Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 15: Would-be hitman, accountant, and Peterson’s second wife testify

Dozens More Witnesses Set to Testify at Drew Hearing
Defense will call 20 witnesses later this week

The parade of witnesses who have been telling a Joliet judge about Drew Peterson’s murderous intentions keeps on coming.

Attorneys say more than two dozen witnesses are yet to be called in the hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed when Drew Peterson stands trial in the 2004 slaying of his third wife Kathleen Savio.

Add that to the nearly 60 witnesses who have been called already and the Joliet court is in store for a gore overload.

A spokesman for the Will County States attorney said the tales should be done by Wednesday.

The Drama of Drew

Defense attorneys say they expect to call 20 witnesses of their own, meaning the hearing is expected to go into next week.

Read the story at NBC Chicago

As usual, updates will be posted in the comments section throughout the day.

~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

188 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 15: Would-be hitman, accountant, and Peterson’s second wife testify

  1. Six more witnesses to testify on behalf of the State today and into tomorrow, but it’s hard to imagine who will be testifying on behalf of Peterson. Like a novel where you can’t wait to turn the page, heh?

  2. craig_wall

    prosecution wraps today. financial experts expected to
    testify about what Drew stood to gain in his divorce if Kathleen Savio was dead

    2 minutes ago from API

  3. Hosey’s comment in last night’s article says White told Stacy she’d be arrested if she admitted she knew Drew killed Kathy. That lines up with what Drew had held over her head for those years. In the beginning, I’m sure she was so enamored of him that she really never thought he could “murder” anyone and she fell for his lame excuses. As she started to see his temper more clearly, she began to come to terms with the possibility that maybe he killed Kathy. By the time she became convinced that he did it, she realized she could have been held as an accessory after the fact — especially since she testified that he had been with her that night. In her mind, she was trapped. THAT, in my mind, clears up the “why” behind her never telling Cass or anyone else about the murder. The pastor was “safe” because she probably believed he couldn’t disclose something she said to him.

    Has the pastor testified yet?

  4. rescueapet :Six more witnesses to testify on behalf of the State today and into tomorrow, but it’s hard to imagine who will be testifying on behalf of Peterson. Like a novel where you can’t wait to turn the page, heh?

    Yes, it is Rescue. And don’t you just know that ALL of the defense witnesses will be telling the absolute truth, unlike the witnesses for the prosecution, or the victims, according to Brodsky? Should definitely be interesting, to say the least.

  5. Yes, cfs. It will be great relief to all of us to listen to the testimonies of 20 HONEST people telling the truth and the only thruth . LOL

  6. altgranny: The pastor, Neil Schori, testified on January 26. You might enjoy going back to those posts and reading about it.

    Personally, I’ve always thought that Stacy knew Drew killed Kathleen the night he did it, when she found him dressed in black, stuffing women’s clothing (and his own) in the washer in the middle of the night. Not to mention that he grilled her for hours on what to tell police about where he was so she would be prepared to lie and give him an alibi when they questioned her. What Drew obviously held over her head was that she would go down with him as an accessory if she told anybody, after she lied to give him an alibi. That probably carried over into her conversation with Harry Smith (not White) because she may have been afraid that he would go to police if she admitted she knew Drew killed Kathleen, rather than just saying Drew was “pissed” at her because he thought she told Tom. After all, Smith was Kathleen’s attorney first, and he even told Stacy at some point that representing her would be a conflict of interest. As Rescue stated yesterday, Stacy was influenced and nurtured by an evil, deviant husband for six years of her young life, so what might be considered shocking for some, was much less so for her.

  7. The further this case goes, the more convoluted it gets. I’m beginning to think now that Harry Smith may have figured out that Stacy did know Drew killed Kathleen, and therefore he absolutely could not/would not represent her. Was also thinking that he (Smith) said in his Roe Conn interview that he had talked with Stacy on the phone a couple of times, but then told her to just make an appointment to come in and talk with him the next week….maybe so he could get more information about things?? Speculation, I know. Sorry. Will look again to see if I can find the interview or the transcript. ACR has it, doesn’t she? I bet Harry Smith really got the heebies jeebies when Stacy disappeared, after going dealing with the death of Kathleen. He probably wondered if Drew would be coming after him too because he knew too much, although Drew supposedly wasn’t aware that Stacy had talked to him until later was he? Yeah right.

  8. I guess that Stacy was less afraid of Drew at the time of Kathleen’s death than about her own future and reputation. Staying alone with (at least) two kids and a fame of a killer’s wife could make her scared enough to cover for Drew. Some people said she was always accompanying Drew during divorce settlements at the court. Additionally, she loved him very much then and stood on his side. I do not hink she knew how the things were between Kathleen and Drew. Probably she also thought Kathleen was a hellcat standing on their way to happiness.

  9. I don’t want to sound harsh or anything, but why is everyone so stuck on the fact that Stacy asked this attorney whether or not she could squeeze the lying skunk for money? Is this supposed to be his saving grace? Makes it look like he had, in his lunatic mind, a damn good reason for wanting to kill her. See, the thing is, the defense can’t play this up, because it’s “hearsay.” They can’t make this statement by Stacy a big deal, IMO, because it’s favorable to them and they like it, but ask the Judge to throw out the other statements, like “Drew is going to kill me and make it look like an accident.” Nope, can’t pick and chose.

    Motive is a power tool to get a conviction. I don’t believe yesterday was a good day for the defense, anymore than the other days. It wasn’t a good day for the memory of Stacy, but, nonetheless, it plays out that he was enraged at her for yet another reason. Reason enough to want to kill her.

    Doesn’t it stand to reason that if Judge White disallows hearsay statements, this goes right along with it? Jusy sayin…..

    So, with all due respect, it’s time to move on.

  10. Cyrhla, I think since Stacy knew Drew killed Kathleen, that surely he wouldn’t be foolish/stupid enough to kill her too, because it would definitely be too suspicious. Little did she know…..

  11. I was married to an abusive man for almost 20 years. I can unequivocally say that many times things don’t neatly fit, but your willlingness to believe your spouse prevents you from even THINKING that they’re not being honest with you. Later, IF the rose-colored glasses come off, things begin to nag at you and you begin to put pieces of puzzles together. I can remember standing in absolute terror as I suddenly put things together for the first time — YEARS after an event. There were many things that only became clear once I was away from him and no longer living in fear of his retribution. In hindsight, I can’t believe that I believed him for so many years.

    So, it is very believable to me that Stacy just accepted Drew’s explanation for the night he came in dressed in black with ladies’ clothes. He’s a weasel and I’m sure he had a convincing argument lined up, saying something like Kathy calling him over there, threatening to commit suicide and he stumbled upon her lifeless body and needed Stacy’s help or he’d be blamed. YadaYadaYada. Drew has always put himself up as the victim and many fall for it every time. I can easily see him telling Stacy that he was the victim in this situation and needed her to cover for him or he’d never see her or his kids again.

    JMHO!

  12. Rescue, sadly, this ENTIRE case revolves around money, and the pursuit of it by those involved, even the deceased, but especially by Drew.

  13. cfs7360 :And it’s also been reported by Neil Schori that Drew confessed to Stacy that he killed Kathleen that night.

    Gosh, I hate getting old! How could I forget something like THAT?

  14. cfs7360 :

    Rescue, sadly, this ENTIRE case revolves around money, and the pursuit of it by those involved, the deceased, but especially by Drew.

    Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do not live my life, nor ever have, in a fashion that is similar to the way any of the people in this Peterson saga have conducted themselves.

    However, a law enforcement officer who found acceptable dragging his wife by her hair because she was drunk and he didn’t approve of it, or broke into her home without permission, doesn’t sound like a guy that should have been in any authority or should have had the right to deal with life and death situations while a police officer. This is the kind of guy who should have been a candidate for a psych evaluation, or a criminal evaluation, whichever fits.

    Another thing — this dude had control over a woman from the age of 17. So, if her ways and actions didn’t sit well with him, he had years in which to mend her ways, didn’t he? Instead, he was refining her to believe the world revolved around him and the way he thought it should run. So, before anyone makes any judgments about Stacy, it still, as it always does, goes back to the big guy calling the shots. He was no lightweight flunky. If he couldn’t control Stacy, then it was all the more reason for him to move on to his next victim.

  15. Rescue, if you think about my post #9, I want to make clear that I wanted to justify Stacy, not to blame her.
    Whatever she did what we cannot accept, she did not kill anyone nor she wanted to, and Kathleen was probably the only person she hurt in some way because Drew made a brainwashing to her. At her age (and even later…) I was much more naive than she was and I can only thank God that I did not meet wrong people on my way. I have never been in Stacy’s shoes so I am not going to say what she should or shouldn’t have done.

  16. rescueapet :

    cfs7360 :
    Rescue, sadly, this ENTIRE case revolves around money, and the pursuit of it by those involved, the deceased, but especially by Drew.

    Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do not live my life, nor ever have, in a fashion that is similar to the way any of the people in this Peterson saga have conducted themselves.
    However, a law enforcement officer who found acceptable dragging his wife by her hair because she was drunk and he didn’t approve of it, or broke into her home without permission, doesn’t sound like a guy that should have been in any authority or should have had the right to deal with life and death situations while a police officer. This is the kind of guy who should have been a candidate for a psych evaluation, or a criminal evaluation, whichever fits.
    Another thing — this dude had control over a woman from the age of 17. So, if her ways and actions didn’t sit well with him, he had years in which to mend her ways, didn’t he? Instead, he was refining her to believe the world revolved around him and the way he thought it should run. So, before anyone makes any judgments about Stacy, it still, as it always does, goes back to the big guy calling the shots. He was no lightweight flunky. If he couldn’t control Stacy, then it was all the more reason for him to move on to his next victim.

    No doubt, he’s the skunk of all skunks, and his influence was spread far and wide.

  17. Heh, I liken this Peterson world to that of politicians and their spouses. Or, I guess, it can even be referred to as the Petersonanos. Liars, cheaters, hitmen, bullets flying.

    Nothing says I love you like a Glock. Where did I hear that???? 😉

  18. rescueapet :
    Nothing says I love you like a Glock. Where did I hear that????

    Didn’t Peterson give Stacy a Glock for Valentine’s Day one year? That’s when he supposedly said that phrase, I believe.

