Greta producer claims he never touched Savio’s body during autopsy

Steph Watts

Last week the Chicago Tribune reported that during Drew Peterson’s hearsay hearing, forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden testified about a somewhat unorthadox assistant at the autopsy of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

During cross-examination, Michael Baden acknowledged that a producer for Fox News host Greta Van Susteren helped him with the autopsy on Kathleen Savio by taking photos and moving the body. “One always needs an assistant during an autopsy and there was no one else available,” Baden said.

Steph Watts, now a freelance TV reporter and producer refuted this account of his participation on his blog yesterday stating:

It’s been interesting watching the media report the story of my alleged participation in the autopsy of former Bollingbrook police officer Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

For all of you who preferred to regurgitate inaccuracies, and didn’t take the time to simply call to check the facts, here they are:

It was through my work on Greta’s show, that we uncovered documents leading us to facts that questioned the original classification of Kathleen Savio’s death as an accident, and exposed egregious errors by the Bollingbrook Police Department, the original coroner and the coroner’s jury. Dr. Michael Baden agreed that the findings indicated Savio’s death was a homicide. After reviewing the same documents, the State Attorney’s office decided to exhume the body of Kathleen Savio and perform a second autopsy. The family of Kathleen Savio, weary of the State Attorney’s office, discussed with me having an additional private autopsy done, but knew they could never afford such an expensive endeavor. I took their interest to Dr. Michael Baden, and he volunteered his time. I was already in Chicago covering the case, and accompanied Dr. Baden on every endeavor while he was in town. I asked permission of the family to be in the room with Dr. Baden while the autopsy was performed, and they agreed. I agreed with the Savio family that I would only film Dr. Baden, and no images of the body would ever be filmed or aired. The family knew Dr. Baden would be reporting his findings, whichever way they concluded. During the autopsy, which lasted approximately 3 hours, I took extensive notes and shot video.

Watts states that he did not help move Kathleen Savio’s remains.

I never had any physical contact with the body of Kathleen Savio, nor participated in “performing” the autopsy in any way. There were a least 6 Illinois State Police troopers in the room at any given time, and the entire experience was handled with the utmost respect to the Savio family, and most importantly to Kathleen.

There is no magic wizard behind the FOX News curtain, pulling strings to influence the findings by one of the country’s finest Forensic Pathologists. In conclusion, if Drew Peterson’s defense attorney is basing his case on the fact that I was in the autopsy room of a woman his client likely murdered, I would suggest he size Peterson up for a few more of those fancy orange jumpsuits he seems to like so much.

~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

255 thoughts on “Greta producer claims he never touched Savio’s body during autopsy

  1. I never had any physical contact with the body of Kathleen Savio, nor participated in “performing” the autopsy in any way. There were a least 6 Illinois State Police troopers in the room at any given time, and the entire experience was handled with the utmost respect to the Savio family, and most importantly to Kathleen.

    and this

    There is no magic wizard behind the FOX News curtain, pulling strings to influence the findings by one of the country’s finest Forensic Pathologists. In conclusion, if Drew Peterson’s defense attorney is basing his case on the fact that I was in the autopsy room of a woman his client likely murdered, I would suggest he size Peterson up for a few more of those fancy orange jumpsuits he seems to like so much.

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

    I am glad this man doesn’t mince words in setting the record straight, but it’s tragic that everyones testimony and involvement in anything to do with Kathleen Savio’s death is being made into something sinister, dubious and illegal by the Defense.

  2. It was through my work on Greta’s show, that we uncovered documents leading us to facts that questioned the original classification of Kathleen Savio’s death as an accident, and exposed egregious errors by the Bollingbrook Police Department, the original coroner and the coroner’s jury.

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

    Amazing how people not even employed in Law enforcement or “had any dog in the fight” as Joel Brodsky calls it, can so plainly see “egregious errors” in the handling and investigation of Kathleen Savio’s death, yet these same errors were never noticed by ANY supposed experts in their field at the time or at any level during the investigation they were professionally responsible for.

  3. I am so glad to see this refuted! Several of us had questions about his being such an assistant.
    Thank you, Steph. And BTW, mea culpa.

  4. FTR, we don’t know what the truth is. We just know what’s been reported and what people are saying. Again, I’d really like to get a look at that transcript and see how the cross-examination was worded.

  5. We are conducting a Mock Trial at the Abood Law Firm on Wednesday, February 24, from 12p to 4p. We are in need of jurors. Please e-mail clint@aboodlaw.com if you are interested in assisting us. You will receive a stipend payment and a free lunch!

    Let’s go!

  6. facsmiley :

    We are conducting a Mock Trial at the Abood Law Firm on Wednesday, February 24, from 12p to 4p. We are in need of jurors. Please e-mail clint@aboodlaw.com if you are interested in assisting us. You will receive a stipend payment and a free lunch!

    Let’s go!

    Free Lunch… serving more B.S. from the DP Scheme Team Poo Poo Platter…

    No thanks!

  7. cheryljones :
    I am so glad to see this refuted! Several of us had questions about his being such an assistant.
    Thank you, Steph. And BTW, mea culpa.

    Yes, you’d think there already be enough bizarre events floating around in this case without a t.v. producer being an assistant in an autopsy and moving the body.

    Our sense of normality has already been challenged enough to last a life time without it – LOL !

  8. facsmiley :

    We are conducting a Mock Trial at the Abood Law Firm on Wednesday, February 24, from 12p to 4p. We are in need of jurors. Please e-mail clint@aboodlaw.com if you are interested in assisting us. You will receive a stipend payment and a free lunch!

    Let’s go!

    I don’t want a stipend payment and a free lunch.

    I want a Joel Brodsky talking doll, one that says: “it’s all hearsay, innuendo and gossip” and “the hearsay law is unconstitutional”

  9. judgin :

    facsmiley :

    We are conducting a Mock Trial at the Abood Law Firm on Wednesday, February 24, from 12p to 4p. We are in need of jurors. Please e-mail clint@aboodlaw.com if you are interested in assisting us. You will receive a stipend payment and a free lunch!

    Let’s go!

    Free Lunch… serving more B.S. from the DP Scheme Team Poo Poo Platter…
    No thanks!

    I don’t know if “the best wings in town” really count as a stipend and lunch. 😉

  10. Personally, I’m interested to know which case and what testimony is going to be presented at the mock trial. If anyone finds out more info or attends, please get in touch with us. Thank you!

  11. http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Bones.discovered.Gold.2.1510996.html

    Feb 22, 2010 1:50 pm US/Central

    Bones Discovered At Gold Coast Construction Site

    CHICAGO (Sun-Times Media Wire) Authorities are working to determine whether bones discovered Monday morning at a Near North Side Gold Coast neighborhood construction site are human.

    Police were notified of the discovery at 1520 N. State Pkwy. at 11:26 a.m., according to News Affairs Officer Laura Kubiak.

    It was not immediately known whether the bones were human, and the site may have previously been a cemetery at some point, she said.

    The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office has been notified of the discovery and an examination is scheduled for Tuesday.

  12. It’s got to be a difficult thing to get a group together for a mock trial. How do they even begin to find people that are sincere in being objective enough to listen to the facts of the case and make a decision? Although, I have a hard time believing that the defense would be any more objective than they are judging by what they say when they walk out of the court room every day with their slanted beliefs.

    Oh, well, I’m sure Abood will hold his mock trial and then report that he won them over with flying colors.

  13. If it just weren’t for that commute…
    *Sigh* I keep saying that, don’t I? LOL
    But…but…I wanna GO! Waaahhh!

  14. rescueapet :It’s got to be a difficult thing to get a group together for a mock trial. How do they even begin to find people that are sincere in being objective enough to listen to the facts of the case and make a decision? Although, I have a hard time believing that the defense would be any more objective than they are judging by what they say when they walk out of the court room every day with their slanted beliefs.
    Oh, well, I’m sure Abood will hold his mock trial and then report that he won them over with flying colors.

    If this particular mock trial is to simulate Drew’s, then I seriously doubt that their prosecution enactment will in any way compare to the delivery of the Illinois States Attorney’s Office, et al, especially James Glasgow. And of course, the victory they might claim mostly likely wouldn’t come close to a real jury trial because they probably won’t present the evidence to be as damning/convincing as the SAO deems it to be, nor will a mock jury be as committed to reaching their verdict since another human’s life won’t be on the line. Just a waste of time as far as I’m concerned, but they can have at it. Still won’t change the outcome, but it may help them practice for the real thing, and they obviously need all the rehearsal they can get.

  15. Bashir’s report tonight:

    We’re planning a substantive update from Martin Bashir tonight about the Drew Peterson case, now at the end an unusually action-packed pre-trial hearing phase in Illinois.

  16. Well, since the prosecution will also have a hand in picking Drew’s jury, the verdict of a volunteer, take what you get, walk-in jury with a slanted toward the defense presentation can’t possibly be reliable in comprison to a handpicked jury chosen by both sides, who will listen to a complete presentations by both sides. Like I said, it’s a waste of time.

  17. On a serious note though.

    Does anyone know what’s the point of these supposed “mock trials”, especially if the real trial hasn’t even started yet and no one knows what the Prosecution is going to present by way of evidence.

    So far we have only caught a glimpse of what could be coming up, as evidence presented to date is only to determine what (if any) hearsay statements are going to be allowed into the actual trial, so any mock trial would be an extremely premature exercise, unless of course the Defense still has no idea what line of defense they will be using, considering they continue to flip flop between drowning, heart attack, slipping on the soap, hitting her head or even admitting to murder as long as its not Drew.

    The Defense gets an MD to put his reputation on the line to vouch for the fact Kathleen died as the result of an accident with at least three or four possibilities how that could have taken place, which in itself is already quite bizarre and then Andrew Abood all of a sudden contradicts all of that himself by saying Kathleen was murdered and Steve Maniaci is the murderer, so where does one go from there ??

    Maybe the Defense needs to pay people and give them lunch to find out what they should do as they can’t seem to figure it out themselves – LOL !

  18. JAH, I don’t have a clue really, and the one of which they’re looking for juorors may not even be for Drew. If it is, they’re really lacking a lot of pertinent information, such as whether the hearsay statements will even be allowed. However, based on their reported jubilation and optimistism on the outcome of the hearing, they may proceed as if it won’t be allowed, in the event it is for Drew. IDK, and I won’t bother to write anymore what I think about it. 🙂

  19. Anyone notice how drew always prefaces his answer with “Right” every time he’s asked an incriminating question, then proceeds to try to dispute or explain away whatever the queston was? Liar.

  20. Okay, I should have said “almost” always prefaces, and “nearly” every time he’s asked, since I can’t guarantee that he does it every single time, although he seems to. Edit if you’d like, Facs & Rescue.

  21. Did anyone notice that Bashir said the State’s Attorney’s office had no comment for tonight’s report because of a gag order, but Brodsky was able to comment, yet again? Go figure.

  22. rescueapet :Did anyone notice that Bashir said the State’s Attorney’s office had no comment for tonight’s report because of a gag order, but Brodsky was able to comment, yet again? Go figure.

    Yes I did, and just assumed maybe Brodsky’s was an old statement, even though I’ve not seen it before. Maybe he asked and was granted permission, and Glasgow was just playing by the rules, but I think it may be old. I recorded it, so I’ll go back and look to see if Bashir was wearing the same clothes when he was with both of them. The part with Doman was definitely new, so I’ll check his attire with her too. Not that everything was done on the same day, but maybe it was.

    And yeah Facs, you’re right about too. He’s trying to add credibility to his lies when he adds right, very much so, and without a doubt, and anyone who can’t see through him just plain doesn’t want to because he’s as transparent as glass. IMO.

  23. cfs7360 :

    rescueapet :Did anyone notice that Bashir said the State’s Attorney’s office had no comment for tonight’s report because of a gag order, but Brodsky was able to comment, yet again? Go figure.

    Yes I did, and just assumed maybe Brodsky’s was an old statement, even though I’ve not seen it before. Maybe he asked and was granted permission, and Glasgow was just playing by the rules, but I think it may be old. I recorded it, so I’ll go back and look to see if Bashir was wearing the same clothes when he was with both of them. The part with Doman was definitely new, so I’ll check his attire with her too. Not that everything was done on the same day, but maybe it was.
    And yeah Facs, you’re right about too. He’s trying to add credibility to his lies when he adds right, very much so, and without a doubt, and anyone who can’t see through him just plain doesn’t want to because he’s as transparent as glass. IMO.

    IMO, that is a ‘control’ thing. DP thinks or tries to act like he is in control of the conversation by responding but judging the speaker’s comment, then going on and repeating/twists his own version of what the speaker said.

  24. I see from the photo above that Steph Watts must be “the man with hair gel” lol. I was wondering who Lenard was talking about!

    I’m glad Steph’s “assistance” has been clarified, but I was really only concerned about safety protocol and comparing with what would be allowed here. Never ever in a million years did it occur to me that anyone attending could or would influence the findings.

    Mock trials, unless an historical exercise, I still don’t see the point if information and conditions aren’t identical, and that can’t be done. In fact, I find it distasteful and just another auxillary massaging technique. The real trial is the only thing that matters. Joel could benefit though, I think, by running his outrageous remarks past the public and listen out for gasps to show him what not to say in court.

  25. cfs7360 :
    Anyone notice how drew always prefaces his answer with “Right” every time he’s asked an incriminating question, then proceeds to try to dispute or explain away whatever the queston was? Liar.

    Just an observation that people will begin an answer with “right” when they’ve been expecting the question.

  26. rescueapet: (snipped)
    Oh, well, I’m sure Abood will hold his mock trial and then report that he won them over with flying colors.
    ~~~~

    thats about it. just another excuse for a media blitz.

  27. cfs:
    Anyone notice how drew always prefaces his answer with “Right” every time he’s asked an incriminating question, then proceeds to try to dispute or explain away whatever the queston was? Liar.

