civil Rights Office
    County: Lee
    Presiding Judge: Honorable Wayne R. Andersen

    Nature of Suit: P. Petitions – Civil Rights
    Cause: Federal Question
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Jury Demanded By:42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

    RE: This is a case where Richard A. Person a former resident of Bolingbrook, was arrested. Appearently he was at a car dealership trying to buy a car. The person who worked at this dealership didn’t want to do business with. The “friend” that Richard Person was with was supposively in a stolen car. Will County Sheriff responded to the scene first. He is claiming harassment, and just, and unjust treatement from Bolingbrook Police Department in the past. I guess “singling him out”. Claiming he had several run in’s with the Police Dept here in the Brook. I believe he is currently in the DOC Dixon Illinois. As for the Nicor, Hospital being sued I have no idea. This however was dropped cause Richard never filed an appearence within 30 days of the civil suit.

  46. Folks, let’s try to post comments about other people only as they relate to Drew.

    Drew Peterson had a 30-year career in law enforcement. Let’s please refrain from posting about any more cases involving arrests he may or may not have made. Unless the arrest was related to Stacy Peterson or Kathleen Savio, we’ll be removing any further comments about such cases.

    Thanks!

  47. Aww. Again, it sucks to be Drew. We know he said he doesn’t like to read, but maybe someone who does can pass this along to him. You know, rub a little salt into the wounds. After all, he’s alive and can lick himself raw if he wants to. Maybe he can have a talk with his bff, Sellit, and tell him to snap out of the Blago fantasy he’s now got himself in.

    Bunny House Pimp Offers Rod Blagojevich An Apprenticeship

    Could Rod Blagojevich be going from I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here to The Best Little Whorehouse In Nevada?

    Bunny Ranch pimp Dennis Hof is offering him an apprenticeship, according to the NY Post. As part of HBO’s show, Cathouse, Blagojevich “would assist with hiring ladies in addition to facilitating with training and proper disciplinary action.” Hof is offering him a “handsome amount of money” and says that the former governor’s willpower would be challenged daily as the hookers try to bribe him to get finer rooms or a better work schedule.

    Well, at least selling a Nevada whorehouse seat is legal.

  48. I recommend reading the below story to you. Coincidently, the names of the victims are the same.
    http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/767437.html

    I love the sentence finishing it:
    “It obviously wasn’t a perfect trial, but they did find that it was free from prejudicial error, and that’s what you can expect as any defendant,” [Judge] Hudson said. “You’re not entitled to a perfect trial.”

  49. “In our view, he was involved in Elizabeth Ratliff’s death, and he had gotten away with it once, and he was taking the position that he could get away with it again,” said Jim Hardin, the former Durham district attorney who led the prosecution of Peterson.

  50. I have also noticed that, facs.

    During the trail of Mike Peterson, the prosecutions took a model of the stairs to the court. I wonder if in Drew’s case it will be a bathtub and a model of a bathroom. I think that would be convicing to the jury.

    BTW, my first though reading the story was that Drew used stairs to humiliate Kate and for strange games with children, like rolling her down.

  51. facsmiley :
    I found it interesting that having gotten away with the crime once, this Peterson felt emboldened to try it again.

    “Our” Peterson also though it would be a perfect crime.

  52. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ratliff

    “Liz Ratliff also died under mysterious circumstances on November 25, 1985 when she was found at the bottom of her staircase surrounded by pools of blood. An autopsy at the time of her death concluded she had died from an intra-cerebral haemorrhage secondary to the blood coagulation disorder Von Willebrand’s disease. The coroner determined that the haemorrhage resulted in immediate death followed by Ratliff falling down the stairs after collapsing. Margaret and Martha were then raised by close friends of the family, Michael and Patricia Peterson, but were never adopted by them.

    In 2001 Michael Peterson, a writer, was arrested for the murder of his second wife, Kathleen Peterson, who was found dead at the bottom of a staircase.

    In connection with that trial, the North Carolina medical examiner’s office had Elizabeth Ratliff’s body exhumed from a Texas grave in 2003. The new autopsy report stated that Liz Ratliff had been murdered, and gave the cause of her death as blunt force trauma to the head. Although Peterson was never accused or charged in relation to Ratliff’s death this report, by the same examiner who had conducted Kathleen Peterson’s autopsy, played a significant part in the trial, and the admission of it as Similar fact evidence formed the basis of Peterson’s subsequent appeal.”