  19. joehosey
    A man who worked at the same Downers Grove cable company as Drew Peterson said a mutual friend approached him and said Peterson
    4 minutes ago from txt

    Wanted him to kill his third wife, Kathleen Savio. William Green said the go-between for the deal was Jeffrey Pachter. Pachter,

    Another cable company worker, has previously testified that Peterson offered him $25,000 to hire someone to kill Savio. Also Tuesday

    Prosecutors are trying to elicit testimony from accountant Howard Ellison about how much Savio stood to gain by surviving her

    Divorce from Peterson.

    http://twitter.com/joehosey

  20. atlgranny :

    rescueapet :
    Nothing says I love you like a Glock. Where did I hear that????

    Didn’t Peterson give Stacy a Glock for Valentine’s Day one year? That’s when he supposedly said that phrase, I believe.

    Sorry, I was being facetious. I know the circumstances of the gift/comment.

  21. Look, some of us all basically just passing the time on here until we get news from the hearing, which is actually why I really got interested in posting again. However, after listening to the reports of the testimony, and breaking it down into why’s and wherefore’s, it all comes back to money and greed, mainly Drew’s. Rescue, you are so right…there are no saints involved in this saga, but then again, Drew probably doesn’t know any saints. He cheated on, and lied to, every wife or girlfriend he ever had. Even all the ones he married, he had cheated on with the previous wife, so really, what could any of them expect from him? All I can say is, Vicky Connolley is very fortunate that she didn’t bear any of his children.

    Poor Kathleen wouldn’t file the proper charges to get and keep a restraining order (not that it would have done any good anyway) because he would lose his job and/or his pension, which would affect the amount of her divorce settlement. Money! Drew killed her because she was going to get half of the assets, pensions, etc. Money! Stacy wanted to leave and get money in a divorce too, as well as reveal that Drew killed Kathleen over money. More Money! He’s a greedy POS, and placed money over the value of the lives of his own children’s mother, but money won’t buy them another mother….just another barfly wanna be mommy who’s really only after Drew’s money that he killed to get in the first place. Horrendously, disgustingly sad.

  22. Rescue – You certainly hit a nail on the head with your comment about how the defense won’t be able to pick and chose what hearsay is allowed and what isn’t. I wonder if they will feel that they would fare better letting the hearsay in or not. It seems that they could believe that some of the things Stacy said to some people could help his case. I think some are a wash because they may cast a shadow on Stacy’s image but they also increase his potential motives for harming her so she couldn’t testify against him for Kathleen’s death IMO.

    Once again – I repeat – there are no authors out there that could come up with so many twists and interesting characters as this case has had.

  23. Cyrhla, I think since Stacy knew Drew killed Kathleen, that surely he wouldn’t be foolish/stupid enough to kill her too, because it would definitely be too suspicious. Little did she know…..

    ~~~
    and thats why he came up with the story that Stacy took 25K, her bikina and ran off with another man, justifying his explanation by calling her a flirt on national TV and claiming she required constant male attention.
    He never expected the tsunami of national media coverage…..

  24. Didn’t Pachter testify that he never took Drew’s offer seriously and never acted on it? Now comes William Green saying that he was approached by Pachter about killing Kathleen?

    It’s getting thick now…

  25. facsmiley :Didn’t Pachter testify that he never took Drew’s offer seriously and never acted on it? Now comes William Green saying that he was approached by Pachter about killing Kathleen?
    It’s getting thick now…

    I thought the same thing Facs, but then we don’t get to hear all of the testimony…only the snippets the press thinks are worthy of sharing.

  26. cfs:
    Was also thinking that he (Smith) said in his Roe Conn interview that he had talked with Stacy on the phone a couple of times, but then told her to just make an appointment to come in and talk with him the next week….maybe so he could get more information about things?? Speculation, I know. Sorry. Will look again to see if I can find the interview or the transcript. ACR has it, doesn’t she? I bet Harry Smith really got the heebies jeebies when Stacy disappeared, after going dealing with the death of Kathleen. He probably wondered if Drew would be coming after him too because he knew too much, although Drew supposedly wasn’t aware that Stacy had talked to him until later was he? Yeah right.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    this doesn’t set well with me, either. If Smith said he could not represent her, why then did he continue a dialog and instruct her to make an appt. and come in?
    Sounds as though Smith had one foot in the door because he was looking for information.

  27. With the characters that Peterson surrounded himself with, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that he may have asked more than one person to erase Kathleen. I still don’t think the loose ends are tied-up with why Rock had to appear before the GJ, which, of course, may not come out until the actual trial, or if there is even someone else that was solicited for murder.

    Nonethless, Fac’s point about Pachter is well taken. He testified that he didn’t take it seriously. Yet, it was serious enough that Peterson called him at some point afterwards and told him the problem was taken care of, which doesn’t sound like something one would do if he was joking, and now Green says he knew about this solicitation. Yikes.

  28. Ex-Peterson co-worker says he was asked to kill Savio
    February 9, 2010 11:31 AM

    A former co-worker of Drew Peterson testified today he had been approached by an intermediary with an offer to kill Kathleen Savio.

    William Green said that cable contractor co-worker Jeff Pachter told him in July 2003 that “Drew would like me to ask you if you would kill his wife.”

    He said Pachter told him that Peterson said he wanted it to look like an accident and that Peterson wanted to be out of town when it happened.
    Green said he didn’t take the offer seriously.

    Peterson moonlighted at the cable firm at the same time he was employed by the Bolingbrook Police Department.

    Earlier, Pachter testified that Peterson offered $25,000 to help find a hit man to kill Savio. Pachter said he regarded it as a joke. He said he never followed through.

    Green said today he didn’t remember how much he had been offered. He also suggested he had been approached because of the Heavy Metal T-shirts he wore.

    Today marked the 15th day of an evidentiary hearing being held in a Will County courtroom to decide which, if any, of 15 hearsay statements prosecutors may introduce as evidence at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial for Savio’s slaying. When Savio’s body was found in an empty bathtub in March 2004, her death was originally ruled accidental. But after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in October 2007, authorities reexamined Savio’s death and ruled it a homicide.

    Green testified that he didn’t even know that Savio had died until he read news coverage following Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    At that point, he said, he called Lombard police and told them about the offer to kill Savio.

    –Steve Schmadeke

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0129-drew-peterson-hearing-20100128,0,3928727.story

  29. Earlier, Pachter testified that Peterson offered $25,000 to help find a hit man to kill Savio. Pachter said he regarded it as a joke. He said he never followed through.

    A joke? So, Peterson was worried that Pachter might go into his ex-wife’s home and kill her, enough to call him back and tell him to disregard his request? Because that’s what Pachter testified to earlier.

  30. cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :Didn’t Pachter testify that he never took Drew’s offer seriously and never acted on it? Now comes William Green saying that he was approached by Pachter about killing Kathleen?
    It’s getting thick now…

    I thought the same thing Facs, but then we don’t get to hear all of the testimony…only the snippets the press thinks are worthy of sharing.

    I don’t need to see all the testimony to know what was said. Pachter said those things and now Green is saying this.

  31. Ah, Facs clarified something. Pachter called Peterson to inquire about his family, and, in the course of the convo, was told by Peterson that he didn’t need that “favor” anymore.

    Still, he called off the dogs.

  32. Cable worker tells of Drew’s murder deal

    February 9, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET – A man who worked at the same Downers Grove cable company as Drew Peterson said a mutual friend approached him and said Peterson wanted him to kill his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    William Green said the go-between for the deal was Jeffrey Pachter. Pachter, another cable company worker, has previously testified that Peterson offered him $25,000 to hire someone to kill Savio.

    Also Tuesday prosecutors are trying to elicit testimony from accountant, Howard Ellison, about how much Savio stood to gain by surviving her divorce from Peterson.

    Green was testifying on the 15h day of the pivotal hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will allowed at Peterson’s upcoming murder trial.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is accused of drowning Savio. State police ruled she died accidently when she slipped and fell in her bathtub in March 2004. They stuck with this story until the next wife, Stacy, vanished three and a half years later.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2037781,Peterson-hearsay-cableworker-JO020910.article

  33. When Patcher shared the story for the first time he said that soon after Drew offered him 25K for killing Kathleen, he shared the story with a friend, and when Kathleen was killed he did not inform the police but his friend did.

  34. Right Cyrhla. I remember that as well. The friend went to police and then for some reason last summer Pachter’s estranged wife went public with it to Fox News.

    Pachter’s wife, whom Jeffrey is now divorcing, said he never mentioned it at the time.

    But late last year when Pachter tried to reconcile with his family, he told her all about it.

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

    “Jeff Pachter said Peterson told him during a ride in Peterson’s squad car in the winter of 2003 that he’d pay Pachter $25,000 and he didn’t care how Pachter divided the money. Pachter said that while Peterson never used the words kill or murdered, “I thought it was to have her murdered.”

    Pachter said he didn’t take Peterson’s offer seriously, saying he simply responded, “OK,” but did nothing about it.

    …Pachter said Peterson explained to him that he asked Pachter partly because Pachter works in a dangerous section of Joliet. Pachter said he understood that to mean Peterson believed he would be able to find a drug dealer or gang member to carry out the job.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35130562/ns/us_news/

  35. facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :

    facsmiley :Didn’t Pachter testify that he never took Drew’s offer seriously and never acted on it? Now comes William Green saying that he was approached by Pachter about killing Kathleen?It’s getting thick now…

    I thought the same thing Facs, but then we don’t get to hear all of the testimony…only the snippets the press thinks are worthy of sharing.

    I don’t need to see all the testimony to know what was said. Pachter said those things and now Green is saying this.

    My point was, Pachter said he never followed through with it, but there was nothing printed about him saying that he asked anyone else to be a possible accomplice, who also didn’t follow through with it, if that makes sense. Maybe he didn’t say anything about it, and Green’s testimony is the first revelation, but it looks like the prosection would have have told Pachter, “look, we know you talked to Green and he told us what you said” so there wouldn’t have been conflicting testimonies. That’s why I said the press may not have included everything everyone said, as it usually doesn’t, but I understand your point.

  36. CFS – Pachter was not approached by Drew to kill Kathleen himself. He has testified that he was approached by Drew to find someone else to kill her (Drew thought that because of the “bad area” he lived in, he would be able to find someone willing to do it). I’m just relying on what the testimony has been.