    ~~~~

    C-O-N-T-R-O-L

  28. Just noticed that Bashir is wearing the same clothes when he interviews Brodsky and Kathleen’s sister, so it probably is a new clip. Brodsky may or may not have gotten permission to shoot it, or maybe he didn’t need permission, IDK. Funny that there’s a limited gag order, but he can appear on Nightline and not Glasgow. The rules never seem to apply to him, or his client.

    You’re right about that too Bucket. Drew also seems to use it for appearances when he should, under normal circumstances, agree with a statement that really isn’t true or agreeable to him. For instance, he agreed with Bashir that it was heart wrenching and emotional for him to drive by Kathleen’s house. Yeah, well, I personally don’t think it was heart wrenching OR emotional for him whatsoever, and he certainly didn’t sound sincere or convincing when he said it was, IMO. The truth in his answer is that it probably was both of those things to his children.

    Maybe after the status hearing, we’ll know when he’s going to trial. If that smirky, cocky grin gets wiped off Brodky’s face or his attitude becomes more somber at some point in the near future, then it likely can be surmised that the hearsay statements will be allowed. Seriously, I don’t believe he will be able to emotionally conceal the effect of the Judge’s sealed decision if he finds himself in front of a camera at any point afterwards. He’ll probably either look somewhat serious and concerned, or overly jubilant and elated if they’re not allowed. I’ll be watching for the tell tale signs.

  29. “I heard screaming upstairs and her friend Mary went upstairs and she was dead in the bathtub,” Peterson said. “I checked for life signs and I knew at that particular time I didn’t belong there, so I called for additional police units to show up and take charge of the scene.”

    If you read that statement by Peterson, it’s a contradiction in the making. Since his lawyer seems to enjoy pointing out contradictions by witnesses, it can and does happen. Only, this time, he lied through his teeth.

    He tells us in that interview that Kathleen was “dead in the bathtub.” Yet, he checks for life signs before he decides he “didn’t belong there.”

    He didn’t belong there from the moment he let all of those people in that house. Lying skunk.

  30. theo1104 :I happen to know that Doman and Brodsky interview was taped on the same day

    Thanks Theo. That’s what appeared to have happened in the clip, but glad to hear from someone who’s in the know.

  31. Sorry. Apparently it was written by whomever authors that ABC blog, and not a specific reporter, but still…it’s inaccurate, and it’s a public statement. The trial will take place regardless of whether the hearsay statements are admitted.

  32. There is something which has been bothering me since DP’s bail was initially set and I wonder (excuse me, WW) if it’s something others here think about, too. I cannot remember or find a case where the possible murders of two women was “important enough” to warrant bail of $20MM.

    I turn it over and over in my mind and it fits no pattern I can find.

  33. cfs7360 :

    Sorry. Apparently it was written by whomever authors that ABC blog, and not a specific reporter, but still…it’s inaccurate, and it’s a public statement. The trial will take place regardless of whether the hearsay statements are admitted.

    There were a couple inaccuracies in that Nightline story as well. It’s become endemic.

  34. Well, I did see that the letter Pam Bosco supposedly got was from Stacy, which stands to reason. Drew didn’t seem to question whether the letter itself was sent, only the content.

  35. Court lasted all of three minutes today. George Lenard did the after court interview today and said Peterson is holding up well, he understands what’s going on, and he’s looking forward to having his side heard and putting on a vigorous defense.

    BTW, his and Blagoevich’s trials will be going on at the same time, so it will be a busy summer for the reporters.

  36. Well, Brodsky, Odeh and Abood should be having a nice vacation between now and June I suppose. I mean according to the defense, there’s no actual evidence and the prosecution ‘showed their cards’ at the hearsay hearings. No more preparation needed!

  37. June 14 trial date set for Drew Peterson in Savio death
    Jury selection to start then in ex-Bolingbrook cop’s murder case

    February 23, 2010

    By DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter

    Drew Peterson will stand trial beginning June 14 for murder in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, a Will County judge ordered today.

    Judge Stephen White ordered jury selection to begin that day for the 56-year-old former Bolingbrook cop, who’s charged with drowning Savio in her bathtub during their bitter divorce.

    Drew Peterson’s trial is scheduled to begin June 14, a Will County judge ordered today.

    Peterson, who remains jailed, has denied any involvement in her death — which initially was ruled accidental — or in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who remains missing.

    Drew Peterson hasn’t been charged in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. But, at a just-concluded pretrial hearing in the Savio case, Will County prosecutors argued to be allowed to introduce hearsay evidence that he killed Stacy Peterson and disposed of her body because she knew of his alleged involvement in Savio’s killing.

    Still to be decided: whether the judge will allow the jury to hear that hearsay evidence — statements that other witnesses say were made by Savio and Stacy Peterson.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2065446,drew-peterson-trial-date-set-022310.article

  38. A unique pretrial hearing on whether prosecutors may introduce certain hearsay statements as evidence at Peterson’s trial ended last week after 17 days of testimony.

    The actual trial is expected to be shorter.

    Strange statement from Schmadeke. Wish he would explain why he feels this way. Conti told us that all admitted testimony will have to be given anew, despite already being given at the Grand Jury and/or hearsay hearings. Of course, they won’t need the testimony pertaining to Drew’s involvement in Stacy’s disappearance, but I thought the prosecution had over 600 witnesses lined up for Kathleen’s trial alone…

  39. @Rescue: Of course, they won’t need the testimony pertaining to Drew’s involvement in Stacy’s disappearance, but I thought the prosecution had over 600 witnesses lined up for Kathleen’s trial alone…
    ==================================
    Actually, the prosecution has over 800 (The prosecution was also asked to produce a list of the fifty witnesses most likely to be called to testify, from over 800 witnesses originally named.) but I’m curious why you say they won’t need the above mentioned testimony about Stacy, since she more than likely disappeared because she knew Drew killed Kathleen. Seems to me it would be needed to help convict Drew of Kathleen’s murder, but obviously I’m not understanding what you wrote.

  40. I’m just saying that the trial will be to prove that drew killed Kathleen, so I don’t imagine they will be attempting to prove that Drew also killed Stacy during this trial. I believe they might admit her statements to the pastor and two others about Drew killing Kathleen, but only if the Judge allows them.

  41. cfs7360 :
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/02/condemned-from-beyond-proving-drews-law.html
    White must now decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the murder trial. Also under consideration is the testimony of three pathologists — all of whom agree that Savio drowned, but only two of whom believe it was a homicide.

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

    Also under consideration is the testimony of three pathologists — all of whom agree that Savio drowned, but only two of whom believe it was a homicide.

    This part is even better, only two out of three pathologists believe it was homicide.

    So two out of three pathologists is a minority these days – LOL !

  42. and the third pathologist can’t make up his mind to save his life how exactly Kathleen came to die (4 different ways) and had her drowning after death, so how much notice is anyone to take of him ?

  43. Judge sets June date for Peterson trial

    February 23, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson is less than four months away from meeting the men and women who will decide whether he heads to prison for what will surely be the rest of his life.

    Judge Stephen White on Tuesday set a June 14 date for the start of jury selection for Peterson’s murder trial.

    Peterson, a 56-year-old former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged with drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004.

    Savio and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found dead in her dry bathtub. She was due to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars of her husband’s assets only weeks after she happened to die.

    Despite the financial saving’s Peterson achieved through Savio dying, and the circumstances of her death, state police investigators quickly determined she accidentally drowned and closed the case.

    State police were forced to open it back up after Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007.

    Peterson claims his fourth wife left him and ran off with an unidentified lover. If Stacy did indeed abscond with a boyfriend, she has managed to keep such a low profile that she not been heard from since.

    State police do not buy Peterson’s story of abandonment and have publicly identified him as the sole suspect in what they have termed Stacy’s “potential homicide.” Police have not charged Peterson with harming Stacy.

    The state police did arrest Peterson in May for the murder of Savio, and he has remained in jail on a $20 million bond while awaiting his trial, which will commence after a jury is picked.

    White said two shifts of 35 potential jurors each will be brought through court when the selection starts.

    Attorneys from both sides will have 240 possible jurors to choose from. In August, White had the 240 men and women come to court and fill out questionnaires. He also warned them to avoid information about the Peterson case.

    A landmark hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s trial wrapped up just last week.

    Seventy witnesses testified during the hearing, which was held under recently passed state legislation dubbed “Drew’s Law” for its supposed connection to the Peterson case.

    After the hearing, it was left to White to rule how many of 14 hearsay statements made by Stacy and Savio will be admitted at the trial. White’s decision will be kept under wraps until the start of the trial.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2065357,Peterson-trial-date_SCN022310.article

  44. justanotherhen :and the third pathologist can’t make up his mind to save his life how exactly Kathleen came to die (4 different ways) and had her drowning after death, so how much notice is anyone to take of him ?

    Well, I feel sure Dr. Mitchell will also testify as well, so that makes four, with and two saying accident and two saying homicide.

  45. facsmiley :I’m just saying that the trial will be to prove that drew killed Kathleen, so I don’t imagine they will be attempting to prove that Drew also killed Stacy during this trial. I believe they might admit her statements to the pastor and two others about Drew killing Kathleen, but only if the Judge allows them.

    I see. It really all hinges in what hearsay is allowed anyway, and seriously, I doubt all of it will be, although I sure hope it will.

  46. Dr. Mitchell only determined that Kathleen died of drowning. He did not make a determination about how she died (murder, accident or…). That decision was left up to the coroner’s jury.

    Also I hear that Dr. Mitchell is not well and probably will not be called to testify. 😦

  47. rescueapet :

    “I heard screaming upstairs and her friend Mary went upstairs and she was dead in the bathtub,” Peterson said. “I checked for life signs and I knew at that particular time I didn’t belong there, so I called for additional police units to show up and take charge of the scene.”

    If you read that statement by Peterson, it’s a contradiction in the making. Since his lawyer seems to enjoy pointing out contradictions by witnesses, it can and does happen. Only, this time, he lied through his teeth.
    He tells us in that interview that Kathleen was “dead in the bathtub.” Yet, he checks for life signs before he decides he “didn’t belong there.”
    He didn’t belong there from the moment he let all of those people in that house. Lying skunk.

    Yes amazing isn’t it – Kathleen was supposedly dead for many, many hours, even days, looked like an exercise ball or balloon to Steve Carcerano (or so he says anyway), Mary Pontarelli screamed at the sight of Kathleen lying there dead in the tub and Drew a veteran Police Officer can’t tell this woman is obviously long dead.

    And this man protected the King Of Siam ??

  48. facsmiley :Dr. Mitchell only determined that Kathleen died of drowning. He did not make a determination about how she died (murder, accident or…). That decision was left up to the coroner’s jury.
    Also I hear that Dr. Mitchell is not well and probably will not be called to testify.

    Well, he did say in his autopsy report that the laceration on her head may be attributed to a fall, so I just assumed he considered it an accident. Things are not handled by a coroner’s jury in the state where I live. It’s the autopsy that decides the manner and cause of death, so I apologize for misunderstanding.

  49. If I am not mistaken, wasn’t Kathleen’s manner of death also discussed with the then State’s Attorney? The circumstances were presented to him and he declined to look into it. Right????

  50. Okay, here’s one place I saw that mentioned:

    I’m also being told for the first time today that the Illinois State Police visited the previous State’s Attorney Jeff Tomczak within days of Savio’s death in 2004 “seeking guidance”. I’ve also learned that Tomczak’s file on the case is slim…there is very little paperwork available on that meeting with police or whatever investigation previous State’s Attorney Jeff Tomczak conducted. Why is that? One source suggests Drew Peterson may have had “connections” that limited the scope but I see no concrete proof of that.

    http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/08/prosecutor-wants-kathleen-savio-exhumed/

  51. Rescue, there was a lot of blog talk about the Tomczak connections way back when, and about his not getting as involved as some thought he should, but I would need to go back and research it. My memory isn’t as good as it was two years ago.

  52. cfs7360 :Rescue, there was a lot of blog talk about the Tomczak connections way back when, and about his not getting as involved as some thought he should, but I would need to go back and research it. My memory isn’t as good as it was two years ago.

    Jeff Tomczak was busy at that time when his own father, Donald Tomczak was being tried in Chicago’s ‘Hired Truck Scandal” for which he was found ‘guilty’ and received a prison sentence.

  53. In Unanswered Cries, the former Police Chief was also aware of Kathleen’s fears, but, surprisingly, he was not called to testify. Hmmmmm.

    At one point, Kathy appealed directly to the Bolingbrook chief of police for help. She had come to know Mike Calcagno during her marriage to Drew, and considered him a friend. “If anything happens to me,” she told Calcagno, according to her sister Sue, “it’s because Drew’s killed me.” Though there was an internal Bolingbrook PD investigation in conjunction with the July 5th incident, Calcagno did not officially discipline Peterson for that incident nor for any other matters relating to Kathy, and it’s not known whether or how he took things up with Drew unofficially.

    Now retired, Calcagno told Chicago that it would be “inappropriate” for him to say anything about the case with an investigation ongoing. He said that he took Kathy’s warnings seriously enough to give her his cell phone number. He added, with his voice full of emotion, that she was “a beautiful person.”

    http://writingboots.typepad.com/writing_boots/2008/04/unanswered-crie.html

  54. I had forgotten what a wealth of information the Unanswered Cries article is.

    Drew’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has his own theory as to why no official intervened in response to Kathy’s many cries for help: In his experience, Brodsky says, it is not unheard of for women going through divorces to claim their husbands are trying to kill them. Brodsky adds an old divorce attorney’s saw: “In criminal cases, you have very bad people acting very good—’Yes, sir,’ ‘No, sir.’ In divorce cases you have very good people acting horribly.”

