This Saturday: Remember Stacy Peterson and help victims of abuse

Stacy Peterson, missing since October 28, 2007

Stacy Peterson, missing since October 28, 2007

This Saturday, October 24, you are invited to participate in Groundwork’s First Annual Angels Against Abuse 5k Walk to raise funds for Guardian Angel Community Services, a Joliet-based non-profit that provides services to victims and families of domestic violence.

In memory of Stacy Peterson, Team: “Angels For Stacy” is partnering with the missing persons advocacy organization, Peace4 the Missing.

Visit the team page to join the team, walk, sponsor or make a donation.

By the way, you don’t need to join the “Angels for Stacy” team to participate. You can join a different team, start your own, or register without joining any team.

  • WHERE:
    Hammel Woods, Crumby Recreation Area, Shorewood IL
    Enter on Black Road, .25 miles east of Rt. 59
  • WHEN:
    Saturday, October 24, 2009
    8:00am Check-In. On-site Registration
    8:45am Opening Remarks by Will County State’s Attorney, James W. Glasgow
    9:00am Walk Begins
  • FEE:
    $10 Registration
    Free T-Shirt with $50 Donation

Groundwork is a domestic violence program of the Guardian Angel Community Services, a non-profit 501c (3) social service agency. Groundwork operates a 24-hour emergency shelter that provides a safe haven for victims. Last year the shelter provided almost eight thousand nights of shelter. Nearly a third of those nights were for children who had been impacted by domestic violence. Additionally, Groundwork operates a 24-hour hotline providing crisis intervention, safety planning, information and referrals. All services are offered to victims free of charge. Groundwork also offers legal advocacy as well as individual and group counseling to adults and children.

Team Angels for Stacy/Peace4 the missing is not associated with the Friends of Stacy Peterson.

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

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>


45 thoughts on “This Saturday: Remember Stacy Peterson and help victims of abuse

  1. I sometimes wonder what satisfation can a good lawyer have with letting a murderer go free and commit another crime? Does he/she feel any remorses as a human being then?

    October 19, 2009
    For Immediate Release
    (East Lansing) Beverly Nettles-Nickerson has been cleared of OWI charge. Judge Franklin Line issued a 4-page Opinion today (October 19th), in which he ruled that Judge Nickerson was not operating her (SNIPPED)

    She is JUDGE Nickerson !

  3. How sad. I wonder if my case would have been thrown out.
    BUT-I’m wondering at a judge voluntarily hiring Abood!

  4. Thanks, Facs. I didn’t realize that she’d been removed. Hmm…but she still chose Abood. Hmm…I’m going to refrain from stating the obvious.

  5. It’s clear that she just wanted to hear the hum of her H3. Once she was done, she planned to stumble back to the bar and call a cab. IMO


    Prosecutors gather evidence to rebut Peterson defense
    October 22, 2009 4:43 PM

    Prosecutors in the Drew Peterson murder case are gathering evidence to rebut an argument the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s defense team will likely make – that Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio drowned accidentally in a bathtub.

    The state has subpoenaed autopsy and other reports and records from 14 counties, including Will, Cook and other collar counties on their “bathtub-related fatalities” from 2003 to 2005. A spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office declined comment.

    The subpoenas, dated Oct. 15, read “filed under seal” but are included in public documents on the case.

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky said accidental drownings are not “unheard-of” citing one national report that found 341 bathtub-related deaths in 2000.

    “It’s not common, but it happens,” he said. “There’s certainly going to be a number of those that were healthy people who slipped in the tub and hit their head.”

    Savio’s 2004 death was originally ruled accidental. Her remains were exhumed in 2007, after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacey, disappeared, and Savio’s death was then ruled a homicide. Peterson’s fourth wife has never been found, though he remains the sole suspect in her disappearance.

    — Steve Schmadeke

  7. Thanks, Facs.


    Ha, remember when Brodsky said this:

    A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now.

    Looks like the State is using his advice.

  8. I think I’m going to the walk this weekend. Brodsky is an idiot like usual on his latest comments. You cant compare drownings. In Kathleen’s case the wounds are totaly inconsistent in the way she was found drowned. Sure it happens and prolly a lot. But not like it did her.

  9. I wonder if Brodsky can find any case of a woman who drowned in a dry bathtub but still had her hair wet and her livor mortis present on the ‘wrong’ side of her body. Not to mention lack of any blood traces on the rim of the shelves or the bathtub itself.
    Hey, Brodsky, ask Drew where the missing nightable is!