    I admit there’s lots of wiggle room for interpretation though, so I’ll try not to get excited by what looks like conflicting testimony. 🙂

  37. Green testified that he didn’t even know that Savio had died until he read news coverage following Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    At that point, he said, he called Lombard police and told them about the offer to kill Savio
    *****

    It is actually nice to hear someone actually called the police instead of going to the press and waiting for the police to contact them IMO…

  38. thinkaboutit2 :

    Green testified that he didn’t even know that Savio had died until he read news coverage following Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    At that point, he said, he called Lombard police and told them about the offer to kill Savio
    *****

    It is actually nice to hear someone actually called the police instead of going to the press and waiting for the police to contact them IMO…

    Although it’s a little disappointing to see how most people waited until someone died or went missing to contact police…and how easily they were brushed off wehn they did follow up. I think I’m more disappointed with how often the calls to the police were not returned, or they were otherwise turned away.

    Actually, I am really impressed by the testimony of so many people who said they did contact police, and/or speak out about how things were beng handled. Right down to the couple walking near Drew’s house who called the cops after seeing a suspicious individual.

  39. The interesting thing is that even if Pachter “misspoke” about taking Drew’s offer seriously, it only serves to strengthen the evidence against Drew. The defense can’t possibly use it in their client’s favor.

  40. joehosey The deputy coroner who took the Kathleen Savio death call testified that state police Crime Scene Investigator Robert Deel told him
    14 minutes ago from txt

    There was nothing “we need to be looking for here,” prompting him to abandon the suspicious death protocol. The protocol dictates
    12 minutes ago from txt

    The hands of the body be bagged, the body be placed in a fresh white sheetn a white body bag, and then a second body bag. Only
    10 minutes ago from txt

    Savio’s hands were bagged. The deputy coroner said he “didn’t quite agree” with the state police’s assessment of the case.
    8 minutes ago from txt

    http://twitter.com/joehosey

  41. Guessing this might be Mike VanOver?

    Mike VanOver, a Will County deputy coroner, was present at KS’ death investigation.
    VanOver asked ISP detectives and CSI tech Robert Deel if there was any reason to believe the death was suspicious. They said “no”. VanOver wrote in his report that he had notified his superiors that “the protocol was not being followed because it was felt at that time by all parties that there were not signs of foul play or trauma for this death investigation.”

  42. FYI – I am sickened at how many people said they did go to the police and nothing was done about it. Seems like that kind of reaction happened only when Kathleen died and you don’t hear much of that happening to the people who called after Stacy went missing.

  43. facs:facsmiley February 9, 2010 at 12:36 pm | #48 Quote Thinking of putting together a list of all the people who went to police….

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    thats a great idea.

  44. Even if Drew was joking around about stuff like that it certainly doesn’t help his defense any for the fact that her untimely death actually matched a similar manner to which he was “joking” about. Plus it adds to the motive and frame of mind that he had from the divorce and this evidence will be allowed whether or not the hearsay evidence is allowed because it is witness testimony and Drew’s defense team can confront these witnesses about what they allege Drew said directly to them.

  45. thinkaboutit2 :
    FYI – I am sickened at how many people said they did go to the police and nothing was done about it. Seems like that kind of reaction happened only when Kathleen died and you don’t hear much of that happening to the people who called after Stacy went missing.

    Neil Shori is a very important exception here. When he went to ISP after Stacy went missing, he was also ignored. He used his ‘private’ contacts to be finally heard. I am apt to think the story might have repeated if not the media.

  46. Isn’t that the whole reason Drew was so quickly called a suspect and that Kathleen’s death was re-examined? Because of all the people who went to police after Stacy disappeared?

    Here’s the experience Neil Schori had with the authorities after Stacy disappeared:

    About two months later, Schori learned Stacy disappeared. He said he made numerous attempts to contact state police to share his information with them, but they failed to return his calls.

    Schori even went to the District 5 state police headquarters, but still could not get anyone to take the time to talk to him.

    Schori happened to be on grand jury duty at the time. In the coming days, a state police sergeant was called before the grand jury as a witness. It was only then, Schori said, that he was able to get someone to listen to him.

  47. One ironic thing about the police is that after Stacy disappeared, they were asking/begging for anyone who knew anything/saw anything to come forward. How many people tried to do just that and were ignored, literally?

  48. Who to hell is the main person responsible for the decision of not running the investigation? Is there any person like that? Is that a forensic technician who decides? Deel said this is not his job so why did he have a decisive voice here? Why people like Falat were moved to other duties? One blames each other, but I think if VanOver saw or felt there was somthing wrong, why didn’t he insist on following the protocol?

  49. William Green testified Tuesday that Peterson was looking for someone to kill Kathleen Savio and make it look like an accident. Green says he quickly declined and never talked about it again — either with Peterson or his friend, Jeff Pachter.

    Previously, Pachter testified that Peterson asked him to find someone to kill Savio for $25,000. Patcher says he did talk to Green about the offer.

    Green says he contacted police after Peterson’s fourth wife disappeared in 2007 because that’s when he first heard about Savio’s death.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2037970,drew-peterson-stacy-kill-wife-020910.article

    OK, CFS. I bow to you in apology. Either we didn’t get the whole story before or someone is confused now.

    Once more, I vow to stop posting until 9pm when all the news is in and even then…can we trust it?

  50. facsmiley :

    William Green testified Tuesday that Peterson was looking for someone to kill Kathleen Savio and make it look like an accident. Green says he quickly declined and never talked about it again — either with Peterson or his friend, Jeff Pachter.
    Previously, Pachter testified that Peterson asked him to find someone to kill Savio for $25,000. Patcher says he did talk to Green about the offer.
    Green says he contacted police after Peterson’s fourth wife disappeared in 2007 because that’s when he first heard about Savio’s death.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2037970,drew-peterson-stacy-kill-wife-020910.article
    OK, CFS. I bow to you in apology. Either we didn’t get the whole story before or someone is confused now.
    Once more, I vow to stop posting until 9pm when all the news is in.

    No problem Facs.:) I had already convinced myself that I obviously didn’t understand what was going on, lol.

  51. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/ex-peterson-co-worker-says-he-was-asked-to-kill-savio.html

    Prosecutors: Peterson, Savio were fighting over $893,000
    February 9, 2010 12:52 PM | 1 Comment

    Prosecutors today presented a motive for Kathleen Savio’s slaying, presenting documents showing Drew Peterson and his third wife were fighting over marital assets worth more than $893,000 at the time of her death.

    Earlier in the day, a former co-worker of Peterson testified he had been approached by an intermediary sometime before her death with an offer to kill Kathleen Savio…

    …The amount in contention in the divorce settlement between Peterson and Savio includes nearly $324,000 in Peterson’s police pension, a portion of which Savio would have been entitled to.

    Prosecutors submitted the financial documents at the ongoing evidentiary hearing for Peterson in an attempt to show Peterson killed his third wife because he stood to lose a significant amount of money.

    Although their marriage legally ended in the fall of 2003, the couple had not settled contentious financial and child custody issues.

    In addition to sharing his pension with Savio, the law would have required Peterson to pay more than $15,000 a year in child support or about 28 percent of his police salary after taxes and other deductions, according to the financial records.

    Peterson and Savio also were battling over their Montgomery bar, “Suds,” which was valued at about $219,000 when Savio was found dead in the bathtub of her Bolingbrook home in March 2004.

    Savio also had life insurance totaling more than $1 million at the time of her death. That money was placed into trust funds for her two children with Peterson.

    Peterson also had non-marital assets worth more than $528,000 in 2004 and his projected pension at the time was estimated to be more than $97,000 annually.

    Earlier in the day, William Green testified that cable contractor co-worker Jeff Pachter told him in July 2003 that “Drew would like me to ask you if you would kill his wife.”

    He said Pachter told him that Peterson said he wanted it to look like an accident and that Peterson wanted to be out of town when it happened.

    Green said he didn’t take the offer seriously.

    Peterson moonlighted at the cable firm at the same time he was employed by the Bolingbrook Police Department.

    Earlier, Pachter testified that Peterson offered $25,000 to help find a hit man to kill Savio. Pachter said he regarded it as a joke. He said he never followed through.

    Green said today he didn’t remember how much he had been offered. He also suggested he had been approached because of the Heavy Metal T-shirts he wore.

    Green testified that he didn’t even know that Savio had died until he read news coverage following Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    At that point, he said, he called Lombard police and told them about the offer to kill Savio.

    –Steve Schmadeke

  52. Cyrhla – I do think that sometimes that is the only way to get your point out. I guess my problem was more with witnesses who have said they went to the media before even trying the right route. Bottom line though is that any time a witness goes to the media then the defense will try to discredit them saying they did it for the publicity as a standard defense. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do and this society has shown again and again that those who are able to get the media’s ear end up getting their stories out while other stories about missing loved ones never even get as much as a blip in the local paper. 😦

  53. True, TAI. We’ve heard some testimony these last weeks about media people directly approaching friends and family of the victims about arranging interviews, etc. They were told that Stacy’s name would be put in the news and that it would boost search efforts, etc. It’s hard to fault people for agreeing to talk to the media when offers are couched that way.

    In hindsight, who’s to say it wasn’t effective? The defense is going to attempt to turn it against the witnesses (especially when money was involved) but, the fact that we’re all here still talking about this case kind of proves their point.

    Now, how will jurors see it?

  54. The common thread of the ignored calls to the police seem to fall on the ISP IMO. This cable guy said he called the Lombard police. There really needs to be a review of communications of those at the ISP and the BBPD that were involved in the investigation into Kathleen’s deah. There could potentially be emails or something like that indicting people’s suspicions about Kathleen’s death or possibly people covering for Drew or each other.

  55. @Facs – Now, how will jurors see it?

    How will jurors view all of Drew’s and Joel’s antics with the media and their book writing collaboration with Armstrong?

  56. facsmiley :“Drew would like me to ask you if you would kill his wife.”
    I just almost spit out my pasta.

    I mean really…it’s almost like saying “Drew would like me to ask you if you would cut his lawn.”

  57. cfs7360 :

    @Facs – Now, how will jurors see it?

    How will jurors view all of Drew’s and Joel’s antics with the media and their book writing collaboration with Armstrong?

    I think there’s a good chance jurors will see the media deals the same way I do. After all we don’t live in a vacuum.

    The same goes for Drew and Joel’s antics. 😉

  58. Since this hearing has started, I have re-watched and reread several old interviews with both Drew and Joel, and they are going to have a very hard time with credibility in front of a judge and jury. Their stories have flip flopped so many times, they’ll never be able to pull it all together in a credible fashion. All I can say is, IMO, Brodsky’s white noise theory is going to backfire big time. No surprise there.

