Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio’s voices to be heard

Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson

The Drew Peterson case: 2 wives to have major roles in pretrial hearing into drowning
By Steve Schmadeke
Tribune reporter

January 17, 2010

Former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson is charged with drowning estranged wife Kathleen Savio, but much of the information likely to be presented at a unique pretrial hearing that starts Tuesday will involve the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

For Stacy’s family, the hearing will provide their first detailed look at what was uncovered during the massive investigation launched after she vanished in 2007. Her disappearance and the exhumation afterward of Savio’s body and reclassification of her death as a homicide helped turn the case into national tabloid fodder.

Stacy’s family immediately feared the worst. She had talked of divorcing Peterson, and on the Saturday night before she disappeared, her sister Cassandra Cales said, Stacy leaned over the kitchen table in the Peterson home and whispered: “If I go missing, come find me.”

Kathleen Savio’s family also is hoping for more answers. After her sister drowned in 2004 while going through a bitter custody battle with Peterson, Sue Doman placed a note in her coffin asking her to tell her how she’d died, Doman told the Tribune last year.

When the body was later exhumed, Doman added a flower and a new note that read: “I’d been waiting four years and you still haven’t told me — so please tell me what happened to you,” she said.

For prosecutors and defense attorneys, the hearing that starts Tuesday and is expected to last a month will be a high-stakes marathon.

Prosecutors must prove by a “preponderance of evidence” that Peterson made Stacy or Kathleen “unavailable” to testify against him. If they succeed, Judge Stephen White has the option, under a new state law championed by State’s Attorney James Glasgow, of allowing certain statements to be heard at a jury trial.

One of the linchpins of the government’s case may be hearsay statements that Stacy and Kathleen allegedly made to others.

“Drew Peterson has told me he’s going to kill me and make it look like an accident,” is how Glasgow in court described the statement Savio allegedly made to “trusted friends and relatives.”

Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky last week said the hearsay statements were “rumor and innuendo and gossip” from “out-and-out unreliable people.”

As part of their case to essentially prove, under a lower standard than required at trial, that Peterson killed his wife, prosecutors have subpoenaed records of “bathtub-related fatalities” from 14 Illinois counties, including Will, DuPage, Lake and Cook, for the years 2003 to 2005, according to court records.

Prosecutors will likely use them to argue that the circumstances of Savio’s death — the 1-inch gash on her head, along with bruises and cuts elsewhere — are so singular that she could only have been murdered.

Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

Brodsky agrees that the autopsy results are straightforward — but that they clearly point to an accidental drowning.

It may be a daunting task for Judge White. Prosecutors have turned over lists of hundreds of pieces of evidence in Savio’s death and Peterson’s disappearance.

There are hundreds of potential witnesses, including two former acquaintances of Peterson who wore wires and also videotaped him, Brodsky has said in court, asking that prosecutors reveal whether they were paid.

It’s not clear how or when prosecutors will address their own handling of the Savio case. Glasgow expressed frustration with his predecessor at a hearing last spring, noting that a letter Savio wrote to prosecutors alleging that Peterson sneaked into her home in 2002 and held a knife to her throat did not result in battery charges being filed.

Prosecutors have said in court that in Savio’s original autopsy, the pathologist was not asked to rule on the manner of death. A coroner’s jury ruled it accidental.

sschmadeke@tribune.com

Read the story at the Chicago Tribune

~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

58 thoughts on “Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio’s voices to be heard

  1. Since Attorney Brodsky has been a past blogger and has said so much on tv and otherwise, I have it in my mind that, somehow, he’s going to attempt to tie Stacy into the death of Kathleen. The writer, Matt Phelps, was one of the first to reveal this idea when he and Peterson were book shopping.

    A couple of people that have been mentioned in this sordid mess with, IMO, possible information are Mary Pontarelli and Jennifer Schoon, Steve Peterson’s ex-girlfriend. Not only did Jennifer Schoon appear before the GJ, she was accompanied by a criminal attorney. Unusual?

    Personally, I think the possibilities are endless in the stand against Drew Peterson. He just seems like the kind of guy people are done hiding from.