  10. I don’t know where Joel gets some of his statistics. You are right though givarat the statistics he is giving is natural drownings in the tub. I will post for the whole USA the number of deaths each year for drowning in the bath tub both ways! These are current statistics, and I will post the link.

    These are falls in into bathtub:

    Drowning and submersion following fall into bath-tub 24 deaths
    Drowning and submersion following fall into bath-tub (per capita) 0.081154 deaths per 1 million people

    These are regular drownings in tub without injuries:

    Drowning and submersion while in bath-tub 317 deaths

    Drowning and submersion while in bath-tub (per capita) 1.07191 deaths per 1 million people

    These are undetermined:

    Drowning and submersion, undetermined intent 231 deaths [8th of 52]
    Drowning and submersion, undetermined intent (per capita) 0.781107 deaths per 1 million people

  11. I wonder how they break those down further…like how many were BWI (bathing while under the influence) or, um…murdered. 🙂

  12. Most older or younger than average age, too, I bet, and/or already infirm. It’s not really much of a subject. I mean, Kitty didn’t have an accident and they can’t show she did.

  13. I will tell you one thing. I will be most anxious to hear the order of events the defense is going to show that resulted in Kathleen’s death. How she hit her head, what she hit her head on. I want to hear the explanation as to how she has a gash on her head, instead of a goose egg lump, if she conked her head on the tub end when she tripped.

    I can’t even venture an explanation from the defense’s standpoint, because there’s nothing to base it on or explain it away that I can see. Wecht can bamboozle his way through his testimony all he wants — it’s going to be a stretch of the imagination, IMHO.

    BTW, Hardy did say Kathleen hit her head opposite the faucet end, because that’s what’s in the inquest transcript.

  14. ..and no cast off clothing anywhere, nor any fresh change of clothing. Because so so many 40-year-old women tend to walk naked through the house, bathe, dry off and then walk naked through the house some more…

  15. Excerpt – On the Record — May 8, 2009


    VAN SUSTEREN: … I have — good evening. I have said, and correct me if I’m wrong, but that first autopsy report that was conducted, when I looked at it and read it before you did your autopsy and the body was exhumed — that it was laughable. Is that overstating it?

    BADEN: Well, I think it’s overstating it. I think the first autopsy that was done in March of 2004 identified a number of bruises, a number of injuries, and drowning in the tub. It was the coroner’s jury that determined it was an accident and not a homicide. But the first autopsy did identify injuries, which we then…

    VAN SUSTEREN: But let me ask you this. Was it then laughable that the conclusion that was reached by the coroner’s jury? Because when I booked at first autopsy report…

    BADEN: Yes, I remember that.

    VAN SUSTEREN: … and saw the — saw the injuries, I thought, What’s with this?

    BADEN: Yes.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And I’m not a doctor.

    BADEN: You — when you first spoke to me about it, you were very concerned that something went wrong. And I agree with you that the conclusion was wrong and — the conclusion that it was an accident was wrong, but the autopsy itself was pretty good.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Dr. Baden, it’s going to have to be proven at trial. The prosecution has two challenges. One is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime, that this was a homicide.

    BADEN: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And the other is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person committed it. All right, now…

    BADEN: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: … in doing your second autopsy, I assume in your business, sometimes there’s — you sort of wonder whether something might be a homicide, might not be a homicide. What is your level of certainty of your conclusion that this was a homicide?

    BADEN: As certain I am of any other homicide, that she was found dead in a bathtub, evidence of drowning, evidence of being beaten up, multiple bruises on the body, most of which were found at the first autopsy, we found addition (ph), three-and-a-half years later, when we did the exhumation. And I think there’s certainty as much as in any case, 99.9 percent, that this is a homicide. Whodunnit, that’s not our job. The medical examiner determines what happened. In this case, time of death may be important also. But it’s up to the prosecutor to determine whodunnit.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Dr. Baden, thank you, sir.

    BADEN: Thank you.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us by phone is one of Drew Peterson’s lawyers, Andrew Abood. Andrew, you just heard the conversation I had with Dr. Baden. I realize that — I mean, a really key issue in this case is whether, indeed, this was an accident or an homicide. Have you had an independent medical examiner examine the remains of Kathleen Savio?