  59. facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :
    @Facs – Now, how will jurors see it?
    How will jurors view all of Drew’s and Joel’s antics with the media and their book writing collaboration with Armstrong?

    I think there’s a good chance jurors will see the media deals the same way I do. After all we don’t live in a vacuum.
    The same goes for Drew and Joel’s antics.

    That was my facetious answer to your question.:D

  60. Coroner disagreed with CSI team on Savio

    February 9, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
    JOLIET – The deputy coroner who took the Kathleen Savio death call testified in a Will County courtroom today that state police Crime Scene Investigator Robert Deel told him there was nothing “we need to be looking for here,” prompting him to abandon the suspicious death protocol.

    The protocol dictates the hands of the body be bagged, the body be placed in a fresh white sheet and into a white body bag, and then a second body bag.

    Only Savio’s hands were bagged. The deputy coroner said he “didn’t quite agree” with the state police’s assessment of the case.

    In earlier testimony this morning in the pre-trial hearsay evidence hearing, a man who worked at the same Downers Grove cable company as Drew Peterson said a mutual friend approached him and said Peterson wanted him to kill Savio, Peterson’s third wife, whose body was found in a dry bathtub in her home in 2004.

    William Green said the go-between for the deal was Jeffrey Pachter. Pachter, another cable company worker, has previously testified that Peterson offered him $25,000 to hire someone to kill Savio.

    Also Tuesday prosecutors are trying to elicit testimony from accountant, Howard Ellison, about how much Savio stood to gain by surviving her divorce from Peterson.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2037781,Peterson-hearsay-cableworker-JO020910.article

  61. Collins said Peterson told the state police that he and Savio had an amiable relationship at the time of her death and did not stand to profit from her dying.

    “He said basically he would gain nothing because during the divorce Kathy changed some of the paperwork,” said Collins, whose testimony will continue today.

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/yeltwtr

    ******

    Hmmm the accountant is now testifying that he stood to loose $893K. I wonder if there is an actual police statement with Drew indicating that he’d have nothing to gain from Kathleen’s death. If so that probably won’t help him along with proof that he had anything but an amicable relationship with Kathleen (ala the 18 calls to police within 2 years) prior to her death IMO.

  62. Just another case of someone supposedly taking Drew Peterson at his word and getting burned. The truth and Drew Peterson are complete strangers. (Borrowed from Judge Stan Strickland). I hope there is written documentation somewhere, and I hope they also bring up the million dollar life insurance policy that once supposedly WAS in Drew’s name, but later changed to the boys.

  63. thinkaboutit2 :The common thread of the ignored calls to the police seem to fall on the ISP IMO. This cable guy said he called the Lombard police. There really needs to be a review of communications of those at the ISP and the BBPD that were involved in the investigation into Kathleen’s deah. There could potentially be emails or something like that indicting people’s suspicions about Kathleen’s death or possibly people covering for Drew or each other.

    I’m really questioning my memory now, but wasn’t there a huge hullabaloo in the very beginning about all the sinister “connections” Drew had and how everyone was afraid of him. I think I read recently that he had his own little “mafia.” Tom Morphey was afraid of Drew and was sequestered for over a month. Wasn’t there some “thug” who had a long record that ended up turning on Drew? Drew’s early career had him in daily contact with drug dealers, right??

    I’m thinking that there was an environment that lent itself readily to many people in the local police departments as well as ISP “looking the other way” because they regularly scratched each other’s back.

    That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

  64. I’m just trying to think out loud of evidence that has come out of this hearing that can be used at the trial even if the judge bars the hearsay statements.

    If they can prove Drew lied to the police by using his own official statement at the time of Kathleen’s death versus the official court papers from the bifurcated divorce proceedings that spell out any numbers that Kathleen was seeking that Drew was aware of through those proceedings or emails from Kathleen – then that helps the prosecution’s case even if the hearsay isn’t allowed IMO.

  65. atlgranny – yes would probably be correct for most of your questions, and actually Morphey was in protective custody for several months. He said he was terrified of Drew, and rightfully so, since killing someone is apparently no big deal to him if he/she happens to get in his way of having what he wants.

  66. thinkaboutit2 :
    If they can prove Drew lied to the police by using his own official statement at the time of Kathleen’s death versus the official court papers from the bifurcated divorce proceedings that spell out any numbers that Kathleen was seeking that Drew was aware of through those proceedings or emails from Kathleen – then that helps the prosecution’s case even if the hearsay isn’t allowed IMO.

    Didn’t one of Kathleen’s sisters testify that Kathleen had hid a briefcase full of papers in the garage and that if she died to go and get them? Something tells me there was a lot more in there than just a letter to the AG. I would think detailed financial statements would be part of that package.

    And, come to think of it…..Drew’s “finding” a Will flies in the face of this testimony from Kathy’s sister. If she had put all her important papers in a safe spot, you KNOW she would have put a Will in that package — IF there was one. That Will was always very suspicious. This (to me) just proves it’s bogus.

  67. Think, if they have it recorded or documented somewhere. Who knows with this Collins guy? He might not have written very much down, but I hope he did.

  68. Bob Deel also acknowledged that he did not see any bruises on Savio’s body or even the cut to her head, saying even if he had “they were insignificant to me.”

    ——-
    I believe he ruled Kathleen’s death accidental before he got to her home. Did he look at her at all? It sounds to me as if even if she had had a knife stiching from her back, it would have been insignificant.

  69. Joel can laugh and chuckle all he wants about the hitman being a joke and “what kind of hitman is that” (meaning Jeffrey Pachter), but the fact remains “the joke” was followed up by Drew calling back AND Drew wanting to provide an alibi for himself by being out of town.

    Looks like Drew takes his jokes very seriously after all !

  70. atlgranny, I may be wrong, but I think her attorney, Harry Smith, said she didn’t have a will, but was planning make a new one. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I’ll look for the link. If we could get the entire testimony of these witnesses, we might see that he broached the subject yesterday, but I didn’t see it printed anywhere. Not saying that it wasn’t, but I didn’t see it if it was.

  71. JAH, actually Drew didn’t call him back. He (Pachter) called Drew after Stacy gave birth to Lacy, just to check on how the baby was doing. Drew told him that he no longer needed the favor. There’s been some discussion about who called whom already today. Still though, the fact remains…Drew said he no longer needed the favor, regardless of who called whom.

  72. I believe her lawyer did say he wasn’t aware of her having a will. It is possible that Drew’s uncle kept a copy of that handwritten will or Drew knew had found it some time later in a file folder he grabbed when clearing out the house after Kathleen died.

    There was an analysis of that some time back. Here are some links where the handwriting analyst said that they couldn’t make a final determination due to none of the items being originals but that it seemed that the signature on the will may have been written by Kathleen but the other one had some differences and some similarities.

    Article: http://tinyurl.com/3x7ecf

    Summary of handwriting analyst and graphics of signatures:
    http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/peterson-sig.pdf

  73. There is a whole page of documents here on the blog pertaining to the will, divorce and estate:

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/kathleen-savio-murder-case-divorce-will-and-estate/

    1. Savio Estate Appeal
    2. Kathleen Savio signature analysis by forensic document examiner
    3. Report of the administration of Kathleen Savio’s will
    4. Kathleen Savio’s power of attorney to Jeffrey Ortinau – notarized by Drew Peterson
    5. Order of Protection for Kathleen Savio against Drew Peterson.
    6. Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio Will

  74. Prosecutors: Peterson, Savio were fighting over $893,000 (snipped)

    Peterson also had non-marital assets worth more than $528,000 in 2004 and his projected pension at the time was estimated to be more than $97,000 annually.(snip)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    and an airplane? and raised or raising 6 kids on a beat cops salary? As my favorite
    Nancy Grace would put it: Oh, BS !!

    He must have worked 24/7/365 cut coupons scrimped and saved ate beans and bread crusts drove beaters lived a meager lifestyle shopped @ goodwill thrift store.

    I don’t think so. IMHO he had *residual income* and IMHO this will come out, too

  75. In the charges against Chase Peterson’s income is stated as being about $8,826 a month with an annual income of nearly $109,000.

    16. That following PETERSON’S retirement in early November 2007 from the Bolingbrook Police Department, the Bolingbrook Police Pension Board voted on November 15, 2007 to allow him to collect his pension benefits in the amount of $6,067.71 per month (the “Pension”) since his retirement date, finding that by law his pension benefits could not be denied or limited in any way, as he had not been convicted of a crime. Accordingly, PETERSON has received, is receiving, and will be entitled to receive said pension payments, with increases, until his death.

    17. That in addition his pension, PETERSON has received, and is receiving monthly Social Security benefits of approximate $2,758.00 per month (the “Social Security Benefits”).

    18. That by reason of PETERSON’S having received being entitled to receive the foregoing pension and social security benefits in the combined monthly sum of approximately $8,826.00,

    I’m just throwing this out there for what it’s worth. Numbers confuse me!

  76. He really made out like a bandit, didn’t he ? Even collecting SS survivirs benefits
    based upon KS’s contributions during her lifetime.
    World-class greedy POS

  77. http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11959127

    Drew Peterson’s second wife testifies at hearing

    Associated Press – February 9, 2010 4:34 PM ET

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – Drew Peterson’s second wife has testified he threatened to kill her and told her he could make it look like an accident.

    Victoria Connolly testified Tuesday the former Bolingbrook police sergeant also pulled a gun on her three or four times. She says he once put the weapon to her head and told her he would kill her and then kill himself.

    Connolly and Peterson were married for 9 1/2 years. She described their divorce as amicable.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Connolly testified at a pretrial hearing in the case.

    Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007. Peterson has not been charged in the disappearance, but police say he’s a suspect.

  78. Facs, doesn’t it just make you sick that he was getting all of this because he took a woman’s life to be able to have it? Then took another one’s life to be able to keep it all?

  79. JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – Drew Peterson’s second wife has testified he threatened to kill her and told her he could make it look like an accident.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    a spotted leopard doesn’t change it’s spots and still LE never considered KS’s death as anything but an accident?

    whose policing the police?

  80. Vicki Connolly’s testimony, once again, is not hearsay.

    However, given the other main participants in the life of Drew Peterson, and now this, certainly, living with a man who once held a gun to her head, and then calling their divorce “amicable,” is not what I would call normal.