    Veteran Chicago divorce attorney Tracy Rizzo agrees that often people going through a divorce are hysterical, but as to whether they accuse a spouse of trying to kill them, she says, “Absolutely not.”

    Lest we not forget, the jury is going to bring their own life experiences with them. Some will have gone through a divorce, I assume. Buying into the defense’s theory that Kathleen went around telling people that Drew would kill her, just to make him look like the Big, Bad Boogeyman, may not be all that he makes it out to be. I just don’t believe these lawyers are in touch with reality.

  55. joehosey: (snipped)

    Savio and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found dead in her dry bathtub. She was due to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars of her husband’s assets only weeks after she happened to die.
    ~~~~~~

    her husbands assets ? what year is this, 1909 ?

  56. Missing 4th Wife May Be Big Part Of Peterson Trial
    Disappearance Of Ex-Ill. Cop Peterson’s 4th Wife Central To Prosecution In 3rd Wife’s Death

    Feb. 23, 2010
    By DON BABWIN Associated Press Writer
    (AP) JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – As Drew Peterson heads to trial in the death of his third wife, it’s clear that prosecutors hope to make their case by trying to prove he also killed his missing fourth wife, even though he has never been charged in her disappearance.

    That unusual strategy depends on whether a judge permits testimony about what Stacy Peterson allegedly told others before she vanished in 2007, including that she considered threatening to tell police her husband killed ex-wife Kathleen Savio three years earlier; that he came home dressed in black and with a bag of women’s clothes the night before Savio’s body was found; and that the former Bolingbrook police officer had bragged about being able to conceal a homicide.

    “You still can win without Stacy, but it’s much tougher without it,” said David Erickson, senior law lecturer at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

    Will County Judge Stephen White still must rule on whether he’ll allow such hearsay – or secondhand – evidence at Peterson’s upcoming trial on charges of killing Savio, whose body was found in a bathtub in 2004. On Tuesday, White said jury selection will begin June 14.

    Prosecutors have not said how much they would tell jurors about Stacy Peterson, but an extraordinary pretrial hearing revealed just how closely the circumstantial evidence against Drew Peterson in Savio’s slaying is tied to Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    The hearing was the result of a new Illinois law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence – statements not based on a witness’ direct knowledge – if prosecutors can prove a defendant may have killed a witness in order to prevent him or her from testifying.

    Prosecutors claim Peterson killed Savio to keep her from testifying against him in a property settlement hearing and prevent her from getting the hundreds of thousands of dollars such a settlement might cost him.

    Savio’s divorce attorney testified at the hearsay hearing that Stacy Peterson asked him to represent her in her own planned divorce of Peterson and asked about extorting money out of Drew Peterson by threatening to tell police that he killed Savio. Stacy Peterson disappeared shortly after that – before she filed for divorce and got any of Peterson’s money.

    Stacy Peterson’s disappearance also figures in another cornerstone of the prosecutors’ case: that Drew Peterson had the ability to kill Savio, not leave any evidence, and even make her death look like an accident.

    “This is not somebody who just watched CSI,” Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor told White on the last day of the hearing in which prosecutors detailed Peterson’s law enforcement career, including his experience as an evidence technician. “This is somebody who’s been CSI.”

    Peterson knew how to render someone unconscious without leaving any marks that would indicate a struggle, prosecutors said. Also, prosecutors said, he knew how easily crime scenes can be contaminated and made sure neighbors entered Savio’s house before he did the day her body was found.

    One challenge in Savio’s case is convincing jurors there was a homicide at all; a coroner ruled her death an accidental drowning and police didn’t collect forensic evidence.

    That might be easier if prosecutors could convince jurors he killed Stacy Peterson.

    To do that, experts say prosecutors would have to zero in on what happened after Stacy Peterson disappeared: nothing.

    That means presenting witnesses to testify that she was never heard from again after Oct. 28, 2007, never again used a credit card or her cell phone, and never wrote a letter to anyone she knew.

    “And the biggest one: She never attempted to contact her children,” said DuPage County state’s attorney Joe Birkett, who has prosecuted a number of high-profile cases and has used the hearsay law.

    Even if the judge does not initially allow anyone to testify about Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, the cases are so intertwined that there is always a chance a single question by one of Peterson’s attorneys could change that.

    “When you’re doing cross examination you’ve got to be damn sure you don’t do something that trips into the other case,” said Erickson. “If there’s one phrase trial judges love it’s, ‘Counsel, you opened the door.'”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/23/ap/national/main6235843.shtml

  57. writerofwrongs :

    joehosey: (snipped)

    Savio and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found dead in her dry bathtub. She was due to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars of her husband’s assets only weeks after she happened to die.
    ~~~~~~

    her husbands assets ? what year is this, 1909 ?

    I get so tired of that too…

  58. writerofwrongs :

    joehosey: (snipped)

    Savio and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found dead in her dry bathtub. She was due to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars of her husband’s assets only weeks after she happened to die.
    ~~~~~~

    her husbands assets ? what year is this, 1909 ?

    Oh, writer, in all fairness, no one has been hotter on the trail of Peterson than Joe Hosey, from the early days after Kathleen’s death. I might not see that as you do. IMO, I think you are going after the wrong person.

    He could have meant she was planning on getting part of his pension, which were “his assets,” no?

  59. Even if the judge does not initially allow anyone to testify about Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, the cases are so intertwined that there is always a chance a single question by one of Peterson’s attorneys could change that.

    “When you’re doing cross examination you’ve got to be damn sure you don’t do something that trips into the other case,” said Erickson. “If there’s one phrase trial judges love it’s, ‘Counsel, you opened the door.’”

    CFS, looks like Stacy could figure more than I thought. Guess it depends whether or not someone on the defense “opens the door’?

  60. rescue:
    her husbands assets ? what year is this, 1909 ?

    Oh, writer, in all fairness, no one has been hotter on the trail of Peterson than Joe Hosey, from the early days after Kathleen’s death. I might not see that as you do. IMO, I think you are going after the wrong person.

    He could have meant she was planning on getting part of his pension, which were “his assets,” no?

    ~~~~~

    Joe Hosey is doing his job and he’s staying employed, plus he wrote a book. Good for Joe. If it weren’t Joe covering this, it would be another print journalist.

    Joe’s choice of words were IMHO archaic. Just my 2 centavos 😉

  61. facsmiley :

    Even if the judge does not initially allow anyone to testify about Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, the cases are so intertwined that there is always a chance a single question by one of Peterson’s attorneys could change that.
    “When you’re doing cross examination you’ve got to be damn sure you don’t do something that trips into the other case,” said Erickson. “If there’s one phrase trial judges love it’s, ‘Counsel, you opened the door.’”

    CFS, looks like Stacy could figure more than I thought. Guess it depends whether or not someone on the defense “opens the door’?

    I absolutely LOVE Don Babwin’s reporting! He really gives a lot of nuts and bolts in him articles. Plus, this bit was very intriguing: “And the biggest one: She never attempted to contact her children,” said DuPage County state’s attorney Joe Birkett, who has prosecuted a number of high-profile cases and has used the hearsay law.

  62. He said that he took Kathy’s warnings seriously enough to give her his cell phone number. He added, with his voice full of emotion, that she was “a beautiful person.”

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

    He also said she never called.

    By saying that he puts the responsibility back on Kathleen and this is the Chief (at the time) of Bolingbrook Police talking @@

  63. It just seems to me that Joel tries to imply the only trial the new hearsay law has or will be used in is Drew’s trial, which never made sense to me, since other attorneys surely have used it since it was passed. Would be really interesting to know how many attorneys have actually used it to date, for what types of cases, their conviction rate, and how many of the cases subsequently ended up at the Supreme Court level as a result of using it. Surely, there’s some public information somewhere about it. Wonder if Joel knows? 😀

  64. justanotherhen :He said that he took Kathy’s warnings seriously enough to give her his cell phone number. He added, with his voice full of emotion, that she was “a beautiful person.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    He also said she never called.
    By saying that he puts the responsibility back on Kathleen and this is the Chief (at the time) of Bolingbrook Police talking @@

    I wonder at what point he gave her his phone number, and how much time transpired between then and the time she died? I mean, did she have it for a couple of years, or a couple of months? They had nasty dealings for nearly two years prior to her death. Anybody know?

  65. rescueapet :

    writerofwrongs :
    joehosey: (snipped)
    Savio and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found dead in her dry bathtub. She was due to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars of her husband’s assets only weeks after she happened to die.~~~~~~
    her husbands assets ? what year is this, 1909 ?
    Oh, writer, in all fairness, no one has been hotter on the trail of Peterson than Joe Hosey, from the early days after Kathleen’s death. I might not see that as you do. IMO, I think you are going after the wrong person.
    He could have meant she was planning on getting part of his pension, which were “his assets,” no?

    Rescue – I certainly respect Joe Hosey’s work on this case and appreciate all he’s done. However, when he uses the language of “her husband’s assets” Joe’s perpetuating a way of thought which is not only archaic, it is dangerous to women. How many women are murdered by their domestic partners when the relationship beaks down and the woman wants to leave with HER portion of the JOINT marital assets?

    I don’t believe Hosey intends his remarks to denigrate or is perhaps even aware, but he’s a smart guy; let’s help him learn a new trick.

    Imagine for a moment that Little Boy Drew was raised in a world where women were viewed as equal to men. Women are equal partners for men, not conquests to be made or a free live-in maid/nanny/whore.

    The words we use matter. Neither Hosey, DP nor any man, woman or child should use words which state the female partner in a marriage is not a complete equal.

  66. cfs7360 :

    It just seems to me that Joel tries to imply the only trial the new hearsay law has or will be used in is Drew’s trial, which never made sense to me, since other attorneys surely have used it since it was passed. Would be really interesting to know how many attorneys have actually used it to date, for what types of cases, their conviction rate, and how many of the cases subsequently ended up at the Supreme Court level as a result of using it. Surely, there’s some public information somewhere about it. Wonder if Joel knows? :D

    I remember a case that used it shortly after it was passed. I’ll see if I can find it.

  67. Thanks Facs. That would be great! Couldn’t help but wonder how SA Joe Birkett did with his and was planning to research it later.

  68. Here it is!

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=293711&src=2

    Prosecutors use ‘Drew Peterson’ hearsay law in Warrenville murder

    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
    Contact writer Joshua Matthews
    Published: 5/14/2009

    Three months before she was fatally shot, 17-year-old Sade Glover accused Joshua L. Matthews of punching her in the face.

    The teen filed a battery complaint with Warrenville police the next day. Matthews wasn’t arrested for another 21/2 months.

    Matthews is accused of killing her two weeks later.

    A DuPage County judge ruled Thursday that a jury in the upcoming murder trial of Matthews will be allowed to read Glover’s written police statement and other evidence from the earlier incident on July 2, 2004.

    Prosecutors invoked the so-called Drew Peterson “beyond the grave” hearsay law to convince the judge the evidence is admissible. It is believed to be the first time the law has been used since it went into effect in December…

  69. Hey everyone. I asked Joe Hosey about the infamous phone records we’ve all been talking about for these past couple of years, those which deal with Stacy calling Drew when he was supposed to be in the house with her.

    The calls from Stacy to Drew came up in the State’s closing arguments. However, what we think it is with those calls is that they were “chirps.” Those Nextel phones had the “walkie-talkie” capabilities. Whether or not those calls can be tracked is another thing.

    Also, those witnesses that testified during the hearsay hearing that had to do with Stacy won’t be testifying in the trial phase. So, that will cut the list of witnesses down in that regard.

    It’ll most likely take a couple of weeks to seat the jury, and the trial itself will run at least three weeks or more.

  70. I guess things are going to be going quiet on these discussions until the trial starts in June. I personally hope not

  71. lostacres :

    I guess things are going to be going quiet on these discussions until the trial starts in June. I personally hope not

    Hey lostacres!

    Well, a little slowdown might not be such a bad thing, but we’re sure there will be some interesting stories coming out now and then. 😉

  72. rescueapet :

    lostacres :
    I guess things are going to be going quiet on these discussions until the trial starts in June. I personally hope not

    Hey lostacres!
    Well, a little slowdown might not be such a bad thing, but we’re sure there will be some interesting stories coming out now and then.

    Yes, for now we all know that at least he is where he belongs. And will stay there hopefully when this is done and over with

  73. Peterson trial date set, but no decision yet on hearsay
    When judge rules on whether to allow hearsay statements, decision will be sealed until after jury selection

    A Will County judge on Tuesday set a June trial date in the murder case against Drew Peterson but has yet to rule on whether any hearsay evidence can be used, a decision that prosecutors could potentially appeal before trial.

    Judge Stephen White said jury selection would begin June 14. In August, he brought in the pool of some 240 jurors, who filled out questionnaires and were admonished to shun media coverage of the case.

    White’s decision on whether any of 13 remaining hearsay statements prosecutors want admitted at trial under a new state law can be heard will be filed under seal. It will become public after jury selection is over, White said last week.

    The judge must consider testimony from some 70 witnesses over 17 days on both the 2004 drowning death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, and 2007 disappearance of fourth wife, Stacy. Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged only in Savio’s death.

    During closing arguments in the hearsay hearing last week, prosecutors revealed the importance they place on what they say was an accidentally answered four-minute phone call from Stacy’s cell phone to Peterson’s cell phone the night Stacy was reported missing.

    “This is a miracle, judge,” Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said of the alleged mistake during closing arguments last week. “We probably wouldn’t be standing here if it didn’t happen.”

    Peterson’s stepbrother Thomas Morphey testified that Peterson dropped him off at Remington Lakes park in Bolingbrook that night, handing Morphey Drew Peterson’s cell phone and telling him not to answer it.

    Glasgow said two calls rang unanswered, but a 9:07 p.m. call was accidentally picked up by Morphey, who by then had placed the phone in his coat pocket. Prosecutors allege Peterson, who was trying to frame a Shorewood man, was then forced to concoct a story about what his wife said.