  53. How is Drew:
    I saw him last week. My partner saw him today. He’s patient. Drew’s a strong man. He doesn’t complain. As a law enforcement officer, he knows the legal process. He knows that things take time and people don’t jump, because somebody’s locked up. People have to sit for six, eight, ten months. He’s doing OK.

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

    Another one of Joels utterly bizarre statements about his supposedly innocent client being oke about sitting in jail for anything up to ten months because things take time and people don’t jump.

    Oh yeah murder charges are just a minor inconvenience in the scheme of things and Drew doesn’t mind waiting as he didn’t really have much of a life outside of prison anyway – LOL !

    And this gets better still:

    “As a law enforcement officer, he knows the legal process”

    That’s why Drew the Police Officer decided to do a well being check on Kathleen by getting an “outside” locksmith and sending his friends and neighbors into the house first just to make sure Kathleen was oke (!!) and that was considered following proper procedures and knowing the legal process ??????????????

  54. In connection with that trial, the North Carolina medical examiner’s office had Elizabeth Ratliff’s body exhumed from a Texas grave in 2003. The new autopsy report stated that Liz Ratliff had been murdered.

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

    Yeah I vaguely remember those cases.

    In one of them there was blood splatter up the wall next to the stairs, that couldn’t have been there had she simply fallen down the stairs.

  55. In regard to the Defences logic, Kathleen Savio attempted to deliberately set Drew up for her future demise, even though she supposedly died of an accident (which one is it Joel, it can’t be both), her motives must have been extremely altruistic that she wanted Drew and Drew alone to financially benefit so greatly from any of these events.

    How does that make sense ??

  56. Apparently, Brodsky wants to prove that six days before the final divorce proceeding Kathleen decided to commit suicide and staged it look like an accident so that Drew could take all assests and run happy life. Her low self-esteem drove her to conclusion that Stacy would be a better mother for her children than she was. She had just forgotten to call Drew and tell him about her plans.

    Then again, Stacy decided to leave with another man a day before the meeting with a lawyer about the divorce. She was much more responsible than Kathleen and called Drew to tell him about her affair and holidays plans. Like Kathleen, she left everything behind,and only took 25K bucks from the save (sorry, Drew, she had to have some pocket money with her on holidays), her passport and bikini. She did not even want to take her car. As their marriage had been troublesome for a long time, he felt a big relief and did not even try to look for her.

  57. *Shudder* I remember Mike Peterson from watching a series of programs following him running up to the trial (part of trial too?) He was a very cool customer and very scary.

  58. justanotherhen :
    In regard to the Defences logic, Kathleen Savio attempted to deliberately set Drew up for her future demise, even though she supposedly died of an accident (which one is it Joel, it can’t be both), her motives must have been extremely altruistic that she wanted Drew and Drew alone to financially benefit so greatly from any of these events.
    How does that make sense ??

    Excellent point, JAH! It doesn’t make sense, now that you mention it. One contradicts the other.

  59. I think it’s really odd that they argue she did it to implicate him in any ensuing criminal charge. I thought they’d said before, and it makes more sense (tho still not true)that it was to put big pressure on him and skew the divorce/custody/money. Am I missing something here?

  60. OK – I think I understand at least part of what they are saying now. The defense is saying that unlike a person who ends up at the hospital and whispers “Joe did it”, Kathleen declared that if at some point in time something happened to her it would be Drew who did it. Her statements were based on how she was being treated at that moment. She couldn’t actually predict the future, so the defense is saying it’s unfair to allow those statements since anyone might at some point kill her and Drew being implicated by those earlier statements would be unfair.

    I’m not saying that, but that is one of their arguments in their reply to the State’s Attorney’s response.

  61. In this case, the overwhelming testimony will be that Kathy Savio did not trust the Bolingbrook Police Department and, therefore, felt compelled to tell others that if something happened to her, it was not an accident — Drew Peterson did it. She buttressed this by conferring on these emissaries a story of varying embellishment that speaks of how Drew Peterson was at her home and threatened her in various manners following the separation. It is clear that these statements were made with very specific intention — being to establish and prove past events knowing it would be relevant in a potential criminal prosecution.