    Linda Blair has got nothing on me, the way my head is spinnin’.

  81. Prosecutors: Peterson, Savio were fighting over $893,000
    February 9, 2010 3:05 PM | 3 Comments

    Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly testified that her ex-husband had pulled a gun on her three to four times during their 9-1/2 year marriage.

    “At one point he did tell me he could kill me and make it look like an accident,” Connolly said.

    Witnesses have previously testified that Savio and Stacy Peterson had also shared similar accounts. Connolly, who married Peterson in 1982, said that during their marriage Peterson also threatened to kill himself on at least one occasion.

    Connolly said she and Peterson had an amicable divorce in part, she believes, because she agreed not to go after his police pension money in their divorce settlement. The two remained co-owners of a bar more than a year after their divorce, she said.

    She said that after their divorce, she awoke to find that Peterson had broken into her home and was in her bedroom standing over her as she lay in bed.

    “We did not exchange words at all. Drew turned around and left,” Connolly said, adding that she did not report the incident to police.

    She said that during their marriage, Peterson had affairs with other women on several occasions and at one point had an affair with a baby sitter across the street from the home they shared. She said the marriage finally ended after he began having an affair with Savio.

    Connolly admitted that while she has had discussions about a possible book deal, she does not believe she would find one. She said she has not completely rejected the idea of selling her story for a movie deal.

    “It depends on how much is involved,” she said.

    –Steve Schmadeke and Stacy St. Clair

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/ex-peterson-co-worker-says-he-was-asked-to-kill-savio.html

  82. I want to know how Brodsky can ask anyone about book deals, when it’s undeniable that he “sold” his client to radio talk show hosts so that his failed bar and chicken wings could get a plug.

    He makes me sick.

  83. rescueapet :Vicki Connolly’s testimony, once again, is not hearsay.
    However, given the other main participants in the life of Drew Peterson, and now this, certainly, living with a man who once held a gun to her head, and then calling their divorce “amicable,” is not what I would call normal.
    Linda Blair has got nothing on me, the way my head is spinnin’.

    Well, she’s probably glad to have gotten through it alive seeing what came after her, but still….amicable?

  84. She said that after their divorce, she awoke to find that Peterson had broken into her home and was in her bedroom standing over her as she lay in bed.

    “We did not exchange words at all. Drew turned around and left,” Connolly said, adding that she did not report the incident to police.
    ——
    I would die of heart attack!

  85. She said that after their divorce, she awoke to find that Peterson had broken into her home and was in her bedroom standing over her as she lay in bed.

    “We did not exchange words at all. Drew turned around and left,” Connolly said, adding that she did not report the incident to police.

    A non verbal threat maybe? Sends chills down my spine.

  86. rescueapet :

    I want to know how Brodsky can ask anyone about book deals, when it’s undeniable that he “sold” his client to radio talk show hosts so that his failed bar and chicken wings could get a plug.

    He makes me sick.

    Second-best post of the day!

  87. Aw, thanks, Facs. How dare he point his finger at anyone about book deals, when there’s two hands worth the fingers pointing back at him. How dare he and the rest of them.

    No credibility, no honor, no dignity. They can go pound you-know-what where the sun don’t shine (and I got the sun part from Robert Blake’s character, Brodsky’s favorite ex murder defendant).

  88. It looks like the Prosecution is showing a pattern in Drews behavior over quite an extensive period of time – his MO and a habit that is hard to break !

    It looks like the Defense is showing everything is all about books deals with people taking advantage of a killer.

  89. Defense attorneys say they expect to call 20 witnesses of their own, meaning the hearing is expected to go into next week.

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

    IMO That is going to be a very interesting week !

  90. I wonder if some of these people who paid for interviews with Drew (either in cash or barter) will be subpoenaed to testify?

    “To Randy Miller. This will confirm that you will be plugging the following establishment at least two times tomorrow and two times on Friday and that the plug will not be connected in any way to Drew Peterson or his attorney. The establishment is Addiction Bar and Lounge which has the absolute best chicken wings in the city. A great place to drink, eat listen to music, and watch the game.”

    A personal affirmation that you went there and loved the wings would be good.

    Please confirm this agreement and I will confirm Drew’s cooperation on tomorrow’s show.”

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/drew-and-joels-payola-radio-shakedown/

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/the-selling-of-drew-peterson/

  91. I wonder how many of the defense’s 20 witnesses will happen to mention that they personally have visited Addiction Bar & Lounge and absolutely LOVED the wings? 🙂

  92. What’s the difference what the defense shows about book deals? Brodsky has been outted as an attorney who used his client for his own personal gain. Who cares what he thinks or says. This whole Drew Peterson saga has been as much about his Scheme Team lawyer as it has been about him. Peterson picked a character as unorthodox as he is. I dare anyone to find a defense lawyer that has a favorable word to say about the handling of Peterson’s defense so far. He’s a laughing stock and a joke, and anyone that has an ounce of a brain knows it. A dignified defense attorney would never stoop as low as this guy has.

    Out of all of the people that have testified for the State, I find Peterson’s own son’s testimony, Eric, as the most chilling. Troublesome for Peterson. He obviously has no use for his father, and he admitted such. Someone tell me how a man can look into the eyes of his man-son and not be moved by what he sees looking back at him. To have his son see him for the coward and liar that he is cannot be the highlight of his life as a “loving” father, as he’s tried to have other see him as. His own son rose above his filth and manned up. For whatever these poor women did, right or wrong, to piss off Drew Peterson, they didn’t deserve to pay with their lives.

  93. Found this in an article out there but didn’t see any tweets about it:

    Also Tuesday, a friend of Stacy Peterson testified that before they married Stacy Peterson had said Drew Peterson planned to kill Savio.

    “She told us he planned on killing her and make it look like an accident,” said Michael Miles, recalling the conversation he and another friend had with Stacy Peterson in 2002.

    Miles also testified that Stacy Peterson, who was dating Drew Peterson at the time, said the “only reason” Peterson’s third wife was still alive was because Stacy Peterson talked him out of killing her.

    Source: http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11959950

  94. TAI @ 110. What’s there to say to this? Kind of leaves one speechless.

    Step into the world of Drew Peterson. Hold on, though, the going gets rough. The more that comes out, the more that I can see the correlation between this and the movie Glasgow says is the life of Drew Peterson–Internal Affairs.

  95. I think I’m learning a valuable lesson here. If you continually say that you can and will kill someone and make it look like an accident, when that person accidentally dies and they come looking for you… you got no one to blame but yourself.

  96. coffeeocity :

    I wonder how many of the defense’s 20 witnesses will happen to mention that they personally have visited Addiction Bar & Lounge and absolutely LOVED the wings? :-)

    ADDICTION BAR & GRILL. Remember that name, remember that establishment, when the defense asks a witness what they stand to gain from this. Unfortunately for Scheme Man Brodsky, it tanked. The trial of the decade will forever be defined by chicken wings, addictions, and alien space ships.

  97. Connolly said after they split, Peterson offered to change the locks on her house. After that, she said, she awoke in the dead of night in her darkened house to see Peterson standing over her.

    “He didn’t say anything,” Connolly said. “We did not exchange words at all. Drew turned and left.”

    Connolly did not know if Peterson had made a set of keys or used the locksmith tools she said he carried.

    She described their divorce as amicable because she did not seek any money from his police pension. Previous witnesses have testified that Peterson tried to protect his pension from Savio.

  98. facsmiley :

    I think I’m learning a valuable lesson here. If you continually say that you can and will kill someone and make it look like an accident, when that person accidentally dies and they come looking for you… you got no one to blame but yourself.

    Imagine how hard it might be for the defense to get beyond the scores of those tossed aside by Drew Peterson that he could and would kill them at his whim.

    Otherwise, the only other conclusion is to imagine scores of people hated him so much as to put their collective heads together to conspire to frame him by exposing him as a potential killer.

    If you can believe that he was so arrogant and dismissive of the value of life, then you can put the pieces together and come to a logical conclusion that he was capable of murder. With further evidence and placing him in strategic areas of importance, his conviction may be coming.

    If you can believe that he is merely being victimized by his detractors solely to destroy whatever life he has remaining, then I guess he’ll be allowed to live a free life as he pleases. Looking for his next Mrs. 20-something Peterson, and managing a whore house in Nevada. There isn’t another place on earth that would have people wanting to live next to this POS.

  99. Some sort of Tourette’s defense? When under stress Drew Peterson inadvertantly blurts out “I can kill you and make it look like an accident!” Unfortunately, then he dons back clothing, sneaks into your house…and does. Oops.

  100. It’s really bugging me that every bit of money or property that came within 50 feet of him somehow seems to be Drew’s & Drew’s alone. Illinois isn’t a community property state, but ALL assets (money, property, etc) acquired during the course of a marriage are presumed to belong TO THE MARRIAGE (meaning both husband AND wife) and, as such, are subject to an equitable division upon divorce.

    It was never solely HIS house, HIS bar or even HIS pension.

    He’s a hateful, repulsive piece of crap.

  101. No coffee, it wasn’t all his, that’s why he killed to get it all and killed again to keep it all, including the children. Kathleen was to get custody of them too.

  102. CFS – Believe me, I understand that all too well.

    I meant the way assets, anything of value, are referred to as “his” and it’s an affront that the basic legal rights of DP’s legal partner (in his case partnerS) are portrayed as some scheme to get something from him to which they’re not entitled.
    It’s not peculiar to this case and there are much worse and more shocking circumstances, this just, like I said, is buggin’ me.

  103. Does anyone know if the prosecution actually finished today, or do they have anymore witnesses for tomorrow? As bad as some of the things we’ve heard the past several days are, nothing really shocked me too badly about anything anyone testified that Drew said or did. I mean, if you can take the life of two beautiful young women who are mothers to your own little children, how much worse can anything he says or does be? However, I was a little surprised by Michael Miles’ testimony, but glad in a way, that Stacy had told him what he said she did.

  104. coffeeocity :CFS – Believe me, I understand that all too well.
    I meant the way assets, anything of value, are referred to as “his” and it’s an affront that the basic legal rights of DP’s legal partner (in his case partnerS) are portrayed as some scheme to get something from him to which they’re not entitled.It’s not peculiar to this case and there are much worse and more shocking circumstances, this just, like I said, is buggin’ me.