    ANDREW ABOOD, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON (Via telephone): No, we haven’t been able to examine the remains. That’s not something that we’ve been privy to at this point. But we have had independent medical qualified forensic pathologists reviewed the original coroner’s report and believe that their determination was substantiated (INAUDIBLE) evidence and the conclusions as set forth in the report.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Andrew, who is your independent medical examiner or pathologist who made — who reached this conclusion?

    ABOOD: Well, at this point, it would be premature to disclose who our experts are, but we’ve consulted with a number of them.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Why would it be premature?

    ABOOD: Why would it be premature? Because we — we are consulting with…

    VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me ask you this. Is it — is it Cyril Wecht? Is it Dr. Wecht?

    ABOOD: We’ve discussed the case with Cyril Wecht. I know that he has a copy of the autopsy, and I think that his conclusion was that the original autopsy was accurate.,2933,519439,00.html


    It seems to me that Abood skirted around the issue here. He said Dr. Wecht reviewed the original autopsy and said it was accurate. Exactly what Dr. Baden said. BUT, it’s the Coroner’s Inquest ruling that is at issue, not the autopsy. So, wouldn’t the defense have to find a pathologist who is going to have to dispute the State’s contention that that ruling was wrong, and show why and how it is wrong? Big credibility challenge, I think, to confirm the injuries and bruises were there all along and confirm the original autopsy was accurate, yet continue to maintain that the original decision by the panel was right. Even now, after it’s been shown one was a cop who knew Peterson, and at least one of the panel members said they weren’t given full instructions as to how they could rule the cause of death outside of what they did.

  16. Excerpt — ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL; Gambits Begin in Drew Peterson Murder Case; Aired May 11, 2009 – 19:00:00 ET

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Remember, it was only after wife No. 4 went missing Kathleen`s body was exhumed, given another autopsy. That`s when they determined that she was murdered.

    Now Peterson`s attorney had just hired Cyril Wecht, who is a celebrity forensic pathologist, to review Savio`s autopsy reports. But Cyril Wecht, who`s worked on many high-profile cases, he`s sort of a star in his own right. He faced his own trial last year after being accused of using a coroner`s office where he worked for his own personal gain.

    Now, even though a mistrial was declared, a jury couldn`t reach a verdict, my question to you, Darren Kavinoky, could his legal ordeal affect his credibility in this trial?

    KAVINOKY: Yes, that will certainly be a major focus for prosecutors on cross-examination if he takes the stand. And of course, Peterson`s defense team is going to be trumpeting that initial autopsy report loud and often in this case.

  17. Too much talking by the defense attorneys! Abood says it’s too premature to say who their expert is, Brodsky says it’s Wecht. Wecht said the original autopsy was accurate, as did Dr. Baden. Dr. Baden said the Coroner’s ruling was the incorrect one. Brodsky says the pathologist’s original ruling was correct that it was an accident.

    Got all that????

    ABOOD: Well, at this point, it would be premature to disclose who our experts are, but we’ve consulted with a number of them.

    Excerpt – Larry King Live; Aired May 7, 2009 – 21:00 ET

    KING: Yes, with all the publicity and the like, how tough is this going to be for you?

    BRODSKY: I don’t think it’s going to be any tougher. I mean, this case has always been a circumstantial case. It’s been a weak circumstantial case. The original pathologist found that the — that it was an accidental death. And we believe it was still an accidental death. And we’re going to bring in our own pathologist to prove that.

    KING: Then it might be confusing for a jury with dueling pathologists?

    BRODSKY: Absolutely — no, I don’t believe so. I think the jury’s going to see that, in fact, this is a — always has been an accidental death and still is an accidental death.

    KING: When they exhumed the body, you were concerned, were you not?

    BRODSKY: Well, anytime that happens — could you hold on? Hello?

    KING: Yes, I’m with you.

    BRODSKY: Larry? I’m sorry. I guess anytime that happens, you have to be somewhat concerned, because you never know. I mean, we weren’t able to have our own expert present when they did the second autopsy. And because of that, things could have been done that were, you know, not proper. And we wouldn’t have a way of knowing about it.

    So when that type of thing happens, it’s always a little bit disconcerting. But we’re going to retain, and we have talked to Dr. Cyril Wecht, who is a prominent pathologist.

    KING: Yes, I know him well.

    BRODSKY: Yes. And we will — if anybody can unravel what really happened, it’s Dr. Wecht.