    It looks as if the defense is trying to say that because those types of statements aren’t usually admitted to trial. Usually the statement has to be some kind of declaration of wrongdoing that would merit immediate aid, but the defense says in Kathleen’s case, she was trying to make statements that could be held and then used at some future time should a crime occur.

    I’d say go reread her letter to Elizabeth Fragale. It is a cry for help. She didn’t ask Fragale to hold onto the document so it could be used if and when Drew killed her. She wanted action taken at that moment. She said:

    “I’d really like to know why this man wasn’t charged with unlawful entry and attempt on my life.”

    Also:

    “I haven’t received help from the Police here in Bolingbrook and am asking for your help now.”

  62. You know how Joel likes to tout stories of missing persons who are later found alive and well?

    Brooke Wilberger Found 5 Years Later
    BYU students remains found, suspect pleads guilty

    Updated: Monday, 21 Sep 2009, 6:47 PM CDT
    Published : Monday, 21 Sep 2009, 6:47 PM CDT

    By The Associated Press
    CORVALLIS, Ore. – Five years after college student Brooke Wilberger disappeared, a man has pleaded guilty to her murder and directed police to her remains.

    The developments ended one of the most publicized murder investigations in Oregon history and put away a man who also was convicted of raping another student in New Mexico.

    Benton County District Attorney John Haroldson made the surprise announcement today.

    The Brigham Young University student vanished in May 2004 from an apartment building in Corvallis.

    Defendant Joel Courtney avoided a possible death sentence by pleading guilty to aggravated murder and revealing the location of Wilberger’s remains.

    Courtney was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after entering the plea in Marion County Circuit Court in Salem.

  63. ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 23 9 900 04F 000340 Present
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Jury Trial
    Anyone think this case will be continued A-G=A-I-N

  64. One can only sit in wonderment how, time and time again, Drew and his Defense Team manage to create such utterly bizarre scenarios, so totally devoid of logic and common sense that they are almost verging on the comical and ludicrous, which surely can’t be an intentional and responsible defense tactic in anyones books (!!)

  65. Is Michael Robinson out on Bond or is he also patiently sitting in a cell somewhere, knowing things take time and people don’t jump ?

  66. It is clear that these statements were made with very specific intention — being to establish and prove past events knowing it would be relevant in a potential criminal prosecution.

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

    Well obviously none of Kathleens statements and letters about her fear of Drew would have had any relevance had she been able to extricate herself from Drew and live happily ever after.

    There’s not going to be a Court case proving Kathleen was wrong about her statements, because she is still alive.

    There’s going to be a Court case Kathleen was right because Kathleen is DEAD !!

  67. I was just looking again at the polygraph session with questions about Kathleen (the where Drew showed no deception in his answers). It’s interesting that the examiner always refers to her as “Kathy”. As far as I know, no one ever called her Kathy — her nickname was “Kitty”. So mightn’t it have been a factor in the results of the test?

    I mean, if the examiner asked him four questions, and in every instance refered to “your ex-wife, Kathy” wouldn’t it be easier to comfortably answer “no” to all those questions simply by his keeping in mind that he doesn’t have an ex-wife named “Kathy”?

    1. Did you see your ex-wife Kathy alive anytime after you picked up the kids from her house on Friday, February 27, 2004?

    2. Did you have any type of contact with your ex-wife Kathy after you picked up the kids from her on Friday, February 27, 2004?

    3. Did you have any involvement in the death of your ex-wife Kathy in 2004?

    4. Were you present at the time of your ex-wife Kathy’s death?

  68. As far as I could figure out, Kathleen was known as Kitty to her family, but I think Drew always called her Kathy or Kathleen.

  69. I think it was possible for DP to pass the polygraph over the questions he’s had a long time to get used to about Kitty, but if you notice, everything that was currently freaking him out….things that coulds bust him over Stacy’s murder, he failed.

  70. I guess I can imagine him saying “Kathy” in some of his interviews, now that you say that.

    One thing Armstrong pointed out though was that he was not allowed to ask a question about if Drew had hired someone else to kill her. Now we know that he allegedly did try to hire someone to do it, at least once.