  2. Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

    Still very curious about these…

  3. Brodsky agrees that the autopsy results are straightforward — but that they clearly point to an accidental drowning.

    “Straightforward?” So, no disputing the findings?

    Then, there it is — the gash to her head, and the bruises and abrasions to her body, did not cause her death. Water in her lungs instead of air caused her death. The fact that she drowned is not lost on the defense. Straightforward.

    Well, damn, it’s a good thing they’re not implying someone else, besides the defendant, held her head under water. Because, that would not be an accidental drowning. That would be murder.

    Maybe someone else may have been there with her, and got into a punching altercation with her, but at least they’re not accusing anyone of being the cause of her death. She “accidentally drowned” on her own power, I guess, after stumbling around, dazed, and falling into the tub. Maybe someone else left her bloodied and beaten, but at least her demise was an accident. Oh, that is, after they tidied up a bit while she laid there, dazed and breathing air, only to have that scenario reversed — sucking in water instead of air.

    But, no matter how or why, it was an accidental drowning. Straightforward.

    I hope the jury can see through the muck.

  4. Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

    I wonder if he made these statements about her manner of death in an interview or an interrogation by police. Maybe you guys can find something for it’s bugging me.

  5. I would imagine also this had to be before the first autopsy came out or unless there were things left out in it that he knew about.

  6. Whoah, found this at Lorie’s.

    Chrissy’s FB

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=sgm&id=100000489150632

    Looks like Chrissy has moved on:

    “Christina went from being “in a relationship” to “single.””

    Also:

    I am a 25 have two wonderful kids a boy and a girl. I enjoy shopping, hanging out with my friends, going to the movies and of course going out to the bars wih the girls. I enjoy spending time with my on again and off again boyfriend mike for the moment we are going strong and hopefully it will stay that way. Looking for new and interesting people to meet so if u would like to get to know me better send me a messages cause i am one of a kind and you can hold me to that.

    No mention of the Butcher of Bolingbrook, however.

    Thx, Lorie!

  7. givarat :

    Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

    I wonder if he made these statements about her manner of death in an interview or an interrogation by police. Maybe you guys can find something for it’s bugging me.

    The possibilities of him having said things only the murderer would know are endless considering his constant need to openly cast suspicion on everyone else as that way it is so easy to let something “slip” unintentionally.

    Even when he fully aware all eyes are on him he still let things slip, such as the time with an interviewer on national t.v., he told his children Stacy is “not coming back”

    Uh Oh – big slip up that was too (!!)

  8. And I agree, JAH. I think Drew it’s possible Drew has slipped up in some of his public statements and said things that may not seem important to us, but that the prosecution has noted.

  9. Hey, chaps. Nice avatar, Rescue…it was Pepe le Pew that gave rise to my love for France and all things French, LOL. Nice avatar, Facs. Aww, Pretty Kitty. What a great smile.

    I think it could be something we haven’t heard yet, like from overhears, statements, even something he said way back then. I think Martin Bashir spent a long time with him…like over 2 days. Bashir’s a good practitioner of Unconditional Positive Regard, too. (I find it hard to credit that none of you would have picked up something that was in the public domain.)

  10. facsmiley :
    All I can say is if Chrissy is done with Drew, she’s smarter than I gave her credit for…and that isn’t saying a lot.

    Dunno if Chrissy is actually done with Drew.

    It’s just that he’s not much good to her now sitting in jail with a 20 million dollar Bond on his head and she no longer has access to his house (!!)

  11. Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

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

    I remember James Glasgow mentioning in an official statement when he looked at forensic photos for the first time he could see the death scene was “staged to look like an accident”

    Of course this then gave rise to him examining everything a bit closer and would have uncovered Drews pre emptive statements and intimate knowledge about what took place that night (!!)

  12. bucketoftea :

    Hey, chaps. Nice avatar, Rescue…it was Pepe le Pew that gave rise to my love for France and all things French, LOL. Nice avatar, Facs. Aww, Pretty Kitty. What a great smile.