    During the hearing, police and others testified Peterson said his wife told him during the call she was running away with an unnamed man. Stacy’s sister, apparently the first to speak with Peterson that night, testified he told her she’d gone to Jamaica.

    Defense attorney Joel Brodsky said the call only bolsters his client’s version of what happened. He said there was no evidence presented that Morphey, who only remembered the phone ringing twice, accidentally answered the call.

    “It’s almost like an admission that they don’t have a case to me,” said Brodsky, who said White’s ruling could push back the trial date. “If it goes very strongly towards the defense we may not have a jury trial in June (as prosecutors appeal).”

    If the four-minute call from Peterson’s wife is real, “their whole case about Stacy falls apart,” Brodsky said. “They have to come up with this nutty pocket dial to keep their case.”

    sschmadeke@tribune.com

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-0224-20100223,0,7782561.story

  74. If the four-minute call from Peterson’s wife is real, “their whole case about Stacy falls apart,” Brodsky said. “They have to come up with this nutty pocket dial to keep their case.”

    Anybody have an idea what “nutty pocket dial” means? I’m not following Brodsky’s cryptic message. Really, I don’t understand what he means to say, and how he knows this is a made up call. Because, at this point, I see it quite the opposite. Peterson followed and traced Stacy’s every move. All he has to do is finger the dude she ran away with, turn over all of his records to prove it, and this will all be over. Maybe a (wink, wink) police department computer database record of someone’s background he looked into, who just might be the guy she ran off with. Or not. Too bad the defense is holding back on all of this for now, waiting for their Perry Mason moment.

  75. “It’s almost like an admission that they don’t have a case to me,” said Brodsky, who said White’s ruling could push back the trial date. “If it goes very strongly towards the defense we may not have a jury trial in June (as prosecutors appeal).”

    So sure of this, I guess, Brodsky must be, that he’s already predicting a push back of the trial date. Are we to assume if it does start in June, then this teaser is going to wither in the wind, and Judge White ruled to let the statements in?

  76. At one point, Kathy appealed directly to the Bolingbrook chief of police for help. She had come to know Mike Calcagno during her marriage to Drew, and considered him a friend. “If anything happens to me,” she told Calcagno, according to her sister Sue, “it’s because Drew’s killed me.” Though there was an internal Bolingbrook PD investigation in conjunction with the July 5th incident, Calcagno did not officially discipline Peterson for that incident nor for any other matters relating to Kathy, and it’s not known whether or how he took things up with Drew unofficially.

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

    So Chief Calcagno has a hysterical woman on his hands who says one of his officers, which happens to be her husband, is going to kill her and there are several unsavory incidents one of which was subjected to an internal Police Investigation and all this is not alarming enough for the then Police Chief as nothing ever comes of anything, other than him giving Kathleen his cell phone no because he is so concerned about her and according to him Kathleen never rings, but Kathleen ends up dead just like she said she would, which causes the Police Chief to say what a wonderful woman she was.

    Looking back I suppose that really means something then !

  77. Calcagno did not officially discipline Peterson for that incident nor for any other matters relating to Kathy, and it’s not known whether or how he took things up with Drew unofficially.

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

    Whatever Chief Calcagno took up with Drew unofficially was just as effective what he did officially in his position as Police Chief as the result was exactly the same – Kathleen ended up dead.

  78. Maybe I’m just thick but I can’t figure out why it is Joel thinks that proof of the phone call from Stacy’s phone is helpful to Drew.

    Morphey has mentioned the calls from Stacy’s phone since the beginning.

  79. facsmiley :Maybe I’m just thick but I can’t figure out why it is Joel thinks that proof of the phone call from Stacy’s phone is helpful to Drew.
    Morphey has mentioned the calls from Stacy’s phone since the beginning.

    Read my lips…

    JB is lying…

  80. Ok, then I want to see Joel make the part where the Meijer manager says that Morphey came in a week before Stacy was missing, applied for a job and was turned down, work to Drew’s advantage.

  81. Watch his freckles bounce and wiggle on JB’s bald head! LOL

    DP first has to tell JB what to say about when the Meijer manager says that Morphey came in a week before Stacy was missing, applied for a job and was turned down. I’ve heard that now, Morphey works at Meijer… big help DP was to Morphey!

  82. Facs, this has been a concern of mine for a very long time. Morphey always said there were only two phone calls from Stacy’s phone that were never answered around 9:00 pm that night. I always wondered where the “couple of minutes” phone call Drew said he got from Stacy and supposedly talked with her, came into play, as far as the cell phone records were concerned, since, according to Morphey, he didn’t answer either of the two that were received. Drew told everyone who would listen that the call lasted a couple of minutes, but if the calls weren’t answered, it wouldn’t have been that long, so when did he supposedly talk to her? Of course I believed, and still do, that he never did, but felt that there would have to be something in the phone records to justify his saying that. He’s not that stupid. At any rate, we now find out that at 9:07 pm, there was a 4 minute call that was obviously answered, supposedly accidentally, while the phone was in Morphey’s pocket, as Drew was not to show up until “within the hour” later, at which time they went to Drew’s to load the barrel.

    So, now the records about the answered call come to light, and Joel is saying that this proves Drew talked to Stacy, and there WAS a call answered, not just the two that Morphey said he didn’t answer. I think that’s precisely why he’s calling it the “nutty pocket dial.” He’s trying to turn it around to show tat Drew wasn’t lying when he talked to Stacy, and I have to admit, I wasn’t too as impressed with the whole scenario of Glasgow calling it a miracle, but then I wasn’t there, and we know how some of these reporters are. I just really don’t see it as a miracle, but he knows a lot more about it that I do.

    Some of you won’t agree with me, and that’s okay too, but I truly do see how Brodsky thinks this is a boost for the defense, in that it proves there was talk time and not just unanswered calls, if that makes sense. He’s going to use anything he can get, and this could go either way. Just my opinion.

  83. The only other thing I could think of is if Drew really was dumb enough to think that unanswered calls would suffice as proof that Stacy called him, even though they only last seconds and he said his call with her lasted about two minutes. I don’t know, but it has always bothered me, but it bothers me still that if Morphey didn’t know he answered it, Drew must have checked his received and missed calls and discovered it in time to tell Cassandra his big fat lie.

  84. I don’t take any of them serious or try to make sense out of anything that DP, JB or AA say. I guess I would never make a good defense lawyer. My B.S. detector is set too high and keeps going off when they talk. I look at them as entertainment because I can see how hard they are struggling to explain away all the truth that is surfacing. What they are doing is totally against my nature… defending a killer and abuser of women.

    The more truth and facts that come out, the worse it looks for DP. My satisfaction comes when they begin to sweat as they are exposed as liars. 😀

  85. Judgin, that’s probably a good thing, and I envy you. Unfortunately, I do take certain things seriously, especially if I see it as a threat to the prosecution. This phone call thing has always bugged me, but with the new details, it’s more understandable, although since the beginning I’ve wondered how the two unanswered calls were going to factor in. Now we know there was a third answered call, so Drew was covered all along, or so he thought. I just couldn’t decide if he was going to try to use the two calls as proof Stacy called or if there was another call we just didn’t know about. Now we know. At the same time, I also realize everything is not going to go in favor of the prosecution, and it’s disturbing when something like this comes to light, but as I said, this could go either way with a jury, depending on how it’s presented and argued. Nite everybody.

  86. The phone call doesn’t seem like a home run for either side. We all know there was activity on Stacy’s phone that night.

    At this point it’s up to Judge White to decide whether he believes it was Stacy calling to tell Drew where to find his car, or whether it was a call made from her phone by Drew in an attempt to create an alibi.

    I know what I believe. IMO, Tom Morphey is a very credible witness with no motive to lie about what happened that night. I just hope he finds the strength to tell the whole truth. If there is more that he could tell…even if it’s incriminating to himself, I just pray he does.

    A question for those who think the call might help the defense: How would Morphey know about the phone calls if his account of that night is some sort of drug-induced fantasy?

  87. So, along with permission to do the interview with ABC, I guess Joel got permission to send out a press release as well?

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=0&a=2285

    Attorney: Drew Peterson Faces ‘A Lynch Mob’ with Hearsay Testimony
    Lawyer says new state law allowing hearsay to be admitted in murder trial is unfair to Drew Peterson.

    (PRNewsChannel) / February 23, 2010 / Chicago, Ill. / The attorney representing accused killer and former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson calls his client a victim of “a lynch mob.”

    “Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon,” Joel Brodsky told ABC’s ‘Nightline.’ He said recent hearsay statements from the family of Peterson’s deceased third wife, Kathleen Savio, do not afford his client a fair trial.

    Peterson was charged with Savio’s 2004 death, and is suspected in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    Drew’s Law, passed in 2008 after Peterson was named a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, allowed a judge to admit hearsay statements in a first-degree murder trial–provided prosecutors can prove Peterson killed Stacy to prevent her from testifying about Savio’s death. Family members, as well as a minister, say Stacy claimed Peterson confessed to killing Savio.

    “It’s being built on the unproven words of a dead person being conveyed through her family,” said Brodsky, who argues hearsay should not be used as evidence in a murder trial.

    The trial is set to begin mid June.

    I almost feel nostalgic!

  88. That PR comes with a video clip from the Nightline show. You know, it’s sad to see a lawyer throwing his client under the bus in order to get more media coverage for himself.

    Drew did not come off well in the Nightline story…

  89. The attorney representing accused killer and former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson calls his client a victim of “a lynch mob.”

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

    A lynch mob ??

    Since when has Drew ever been a victim of anything ?

  90. At this point it’s up to Judge White to decide whether he believes it was Stacy calling to tell Drew where to find his car, or whether it was a call made from her phone by Drew in an attempt to create an alibi.

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

    People with red alibi folders holding uncrumpled receipts for donuts, have the same mind set to place phone calls to people deliberately made to hold their phone (!!)

  91. justanotherhen :
    The attorney representing accused killer and former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson calls his client a victim of “a lynch mob.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    A lynch mob ??
    Since when has Drew ever been a victim of anything ?

    Ah you know us Bolingbrook Residents we are everything in the book. Drew never did no wrong according to him, we all did it!

  92. rescue:
    Anybody have an idea what “nutty pocket dial” means?

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    ever had your cell phone make calls on it’s on ? Happens with some phones if speed dialing is set and the ” nutty pocket dial ” as the buffoonsky so eloquently put it, it accidently pressed. Won’t happen with most phones; flip phones and phones which lockdown. This s/b easy e’nuf to disprove. He is desperate.

  93. facsmiley :The phone call doesn’t seem like a home run for either side. We all know there was activity on Stacy’s phone that night.
    At this point it’s up to Judge White to decide whether he believes it was Stacy calling to tell Drew where to find his car, or whether it was a call made from her phone by Drew in an attempt to create an alibi.
    I know what I believe. IMO, Tom Morphey is a very credible witness with no motive to lie about what happened that night. I just hope he finds the strength to tell the whole truth. If there is more that he could tell…even if it’s incriminating to himself, I just pray he does.
    A question for those who think the call might help the defense: How would Morphey know about the phone calls if his account of that night is some sort of drug-induced fantasy?

    This is the last comment I’m making on this subject, and Facs, I don’t doubt for a second that Drew made ALL of the calls to Morphey, and I certainly didn’t mean for what I wrote to come across otherwise. First, let me say that my comments were based on the consideration that Morphey would be testifying at trial, but since you and Rescue have said the Stacy testimony won’t be used again for Kathleen’s trial, it’s really a moot point for now, although I still don’t understand how that can be so.

    You said you couldn’t figure out why Joel thinks that proof of the phone call from Stacy’s phone is helpful to Drew. All I was saying is that I can see where it could be used to potentially create a little doubt from a juror’s standpoint, because it was an ANSWERED call that Tom had not mentioned before, and of which most of us were not aware until the article last night. However, I absolutely and totally believe everything Tom Morphey said, but will a jury after the defense does their best to discredit him? According to Glasgow, Tom didn’t even know he had answered the phone the third time, for heavens sake! That’s my whole point. I hope to God a jury does believe everything he says, and from where I sit, I don’t see how they wouldn’t, but how many jurors will have researched and followed this case since the beginning as most of us have? Probably none. Some of them won’t hear a lot of these things for the first time until they’re in a courtroom, where we’ve been researching and discussing it for over two years or more.

    So, my apology for making my comments based on this beng presented at trial, when at this point, it’s only to try to convince the JUDGE that Drew killed Stacy, and get the hearsay statements in. That’s what I lost sight of in my posts last night. I was strictly thinking TRIAL and not hearsay hearing, so in that regard, I don’t have a clue what the judge will do with any of the testimony. Again, sorry for not staying in the present. Think I probably need another break from this stuff anyway.

  94. I think it is easy to guess that the phone call was picked up by Drew himself just after he took the phone from Thomas.
    Then the question is who was there near Shorewood to make this call from Stacy’s phone?
    That is the only possibility, IMO.

  95. hen: (snipped)
    So Chief Calcagno has a hysterical woman on his hands who says one of his officers, which happens to be her husband, is going to kill her and there are several unsavory incidents one of which was subjected to an internal Police Investigation and all this is not alarming enough for the then Police Chief as nothing ever comes of anything, other than him giving Kathleen his cell phone

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I thought I posted something yesterday about this however it never appeared; perhaps it got lost in cyperspace or was a blog violation though I didn’t think so.

    IMHO chief (now retired) Calcagno had an obligation to protect KS’s civil rights and failed. What’s this %$#@ about giving her is cell phone # and where in the statute under the Illinois Domestic Violence Protection Act does it say that this is a proper protocal in response to domestic violence ? Nowhere, thats where. IMHO the good chief, now retired, decided to handle this his way, which was no way and all the now retired chief can muster is a platitude about what a beautiful person she was. This is beyond unacceptable. Poor Kathleen didn’t have a prayer.