    Coffee, I knew what you meant, and I hope you don’t think I was trying to explain it to you, lol. I was just agreeing with you, and stating in a round about way that even though it isn’t ALL his, he deems it so, and has done whatever he wanted, to whomever he wanted, to get it and keep it.

  105. Connolly said after they split, Peterson offered to change the locks on her house. After that, she said, she awoke in the dead of night in her darkened house to see Peterson standing over her.

    “He didn’t say anything,” Connolly said. “We did not exchange words at all. Drew turned and left.”

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

    He didn’t have to say anything as the purpose was loud and clear without having to utter a word on his part !

  106. It also established the fact Drew can get into peoples houses in the dead of night and find the occupants without them knowing/hearing him coming in (!!)

  107. Really a great point, JAH. The fact that midnight breaking & entering for the purpose of intimidating women was a long-time hobby of this pos’s hasn’t really been contested by Blobsky on cross, has it?

  108. coffeeocity :

    Really a great point, JAH. The fact that midnight breaking & entering for the purpose of intimidating women was a long-time hobby of this pos’s hasn’t really been contested by Blobsky on cross, has it?

    No, he hasn’t, but he has called most of the witnesses liars. Can they all be liars? They all passed through Peterson’s life, they were his circle of family, friends and even co-workers. Why would most of these people want to perjure themselves in a legal proceeding just to get personal satisfaction in ruining Drew Peterson? What did he do to them that they have no desire to run from him and stay quiet? Why are they lying now, if Brodsky is right?

  109. coffee:
    It’s really bugging me that every bit of money or property that came within 50 feet of him somehow seems to be Drew’s & Drew’s alone. Illinois isn’t a community property state, but ALL assets (money, property, etc) acquired during the course of a marriage are presumed to belong TO THE MARRIAGE (meaning both husband AND wife) and, as such, are subject to an equitable division upon divorce.

    It was never solely HIS house, HIS bar or even HIS pension.

    He’s a hateful, repulsive piece of crap.

  110. Hello all 🙂 It is chilling to think of all of the people that the Skunk has said this to “I can kill you and make it look like an accident” He sure sounds very confident in making this remark repeatedly to people, makes me believe that he has done just that many many times and not just with Kathleen. So sad and sick.

  111. thinkaboutit2 :
    Found this in an article out there but didn’t see any tweets about it:

    Also Tuesday, a friend of Stacy Peterson testified that before they married Stacy Peterson had said Drew Peterson planned to kill Savio.
    “She told us he planned on killing her and make it look like an accident,” said Michael Miles, recalling the conversation he and another friend had with Stacy Peterson in 2002.
    Miles also testified that Stacy Peterson, who was dating Drew Peterson at the time, said the “only reason” Peterson’s third wife was still alive was because Stacy Peterson talked him out of killing her.

    Source: http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11959950

    Wow! Are these also people who went to LE when Kathleen was murdered but were not heard? Or did they just write it off as Stacy exaggerating? I wish the media reports had a little more detail.

  112. Hi littemama! Good to see you.

    Now that the State has ended the testimony of its witnesses for the hearsay portion of the trial, I think what can be taken away from this is that he was a dark, evil and destructive man. No amount of spinning is going to change that. Let’s just hope that the remainder of the trial will sort out his lies and deceit, and the State will be able to show that he was able to do what they say he did by credible circumstantial evidence. He is a lying skunk.

  113. coffee:It’s really bugging me that every bit of money or property that came within 50 feet of him somehow seems to be Drew’s & Drew’s alone. Illinois isn’t a community property state, but ALL assets (money, property, etc) acquired during the course of a marriage are presumed to belong TO THE MARRIAGE (meaning both husband AND wife) and, as such, are subject to an equitable division upon divorce.

    It was never solely HIS house, HIS bar or even HIS pension.

    He’s a hateful, repulsive piece of crap.

    ~~~~~

    sadly, there are quite a few men who feel exactly the same way, though they may not resort to murder. It’s sexist and meant to diminish any value a woman may contribute to a marriage. Is it any wonder fewer women are opting to marry or remarry ? I took a class taught by a lawyer who made the following statement to the class: “.. if a couple should divorce, she gets half of everything thats his ” to which a small voice was heard coming from the rear of the classroom saying
    ” and he gets half of everything thats hers..” To some sexist men, anything aquired during the marriage is his. Women are powerless and thats how they want it.

    Drew has an established pattern of control and abuse toward his wives. It’s amazing that he was not screened for psychological issues while on the force.

  114. LOL, call this crazy, but I am holding out hope that Peterson is so controlling and obsessed with himself, that he will insist on testifying. In that case, buh bye.

  115. Here’s one thing that’s been bugging me about this trial. Although I’m sure the Prosecution has more amunition for the actual murder trial, so much of this testimony revolved around Stacy and her being “missing.” With all that’s come out, it almost sounds like it’s laying the groundwork for Drew’s arrest for Stacy’s murder as much as it was listening to the “hearsay” evidence against him for Kathy.

    It’s hard to listen to all this and NOT believe he’s guilty of Stacy’s murder. (I always believed he was, but this stuff is pretty damning.)

  116. The judge, who plans to retire in October, has banned one potentially damaging statement from the trial. He ruled that marital privilege prevents Stacy Peterson’s former pastor from testifying that she told him that her husband confessed to killing Savio.

    The statement’s exclusion is a victory for the defense, though White still may allow the minister to testify that Stacy Peterson lied to police about Drew Peterson’s alibi and that she saw him come home at night wearing dark clothes the weekend Savio died.

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/yhkm9jy

    How did this only get a little tiny blip in one article?? And who knew that the judge will be retiring in October. There is no way this case will be ready to go by then so Drew may get yet another judge.

  117. Altgrann@ #137. There is an attorney who has been gracious enough to answer questions for us that arise from time-to-time. Her name is Karen Conti.

    I remember asking her about whether it’s possible there could be a sealed indictment from the Grand Jury for Stacy’s case. It is possible.

    While this case is going on, they are able to continue to search for Stacy’s remains, which, of course, would be an important factor in proving her murder. They are still able to interview people and follow-up on leads. It seems that it would make sense to keep her case separate, with two separate trials, and two separate juries. Peterson has a long, long legal mess ahead of him. He’s got a pending weapons case, a re-opened probate estate matter to deal with, a wrongful death civil case against him, and the matter of Stacy disappearing and being presumed dead. His life sucks.

  118. Controversy surrounds Drew Peterson hearsay hearings
    February 9, 2010 8:09 PM | No Comments

    Drew Peterson’s hearsay hearing has taken Illinois criminal law into uncharted territory, a path that has sparked a lively — and sometimes angry — debate in the legal community as the prosecution nears completion of its portion of the landmark proceeding.

    “It’s a miscarriage of justice,” said Leonard Cavise, a DePaul University law professor. “This hearing is not how the American judicial system is supposed to work. It’s ridiculous.”

    Nearly 70 witnesses have been called in the unprecedented hearing in which a Will County judge will decide whether hearsay statements condemning former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Peterson for the March 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, are trustworthy enough to be admitted into trial.

    The prosecutors are relying on a new Illinois statute, dubbed “Drew’s Law,” that allows them to build their case around comments made by Savio and Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, who vanished in 2007.

    Prosecutors are focusing on 15 so-called hearsay statements, which they say will give the women a voice from the grave. In order to prove the hearsay’s reliability, however, the prosecution had to show most of its hand at a pretrial hearing, a move that gave the public its first glimpse at the state’s case.

    The case, so far, seems underwhelming, some legal experts say. None of the evidence physically tied Peterson to the crime or put him inside Savio’s house the weekend of her death. Illinois State Police have admitted they, at best, blundered Savio’s death investigation and collected no evidence from the scene.

    So far, at least eight witnesses — including her two sisters, boyfriend and co-workers — have testified that Savio told them Peterson broke into her home in 2002, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her. Savio’s divorce attorney testified that Savio told him Peterson often threatened to kill her and make it look like an accident. And Stacy Peterson’s aunt recalled hearing Drew Peterson, then 54, apologize to his young wife for “burdening her with his past.”

    Some witnesses also bring credibility concerns with them to the stand, such as a self-described psychic who says she hears voices from God and a sister of Savio’s who said she has signed a five-figure book and movie deal.

    “I would be reluctant to let some of that stuff in because it’s dangerous on appeal,” said Terry Ekl, a defense attorney and former prosecutor. “I’d be cautious about using it.”

    But other attorneys said State’s Attorney James Glasgow is obliged to use the legal means available.

    “If I were the prosecutor, my attitude would be the rule of law is there … and if it’s a weapon I’m able to use, I’m going to use it,” said Mark Rotert, a former state and federal prosecutor now in private practice. “He’s only using the tools that the law provides to him. People can argue when those tools were put in his toolbox, but those are policy and constitutional questions he should not spend a lot of time on.”

    Judge Stephen White is presiding over the hearing, which has drawn the attention of attorneys across the state, with lawyers popping into his Joliet courtroom to watch the proceedings.

    Legal experts describe White as “well-schooled” and “extremely competent.” But he has no road map in which to follow.

    The judge, who plans to retire in October, has banned one potentially damaging statement from the trial. He ruled that marital privilege prevents Stacy Peterson’s former pastor from testifying that she told him that her husband confessed to killing Savio.

    The statement’s exclusion is a victory for the defense, though White still may allow the minister to testify that Stacy Peterson lied to police about Drew Peterson’s alibi and that she saw him come home at night wearing dark clothes the weekend Savio died.

    “I think that the prosecution has a difficult case because they have — according to their case in their best light — an inept investigation and a bunch of hearsay statements, which by law are usually unreliable — a bunch of rumor and innuendo,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg said. “The law disfavors convicting someone because he’s a bad person, and that’s really all they’ve got here.”

    In judging whether the statements meet the standard of trustworthiness, White must consider the motives of Savio and Stacy Peterson for sharing their accounts with people, experts said.

    Was Savio, as friends and family contend, so terrified Drew Peterson planned to kill her that she wanted to make sure he was held responsible in the event of her death? Or was she, as the defense suggests, angry at Peterson for finding a much younger woman and moving on with his life?

    “You’ve got to look at these things very skeptically,” Ekl said. “Two people who are going through a terrible divorce can say a lot of terrible things about each other that aren’t true.”

    Other experts said White must consider the witnesses’ state of mind, as well as motives, when deciding whether the statements are trustworthy. For instance, the prosecution’s star witness, Drew Peterson’s stepbrother Thomas Morphey, has been admitted to rehab for alcoholism and battles depression. And several others — including Stacy Peterson’s pastor — broke their public silence on national television instead of in an open courtroom.