    So I wonder if Joel barred that question because he was aware of Drew having tried to arrange it at some point prior to her death, or if he knew that Kathleen’s death actually was a result of a later successful hit.

  71. BTW that’s another example of controlling behaviour….to change someone’s name like that. I’ve seen it in action more than once.

    I think you’re dead right about that polygraph question. What other reason could he possibly have? just struck lucky? lol I’m now wondering what other questions were thrown out.

  72. You can bet that the control freak would not trust his henchma(e)n to take care of things alone.

    I think it would make a lot of sense for him to go there after the deed was done to tidy up, etc. Wasn’t he reported to have come back home with a bag of women’s clothing?

  73. Did anyone ever get why Brodsky allowed his client to even participate in this polygraph exam(s)? He originally said he pretty much had no use for them and would advise his client against it, but, yet, Peterson went ahead and did it anyway. What was the explanation for all of that?

  74. I always accepted that the polygraph was a condition of Derek Armstrong’s. That he would only write the book if a polygraph was administered. Earlier another author (M. William Phelps) had made the same condition and they had refused it. Maybe Drew and Joel finally accepted the condition when they realized it was the only way they were going to get “Drew’s” book written.

    Of course, with Brodsky picking the polygrapher, holding the session in his law office, and selecting the few questions that were allowed, he had a lot of control over the whole affair.

    Phelps said:

    “Drew Peterson would not take a lie detector test for me. That was of great concern. Now, this is the last time I speak about this. I’m done. I’ve moved on. They have an author, or so I’ve been told. …”

    http://www.crimerant.com/?p=1711

  75. bucketoftea :
    hmmmmm if it was another, successful hit, was drew over there for the staging? (and rifling through possessions?)

    See, that’s the thing. The “staging.” I need to hear an explanation from the defense, from anyone, what Kathleen gashed her head on, which caused her bleeding. Because, in my mind, there would be hair or some piece of skin/blood left on the object that gashed her head, and, apparently, there wasn’t. If it was anywhere outside of the tub area, AFAIK, there wasn’t any droplets of blood on the floor — the floor and surrounding area were pristine clean, I believe it’s been determined. How can any of that be? Giving an explanation for an incident is one thing, but asking people to form conclusions that just aren’t reasonable is another. No matter how either side says she died, I’d need to hear a logical explanation. Of course, if she was murdered, an explanation would be that the scene was cleaned of any traces of struggle, blood, DNA, whatever, by the killer. But, if it was an accident, as the defense is continuing to suggest, how do they explain away her gashing her head and just falling into a tub full of water without being able to free herself from the tub? I thought it’s been determined that the gash wasn’t enough to render her incapacitated.

  76. This is old stuff, but it made me laugh.

    I love that Joel is currently relying on Google search results to pad his legal briefs, but failed to use it to research potential authors to write a pro-Drew book. The three stooges actually approached Phelps about writing the book apparently unaware that he had posted this to his blog (after Drew’s first appearance on Larry King Live):

    Is this not an incredible turn of events in this story? Does this man not have any morals whatsoever? Makes me want to write a book about this clown now and prove how dirty he actually is and expose the true sociopathic behavior he is exhibiting at the current moment.

  77. Rescue, that’s why I’m wondering if the defense is building a case to try to implicate Maniaci. I guess technically, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that there was a murder and that Drew did it, but it hasn’t stopped Team Drew from dragging in and disparaging the names of all kinds of people.

  78. Facs, Steve M.’s house/apartment being broken into (or ransacked or burgled) is a point of interest, as is the alleged withdrawal of $9,000 by Kathleen the day before her death.

    But IMO, anyone else that was initially a suspect (like a boyfriend) must have had an alibi or the case would not have resulted in Drew’s arrest.

    (I have however, been accused of living in my own little world. 😉 )

  79. Noway, I remember those details about Steve Maniaci. They’re interesting but evidently not all that interesting to law enforcement since Maniaci was never named as a suspect or charged.

    Again, it isn’t up to the defense to try to build a case against some other person, only to destroy the case against the defendant. Still, I don’t think that would keep Team Drew from attempting to do it.