  96. I just read the PR release that Brodsky put out. I may be wrong, but he just may catch a lot of heat for using that term. I think it was insane to associate his client with that term, and I think that Brodsky should quietly go away and stay there.

  97. WoR, there was at least one person (Calgano or another BBPD officer) who contacted a person in charge of a shelter for abused women and also gave this contact to Kathleen. IMO, if Kathleen had gone there, things might have ended in a diffrent way. However, I also understand why she did not do that.

  98. cyrhla:
    WoR, there was at least one person (Calgano or another BBPD officer) who contacted a person in charge of a shelter for abused women and also gave this contact to Kathleen. IMO, if Kathleen had gone there, things might have ended in a diffrent way. However, I also understand why she did not do that.

    ~~~~
    Drew should have been removed from the family home. The official response was completely ineffective and unacceptable. IMHO it’s called ” protecting our juicy pensions ” The Illinois Domestic Violence Prevention Act is specific as to how these matters are to be handled and they were not. I hope Kathleens estate goes after each and every one who failed poor KS.

  99. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-box-0224-20100223,0,6711015.story

    Chicago Tribune
    Witnesses and hearsay statements that a judge is considering whether to allow in Drew Peterson’s trial

    1. Kathleen Savio’s letter to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale complaining of Drew Peterson’s abuse, including an alleged July 2002 attack when he put a knife to her throat.

    2. Kristin Anderson testified that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.

    3. Mary Parks, Savio’s Joliet Junior College classmate, testified she saw red marks on Savio’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

    4. Issam Karam, a Savio co-worker, testified Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat.

    5. Susan Doman, Savio’s sister, gave lengthy testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

    6. Savio’s sister Anna Doman testified that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

    7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

    8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

    9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company

    10. Harry Smith, Savio’s divorce attorney, testified Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

    11. Scott Rossetto, Stacy’s friend, testified she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.

    12. The Rev. Neil Schori, pastor, testified Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the late morning on the day Savio’s body was found. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

    13. Michael Miles, Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, testified Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it.

    Sources: Court testimony and prosecutor statements

  100. PETERSON DREW 3 10 10 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case
    PETERSON DREW 3 10 10 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Prove-Up
    PETERSON DREW 3 16 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status

    ROBINSON MICHAEL 3 1 10 111 900 09SC008604 Alias Summons
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 3 8 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 3 8 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL

  101. Thanks for finding that list, Rescue. Great resource!

    I guess the two missing statements (there were originally 15) would have been statements Stacy made to Pastor Schori which weren’t allowed because of marital privilege.

  102. CFS, don’t worry about posting your opinions about that phone call. I’m trying to figure out its significance as well.

    My last post probably wasn’t clear because I was really in a way too subtle way trying to say that possibly Tom didn’t “pocket dial” that call when he picked up, but possibly answered it, even though Drew had instructed him not to. There was some sort of conversation between the two for the next four minutes and Drew had to come up with an explanation. Thus the “she called and told me she was leaving and where to find the car”.

    I’m wondering if Tom has possibly always left that part out of his testimony because when he picked up that call from “Stacy” and got Drew on the other end…at that point he would have had to know something bad was going on, and yet his involvement did not end there. IMO and just wondering. I was trying to speculate without speculating. So now I’ll stop.

  103. But I will add that I’ve seen calls placed unintentially by sitting on the phone or leaning against a chair, etc. But never calls answered that way. I suppose it’s possible.

  104. Wow, Facs, that was an interesting thought about Morphey.

    Because, now that you mention it, whatever Brodsky says it was, think the opposite. If he’s whistling about this being a pocket or butt call, then we can absolutely be guaranteed it wasn’t. Which, taking the next logical step, means Morphey just may have answered that call, forcing Peterson to lock himself into his phony recount of Stacy calling him to say she ran away.

    Great thought, Facs!

  105. Thanks Facs. The whole thing just didn’t sound logial to me either, and that’s why it bothered me so much. It certainly stands to reason that Morphey forgot and answered it when it rang the third time, and to me that would incriminate Drew even moreso. Why not just say so, if that’s the case? The accidental pocket answer just sounded a bit bogus to me too, and nothing like the miracle Glasgow called it, but as I said, we weren’t there, reporters are not always accurate, and Glasgow knows more about what he’s doing that I ever will. Further, I don’t know how much it matters in regard to the hearsay hearing anyway, but it must matter some for Glasgow to call it a miracle, if in fact he did. Since Morphey’s testimony isn’t included as one of the 13 statements anyway, and as you and Rescue said all said, won’t be used in the trial since it’s Stacy testimony, I can’t even see where it matters unless he’s tried in a separate trial for Stacy’s murder. That’s why I’m having a hard time not understanding why his testimony won’t be used at some point in Kathleen’s trial. Just getting too confusing for me when I don’t know all of the details and only bits and pieces of what actually went on. Truthfully, I’m getting too frustrated trying to figure it.

    As for what you said about Tom leaving picking up the phone out of his testimony, he has said that when Drew made the calls, he believed that he was killing Stacy at that point, so who knows. It’s just too much for my pea brain.

    One other thing….since the statements are down to 13 and you said the two that made up the original 15 were possibly two of Schori’s statements. I thought it was brought down to 14 when the psychic’s statement was released, and have been trying to figure out what other Stacy testimony might not be needed any longer. Would be intersting to know what statements they are.

  106. The more I think about it, it seems like there is something written somewhere from way back when that describes Drew getting really angry at Morphey for answering one of the phone calls. Don’t know if it was a Morphey interview, or if it was from his brother, girl friend, Martinek or who, but I’m going to see if I can find it. If I do, I’ll post it. Now, this really is my last post on the subject, unless I find what I’m looking for.

  107. So maybe the omitted (struck and/or inadmissable) hearsay statements would be.

    14. Statement from the family psychic that Stacy said Drew told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

    15. Statement from Neil Schori that Stacy told him Drew said that he had killed Kathleen Savio

    ??

  108. facsmiley :So maybe the omitted (struck and/or inadmissable) hearsay statements would be.
    14. Statement from the family psychic that Stacy said Drew told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.
    15. Statement from Neil Schori that Stacy told him Drew said that he had killed Kathleen Savio
    ??

    and “committed the ‘perfect crime'”.

  109. facsmiley :So maybe the omitted (struck and/or inadmissable) hearsay statements would be.
    14. Statement from the family psychic that Stacy said Drew told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.
    15. Statement from Neil Schori that Stacy told him Drew said that he had killed Kathleen Savio
    ??

    LOL. Stands to reason, but I thought before the hearing started that the judge had already ruled Schori couldn’t/wouldn’t testify about, and there were still 15 but I may be wrong.

    By the way, I must have imagined that I might have possibly read Drew got upset with Tom for answering one of the calls, because I can’t find anything anywhere about it.

  110. The more I’ve thought about it, you’re probably right Facs. Seems like they had to end a hearing early, or on the day before Neil testified to discuss what was not going to be allowed by him, and then announced he would’t be able to testify about Stacy said Drew TOLD her.

  111. I always try to remember that SA Glasgow has superior knowledge to support his claims that we do not have. There are the statements and testimony of 805 witnesses, phone records, recorded documents, taped overhears (Lenny & Paula), and DP’s own self-incriminating, contradictory statements on tv.

    IMO, the defense team is no threat to Glasgow’s case. From what I’ve seen presented so far by SA Glasgow’s office, I feel confident that his office has done their homework well, and gathered enough information that will successfully support every claim they make against DP to the jury at Trial. They know what they are doing. Glasgow is taking no risks and is not ‘winging’ it!

    Glasgow just keeps his cards close to his vest and saved his energy to present his case to the jury at the appropriate time.

  112. Totally agree Judgin, and that’s why sometimes I think it’s futile to even try to discuss or debate some of the particulars of this case, when we’re so handicapped by lack of details and erroneous reporting. Alas, we’re still here, trying to muddle through as best we can with whatever morsels we’re thrown. I don’t doubt Glasgow at all, and admire him tremendously, although as I said his reported “miracle” statement threw me a bit, but more than likely it was printed out of context, as so many things are. My real gripe is with some of the reporting we’re subjected to.

  113. FYI, if things went as planned, there’s a mock trial going on right now at Abood’s office. Whether he’ll post the outcome or not remains to be seen. Obviously, they’ll be using what’s been heard so far, both in the public and during the hearsay testimony, since I doubt they’d add anything they’ve learned through discovery but hasn’t yet been made public. For sure, if they get a non-believer, they’re going to want to know why. A mock trial is run to learn where there are cracks in their case, so I really doubt we’ll ever hear these results.

  114. I’m inclined to agree with you Judgin. Joel still feels compelled to make his arguments to the media, while Glasgow’s team is making theirs in the courtroom. Does Joel doubt his own abilities as a lawyer so much that he has to scramble for sound bites and compare the legal system to a “lynch mob”? Guess so…

    As far as the cases against Drew, Joel has been on a big losing streak. Drew is still sitting in jail, the trial for murder of Kathleen is near, and there could be very well be a sealed indictment for Stacy’s murder waiting in the wings.

  115. I always try to remind myself, “Opposite!” whenever Blabsky opens his mouth. His greatest consistency has been his ability to place himself and his client 180 degrees from the truth.

  116. And I am still equal parts incredibly grateful & crazy curious as to how the People have been able to maintain a $20MM bail for the low-life.

  117. facsmiley :I’m inclined to agree with you Judgin. Joel still feels compelled to make his arguments to the media, while Glasgow’s team is making theirs in the courtroom. Does Joel doubt his own abilities as a lawyer so much that he has to scramble for sound bites and compare the legal system to a “lynch mob”? Guess so…
    As far as the cases against Drew, Joel has been on a big losing streak. Drew is still sitting in jail, the trial for murder of Kathleen is near, and there could be very well be a sealed indictment for Stacy’s murder waiting in the wings.

    Joel now knows what he is dealing with, doesn’t he? He just doesn’t know how to defend it!

  118. rescueapet :FYI, if things went as planned, there’s a mock trial going on right now at Abood’s office. Whether he’ll post the outcome or not remains to be seen. Obviously, they’ll be using what’s been heard so far, both in the public and during the hearsay testimony, since I doubt they’d add anything they’ve learned through discovery but hasn’t yet been made public. For sure, if they get a non-believer, they’re going to want to know why. A mock trial is run to learn where there are cracks in their case, so I really doubt we’ll ever hear these results.

    LOL, “cracks in their case”

    IMO, JB and the Abood Law Firm have a BIG CRACK IN THEIR CASE…

    DP, a ‘guilty’ client!

  119. writerofwrongs :
    cyrhla:
    WoR, there was at least one person (Calgano or another BBPD officer) who contacted a person in charge of a shelter for abused women and also gave this contact to Kathleen. IMO, if Kathleen had gone there, things might have ended in a diffrent way. However, I also understand why she did not do that.
    ~~~~
    Drew should have been removed from the family home. The official response was completely ineffective and unacceptable. IMHO it’s called ” protecting our juicy pensions ” The Illinois Domestic Violence Prevention Act is specific as to how these matters are to be handled and they were not. I hope Kathleens estate goes after each and every one who failed poor KS.

    Not only is the Illinois Domestic Violence Prevention Act specific how matters are to be handled, the Police Department has their own Policies and Protocol regarding conduct of their officers, yet none of it seem to have ever applied to Drew.

    It seems he was accountable to no one and for a very long time at that !

  120. In my opinion, Joel et al get vocal when things are not going well. Everytime they have some sort of press release or blurb on the news I assume things are not good in their camp.

    I find Joel to be lazy. He has all of the information the State has, he just has no idea what it means or how to undo it, so he goes for the simplest of terms… they are lying, they have troubled pasts, they do drugs. I am sorry, but Drew has been married 4 times, that does not scream stable to me.

    Glasgow and his office have kept things very quiet, and thats how it should be with a gag order in place.

    Interesting, but way off topic, there are a couple of gentlemen coming to trial for church arsons, their attorney said he cannot discuss the case because there is a gag order in place…..I was just wondering if Joel understood what a gag order was, apparently some attorneys take them very seriously.

  121. re: nightline interview…2:12 minutes. Drew enjoyed provoking and antagonizing KS.
    Immature, disrespectful and controlling behavior which he refuses to own up to.

    2:44….Drew states that KS filed order of protection to get her to have the house.. so she could get sole custody of the house.

    Refusing to own up to his behavior, opting rather to deflect to a conspiricy theory
    to take HIS house.
    Narcissistic, controlling and abusive.

  122. There’s at least 20 witnesses, according to the defense, that are supposed to be on Drew’s team. Anyone have any ideas?

    Stephen Peterson
    Tom Peterson
    Kris Peterson
    Mike Robinson
    Steve Carcerano
    Dan Budenz
    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen

    Other than those few, I wouldn’t want to guess who else may have exonerating testimony, since these few are the ones that have appeared to be openly supportive of him.

  123. rescueapet :

    There’s at least 20 witnesses, according to the defense, that are supposed to be on Drew’s team. Anyone have any ideas?

    Stephen Peterson
    Tom Peterson
    Kris Peterson
    Mike Robinson
    Steve Carcerano
    Dan Budenz
    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen

    Other than those few, I wouldn’t want to guess who else may have exonerating testimony, since these few are the ones that have appeared to be openly supportive of him.

    Well, they called Martinek but I’d call him a hostile witness for them.

  124. As long as the Defense comes up with an expert that has someone dying four different ways in a single event, breathing after death and Defense attorneys suddenly contradicting these statements in the next sentence themselves, their Defense can’t be too challenging, plus with Joel publicly stating the investigation into Kathleens death was very thorough, yet the investigators themselves are stating in Court they didn’t investigate anything then you got to wonder who Joel is trying to fool.