    “These people put Kato Kaelin to shame,” Greenberg said. “You’ve got a bunch of people saying this guy was scared to death of this guy, and not a single person said a word to anybody. Who could keep that kind of a secret? And everybody kept it. Everybody.”

    Peterson’s attorneys argue that the new law, which took effect in December, violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses.

    DuPage County prosecutors invoked the hearsay law last year in a murder case with both a videotaped confession and a victim who was gunned down shortly after she filed battery charges against the defendant. In that case, the prosecution intends to use oral and written statements given to police.

    In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that statements to law enforcement officers are admissible as testimony if the defendant has committed a criminal act that made the victim unable to testify. The court did not address hearsay offered by family members and neighbors, as in the Peterson case.

    At least 13 other states and the federal courts allow for a forfeiture by wrongdoing, meaning prosecutors may submit a written proffer to the judge that says it wants to include hearsay evidence and that they will prove it trustworthy at trial.

    Typically used in conspiracy cases, prosecutors try to enter this type of hearsay only when they are sure they can prove it trustworthy; otherwise a judge may declare a mistrial.

    In Illinois, the law calls for the judge to determine whether the hearsay is trustworthy — and the defendant possibly guilty — before the trial begins, said defense attorney Richard Kling, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

    “It’s a serious constitutional problem because you’re taking defendants who are presumed innocent under the Constitution and you’re having them go before a judge … who has to decide that they’re probably guilty,” Kling said. “To get hearsay statements (into trial), they have to prove that they’re trustworthy and also have to prove that more likely than not that he’s guilty of murdering to keep them from testifying.”

    The judge already has warned 240 prospective jurors to avoid news coverage of the hearsay hearing, but given the attention the case receives, some experts doubt they’ll follow the instruction.

    “There’s no way ever that they’ll find a fair jury,” Cavise said. “By the time the pretrial hearing is over, Drew Peterson won’t be able to find two people who don’t know about all of this.”

    –Stacy St. Clair and Erika Slife

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/controversy-surrounds-drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings.html

  119. atlgranny :Here’s one thing that’s been bugging me about this trial. Although I’m sure the Prosecution has more amunition for the actual murder trial, so much of this testimony revolved around Stacy and her being “missing.” With all that’s come out, it almost sounds like it’s laying the groundwork for Drew’s arrest for Stacy’s murder as much as it was listening to the “hearsay” evidence against him for Kathy.
    It’s hard to listen to all this and NOT believe he’s guilty of Stacy’s murder. (I always believed he was, but this stuff is pretty damning.)

    This hearing is also to try to prove that Drew killed Stacy, making her unvailable to testify against him, as well as killing Kathleen, making her unvailable to testify as well. That’s the reason there is so much Stacy testimony along with Kathleen’s. Hopefully, if that is proven by the preponderance of the evidence, they WILL indict him for Stacy’s murder as well.

  120. “It’s a miscarriage of justice,” said Leonard Cavise, a DePaul University law professor. “This hearing is not how the American judicial system is supposed to work. It’s ridiculous.”

    Oh, yeah, it’s ridiculous? Isn’t it ridiculous how Peterson got away with as much as he did?

    I agree it’s going to be an uphill battle for the State to tie-in Peterson to Kathleen’s murder timeline, but the scene itself was tainted and compromised from the beginning. He orchestrated his plan to make sure the scene was not handled according to protocol, and his deceit fell into place perfectly. Bungling, incompetence, complacency, and ignorance accounted for that.

    He’s got to be placed at the murder scene, his living alibi has to be credible, his lying about his financial gain has to be exposed, and maybe some incriminating statements caught on tape. There’s the problem with the coroner’s inquest that someone is going to have to explain, and the damage to Kathleen’s body at the time of her death.

    It’s wonderful that most defense attorneys think that murderers, liars, thieves and skunks should be free because of their constitutional rights, but juries convict people in spite of the wishes of those attorneys.

  121. Rescue, this just sounds like Brodsky’s DePaul buddies and fellow alumni giving him a little something to feel good about. It’s all going to come down to a judge and jury, and I don’t think…I TRULY don’t believe in my heart…that a 12 member jury can listen to most of the things we’ve heard this week, which will subsequently be used at trial, and not feel convicted that Drew Peterson is a cold blooded double murderer. I don’t.

  122. I just watched Brodsky on a Fox News Chicago report, and he is stuck on the theory that these people who are coming out against Peterson are not credible because they didn’t contact the police.

    Yet, Kathleen begged the police, the State’s Attorney’s Office and even her own lawyer to listen to her fears, and she got nowhere.

    Which is it?

    As to what the talking head attorneys say in newspaper reports and interviews, it all depends on what side of the table they sit on to get a response. Eh, it doesn’t much matter what they think. They’re just expressing their biased opinions, one way or the other.

  123. Well, most everything I’ve read by Stacey St. Clair (sp?) has a lot of pro-Drew undertones. Besides, it’s now a law. Period.

    Since the prosecution will recess until Feb 17th, guess that means the defense won’t be presenting any witnesses until then or after either, huh? Or will they start with their tomorrow as planned? I don’t really understand how they’re working all of this out, but then maybe not many people do.

  124. cfs7360 :

    Well, most everything I’ve read by Stacey St. Clair (sp?) has a lot of pro-Drew undertones. Besides, it’s now a law. Period.

    Since the prosecution will recess until Feb 17th, guess that means the defense won’t be presenting any witnesses until then or after either, huh? Or will they start with their tomorrow as planned? I don’t really understand how they’re working all of this out, but then maybe not many people do.

    Facs and I were just talking about that–we don’t know or understand the process of the defense witnesses either. All very confusing.

  125. All I can say about these witnesses that Brodsy is calling not credible, etc., is Drew should have just chosen better friends and aquaintances. Just look how many of them were actually close buddies and baby sitters of his. By the way, wonder if the last witness will be Lenny or Paula, or both? Surprised we haven’t heard from them yet.

  126. There’s a list of, what, 800 people for the State? This was the tip of the iceberg. There’s substantial overhears. Thousands and thousands of pages of discovery.

    It’s something, I guess, that has to be kept in mind–there’s tons more to come. Down to the smallest detail, I would assume.

  127. I know Rescue, and that’s why I’m really not concerned about the article about the hearsay law, even though it stated that the prosecution was having to lay out the strongest part of its case. That is by no means necessarily true with the volume of evidence and witnesses still not heard.

  128. Something that keeps coming out over and over as I read and digest your comments is the media. WHY does it appear the media are keeping the proceedings so close to the vest? I realize I’m repeating myself, because I asked this the other day, too, and I apologize for the echo, but now it seems that others are wondering as well. Anyone have any ideas? Book? I’d LOL, but I’m beginning to think that’s more truth than poetry.
    And BTW-thank you all very much for your insights, your links, and your faith that this will end the way it should. MOO, of course.

  129. Okay, so apparently the defense WILL start with their witnesses tomorrow. And yes Facs, ABC does have much better artists, but I wonder if Drew is sitting that close to the ones who are testifying. You all have been there. How far away from the witness stand is he? That would be really creepy having him just three or four feet away while trying to testify against him. Sure wish I could watch his reation to what is being said by the witnesses though.

  130. Chery, as frustrating as it is not to know everything that’s said, I think it’s because they’re having to write everything by jand and the proceedings are so long, that the reporters are picking and choosing what they deem most newsworthy. Don’t know that for sure, but some articles have some things that others don’t and vice versa, so it just looks to me like they’re using the best material of the day for their stories. Maybe someone knows a lot more about it than I do though.

  131. Wonder if Gunty is the Bolingbrook officer Drew said that he thought Stacy was “having an affair with.” If he was checking her phone, as she said he was, that two hour call may be why he thought she was having an affair with him. He’s such a POS.

  132. Thanks, cfs. I agree, but I’d think that there would be the “in-depth” coverage on the weekends, perhaps, in the Sunday papers, maybe. I know what it’s like, though, to have to re-create from your notes and your mind days later.
    And considering how expensive the transcripts are, I wonder how quickly they’re made available, lol.
    And re:the people who are now testifying and making public all of this info-guess they think he won’t get out and be hell bent on revenge. That’s encouraging.
    Oh-MOO, again, for gatekeep.

  133. And yeah Cheryl, the transcripts are quite expensive. I wish there was a way several of us could pool our money and buy a set so we could all read them on here, but I’m sure that won’t ever happen. I for sure won’t be buying them myself at the price they are.

  134. I apologize for dominating the blog today and my overzealous enthusiasm, but it’s really hard not to be excited about the direction that hopefully this is all going. We’ve all waited so long to finally start hearing some of the evidence the state has, and I’m lovin’ me some squirming Drew. Nite all.

  135. cfs7360 :And yeah Cheryl, the transcripts are quite expensive. I wish there was a way several of us could pool our money and buy a set so we could all read them on here, but I’m sure that won’t ever happen. I for sure won’t be buying them myself at the price they are.

    Maybe the media will break down and purchase the transcripts… or maybe they already ordered them and will publish at a later date. 😉

  136. Hmmmm, In the above video, Brodsky says that “even in the worst case scenario, after the divorce from Savio, DP would be a millionaire.. Mr. Glasgow says DP would have been destitute….”

    Nice work JB, now tell us where he got all that ‘millionaire’ money..

  137. judgin :

    Hmmmm, In the above video, Brodsky says that “even in the worst case scenario, after the divorce from Savio, DP would be a millionaire.. Mr. Glasgow says DP would have been destitute….”

    Nice work JB, now tell us where he got all that ‘millionaire’ money..

    Yeah, that was a strange comment. What was that all about? Peterson being a millionaire after divorcing Kathleen was about as outrageous a remark as he’s made yet. Was he hiding assets, the kind that get a wink and a nod?

  138. I can’t wait to see what JB says after putting on his defense witnesses.
    The news guy said there are 20 defense witnesses but not all will be called to testify.

    I wonder if DP’s mama is gonna say anything good about him… LOL

  139. Controversy surrounds Drew Peterson hearsay hearings
    February 9, 2010 8:09 PM | No Comments

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

    Oh My Goodness – I don’t want to quote the whole article as it is so long and full of sour grapes re the constitutionality of the Hearsay Law (a nice old chestnut for the Defense), more gripes about the “credibility” of witnesses and most of all how the Prosecution has a very weak case because of the inaptness of the investigation (!!) and these are all supposed Law Professors and Lawyers talking – LOL !!