    I had the butcher there for a little bit and then realized I don’t want his awful face anywhere near my comments.

  13. The comment, that he knew only things the killer would know, I think he’s referring to the phone call D.P. made to Kathy’s sister, when he told her Kathy drowned in the bathtub. He used the word drowned before any investigation. Just my thought.

  14. Remember too – Drew was also the accidental/co-incidental – “first officer on the scene”.

    As such he could have slipped something unintentional in his observations to his Police Officer collegues that night.

    The possibilities of him having made a slip up somewhere in the process are endless and not just for his pathological need to seek attention and publicity in the last few years or so (!!)

  15. grandam :
    The comment, that he knew only things the killer would know, I think he’s referring to the phone call D.P. made to Kathy’s sister, when he told her Kathy drowned in the bathtub. He used the word drowned before any investigation. Just my thought.

    Yeah and especially if that miniscule tub was bone dry when Kathleen was found (!!) and you can’t sprawl out in there to drown, so how would Drew have known it was drowning (!!)

  16. And why would Kathleen be taking a bath between the hours of 2 am and 6 am in the first place.

    It seems a peculiar time to be sitting in a tub on a dark night in February (!!)

  17. Here’s a video with Mike Siuda (Chrissy’s sometime boyfriend, who Drew called the cops on. They called each other names over the phone on Q101 and were supposed to have some sort of public boxing match) from last November. I’m only going to link to it. It’s really crude.

    Mike Siuda Video

    Also some awful video about…well…not even sure. Chrissy, Drew, etc. Contains some really tasteless party footage with someone dressed as Drew (Siuda?) pretending to knife someone in the tub, and someone playing a Clue-like game about the murders. Ick.

    A tasteless video with TGIF people

  18. Heh. To think that Cassandra can’t see her own niece and nephew because Drew is the Lord Master of Proper Human Behavior, but his ex-fiancee was worthy of being Mommie Dearest why…..?

    Would Maksym be the one to answer that, the Orgasm expert, or would that be Budenz, the addiction/alien/spaceship expert?

  19. Based on Chrissy’s FB updates it would hard to understand how even Drew would put his little children under her care. Maybe someone can tell her that Vicodin is not normally prescribed as a sleep aid.

  20. Well, let’s just hope that whoever the defense subpoenas to testify for or on behalf of Drew Peterson can speak in complete sentences. Because, we’re all about getting to the truth, and I’m sure this group has mounds of information to pass along to Judge White this month.

    Yes, someone might want to tell her that Vicodin and counting sheep don’t exactly go together.

  21. I think that bunch of immature people (Christina etc) are going to be Drews undoing more than anything else, especially if Christina is “going to tell the truth” as Gloria Allred claims she is going to do !!

  22. Drew Peterson pre-trial hearing will examine hearsay evidence
    By Christy Gutowski Legal Affairs Writer

    In the months before Kathleen Savio’s mysterious drowning death, relatives say, the Bolingbrook woman grew “terrified” that her estranged husband would harm her.

    Her fears also were captured in writing, such as in a 2002 letter to a prosecutor in which Savio said Drew Peterson “knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”

    Such hearsay evidence, which, in effect, allows Savio’s words to be heard from beyond the grave are the subject of a landmark court hearing opening Tuesday in Will County

    Peterson, 56, is charged with murdering his third wife, whose body was found in a dry bathtub on March 1, 2004, in the midst of their bitter divorce.

    Authorities initially ruled the 40-year-old woman’s death accidental but, after Peterson was named a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, last seen in October 2007, Savio’s body was exhumed. Her death was ruled a homicide after a second autopsy.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, has not been charged in Stacy’s disappearance, but he was arrested May 7, 2009, in the Savio investigation.

    His trial won’t begin until later this year, but media members from across the country are expected to converge on the Joliet courthouse for a hearing that may take three weeks with up to 60 witnesses.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow will lay out much of the prosecution’s case against Peterson during the hearing, which is required under a recent state law written in part to respond to the ex-cop’s high-profile case.