  125. Yeah, Martinek. Right. Since that happened to be a day that I was there, about all I got out of that was how Mr. Martinek perceived what was being told to him, rather than what the defense wanted it to be, which was that Morphey changed the name, dimensions and size and he went along. Bah!

  126. Oh, strike Martinek, because then I’m thinking about Stacy once more and the trial will be for Kathleen.

    I don’t doubt the defense will bring in whoever they can get to testify that Kathleen was competitive, that she was a woman scorned, that she has not always been truthful, that she was clumsy, had a heart condition and was prone to flinging herself into bathtubs. I’m sure it will be very ugly but I don’t doubt for a minute that the defense will attempt to go there.

  127. Since Drew was in the Police Force for a long time, I expect witnesses for the Defense to be nothing less than top brass Police and other notables vouching for Drews good character and unblemished career within its ranks.

    Anything less would be doing Drew’s career a disservice !

  128. I think Glasgow is right about these misterious calls.

    According to the phone records the calls were made at 9:04, 9:05 and 9:07.

    Tom said that the cell he had in his hands rang for the first time about 45 minutes after Drew left him in the park. It took another 45 minutes for Drew to return. Then they went to Drew’s home, moved the container downstairs and Drew drove Tom home. At 9:45 Tom called Martineck.
    So if the last phone call was made at 9:07 there is no possibility that up to 9:45 Drew could return from Shorewood (45 min.), move the container (another min. 10 minutes) and drive Tom home (5 minutes) [which makes at least one hour altogether).

    I am thinking about the possibility that Drew gave Tom his own cell (or not) but just wrote Stacy’s name to be displayed in place of another number) and that nobody was calling from Stacy’s real phone to the phone when Tom had it in his hands.

    I guess someone did a favor to Drew and called his cell around 9 from Stacy’s real phone.

    I hope you catch what I mean ;).

  129. justanotherhen :

    Since Drew was in the Police Force for a long time, I expect witnesses for the Defense to be nothing less than top brass Police and other notables vouching for Drews good character and unblemished career within its ranks.

    Anything less would be doing Drew’s career a disservice !

    Too bad people who may never even exist get dragged through the mud just because they belong to the same department Peterson did, and they happen to be in law enforcement. You “expect” top brass to do that for him, heh?

  130. BTW, I was looking for legitimate ideas, when I brought up witness ideas for the defense. I purposely didn’t bring up any of his other family, since they’ve not been mentioned, other than the ones I named.

    Just so we’re clear on where I was coming from.

  131. (#)From Drew’s timeline:

    # 9 p.m. – Drew is at home when he receives a call from Stacy informing him she is leaving with another man.

    (It means that he pressed the answer button in the pocket which proves no barrell, no Tom at his home, no witness as children sleeping at their bedrooms/ stuffed with something?)
    ————————-
    # 9:15 p.m. – Drew leaves to go look for Stacy.
    (He leaves home to drive Tom home and goes to the opposite direction than Shorewood and where he was caught two hours later by Cass)

  132. I don’t believe the calls are mysterious at all Cyrhla. My thoughts were that Glasgow was just pointing out that there was an answered call right after the two unanswered calls, which would have put Morphey where he was with Drew’s phone the entire time, and likewise, Stacy’s phone with Drew, which I feel sure we all believe Drew had and used to call his own phone that Morphey had. I’m not following your thinking, but that’s okay, because I KNOW my thoughts aren’t always easy to follow either. 🙂
    —————————————
    Rescue, since you don’t want family, like Paul Carroll, etc., the only other one I can think of is Gary Marcolina, but can’t remeber right off hand if there has been a rift between he and Drew. There certainly aren’t very many pro-Drew personalities involved in this, of which I’m aware anyway, that would be of beneficial testimony to his case, are there? It seems he’s about out of friends, as so many of them have come to see him for what he is, but the defense may surprise us….or not.

  133. facsmiley :
    You’re being sarcastic, right JAH?

    No I wasn’t.

    Drew was in the Police Force for nearly 30 years.

    He had Superiors, Bosses and a whole system he was accountable to, so since he maintained himself within that system for nearly 30 years, those responsible for supporting him and keeping him there should be able to back him up without any hesitation !!

  134. CFS….Rescue, since you don’t want family, like Paul Carroll, etc., the only other one I can think of is Gary Marcolina, but can’t remeber right off hand if there has been a rift between he and Drew.

    Well, I don’t want to mention any other family members, since they’ve not openly supported him that I am aware of. That’s why I didn’t mention them. As to “top brass,” if anyone has done research that has quotes from anyone in particular supporting him, I’d like to see it. Can’t assume anything in this mess.

    Marcolina is someone I’m really not all that familiar with, except, of course, his role in witnessing the will and being his best man. Morelli hasn’t been openly supportive, we know. In fact, he said Drew turned his world upside down.

    I was just wondering if, in all these months and months that have passed, I overlooked anyone that openly supported him.

    Ah, ha:

    Christina Raines
    Kim Matusek (sp?)

  135. justanotherhen :

    facsmiley :
    You’re being sarcastic, right JAH?

    No I wasn’t.

    Drew was in the Police Force for nearly 30 years.

    He had Superiors, Bosses and a whole system he was accountable to, so since he maintained himself within that system for nearly 30 years, those responsible for supporting him and keeping him there should be able to back him up without any hesitation !!

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda. You gots proof?

  136. justanotherhen :

    facsmiley :
    You’re being sarcastic, right JAH?

    No I wasn’t.

    Drew was in the Police Force for nearly 30 years.

    He had Superiors, Bosses and a whole system he was accountable to, so since he maintained himself within that system for nearly 30 years, those responsible for supporting him and keeping him there should be able to back him up without any hesitation !!

    I haven’t seen anyone step forward to defend him yet, so I don’t imagine they will do it in court, but I suppose anything is possible.

    I know McGury has nothing nice to say about the man so he’s certainly out, as is Drew’s old partner Alex Morelli.

    I think Drew is going to need more than character witnesses to acquit him in this case, and fellow cops wouldn’t be my first choice to put on the stand (If I were Drew’s counsel) since they are bound to be called out as being biased on cross-examination. Kind of like putting your mom on the stand.

    I think it’s far more likely that the prosecution would put some cops on the stand. Much more compelling to have members of his own workforce saying that he was a dirty dog…

  137. facsmiley :CFS, are you thinking of Drew’s Uncle, James Carroll, who was executor of Kathleen’s will?

    Yes, James Paul Carroll. When I typed that I was thinking about Drew’s brother Paul as well, but Rescue didn’t want family and I didn’t proof my post. Sorry.

  138. Yeah, like this “lady?” Add her to the list!

    Peterson’s attorneys filed a motion in December, 2007, to try and get his belongings back.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt allowed a defense witness to be heard, to “hear from this witness to give the defense an opportunity to present what they believe this court should do.”

    The witness, forensic scientist Ann Chamberlain of Speckin Forensic Laboratories in Okemos, Mich., formerly worked for the Michigan State Police and is a medical examiner for Eaton County, Mich. She was fired from her job with the state police in 2007 after she admitted in a divorce proceeding that she had used state equipment to test her husband’s underwear to determine whether he was cheating on her.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-resume-217/

    🙂

  139. When Peterson was on Larry King, he said he had supporters, but they don’t get the press coverage.

    Dude is sittin’ in a jail on $20,000,000.00 bond, and other than the few I’ve mentioned here, no one has come forward to say a kind word about him. In fact, the shocker of all was the heartbreaking news that his oldest son has no love for the man. Shows me the love for him is not not oozing out of people.

    Besides his adult son, how sick was it to drag his two teens on tv and have one of them say he’s an alibi. Recalling every moment of the weekend when a child was, what, ten years old, and lost his mother during that time? That looked like a set-up of major proportions if ever I’ve seen one.

  140. Oh, God. Forgive me for all the stuff with the phones!
    I read an article yesterday and they said there that Morphey claimed that he did not answer any calls. I returned to #89 and now it is clear to me that was another journalist’s mistake which made me simply confused. Once again, I am very sorry. In the light of post #89 it does not make any sense LOL.

  141. cyrhla :Oh, God. Forgive me for all the stuff with the phones!I read an article yesterday and they said there that Morphey claimed that he did not answer any calls. I returned to #89 and now it is clear to me that was another journalist’s mistake which made me simply confused. Once again, I am very sorry. In the light of post #89 it does not make any sense LOL.

    It happens to me frequetly Cyrhla. Part of it is old age, and the other part I blame on the reporters.

  142. rescueapet :

    CFS….Rescue, since you don’t want family, like Paul Carroll, etc., the only other one I can think of is Gary Marcolina, but can’t remeber right off hand if there has been a rift between he and Drew.

    Well, I don’t want to mention any other family members, since they’ve not openly supported him that I am aware of. That’s why I didn’t mention them. As to “top brass,” if anyone has done research that has quotes from anyone in particular supporting him, I’d like to see it. Can’t assume anything in this mess.
    Marcolina is someone I’m really not all that familiar with, except, of course, his role in witnessing the will and being his best man. Morelli hasn’t been openly supportive, we know. In fact, he said Drew turned his world upside down.
    I was just wondering if, in all these months and months that have passed, I overlooked anyone that openly supported him.
    Ah, ha:
    Christina RainesKim Matusek (sp?)

    I thougnt about them too, but decided they would have just as much bad stuff to say about him as good. 🙂

  143. facsmiley :I’m wracking my brains here and having a very hard time guessing at who might be called.
    More paid expert witnesses…?

    The other day when it was announced that the defense had 20 witnesses they could call, I went through the Who’s Who on here, and there were only a very few, besides family members, that I thought could or would offer beneficial testimony, but I couldn’t come up with 20, even WITH family members. Just seems as though he’s pretty much lacking in the witness department, so it looks like they may be using whoever they can get, and/or rely on paid testimony from their experts. Seriously.

  144. Reem has a new case:

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/woman-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-newborn-girl.html

    Prosecutors: Newborn discarded like ‘garbage’
    February 22, 2010 2:07 PM

    A woman who induced the birth of her child and then put the newborn in a plastic bag in her closet was charged with murder after an autopsy determined the child was breathing after birth.

    Marisol Molina, 25, of the 6100 block of North Sheridan Road, allegedly took Misoprostol — a drug used to induce labor — on Wednesday and gave birth to a child the following day, Assistant State’s Attorney Kevin DeBoni said at her bond hearing today.

    After the child was born Thursday, Molina allegedly wrapped the infant in a robe and put it in a plastic bag, which she placed in a closet at her home, DeBoni said…

  145. facsmiley :
    Cyrhla, I didn’t understand so I was just going to wait to respond until I did. Thanks for explaining!

    I took me a little to understand that I was wrong. LOL

  146. http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=102868&catid=105

    Dr. Dan’s book is now available for download. Oh joy! Although I’m not at all interested in it, some of you may be. Excerpt from the article/press release below, which is not awe-inspiring whatsoever. The portion of the book included seems rather boring as well. This particular part sounds sort of similar to Drew’s online plea for defense money.

    You can download it now for less than a medium priced family meal – $19. If you would like a bound copy later, we will send it signed by Dr. Dan for $9 shipping and handling included!

  147. facsmiley :You’d better be more than a pretty face to argue that one…

    This is just so tragic. With all of the options available to women today, most especially birth control and safe haven drop offs, it never ceases to break my heart when I hear about a mother taking the life of their own precious little one. Almost as bad are the attorneys who defend their actions, but I guess someone has to do it. I couldn’t.

  148. cfs: snipped:
    Almost as bad are the attorneys who defend their actions, but I guess someone has to do it. I couldn’t.

    ~~~~

    A dear friend who is a lawyer had to defend a child molester and spoke with revulsion and horror over what his client did but his job was to launch a defense and so he did just that and I believe a plea bargain was entered. IMHO there s/b NO plea bargains for killers, child abusers and pervs. None whatsoever!
    Sometimes I just need to stay away from the news; way too upsetting. At least the thing and his June 14th trial date will give me time to regroup emotionally but tragically, there is always another horror right around the corner.
    I find myself infuriated over the entire matter of DP and his actions. I truly believe there will be justice for Kathleen and Stacy and the thing will pay.

  149. cfs7360 :

    You can download it now for less than a medium priced family meal – $19. If you would like a bound copy later, we will send it signed by Dr. Dan for $9 shipping and handling included!

    Wow – I just read the announcement on that page. That is the weirdest thing ever. I did enjoy these two sentences:

    Dr. Dan was reminded of the Drew Peterson he practiced karate and flew planes with years ago before Peterson joined the Army. That was before Drew Peterson enlisted in the Army.

    BTW, Kim Klein BBA VP Marketing is Dr. Dan’s daughter.

  150. Dr. Dan has interviewed, supervised, evaluated, analyzed, and tested Drew Peterson over separate decades. He has accumulated over a thousand hours with Drew Peterson and his family.

    And is now itching to profit from it!

  151. Hi everyone. It is going to be a restless wait until the trial. I just wanted to stick my 2 cents in about defense witnesses. It is my opinion that although some that may have been drew supporters in the past, are possibly no more! Think about if you worked w/someone for years that you trusted in the “buddy system” it is my opinion that drew pulled the wool over ALL his co-workers eyes! I can’t imagine that anyone would be coming to his defense saying he was a good cop,yadda yadda yadda! I can imaging sitting ex-coworkers sitting around a “coffee table” saying, ‘remember when that happened and drew said this?, now all the pieces are fitting together we realize that he really said or did THAT!’

  152. I agree with a past post too that talked about the alibi folder and that maybe being the piece of the puzzle that Glasgow referred to as being something ‘only the killer would know’ — needing to save receipts w/specific time frame — how would he know as Glasgow stated, that that is the time in question?