    Oh and then this one:

    “You’ve got to look at these things very skeptically,” Ekl said. “Two people who are going through a terrible divorce can say a lot of terrible things about each other that aren’t true.”

    Yes people going through a terrible divorce do say a lot of terrible things about each other, but they normally don’t end up dead and that’s where the difference comes in.

    Oh well never mind, it’s not hard to see out of which corner the wind blows in this article – LOL !

  140. justanotherhen :Controversy surrounds Drew Peterson hearsay hearingsFebruary 9, 2010 8:09 PM | No Comments
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh My Goodness – I don’t want to quote the whole article as it is so long and full of sour grapes re the constitutionality of the Hearsay Law (a nice old chestnut for the Defense), more gripes about the “credibility” of witnesses and most of all how the Prosecution has a very weak case because of the inaptness of the investigation (!!) and these are all supposed Law Professors and Lawyers talking – LOL !!
    Oh and then this one:
    “You’ve got to look at these things very skeptically,” Ekl said. “Two people who are going through a terrible divorce can say a lot of terrible things about each other that aren’t true.”
    Yes people going through a terrible divorce do say a lot of terrible things about each other, but they normally don’t end up dead and that’s where the difference comes in.
    Oh well never mind, it’s not hard to see out of which corner the wind blows in this article – LOL !

    Defense lawyers… always whining and complaining… tunnel vision.. LOL

  141. judgin :
    Hmmmm, In the above video, Brodsky says that “even in the worst case scenario, after the divorce from Savio, DP would be a millionaire.. Mr. Glasgow says DP would have been destitute….”
    Nice work JB, now tell us where he got all that ‘millionaire’ money..

    OMG, What did he say now ??

    I know Joel is present in the Courtroom every day, but is he actually following this case – LOL ??

  142. Ex-wife: Peterson said he’d kill me, too

    February 10, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — The parade of people with bad things to say — or bad things they claim to have heard other people say — about Drew Peterson looks to be at an end, unless prosecutors decide to pull one more onto the stand.

    The state said that as long as they can work out details with Peterson’s defense team during a court appearance this morning, they have called their last witness in the marathon hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at the former Bolingbrook cop’s murder trial.

    So far, 68 men and women, including Peterson’s ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, an uncle, son, neighbors and co-workers have taken the stand in the 15-day hearing.

    On Tuesday, it was the ex-wife who stole the show.

    Victoria Connolly, the second of the four women Peterson married, and one of two who has neither mysteriously died nor disappeared, testified Peterson put a gun to her head “in a threatening manner, three or four times” during their marriage.

    Peterson’s gun threats followed two themes, Connolly testified. In one, “he said he would kill me and then kill himself. He said he didn’t care if he lived or died.” In the other, “he said he’d make it look like an accident,” which many other witnesses reported that Peterson’s third and fourth wives also said about the death threats he supposedly made against them. But since one of these wives is dead and the other is missing, they cannot say for this for themselves.

    That is why prosecutors trotted out dozens of witnesses over the past three weeks. Peterson is charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, but during the hearsay hearing, prosecutors are also trying to prove he killed his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, to keep her from testifying against him.

    Savio was found drowned in her dry bathtub in March 2004. The state police quickly decided her death was accidental, but abruptly altered course when Stacy vanished in October 2007.

    Drew stalking ex-wife?

    Connolly, who was married to Peterson from October 1982 to February 1992, also testified that after they divorced and she moved to Montgomery, she woke in the middle of the night to find Peterson standing over her.

    “I sat up and we did not exchange words at all. Drew turned around and he left,” said Connolly, who also accused Peterson of stalking her after they divorced.

    Connolly said she last used cocaine eight years ago and not at all while she was married to Peterson, who shook his head and laughed as she made her denial. She also said she was sober when Peterson appeared in her house uninvited.

    Connolly was one of eight witnesses to testify Tuesday. She was preceded by Michael VanOver, the deputy coroner who took the Kathleen Savio death call.

    VanOver said that while he was at Savio’s house, state police Crime Scene Investigator Robert Deel told him there was nothing “we need to be looking for here,” prompting him to abandon the suspicious death protocol. The protocol dictates that the victim’s hands be bagged and for the body to be placed in a fresh white sheet, a white body bag and a second body bag. Savio’s hands were bagged, but the rest of the procedure was skipped.

    VanOver also said he “didn’t quite agree” with the state police’s assessment of the case.

    Alleged murder for hire

    Also Tuesday, a man who worked at the same Downers Grove cable company as Peterson said a mutual friend approached him and said Peterson wanted him to kill Savio.

    The man, William Green, said the go-between for the deal was Jeffrey Pachter. Pachter, another cable company worker, has previously testified that Peterson offered him $25,000 to hire someone to kill Savio.

    Did Stacy save Savio at first?

    Late Tuesday, prosecutors called to the stand one of Stacy’s classmates from Joliet Junior College.

    Michael Miles, an electrician and auxiliary Lockport police officer, said Stacy told him and another classmate that she thwarted Peterson’s scheme to murder Savio in the fall of 2002.

    Peterson and Savio were still married then, and he was seeing Stacy at the time.

    “He said he planned on killing her and making it look like an accident, and he could do it too because he was a Bolingbrook cop,” Miles said. “The only reason his wife was still alive was because Stacy stopped him.”

    Miles said Stacy wanted to leave Peterson but “had nowhere to go.” He also recalled how he and a friend drove Stacy to Peterson’s home one night, only to be confronted by the angry Bolingbrook cop, who called after them, “Keep driving, pretty boys,” as they fled.

    Miles said he saw Stacy in class soon after, and she was upset.

    “She wasn’t herself again,” he said. “She said she was pregnant.”

    Peterson and Stacy married the following October.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2038690,Ex-wife-Peterson-threat_JO021010.article

  143. Good article, Joe!

    Michael Miles, an electrician and auxiliary Lockport police officer, said Stacy told him and another classmate that she thwarted Peterson’s scheme to murder Savio in the fall of 2002.

    Peterson and Savio were still married then, and he was seeing Stacy at the time.

    “He said he planned on killing her and making it look like an accident, and he could do it too because he was a Bolingbrook cop,” Miles said.

    I think something needs to be said about this “making it look like an accident” statement that’s been repeated by witnesses, over and over.

    IMO, Peterson did not make Kathleen’s death look like an accident. The investigators said it was an accident, but from the information that has been divulged in the public, this is the farthest thing from the truth. Her body was beaten, she had an abdominal injury that Dr. Blum said was substantial, she was covered in bruises, she had a gash on her head that did not match anything in the area where she could have hit her head, there were no clothes, either clean or dirty, nearby her nude body in a dry tub, and the lead detective admitted he did not run the investigation the way it should have been.

    Yeah, though, it sure looks like Peterson accidentally got away with a major crime.

  144. I just want to say the initial investigation is a LOT BIGGER PROBLEM for the Defense than it is for the Prosecution.

    I would go as far to say the initial investigation is what will convict Drew !

    IMO of course ……..

  145. Peterson also had nonmarital assets worth more than $528,000 in 2004, and his pension was projected to be more than $97,000 annually. “He felt the pension belonged to the man … because he worked hard for it,” Connolly testified.

    Just putting this here to note that it doesn’t jive with Brodsky saying Peterson was going to be a millionaire, regardless of his divorce from Kathleen.

  146. Ha ha, JB was talking about that little stache DP had in his safe. LOL JB forgot that it’s supposed to be a secret. They’re both having trouble paying attention to what they’re saying cuz there’s too much B.S. sloshing around in both of their heads.

  147. Twenty witnesses for defense. They must be hoping they’re worth a million bucks of bail each. Not likely, huh? I’m not at all worried about the prosecution’s case. Good work.

    MOO (I like that form, Cheryl Jones!) I would like to question Harry Smith myself. He must be some kind of crap divorce lawyer not to be more informed about domestic violence in general, and particularly crap for Kitty by dismissing her fears and documented abuse. Why did he continue to talk to Stacy if there was a conflict of interest? He effectively delayed her speaking to a lawyer who could help. Like Collins, he smiled, and says he pays closer attention to his clients now.Oh, well, that’s alright, then. Rant over 🙂

  148. The final line of Drew’s defense will be that Drew did not know what he was doing because he is a sleep-walker. He killed his two wives when sleeping and Vicky is alive only because she woke him up.

  149. Hi, bucket. I share your frustration. I do not wonder Kathleen got a little bit paranoid, because she knew how Drew was to her, bu nobody in authority did not want to believe her. Drew was such a charming jokster and outgoing man!
    I will never understand how all those people having direct contact with domestic violence every day could know so little about he mechanisms.

  150. Many people are asking how it is that a ‘burb street cop like *the thing* was able to amass such a fortune as has been disclosed.

    Also, the buffoonsky opens his piehole and wether he realizes it or not, bolsters the prosecutions case against his client.

    Have a goood day fellow harpies and hellcats !

  151. I always love how Brodsky twists things and doesn’t realize how he jeopardizes his client’s case.

    Did one of you post that he said the myriad witnesses should be tossed out because “they didn’t go to the police”? Gosh, was he even in the courtroom when witness after witness testified that the called the police and received no response? He also said Drew would be a millionaire even after Kathy died. On a COP’S salary? Do tell, Joel. Do tell.

    That man is a lunatic.

  152. I began to post something similiar but it appears to have gotten lost in space…

    On the matter of what Attorney Smith could have done and should have done if IMHO he had any balls; he should have filed a civil rights lawsuit against Bolingbrook for failing to enforce the Illinois Domestic Violence Prevention Act on behalf his client. Also he should have contacted the justice dept. about BB’s violating (IMHO)
    KS’s civil right to equal protection and he didn’t.
    Lawyers are first and foremost, officers of the court.
    I have had many many dealings with lawyers in various capacities and most look out for number 1 first. They avoid litigation and situations which would make them actually work for a change. In addition, they will consider carefully the ramifactions any cause of action will have on their business practice.

    IMHO Smith knew the nature of the thing and wasn’t about to go out on a limb.

    It is important that we know the law and what our rights are. IMHO this is absolutely appalling that KS’s cries for help were ignored. 20+ calls to their marital estate plus trips to the emergency room and still her rights meaant nothing?

Comments are closed.