    The law requires a judge to hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether so-called hearsay evidence – testimony or documents that quote someone secondhand who is not in court – is admissible in murder trials.

    Prosecutors must prove whether a “preponderance of evidence” shows those statements are reliable and that the defendant’s wrongdoing made the witness unavailable to testify. If not, the evidence cannot be presented to a jury at trial.

    Glasgow has not publicly released the lengthy witness list, but he showed much of his hand during a May court hearing when the defense unsuccessfully challenged the law’s constitutionality.

    Prosecutors said Peterson killed Savio because he faced financial devastation from their divorce as he tried to begin a new life with his fourth wife, Stacy, 23, – with whom he had an extramarital affair while he still was married to Savio. Peterson even offered a man $25,000 to kill Savio months before her death, prosecutors said.

    “My life would be easier if she were just dead,” Glasgow quoted Peterson as telling a fellow police officer he saw at the courthouse before Savio’s death.

    Both state witnesses likely will testify at the hearsay hearing, along with relatives who have said Savio feared Peterson. She repeated those fears in court records.

    “She told me that she would never live for the settlement,” sister Anna Doman said, “that Drew was going to kill her and that if anything did happen, to please take care of the children. She said, ‘You know, Drew’s lethal.’ She was terrified of him.”

    Peterson would have had to pay as much as $200,000 in a lump sum to Savio and likely would have lost the couple’s Bolingbrook home, Glasgow said. He said her death led Peterson to receive about $25,000 annually in Social Security payments for their two young sons, who as beneficiaries of their mother’s life-insurance policy stand to receive $500,000 each.

    In addition, evidence in the Stacy Peterson investigation is expected to be presented in the hearing. The Rev. Neil Schori told police Stacy Peterson confided in him before she vanished that her husband admitted killing Savio. He, too, may take the witness stand.

    The defense team, led by attorney Joel Brodsky, unsuccessfully fought to have the hearsay hearing in a closed courtroom to control media coverage that it argues will taint the jury pool with “rumor, innuendo and gossip” and “erodes the presumption of innocence” by asking a judge to decide before the trial even starts that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.

    Drew Peterson will not testify.

    “You’re going to see a lot of the state’s case, which we’ll attack, but not ours to a great extent,” Brodsky said. “We don’t want to show them our hand. This is not a mini-trial. This is really the state exposing their case and letting us cross-examine their witnesses.”

    Will County Circuit Judge Stephen White ruled this month that public access to court proceedings is paramount. The judge took earlier steps to protect the jury pool. In August, White warned some 240 potential panelists to avoid Peterson media coverage. He said a follow-up letter also would be sent before the hearing starts to remind them of his edict.

    This is the second time a hearsay reliability hearing is being held under the law. In DuPage County, prosecutors successfully invoked the law in the Oct. 9, 2004, fatal shooting of a 17-year-old Warrenville girl who was killed shortly after accusing an acquaintance of battery. The man, Joshua Matthews, 24, goes on trial later this year in Wheaton.

    Peterson is being held on a $20 million bond in the Will County jail. He maintains his innocence.

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=351508

  23. GRETA: What do you know about that, how did you hear about your sister being dead in the bathtub.

    ANNA: Drew called me about one in the morning.

    GRETA: Saying what?

    ANNA: He said Anna you up and I said yeah and he said I got really bad news. He said anybody home and I said yeah my boyfriends home and he said Kitty’s dead.

    GRETA: And did you say what happened?

    ANNA: I dropped the phone. I was so upset and then I picked it up and I was crying and he said she drowned in the bathtub. I had no idea what happened. I called my other siblings and got in a car and went over
    http://www.acandyrose.com/kathleen_savio_103107doman_greta.htm

  24. “You’re going to see a lot of the state’s case, which we’ll attack, but not ours to a great extent,” Brodsky said. “We don’t want to show them our hand. This is not a mini-trial. This is really the state exposing their case and letting us cross-examine their witnesses.”

    No, this is about the judge ruling on what can and can’t be heard.

    Attack all you want Joel, there will be no jury there to hear it — only the state which will then know exactly what tactic you are going to use at trial should the testimony be allowed.