  153. sureyouwill: (snipped)
    Think about if you worked w/someone for years that you trusted in the “buddy system” it is my opinion that drew pulled the wool over ALL his co-workers eyes!

    ~~~

    sorry, I dont buy it. According to reports, the thing beat Kathleen and Alex Morelli was present. Color that revolting and outrageous.

  154. Sorry for babling… but I also think it will be harder for the defense to get professional opinions since who would want to put their reputation on the line at this point?

  155. sureyouwill:
    Sorry for babling… but I also think it will be harder for the defense to get profressional opinions since who would want to put their reputation on the line at this point?
    ~~~~~
    there is a cottage industry of professional opinions $$$ available $$$ for a fee

  156. wow — are u saying morelli was present during a particular beating of Kathleen? That would be pretty outrageous! Forgive me, but I guess im not saying that its not possible that some of his coworkers didn’t know what was going on, im just not sure they knew the extent. Especially with the “good ‘ol buddy system” IMO, that goes on (wether we choose to believe it or not — sad but true) IMO, ‘you know, the misses is crazy…’ ‘I hear ya, bro…mine to’ When the “crap” his the fan, they probably all started freaking out and sorry that they ever tried to defend his point of view and/or story. Again IMO

  157. wow —

    writerofwrongs :sureyouwill:Sorry for babling… but I also think it will be harder for the defense to get profressional opinions since who would want to put their reputation on the line at this point?~~~~~there is a cottage industry of professional opinions $$$ available $$$ for a fee

    That is a sad fact too!

  158. sureyouwill:
    are u saying morelli was present during a particular beating of Kathleen? That would be pretty outrageous!

    ~~~
    it is my understanding that DP went to KS’s residence w/Alex Morelli to take possession of a certain document KS was faxing to a reporter or ? and DP proceeded to assault her. I believe the neighbor was given the document.
    There is a lot of outrageous to be found in this horror story !

  159. That account came from the testimony of Mary Pontarelli at the hearsay hearings:

    Mary Pontarelli told the court that one day in 2001, Savio called her to say Peterson was trying to kill her. When she went outside, Savio ran out and shoved a letter that she had been trying to fax to an attorney down Pontarelli’s blouse.

    Peterson then came up to her and asked about the letter, in which an anonymous writer told Savio that Peterson was having an affair with a girl named Stacy Yelton, referring to Stacy Cales, who became Peterson’s fourth wife. “Protect yourself and your family,” it said. Pontarelli told Peterson she didn’t know about the letter.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0202-drew-peterson-hearing-20100201,0,2627193.story

  160. This is the report that Exlaw gave of Mary Pontarelli’s testimony at SYM. Bear in mind that Kris is pro-Drew’s innocence and we can not vouch for the accuracy of her reports:

    …Then she talked about a time that Kathleen called saying that “drew is trying to kill me” she ran over to her house and Alex M. from the police dept was there with Drew. Kathleen came running out of the house and threw a paper down Marys shirt and said”hide this for me”. This was the letter that Kathy had gotten about the affair with Stacy. It had Stacys full name & address on it also. Later she & kathy went to that address to confront Stacy, but could not find her or the number of the address. Kathy claimed she was faxing that letter to her lawyer when Drew was trying to “kill her” . Mary when asked by drew if she had that letter lied to drew and told him she did not know what he was talking about( both Drew & Alex in uniform) so Mary lied to both of them. Drew moved out…

  161. both Drew & Alex in uniform

    ~~~~

    conducting official police business…..I don’t think so. Combine that with now retired chief Calcagno and his unique way of handling domestic violence complaints and all I can say is civil rights violation galore. Poor K 😦 good thing she documented all of this.

  162. facs:
    Good friend, that Mary…

    ~~~~~

    notice how the women, for the most part, stepped up to the plate in defiance against the thing while the menfolk wimped out ?

  163. Thursday, February 25, 2010
    Mock Trial Held at Abood Law Firm

    The Abood Law Firm conducted a Mock Trial on behalf of its client. The outcome was very beneficial to our client. Several Abood Law Firm employees participated in the event. Carrie Cousino acted as the prosecuting attorney. Andrew Abood acted as council for the defense. Clinton Van Nocker acted as the Judge. Mark Gabrielse acted as the police offer on the scene of the alleged crime. Chas Van Nocker was one of the 12 jurors.

    We would like to thank the jurors who deliberated the case. A special thanks also goes to those who prepared for their part as witnesses.

  164. “Chas Van Nocker was one of the 12 jurors.”

    and

    “Clinton Van Nocker acted as the Judge”

    Wait. wait. The “judge’s” son was on the jury??? OMG, can’t breath! Laughing tooo hard!!!

  165. The Abood Law Firm conducted a Mock Trial on behalf of its client. The outcome was very beneficial to our client. Several Abood Law Firm employees participated in the event.

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

    a meedia event, nothing more. Just an excuse for media attention and interviews.
    zzzzz (snore) wake me on June 14th

  166. Ok, well, as long as we’re laughing our asses off, I have to tell my story.

    Remember how Dr. Jentzen testified that one of his death scenarios was that Kathleen died suddenly, but was still able to breathe in water up into her sinuses?

    Well, when I was a kid, I used to be terrified of going to see “dead people.” You know, going to a wake. I was so afraid the person in there was going to pop up and scare me. Of course, my mom assured me that wasn’t ever going to happen.

    My mom was not truthful to me. She never told me it would be possible to breathe when you’re dead. You know, like Dr. Jentzen said Kathleen did.

    Do you think he was one of the witnesses too?

    I’m going to have to use one of those Dream Catchers for now on, since I will probably be having dead people nightmares for a while. 😉

  167. facs:
    “Chas Van Nocker was one of the 12 jurors.”

    and

    “Clinton Van Nocker acted as the Judge”

    Wait. wait. The “judge’s” son was on the jury??? OMG, can’t breath! Laughing tooo hard!!!

    ~~~~~
    they have given new meaning to the phrase ” kangaroo court “… Ridiculous

  168. rescueapet :

    Thursday, February 25, 2010
    Mock Trial Held at Abood Law Firm
    The Abood Law Firm conducted a Mock Trial on behalf of its client. The outcome was very beneficial to our client. Several Abood Law Firm employees participated in the event. Carrie Cousino acted as the prosecuting attorney. Andrew Abood acted as council for the defense. Clinton Van Nocker acted as the Judge. Mark Gabrielse acted as the police offer on the scene of the alleged crime. Chas Van Nocker was one of the 12 jurors.
    We would like to thank the jurors who deliberated the case. A special thanks also goes to those who prepared for their part as witnesses.

    Wonder who played drew,, Or did they just hang up a Pinata? 🙂

  169. “Carrie Cousino acted as the prosecuting attorney.”

    Carrie Cousino
    Carrie graduated from Michigan State University with a major in Business Administration/Pre Law and a Specialization in International Business. She played Varsity Softball at Michigan State as well. Carrie is pursuing a certificate in the Trial Practice Institute. She is currently working as a law clerk for The Abood Law Firm, which is a general practice that specializes in criminal law. In her free time, Carrie enjoys traveling and being outdoors.

  170. Do these people even want to be taken seriously as a Law Firm ??

    BTW The defendant was a generic Police Officer.

  171. Oh wait, maybe there wasn’t even a defendant – LOL – as this is what it says about a Police officer:

    Mark Gabrielse acted as the police offer on the scene of the alleged crime.

  172. I hope they were able to establish if the Police Officer on the scene was in uniform and if he was supposed to be there in the first place – LOL !

  173. writerofwrongs :The Abood Law Firm conducted a Mock Trial on behalf of its client. The outcome was very beneficial to our client.

    If was about Drew maybe the outcome was that it will help him prepare for a long life in a 4 x 6 cell. After all it just says it was beneficial, not a great success.

  174. Mark Gabrielse acted as the police offer on the scene of the alleged crime.

    Friday, January 15, 2010

    Abood Law Firm Law Clerk Mark Gabrielse
    The Abood Law Firm would like to congratulate Mark Gabrielse, Law Clerk, for receiving all As on his Fall Semester Report Card!!!

    I did NOT make that up.

  175. There is no magic wizard behind the FOX News curtain, pulling strings to influence the findings by one of the country’s finest Forensic Pathologists. In conclusion, if Drew Peterson’s defense attorney is basing his case on the fact that I was in the autopsy room of a woman his client likely murdered, I would suggest he size Peterson up for a few more of those fancy orange jumpsuits he seems to like so much.

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

    BTE – This is a wonderful statement by Steph Watts re the Defenses INNUENDO of Steph’s and Foxes involvement in Kathleen Savios autopsy.

    Looks like the Defense is being put on notice !!

  176. facsmiley :Mark Gabrielse acted as the police offer on the scene of the alleged crime.

    Friday, January 15, 2010
    Abood Law Firm Law Clerk Mark GabrielseThe Abood Law Firm would like to congratulate Mark Gabrielse, Law Clerk, for receiving all As on his Fall Semester Report Card!!!

    I did NOT make that up.

    And another shout out to Joel Brodsky for getting through the hearsay hearings without anyone snapping a picture of him picking his nose!!!

    (I DID make that up)

  177. 🙂 back @ ya!

    Also, thanks v., v. much for your extra care in the “language of shared assets.” 😉 I really do believe the words we use matter and can make a real difference.

  178. facsmiley :For the record, we’re not sure the mock trial was related to Drew’s case.

    Have been out all day and I’m just now cathing up….

    Oh my gosh! Beneficial outcome? Well I guess so, lol. After reading about who played whom, and the fact some of the players are kids, clerk, aides, and whatever else, with one even related to the judge, how is the heck can they take this outcome seriously? Furthermore, the holes they’re said to be trying to find in their case, whichever one it is, are practically non-existent if you use a clerk for the prosecutor and kids in a jury. I mean, this is just too funny, really. As I said the other night, it appears to me to be a waste of time, but then again, they know more about what they’re looking for than I do…at least I guess they know. However, if they’re counting on winning their court case from the “beneficial outcome” of this silly little mock trial, I think they might be disappointed.

  179. Sorry, I’m not cathing up, I’m catching up. At this point in my life, I have no need for a catheter, and I hope it stays that way.

  180. facs:

    I conducted a puppet show today for myself while I sat on the toilet. The outcome was very beneficial to my bowels.

    *Curtsey*

    ~~~~
    today I won playing solitare. I bet against the house and WON ! It’s my lucky day !

  181. I would like to know if ever in the history of the Abood Law Firm if any employee acting as juror has ever come out in favor of the prosecution? And perhaps, if they’ve ever lost a mock trial?
    Really. I just can’t see where they act like they really want unbiased feedback. Couldn’t they find any bystanders to take them up on their offer of a mock trial AND a free lunch?

  182. That they would publicize this surprises me, given the characters used that have connections to the firm. Then to congratulate one for all A’s on his report card, and announce that the SOA fill-in is pursuing her trial certification. Hardly the voices of experience or reason.

  183. The mystery of all mysteries is why did the SA’s office decline making any comments on the Nightline report due to a standing gag order, when Brodsky sat down for an interview, even though he and the rest of his team is covered by the same gag order?

    I guess Brodsky could have asked for permission, but I doubt that, since the SA could have very well done the same thing to respond.

    I also do not understand how Brodsky and Abood could repeatedly make after-court comments, against ALL of the witnesses no less, without any consequences.

    They surely have an obligation to protect and defend their client, but what they have been doing with their continued witness bashing, in spite of a gag order, is outrageous. What’s going on in that Will County? Doesn’t a judge’s order even mean anything. What a circus. What is the purpose of a judge issuing a gag order, when the defense does what it pleases anyway?

  184. rescueapet :
    The mystery of all mysteries is why did the SA’s office decline making any comments on the Nightline report due to a standing gag order, when Brodsky sat down for an interview, even though he and the rest of his team is covered by the same gag order?
    I guess Brodsky could have asked for permission, but I doubt that, since the SA could have very well done the same thing to respond.
    I also do not understand how Brodsky and Abood could repeatedly make after-court comments, against ALL of the witnesses no less, without any consequences.
    They surely have an obligation to protect and defend their client, but what they have been doing with their continued witness bashing, in spite of a gag order, is outrageous. What’s going on in that Will County? Doesn’t a judge’s order even mean anything. What a circus. What is the purpose of a judge issuing a gag order, when the defense does what it pleases anyway?

    We all know why Bratski can’t keep his mouth shut,,, firstly after wanting to have his own show on TV some day he just can’t pass on the opportunity to get his mug in the news. And secondly he feels the only chance they have is to sway the minds of potential jurors by discrediting witnesses even before the trial starts.
    I feel the only reason the SA & Judge White are letting him get away with it, is the same reason he’s not up on charges of conspiracy yet (as per the overhears) They want to make sure JB’s representing DP at trial. 🙂

  185. Ruger – I keep wondering things like that myself. Is the defiance of the gag order, and the continued interviews, going to pile up on the defense in the end? It’s not over yet, so it’s not right to make any assumptions yet, but it sure looks like the defense does what it pleases as far as talking to the media is concerned. This has nothing to do with preserving the defendant’s rights. This has everything to do with the defense keeping their views out and in the open with the public, hoping to sway the potential jury. Although, Brodsky allowing his client to talk for over two years did nothing to endear either one of them to the public, it’s hard to imagine how they think this is going to work. But, this is one unorthodox defense team, and I guess their way of thinking isn’t exactly what the rest of us would consider normal.

  186. Rescue, first of all, I really don’t think Glasgow would ask permission to do something against an order the judge has issued. Brodsky, on the other hand, seems to want his mug in front of the camera at every opportunity, and I wouldn’t put it past him to ask the judge if he could do the Nightline interview, or the after court interviews. I don’t know all the details of the limited gag order, but Glasgow has been pretty discreet about the State’s case the entire time, so I wouldn’t think he would change anything now. Brodsky has probably been going through withdrawal, saw an opportunity, and “carpe diem-ed” it, with or without permission. I would guess Judge White would call him to task if he felt Brodsky deserved it, but you’re right…it is a mystery, no doubt.