  80. Facs – But, the thing is, to me, even if they come off their theory, or belief, whatever it is we call it, that she didn’t die by accident, they’d have to agree with the current findings of murder. So, if they do, I suppose they’re going to have to rip apart the way the original investigation was handled, and, maybe, even ridicule it as ineffective and inept. Thus, they can’t very well pick any one individual, since if the evidence is corrupt as it relates to their client, it’s corrupt as it relates to whoever they think they want to pin it on. Otherwise, IMO, how would the defense come across as credible if they try to show the evidence is weak as it relates to Drew, but looks good enough to them to try and pin it on Maniaci? I guess they’d have to contend the trail is cold, and there’s no way to determine who was responsible for Kathleen’s death. Without saying so, they’d be relaying the idea that even if it was Drew, prove it. The evidence is long gone.

    Doesn’t it seem logical that the first responders/investigators hold the key to all of this and can shed light on a lot of things that were done upon the discovery of Kathleen’s body? Wouldn’t it be logical for a prosecutor to ask an experienced, knowledgeable detective/investigator how a scene such as Kathleen’s should have been processed, and then go from there to show why and how it wasn’t? Peterson was interviewed and said things; things that may be picked apart now to show they were/are inaccurate, maybe out-and-out lies. Wouldn’t a juror be looking for a reason to be fair and acquit this man, by listening to and hearing sound, reasonable explanations of inconsistencies? Since not many murders are captured and recorded on tape, don’t must juries have to make life changing decisions based on how credible an argument, circumstances, are presented to them? Why should they set Peterson free? What will the jury be looking for?

  81. Facs, I suppose they could try to offer Steve M. up as a suspect in order to throw in that “reasonable doubt”?

    Without knowing what the discovery is on Steve M., the money, etc., it’s hard to know why they think they’d be successful in doing so.

    As mentioned, there has been an arrest in the murder of Kathleen Savio, and it’s not Steve M.

  82. LOL, yeah, Bucket there is that. But juries are a funny lot. They may or may not believe the story of the hit man.

    And trying to get in Joel’s head to figure out where he’s going with this investigation? I don’t want to go there.

  83. Okay, if I’m on the jury, and I’m being pointed to Steve Maniaci by the defense, I’m wondering why he is more likely the dude that should be looked at rather than Peterson, since he didn’t have a dime to gain, he was, most likely, where he said he was during the time Kathleen died, he wasn’t married to her and in the midst of a fight over assets, and he could have just walked away from their relationship without a blink of an eye.

    What could Brodsky possibly have to share about Maniaci as a potential suspect, especially after he made a comment that Maniaci should have lawyered up when he appeared before the GJ?

    “Did couple break up? Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, claims Maniaci and Savio broke off their relationship the weekend before she was found dead. “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.

    Yeah, just like Drew did when he appeared before the grand jury. His ex-wife was found dead, he was “smart,” he took the Fifth, his ex-wife’s death was declared a homicide, and he had previously cut holes in walls to get into the house, and had a working garage door opener. Bah!

    BTW, the quote came from acandyrose.com

  84. It’s interesting if you read the inquest transcript (as much as we have of it), Hardy testifies that during Steve’s last conversation with Kathleen that they discussed getting married. If Drew was tapping her phone (as he seemed to commonly do with the subjects of his stalkings), could that have been one of the factors in his decision to kill her that night?

  85. That couldn’t have improved his temper to hear that, but he had already decided to kill her anyway. It’s about the money.

  86. I was wondering if it factored into the timing more than anything else. I assume he had already planned to kill her, but would the notion of her remarrying (or some financial aspect related to that) have made up his mind to do it that night?

    Remember, he killed her before their assets had been legally divided. A man eager to be her new husband might want to get involved and make sure that was done and done right.

  87. From what (little) I know it would have reduced her alimony if she were to marry. Child support wouldn’t change, but I’m sure he didn’t want anyone helping her. He may also have worried about what she might tell (or give ) Steve.

  88. Her alimony would have been reduced, but wouldn’t she have been able to keep approximatley 50% of her assets, instead of them all going to DP?

  89. “Did couple break up? Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, claims Maniaci and Savio broke off their relationship the weekend before she was found dead. “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.

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

    My money is on that’s exactly how the real murderer got into the house !

    Especially worth noting Joel made this statement LONG BEFORE discovery, so how could he be so specific (!!)