  18. It seems a little hokey to me that the defense was unable to do their own autopsy or have a rep there to at least monitor the one Baden did. I wonder if there was any statements by Baden to suggest the defense couldn’t attend. I’m thinking that they purposely may have not attended the autopsy for what would happen if there specialist came to the same conclusion as Dr. Baden and leaked it to the media?

  19. At the time Cyril Wecht gave his opinions to Drew Peterson’s defense, there was no murder charge, so AFAIK there’s no reason they would have been granted access. The most recent autopsy was done at the family’s request and they had no legal reason to allow anyone other than their own expert to be present.

    Besides, the defense supports the original autopsy and the findings of the coroner’s inquest done in 2004. So far everyone has agreed with the findings of the original autopsy. It’s only the inquest’s decision that is really in question…as it freakin’ well should be!

  20. Thanks Facs ! I definitely see the no reason part, but now that the findings swing against the defense and they can wine about it, then they should have allowed other experts at least. Yes I get the point that everyone sees the findings right yet its the determination of the inquest in question here.Yea there were no charges yet and even Drew was interneting for defense funds.Kind of dried up there didn’t they Baldsky. LOL

  21. I’m not sure where Brodsky comes in to the picture here, yet Didn’t DP. have some kind of other lawyer early on?

  22. He did, but I think he wanted paying whereas Broadway Joel was happy to assist on spec (you know, publicity, books, etc)

  23. The weather is miserable today (38 degrees plus rain/drizzle) but I hope those who are walking the 5k are cheered by the bright foliage of the trees and the companionship of caring people.

  24. Blimey!! That’s a name and-a-half!! ROFL

    Has Abood got his own theme song going in his head? You know, something a bit heavy on the kettle drums. Looks like the woman standing next to him can hear it, too.

    I’m sorry to hear about the lousy weather for the walk. It’s wet and windy and cold here, too. I trust it was successful in more ways than one and hope no one caught a cold. 🙂

  25. tee hee hee I guess he really has to use his middle name to distinguish himself from all those other Clinton Van Nockers.

  26. Abood Law Firm is retained on case that brings national attention
    In November of 2007, the Abood Law Firm was retained to represent Drew Peterson of Will County, Illinois. Working with co-counsel Joel Brodsky, the Abood Law Firm has been representing Drew Peterson arising out of an investigation of the death of his 3rd wife and disappearance of his 4th wife. To date, Drew Peterson has not been charged in the death or disappearance of either wife.

    While Abood Law firm seems to be spending some bucks redesigning their website, it would appear they have failed to update the portion of this article on Drew Peterson being charged in the death of Kathleen Savio.

  27. OT but thought it would be OK to put it out here (delete if not):

    Craig Stebic Arrested In Dispute With Neighbor
    Police Matter Not Related To Wife’s 2007 Disappearance

    PLAINFIELD, Ill. (Post-Tribune)

    Craig Stebic was arrested Sunday but not in connection with the disappearance of his wife Lisa, the Naperville Sun is reporting.

    “He was arrested for assault on a matter that is not related to the disappearance of his wife,” Plainfield police Cmdr. Ken Ruggles said Monday afternoon.

    The incident involving Stebic, 43, happened at 1:37 p.m. Sunday in front of his home at 13244 Red Star Drive in the southwest suburb, Ruggles said.

    “He was arrested for the charge of assault after he made a threatening statement to a neighbor,” Ruggles said, although he wouldn’t elaborate.

    The police went to the neighborhood after receiving a complaint about fireworks, Ruggles said. “Beyond that, I can’t comment on who was directly involved at this point.”

    On April 30, 2007, Lisa Stebic, 37, disappeared. The mother of two was last seen by her husband at their home. Stebic told police she simply walked away, her purse and cell phone in hand.

    The couple had a longtime marriage but were divorcing. Stebic didn’t report her missing, but a neighbor notified authorities the next day.

    Plainfield police began searching for Lisa, and family, friends, neighbors, complete strangers and the FBI soon joined them. More than two years later, she hasn’t been found.

    In July 2007, Plainfield police dubbed Stebic a person of interest in the case, but he hasn’t been charged.

    Joliet attorney George Lenard, who still represents Stebic, had little to say Monday about his client’s arrest on assault charges.

    “It is my understanding that his neighbor started some type of dispute and the police were called,” Lenard said. “I won’t know more until I find out if a police report was prepared regarding the incident.”

Comments are closed.