  187. From Nightline:

    When asked if the trial was akin to a modern-day Salem witch hunt, Brodksy agreed: “There’s no question about it… They believe he is the devil and they want to see the devil brought down. But trust me, Drew Peterson is not the devil.”

    Prosecutors would not speak to us because of a standing gag order, but they’re relying on the words of the dead to condemn Drew Peterson.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Law/drew-peterson-murder-trial-hearsay-evidence-determine-guilt/story?id=9908667&page=3

  188. Glasgow seeks Peterson gag order

    May 29, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET — Prosecutors are pushing to shut Drew Peterson’s lawyers up about potential evidence against the alleged wife-killer.

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed a motion on Wednesday to forbid attorneys from leaking anything from discovery documents, which will be turned over to Peterson’s legal team for the first time next week.

    Glasgow warned that witnesses are worried that they will be besieged by the media if their names are made public. He said a TV reporter contacted a witness last month after her name surfaced in documents stolen from a state police squad car.

    Glasgow also argued that a witness’ name was leaked while Peterson was facing felony weapons charges in 2008.

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, did release the name of Coal City resident Mike Kurdenok after he turned up in the state’s evidence. Glasgow says the “witness was subject to media harassment.”

    Brodsky failed to return calls for comment.

    ‘Pretrial publicity’

    Besides protecting witnesses from the media, a gag order would “prevent undue pretrial publicity that might affect the jury selection in this case,” Glasgow said in the motion.

    Brodsky has repeatedly said he is considering an attempt to get the case taken out of Will County in hopes of finding a jury without bias against Peterson.

    But if Brodsky is looking for an unmuddied jury pool, Peterson has done little to help keep it clean. Even after he was taken into custody on first-degree murder charges in connection with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, Peterson has continued to thrust himself into the public eye, calling collect from the jail to the “Today” show for an interview and to Mancow Muller’s radio show to tell jokes.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1596982,Glasgow-seeks-Peterson-gag-order_jo052809.article#

  189. I’m aware of the gag order, but don’t know all the details of it. The reason I say this is because I thought I had read it was a “limited” gag order, and that Brodsky had to get permission to speak publicly in interviews, etc. Will try to find something on it. Some of you probably know more about it than I do, as it’s been a good while ago since it was issued after Drew’s call to Matt Lauer and also the “conjugal visit with Drew” call to Mancow.

  190. Ill. judge limits pre-trial publicity in Drew Peterson case

    By The Associated Press
    06.06.09

    JOLIET, Ill. — A judge on June 3 sought to control publicity of the Drew Peterson murder case, after prosecutors complained the former suburban Chicago police officer and his lawyers have turned the case into a media circus.

    Will County Judge Stephen White ordered Peterson’s lawyers to give him a list of family, friends and attorneys that Peterson calls from the Will County Adult Detention Facility. If Peterson wants to call somebody who is not on the list, he has to get permission, White said.

    White also ordered that all attorneys in the case must notify him and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of any interviews and send copies of press releases.

    “If you are going to do an interview, I would like to be informed (beforehand) as to the time and place,” White said.

    The judge’s order came a week after Peterson called a radio show from jail and cracked jokes about prison showers, a “Win a Conjugal Visit with Drew” contest and the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder charges in the 2004 death of Savio, whose body was found in a dry bathtub. Peterson is also a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    That the judge would address the issue of pretrial publicity isn’t surprising. The case has generated intense media interest since Stacy Peterson went missing in late October 2007.

    Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky have made scores of television and radio appearances, and a small army of television trucks is often parked outside Peterson’s Bolingbrook home. Also, both Peterson and Savio’s family have hired publicists.

    The publicity threatens the ability for a fair trial, said Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who said he has limited speaking out on the case.

    “This is the place to put a cap on it,” he said of pretrial publicity. “I’m trying to protect the jury pool here.”

    Brodsky countered that he needs to be able to talk to the media, saying publicity might prompt potential witnesses to come forward with relevant information.

    Glasgow also sought to limit Peterson’s contact visits after reports surfaced that he had played cards with one of his attorneys in jail.

    White denied the motion, but he made it clear that he didn’t think playing cards was appropriate and Peterson would have to follow jail rules.

    “There won’t be any more card games,” said Will County Sheriff Paul Kaupas after the court hearing.

    The judge set an Aug. 24 trial date.

    Brodsky, who can ask for a continuance, said it was a realistic date as long as Peterson is in custody.

    White also ordered that the names of witnesses and potential witnesses be sealed. In some cases witness lists are public information.

    There are several hundred witnesses and potential witnesses, Brodsky said after court.

    Glasgow said he expects the defense to move for a change of venue because of the publicity.

    Brodsky did not address the change of venue, but has said the defense is considering that. He said June 3 that solitary confinement has been difficult for Peterson, who has been held away from other prisoners since his May 7 arrest.

    “It has an effect on his psyche, no question about it,” Brodsky said.

    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21670

  191. “If you are going to do an interview, I would like to be informed (beforehand) as to the time and place,” White said.

    We are to assume, then, that Brodsky requested and was given permission by Judge White to do the Nightline interview. In that case, I am not sure why the SA’s office declined to comment for Nightline, citing a gag order.

    What I would also like to know is if the courthouse stairs interviews, specifically, where Brodsky and/or Abood repeatedly try to discredit the testimony of the State’s witnesses, are considered “interviews.” Why are they able to do that? If anyone can find the SA’s office commenting on Dr. Jentzen’s testimony and his lack of credibility, please post it here.

  192. rescueapet :

    “If you are going to do an interview, I would like to be informed (beforehand) as to the time and place,” White said.

    We are to assume, then, that Brodsky requested and was given permission by Judge White to do the Nightline interview. In that case, I am not sure why the SA’s office declined to comment for Nightline, citing a gag order.
    What I would also like to know is if the courthouse stairs interviews, specifically, where Brodsky and/or Abood repeatedly try to discredit the testimony of the State’s witnesses, are considered “interviews.” Why are they able to do that? If anyone can find the SA’s office commenting on Dr. Jentzen’s testimony and his lack of credibility, please post it here.

    As I said, I don’t think Glasgow would want to ask permission to do something the judge had already ruled against doing. Why antagonize the judge hearing your case? Brodsky apparently doesn’t take that into consideration.

  193. Aww, I guess it’s all good then, in the long run. IF Brodsky is doing something that is outside of Judge’s White’s order, then it will be taken care of in some way. Certainly, not in the media. 😉

    I suppose it can also be considered that the defense really is in the trick bag and are pretty confident their client is going to spend light years locked up. Otherwise, if they had the credible evidence and witnesses they say they do to get him out of this mess, they wouldn’t be calling these proceedings witch hunts and lynch mobbing. There’d be no need to do that, when what they really need to do is try their case using their experience as lawyers, armed with the “truth.”

    But we can see otherwise.

  194. Ah, yes, Facs. I did indeed forget the all-important stipend. LOL
    And Brodsky never met a microphone he didn’t like. They seem to be his weakness. Well, one of them, anyway.

  195. @Rescue: If anyone can find the SA’s office commenting on Dr. Jentzen’s testimony and his lack of credibility, please post it here.
    =====================
    This is an excellent point Rescue. I love this comparison to how Glasgow is representing the state, versus how Brodsky, et al, are representing Drew. And, it’s exactly what will do more to build credibility with the State, and their professionalism in handling this case, than all of the insane, inept, irresponsible attempts by Joel Brodsky to sway a jury pool. If he and his “team” get in front of the real jury and he pulls that crap, it will come off just as unbelievable as it does out of court. Drew has pretty much already dug his grave by being in front of a camera so much, but he won’t be doing any talking in court, unless they put him on the stand, which I don’t believe will ever happen. He’ll probably be sitting there looking like a dejected, rejected old man, as they’re trying to portray him. However, his camera hog defense will be arguing for him, but they simply will not have any real credibility with a jury using the same tactics they have been using, IMO.

  196. CFS – IMHO, I don’t underestimate Drew Peterson’s participation in defense decisions. I believe he is the one that came up with the “vindictive prosecution” idea for the defense to use in his gun case, and he’s the only one that has supplied the Scheme Team with their defense tactics. It was his idea, for example, to go find ten year old pics of Morphey by paying an ex-girlfriend of Morphey’s that were supposed to be recent “proof” of him doing drugs.

    That being said, I think the Scheme Team will have to strap Peterson to his chair and gag his mouth to keep him off of the stand in his trial. He’s too much of a Cool Hand Luke to suppress that big mouth of his. I may be wrong, but let’s wait and see.

  197. rescueapet :CFS – IMHO, I don’t underestimate Drew Peterson’s participation in defense decisions. I believe he is the one that came up with the “vindictive prosecution” idea for the defense to use in his gun case, and he’s the only one that has supplied the Scheme Team with their defense tactics. It was his idea, for example, to go find ten year old pics of Morphey by paying an ex-girlfriend of Morphey’s that were supposed to be recent “proof” of him doing drugs.
    That being said, I think the Scheme Team will have to strap Peterson to his chair and gag his mouth to keep him off of the stand in his trial. He’s too much of a Cool Hand Luke to suppress that big mouth of his. I may be wrong, but let’s wait and see.

    Neither do I Rescue, and I totally agree, up to a point, which is his being put on the stand. He may aske to be, but I think his defense team should be, and may be afraid that Glasgow and his team would tear him up on the stand. No doubt he’s calling the shots though, but they will want a jury to look at him in a different light, and not quite as ominous as he really is, IMO.

  198. Brodsky couldn’t control his client from yapping in the media, and if Peterson decides to take the stand on his behalf, Brodsky will have no control over that either. I think it’s up to Peterson himself whether he testifies or not, not his defense lawyers. There hasn’t been a lawyer, that IKO, that defends another lawyer letting his client talk, talk, talk, day after day. If Brodsky told him it was okay to do, that’s outside of the standard of what other lawyers do. If he told him to keep his mouth shut, then, as I said, he had no control over his client, and he’s a loose keg.

  199. Drew obviously thinks his lies are convincing and has said so on camera on many different occasions, when asked by reporters if he didn’t think what he was saying was doubtful and unbelievable. He may, and probably does, think he can convince a jury better of his innocence than his attorneys Rescue, so in that regard, I suppose we could see him in the witness chair, but surely his attorneys will try to prevent him from doing so.

  200. Getting back on track.

    It came out in the prosecution’s closing argument that Peterson kept an alibi folder with receipts in them. I am to assume that, as an experienced law enforcement officer and well familiar with how things work, he knew that if Kathleen’s death were questioned as being other than an accident, he’d need back-up alibis, and he’d need to account for his whereabouts. Fine. His years of experience kicked in and the defense intends, I assume, to use this as a way to show that Peterson used this alibi folder to “protect” himself from scrutiny down the line.

    Yet, on the other hand, this same experienced, law enforcement officer, defied every imaginable procedure when it came to doing a well-being check on Kathleen, going into the house without law enforcement present, and entering a potential crime scene. He had “no” idea what he’d find in that house. Ah hem.

    If he thought out the alibi folder enough to keep it dandy handy to back up his innocence, how come he didn’t use his brain sufficiently to keep a potential crime scene in pristine condition? Before he ran up those stairs in his spontaneous flight and discovered his dead ex, did it not occur to him that a potential killer was on the loose, you know, the guy who may have killed the mother of his children?

    Too bad the defense is whining and complaining so much about the hearsay testimony, when, IMO, there are circumstances that just can’t be explained away. This I think, piled on, will get a conviction.

    You don’t call a guy to see if he knows anyone that can erase his ex-wife, explaining that it was just a joke, but have it known that he called the guy back to pull back the joke by saying the problem was taken care of.

    Or do an interview where you say you saw a dead ex in the tub, but you took her pulse and touched her anyway.

    Bah!

  201. @Rescue: Points well taken, and I’m sure they’ll be sorted out and torn apart by the prosecution in court, and taken into consideration by the jury. However, Drew didn’t call the guy back telling him the problem was taken care of. He called Drew to check on Stacy and the new baby, and until that time, wasn’t even aware that Kathleen had died, so he said in his testimony. That’s when Drew told him he didn’t need the favor anymore.

  202. Pachter said Peterson asked him to find him a hit man while they were driving around Bolingbrook in Peterson’s squad car in the winter of 2003. In March 2004, Savio was found drowned in a dry bathtub. Pachter said he learned of this when he called Peterson about five months later to inquire about his new wife and child.

    Peterson said they were fine, Pachter said, and added, “By the way, that favor I asked you, I don’t need it anymore.”

  203. It was Pachter that said he thought it was a joke, and that’s why he didn’t go to the police. In fact, actually, that works against Peterson. Peterson isn’t the one that was joking, telling Pachter that he didn’t need the favor anymore.

    Wow, that’s even better. 🙂 See how easy that was to throw another rubber dart at Peterson and have it stick??

  204. Please don’t think I’m trying to be argumentative here Rescue, becuase truly I’m not. I certainly expect to be told when or if I’ve written something inaccurately, or without sources to back it up, and I feel sure that you and Facs expect the same. There are just too many facts in this case to keep them all straight by every single one of us, and I’m as guilty as anyone of misquoting or misunderstnading something.

  205. rescueapet :It was Pachter that said he thought it was a joke, and that’s why he didn’t go to the police. In fact, actually, that works against Peterson. Peterson isn’t the one that was joking, telling Pachter that he didn’t need the favor anymore.
    Wow, that’s even better. See how easy that was to throw another rubber dart at Peterson and have it stick??

    I like your thinking.

Comments are closed.