  90. Story at the Naperville Sun

    Group honors Stacy at local fundraiser 5K

    September 24, 2009

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
    Nearly two years after Stacy Peterson was last seen alive, a group will march in her name to raise money for a battered women’s shelter in Joliet.

    “It’s kind of a way to remember Stacy and get the word out” about the Groundwork battered women’s shelter, said Stephanie Kreidler, who organized The Angels For Stacy/Peace4 the Missing team entry for the Oct. 24 Angels Against Abuse 5K Walk.

    The walk will raise money for the shelter, which operates under the auspices of Joliet’s Guardian Angel Home and has been stripped of funds in these hard economic times.

    “This is going to be our first walk (but) we hope to do it continually” in coming years, said Shirley Reilly, a social worker and community advocate for Groundwork.

    The event was scheduled to coincide with Domestic Violence Month and happened to fall just days before the anniversary of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    State police believe Peterson may be the victim of foul play. They have named Peterson’s husband, disgraced former Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson, a suspect in his wife’s disappearance.

    While the mystery surrounding her disappearance remains unsolved and her husband has yet to be charged with having anything to do with making her vanish, he has been arrested in connection with the March 2004 slaying of his previous wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Peterson has been jailed since May on first degree-murder charges and is awaiting trial.

    The walk will also help publicize Groundwork, said Kreidler, who wishes Stacy Peterson knew what the shelter offers before she disappeared.

    “If somebody brought this to her attention, she could have been saved,” Kreidler speculated.

    Peterson has not been charged with abusing Stacy.

    Those wishing to participate in the walk can register in advance on the Groundwork Web site at http://www.event.org/angelsagainstabuse . Donations can also be made through the Web site.

    The Oct. 24 event, at which First Care Ambulance will be donating its services, will be held at the Crumby Recreation Area in Hammel Woods in Shorewood. Check-in and on-site registration is at 8 a.m., and the walk steps off at 9 a.m.

    Kreidler repeated that she hopes the walk will increase awareness while helping Groundwork financially.

    “Just to get their name out there,” she said. “Just so if there’s someone else out there in her shoes, they know where to get help.”

    NOTE/The link in the story isn’t complete. Try this one instead:
    http://www.events.org/angelsagainstabuse/cpage.aspx?e=22616

  91. How is Drew:
    I saw him last week. My partner saw him today. He’s patient. Drew’s a strong man. He doesn’t complain. As a law enforcement officer, he knows the legal process. He knows that things take time and people don’t jump, because somebody’s locked up. People have to sit for six, eight, ten months. He’s doing OK.

    As I think about this recent interview by Joel with, once again, Dana Pretzer, I can’t get out of my mind the fact that these usual characters, the ones that have been anxious to suck up to Drew and Joel all along, don’t get on with it and get to the tougher questions.

    Instead of asking Joel how the man charged with two counts of murder is, why doesn’t someone ask him to find out from his client why he continues to isolate his children from their maternal families. Why are the Savios and the Cales families subjected to his arrogance, his extreme ideas, of keeping his children from their God given right to have contact with their mothers’ relatives? Whether he is eventually found innocent, or he’s convicted and sent away, his children will go on, and they have every right to know that their father is the reason their relatives are being singled out kept out of their lives. What gives this man pleasure in all of this? Teaching his children that he is the center of their universe, and that’s it? Knowing that he can pull the strings of his children by isolating them like this?

    Some day, they will make their own decisions, and, hopefully, they’ll be able to understand that it was a controlling, obsessed father that is responsible for them not having any family but his chosen few. Hopefully, they will go on and develop and maintain relationships when this is all over and they can think for themselves. I hope so. At least be given the right, the chance, to make their own decisions who they want in their lives.

    I still say, his two adult sons should get on their knees and thank the heavens every, single day that had a mother in their lives, and they’re not in the situation their half-siblings are, two-times over!

    There, I said it.

  92. Funny, how he can reason why he is keeping his children away from their maternal families, but he continued to let a creep who’s about to go on trial for battery on three woman (it was three, right) hang around because he was up his ass from day one. Oh, and Chistina Raines. Gloria Allred, the famous advocate for woman and children — she doesn’t go to the Savios or the Cales to offer them help in getting visitation rights to see their nephews and niece, she latches onto a slut bunny who’s going to whine about breaking off their engagement. Imagine having to watch Allred on tv propping up that bimbo, who had complete access to Peterson’s children, when the ones that would give anything to have that luxury can’t.