    Plus, with every “attack” and every question you put to a witness, you are showing your hand.

    P.S. Nice attempt to intimidate the witnesses. 😉

  25. “You’re going to see a lot of the state’s case, which we’ll attack, but not ours to a great extent,” Brodsky said. “We don’t want to show them our hand. This is not a mini-trial. This is really the state exposing their case and letting us cross-examine their witnesses.”

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

    LOL, LOL @ “We don’t want to show them our hand”

    Joel has shown their hand @ every opportunity, sometimes before anyone even asks !!

  26. The best one can hope for is that the Defense Team can keep their defense strategy relevant to the case (!!)

  27. I thought when the hearsay issue was originally addressed, Joel said the defense would be introducing their own hearsay evidence. What happened to that plan?

  28. Did Joel actually have statements from witnesses that were murdered/went missing/made unavailable because they were going to testify Drew is innocent ??

  29. I suppose all of Joels defense witnesses are still alive then because he didn’t notify Prosecutors to introduce any hearsay evidence of his own.

  30. Are we ever going to find out how many pages of evidence Joel has submitted to the Prosecution or is that one of his better kept secrets ??

  31. Oh, Brodsky, just make up my mind for me!!!!!!

    At the January hearing, which Brodsky called a “mini-trial,” Judge Stephen White will determine whether the hearsay evidence is reliable enough to be allowed at the regular trial.

    “We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses,” said Brodsky, who claimed that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1854767,4_1_JO30_PETERSON_S1-091030.article

    “You’re going to see a lot of the state’s case, which we’ll attack, but not ours to a great extent,” Brodsky said. “We don’t want to show them our hand. This is not a mini-trial. This is really the state exposing their case and letting us cross-examine their witnesses.”

    (linked above)

  32. Damn, if the defense didn’t even use the term “mini trial” freely in:

    “DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE RESPONSES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE WILL COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL”

    (http://www.drewpetersondocuments.com/pdfs/ReplyToStatesAttorneysResponsev4%20_1_%20Final%20.pdf)

    Imagine the waste of valuable time and effort, and the prejudicial effect on any potential jury pool, if we have, as the State seems to suggest we should, a two week long mini-trial on the admissibility of the proffered hearsay statements first, and only then deal with the constitutional issues. What a waste of effort and time and risk of prejudice to the Defendant’s right to a fair trial if we find out then, after the mini trial, that 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 is indeed unconstitutional.

    😉

  33. Peterson hearsay hearing starts Tuesday

    January 18, 2010
    By Joe Hosey

    JOLIET — The police can’t find Stacy Peterson, but dead or alive, the young mother’s words may come back to haunt her allegedly murderous husband.

    Starting Tuesday, former Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson will get to hear what his wife supposedly told numerous men and women in the days leading up to her October 2007 disappearance.

    But Peterson faces no criminal charges in connection with whatever befell his missing fourth wife. He is up on a murder charge only in connection with the March 2004 apparent bathtub drowning of wife No. 3, Kathleen Savio.

    Still, during this week’s historic hearsay hearing, prosecutors are expected to prove Peterson killed Stacy in order to make her unavailable to testify, opening the door for others to recount what Peterson supposedly told Stacy about Savio’s death.

    At the pretrial hearing prosecutors can pull in witnesses to repeat statements Stacy made to them due to hearsay legislation passed in late 2008. The law mandates a hearing to determine the merit and relevance of the hearsay evidence.

    At the conclusion of this court proceeding, Judge Stephen White will rule not only whether Peterson made Stacy unavailable to testify, but if the statements she allegedly made to others about her husband’s involvement in Savio’s death should be admitted at his murder trial.

    The state’s attorney’s office has about 60 witnesses on tap to testify at the hearing, which might last longer than a month. Among these witnesses are a man Peterson allegedly tried to hire to murder Savio. Another potential star witness is Peterson’s stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, who claims he was asked by Peterson to kill Stacy, and later helped carry her body out of the family home in a blue barrel.