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    They all make me sick.

  93. Personally I do not care how Drew is holding up, I rather hope he is not. I also find it extremely ironic that the idiot stick claiming Drew can’t get a fair trail due to the media is once again in the media.

    I hope those walking for Stacy have a great day and good weather.

  94. Personally, no one gives a rat’s ass, I think, how Drew is holding up either. It’s not exactly like people were glued to Dana Pretzer’s radio show to hear how wonderful the defense is chugging along.

    It’s not about him anymore, now that he’s been shut-up. It’s about his victims and his victims’ families.

    At least he’s getting a taste of his own medicine while he’s cooling his jets in jail. He can’t hold his children and enjoy their company either. Pay back is a real bitch.

    I pray and pray that some act of kindness will come from him, at least this once, and he’ll free his kids to begin having a family life outside of the one he picks and chooses.

  95. Even if Drew doesn’t eventually come around, I’m guessing that his uber-control on those kids will eventually backfire on him and they will voluntarily seek out the members of their family they’ve been barred from seeing. I’ve seen it happen before after bitter divorces and such.

  96. Do you wonder how he keeps the control he continues to have? Does he tell his adult son he’ll have him hauled off to the pen himself if he breaks the ultimate order and lets the little people see their mom’s family? I suppose the teens can see whomever they please, so long as the big guy doesn’t hear about it. But, the little people — maybe he questions them like criminals every time he talks to them on the phone.

    Say, Steve, keep those kids under lock and key at all times when they’re not at preschool, and if you violate my trust, you’ll be banned from my love forever. You’ll be out of my will, if there’s any money left. You’ll never feel my loving arms around you again. I’ll disown your daughter, my grand daughter. You’ll be blacklisted from my life.

    Geesh. What, what does the conversation sound like when you force someone other than yourself to keep your kids out of the lives of their families? How does that go? How many options does Drew Peterson have with his kids if his adult son breaks down and refuses to continue to abide by his dark rules? What keeps his adult son in line? Think alike? Afraid? Heartless? If he doesn’t continue to be the guardian of the kids, who’s left? Think about it? Joel?

  97. Seems Joel has plenty of time to go on radio, must be all caught up with reading discovery. Heres the link.

    [audio src="http://scaredmonkeysradio.com/podpress_trac/web/957/0/20090906s.mp3" /]

  98. http://www.patrioticmom.us/2008/03/22/even-in-death-marine-continues-to-give/

    This is a wonderful story of the parents who lost their Marine son to a senseless, violent act. I’m posting this story about the gift of life they passed on to another, through donating their son’s heart.

    I’m also posting this because this young Marine’s father, who touched my heart forever, showed up to help search for Stacy this past August, when Cassandra called out on the news for volunteers. He told me he rushed to tell his daughter that morning that she’d have to find another way to get to work that day, because he would have the car.

    In-between the searching, he thought about the Peterson kids, and I heard him ask Cassandra how they were. She said she didn’t know, she’s not allowed to see them. It rattled him, it broke my heart.

    This is what heros, good people are about. God Bless them all!!!

  99. Anyone heard if M.Robinsons trial is still ago to start tomorrow? It’s still on the docket, but they had some kind of hearing yesterday. Sure hope it wasn’t postponed.

  100. No, Grandam, haven’t heard about tomorrow being postponed. The docket date of 9/23 was a different matter, I believe. It was a different court docket #, for a 2004 case, it seems.

  101. coffeeocity :Her alimony would have been reduced, but wouldn’t she have been able to keep approximatley 50% of her assets, instead of them all going to DP?

    That’s kind of along the lines of what I’m thinking. A new spouse would be able to back her up, protect her and urge her to go after what was rightfully hers. He would stand in Drew’s way when Drew wanted to intimidate her. He would also be in a hurry to get the joint asset situation settled and divided before they were married.

  102. Mike R. is still on the docket for tomorrow.

    ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Jury Trial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Jury Trial

    I’d heard he had a new lawyer (no link, sorry, just forum post) so that could be the reasons for the delays … but I’m not sure when he got the new lawyer, so I suppose it is possible things could change …

  103. The fact Drew is overtly hostile towards the families of his wives is bizarre in itself, considering and according to him

    wife no 3 had an accident
    wife no 4 ran away

    He just doesn’t get it, does he ?

  104. I just listened to Scared Buttsky Radio. Crikey he talks a load of bollocks. He was particularly funny about the hearsay law (which he called Drew’s Law again); tied himself in knots. I wonder if his minions can do any better. I hope Judge White will be rendering a written decision just because Butthead said he wouldn’t. He may have had to stop the barefaced sliming of all and sundry, but second guessing the judge on the radio really makes him look like a disrespectful amateur. Like he’s giving a talking head opinion on his own case. What a twat.

    Like my lawyer said of my ex “Sadly, the judge can’t just order him to stop being an asshole.”

  105. charmed4sr :
    Personally I do not care how Drew is holding up, I rather hope he is not. I also find it extremely ironic that the idiot stick claiming Drew can’t get a fair trail due to the media is once again in the media.
    I hope those walking for Stacy have a great day and good weather.

    Thank you!!! Please if you would help us to get the link out to people. Thanks again!

  106. Oh, and Chistina Raines. Gloria Allred, the famous advocate for woman and children.

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

    If I’m correct Gloria Allred knows at least TWO of Christinas secrets !!

  107. justanotherhen :
    The fact Drew is overtly hostile towards the families of his wives is bizarre in itself, considering and according to him
    wife no 3 had an accident
    wife no 4 ran away
    He just doesn’t get it, does he ?

    Add wife #2 to that. She said she had a suspicious car accident and thinks Drew had a lot to do with it.

  108. How could I forget that? Could it be because there’s just so much…..V-i-c-t-o-r-i-a C-o-n-n-o-l-l-y for you who are here for research. 😉

  109. My reply (154) was in relation to Drews overt hostility towards families of the children of his missing/dead wives and that behavior in particular doesn’t make any sense in the scheme of things.

    Regardless how he felt about these women when they were alive, if they end up dead/missing there should be a sense of shared loss, empathy, consideration, togetherness with remaining family members/children instead of deliberately exacerbating their grief (!!)

  110. As far as Christina goes, from Gloria Allred’s initial bizarre statement and Christina’s inexplicable behavior it wouldn’t surprise me if her story turns out to be as tragic as all other young women/wives Drew simultaneously manipulated and hood winked for YEARS.

  111. I want to see evidence. When it comes to trial, that’s what you’re going to see. A jury that wants to see…Here in Illinois we’ve heard a lot of innuendo and we’ve heard a lot of goofballs from people like Len and Paula but now let’s put your cards on the table. Show us the hard evidence. Anything to do with Kathleen’s death. let’s see it and when no evidence like that comes forward, I think we’ll have a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

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

    Is Joel saying there’s six boxes containing 40.000.00 pages of documents, months of overhears, “literally hundreds of witnesses” (his own words), all with absolutely nothing to do with Kathleens death ?

    What exactly does Joel consider “hard evidence” ??

  112. justanotherhen :
    What exactly does Joel consider “hard evidence” ??

    Hmm, the injuries of Kathleen’s head are probably more consistent with the (missing) night table than the bathtub. Did he think he wanted the jury to see the bathtub in the court room? 😉

    In the era of STR tests, JB cannot be also sure if Drew left his DNA on Kathleen’s body or not. The results of the last autopsy have not been published and I think there must have been a reason why.

  113. Not wanting to take away any credit due to the recent law-school graduates and third-year law students assisting Joel in his defense of Drew Peterson, but one has to wonder why Joel would seek assistance from totally inexperienced people in preparing this very complicated case, especially considering Joel himself has no experience in this field either (!!)

    Is Joel actually admitting third year law students and recent law school graduates with no actual experience already know more than he does ????

  114. ROFL He thinks he’s Alan Dershowitz (the law professor who conducted Claus von Bulow’s appeal with the aid of a bunch of students.) ROFL Joel’s driving the school bus!

  115. especially with statements like this:

    “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.

  116. ROFL (I’m really cracking myself up here) I like to think of the students speckling his back with spitwads as he drives the bus…

  117. ROFL Joel’s driving the school bus!

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

    It’s worse than that bucket, the students are in fact driving the bus !

Comments are closed.