    Savio will also get her day in court, although it is coming nearly six years after she was found drowned in her dry bathtub. Her statements likely will come via family members who have repeatedly said Savio claimed to fear for her life, and that if anything untoward happened to her, it would be at the hands of Peterson.

    A November 2002 letter Savio sent to former Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale is also expected to be entered as evidence. In the letter, Savio wrote that Peterson “knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, George Lenard, requested that White shut the public out of this week’s hearsay hearing. Lenard’s motion made the case that media coverage of the hearsay proceeding would poison the jury pool.

    White shot down the motion and kept the hearing open to the press and public.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/plainfieldsun/news/1997009,Peterson-hearsay-hearing-JO011810.article

  34. Sorry to say, regarding tomorrow’s start of the hearings, there’s not going to be any electronics allowed in the courtroom, including cell phones.

    Hopefully, maybe we’ll get updates when there’s breaks in the proceedings. We’ll be sure to follow whatever does get reported.

  35. Analysis: Breaking Down Peterson’s Public Hearing

    Updated: Monday, 18 Jan 2010, 2:54 PM CST
    Published : Friday, 08 Jan 2010, 9:06 PM CST

    By Larry Yellen, FOX Chicago News

    Chicago – Drew Peterson’s attorney argued in court [sic]Firday that the impartiality of potential jurors may be compromised if a if a hearing, which starts Jan. 19, is open to the news media.

    The hearing, which could last several weeks, will determine if hearsay statements from Peterson’s alleged victim, Kathleen Savio, can be admitted into evidence at trial. The evidence consists largely of Savio’s notes and remarks to friends and family.

    Will County Judge Stephen White decided that the hearing should be open to the media, although he will closely examine some of the hearsay statements before deciding whether to [sic]publicizing them.

    This isn’t surprising. There’s much legal precedent for making sure that hearings and trials in criminal and civil cases are open to the public. Judges routinely have pretrial hearings involving the possible suppression of evidence at trial, including confessions, even though publicizing confessions might taint potential jurors. Past cases suggests that such hearings can be closed only as a last resort when no alternatives would remedy the problem.

    In Peterson’s case, the hearsay hearing will be held months before the trial, so the passage of time may dilute it’s impact on potential jurors. Also, a thorough questioning of potential jurors is another remedy. The judge needs to be certain that he can find a dozen impartial jurors, who come to the trial with an open mind regarding Peterson’s guilt or innocence. He apparently believes this will be possible, even after a widely-publicized hearsay hearing.

  36. Sensational trials predate Drew Peterson
    Leopold and Loeb among famous trial in Will County

    By Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporter

    January 20, 2010

    Will County’s legal and law enforcement community has gone to great lengths to ready itself for the start of the Drew Peterson hearing this week, expected to be the most publicized hearing in county history.

    Peterson, charged in the drowning death of his third wife and the sole suspect in the disappearance of his fourth, has long been fodder for cable TV and tabloid magazines. He appeared on numerous national TV news programs before his arrest and, before a judge clamped down, he did jailhouse phone interviews on TV and radio.

    Bloggers chronicle each twist and turn. Television trucks are expected to compete for space along Jefferson Street outside the courthouse.

    While the coverage may be unprecedented, Joliet, a river town as old as Chicago, has seen more sensational and bizarre cases over the last 150 years. Here are a few:

    Continued

  37. Now that it’s coming down to the wire, the one who gets the dufus award of the decade is Peterson’s lawyer. Watching the ex-cop weirdo on TV one morning, he decides it’s his call to save the ruthless media hound by joining him in his quest for fame. The lights, cameras, the action, the chicken wings, Mancow, Dahl.

    Instead of acting like a lawyer representing a man against serious charges, he acts like a lunatic who can’t keep his puss away from a camera to save his soul, anymore than his client keeping his mouth away from a microphone. What is it being reported – his fee arrangement was to get paid by money generated by publicity?

    They deserve each other. A guy who is sitting in jail on a $20,000,000.00 bond, and a lawyer who hasn’t won one single motion yet. He did play a few card games with him while he was cooling his jets in jail, though.

Comments are closed.