Dr. Bryan Mitchell dies – Ruling on hearsay expected next week

Our condolences to the family of Dr. Bryan Mitchell.

Pathologist in Drew Peterson case dies
Judge to issue sealed hearsay ruling next week

By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
Associated Press
Published: 3/13/2010 12:01 AM

The forensic pathologist who conducted the initial autopsy on Drew Peterson’s third wife, whose 2004 drowning was ruled accidental, died this week – three months before the start of the former Bolingbrook sergeant’s trial on charges he murdered Kathleen Savio.

Dr. Bryan R. Mitchell died Wednesday after a battle with cancer. He was 44.

Meanwhile, in a sealed written ruling, Will County Judge Stephen White is expected to tell lawyers next week whether more than one dozen hearsay statements prosecutors want to use as evidence against Peterson are reliable enough to be admitted during his upcoming trial.

In a written statement, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow on Friday called Mitchell a “consummate professional” whose work aided in the prosecution of many murder cases in the past decade. Mitchell conducted high-profile autopsies in several jurisdictions, including Kane County.

But it was his March 2, 2004, autopsy on Kathleen Savio that garnered the most attention.

In his report, Mitchell wrote a 1-inch gash on the scalp of the 40-year-old Bolingbrook woman, who drowned in her bathtub, may have been caused by a slip or fall. He also noted her hair was soaked with blood and she had several small abrasions on her body.

A Will County coroner’s jury later declared the death “accidental,” after an Illinois State Police official testified there was no sign of foul play, though Savio was in the midst of a bitter divorce battle with Peterson and often accused him of being abusive and threatening.

Authorities exhumed Savio’s body in November 2007 after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, vanished. The pathologists who conducted the second and third autopsies ruled Savio’s death a homicide.

At a recent pretrial hearing, Dr. Larry Blum testified that in 30 years of conducting more than 9,230 autopsies, he’d never seen an otherwise healthy adult who was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs die such an accidental death.

Blum gathered more samples, performed more tests – including a standard rape kit not done in the first autopsy – and examined the bathtub where Savio died. He said the position of Savio’s body in the tub made it “highly, highly unlikely” she drowned accidentally. Blum also found that Savio’s body was in the tub when her head wound was inflicted, based on the flow of the blood.

Still, Blum said: “Dr. Mitchell did a fine autopsy. We weren’t out to discredit him.”

The defense team, led by attorney Joel Brodsky, planned to call Mitchell during the recent hearsay hearing, but the pathologist was being treated at the Mayo Clinic.

Jury selection in Peterson’s trial begins June 14. Prosecutors are barred from using Mitchell’s grand jury testimony, since he was not subject to cross examination during the closed-door proceeding, but they are allowed to introduce his autopsy report – which the defense team argues bolsters its case.

“We actually welcome the introduction of Dr. Mitchell’s autopsy report into evidence because he found the cut on the back of her head was consistent with a slip and fall,” Brodsky said. “Obviously, (Mitchell’s death) presents an issue.

Juries like to hear from witnesses. But the report is black and white.”

Judge White’s written ruling regarding the hearsay statements will become public after jury selection is complete, he said. Peterson, 56, maintains his innocence in Savio’s death. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing in Stacy’s 2007 disappearance.

Read the story at the Daily Herald

About these ads

88 thoughts on “Dr. Bryan Mitchell dies – Ruling on hearsay expected next week

  1. I join you in expressing condolences to Dr Mitchell’s family and friends. 44 is no age at all. Even if things didn’t go as they should at the coroner’s court, Dr Mitchell’s observations and their careful recording form essential evidence. Thank you :)

  2. What a shame. Proves once again that life just isn’t fair. RIP, Dr. Mitchell. You did good things.

  3. Yes Dr. Mitchell has done a lot of good things. My deepest condolences to the family and those that grieve him.I cant help but think it wasn’t fair to him to be dragged into the DP mess.I’m sure this didn’t help him while he was so ill.The system collapsed around him.

    Is the show worth watching Facs in your post above from the link? It just scares me to want to watch it.Please give me your opinion on it before I watch it seriously. Thanks. Sorry I lost the link to wordpress smiley code lol. :0)

  4. Hey-no problem, Rescue and Giva! Just glad I could help!
    We need some news, huh? I miss everyone.

  5. Correction key player… I hope the passing of Dr. Mitchell does not impact the case in a way that benefits Drew. Now that a key witness is deceased, it leaves room for court room shanannagans (sp?)on the defense’s part!

  6. I doubt it will have much of an impact. Dr. Mitchell determined that Kathleen died from drowning, and all subsequent autopsies were in agreement.

    His notes did state that the gash on her head could be the result of a fall, but he didn’t say that he believed it was. Regardless, it wasn’t his job to determine whether her death was the result of a homicide and he never attempted to.

    Dr. Mitchell’s documentation of the numerous bruises and other details (such as the clipped nails, absence of alcohol or drugs in her system, etc.) is very valuable to the prosecution and still stands.

  7. Dr. Mitchell correctly determined that Kathleen’s death was due to drowning. He noted bruises and scrapes on her body. Dr. Mitchell relied on the investigators providing him with information from the original scene. Yet, an inquest was still held, and we don’t need to be reminded what that outcome was, based, in part, on ISP Officer Hardy’s ridiculous testimony, etc.

    The defense’s forensic pathologist, nor anyone else, found no fault with Dr. Mitchell’s autopsy. Could he have done more? Well, maybe, in one sense. Dr. Blum said he would have preferred that a rape exam was done.

    The defense’s pathologist did, however, express his opinion that if Dr. Mitchell felt that the investigators may have overlooked something or didn’t do an adequate enough job for his liking, he could have sent them back out to the field to collect more evidence or gather more information. He then concluded that all was good because Dr. Mitchell didn’t find reason to do that.

    HOWEVER, funny that he should say that when:

    Assistant Will County State’s Attorney John Connor asked Jentzen if his opinion would change knowing that the police investigation was flawed. Illinois State Police investigators have testified they bungled the Savio case.

    Jentzen said it was a factor he would take into consideration.

    In other words, the investigation and information presented to Dr. Mitchell was flawed. If it was something that Dr. Jentzen, the defense pathologist, would take into consideration, then I would think that Dr. Mitchell would’ve also reconsidered some things, or looked further into the circumstances of Kathleen’s death.

    There’s plenty wrong with the investigation. Start with Sgt. Collins, and Robert Deel. Go from there!

  8. Since the late Dr. Mitchell won’t be able to offer his opinion, as Dr. Jentzen did, regarding the admittedly flawed investigation, then there is no testimony to be given in that regard. However, Dr. Mitchell’s forensic findings will stand, according to what Mr. Glasgow has said, and they will be able to admit the autopsy into evidence.

    So, from there, if you take into consideration the defense’s pathologist’s findings, I don’t think there’s any doubt that they are ridiculous. Any jury member would use their common sense when coming to a conclusion about how Kathleen did drown.

    Sudden heart attack, then death, but still able to breathe in water, takes a whole lot to believe. Not being able to determine a heart attack in an autopsy sure doesn’t sound logical to me either.

    Falling and contorting herself so severely as a possibility, as he makes it out to be, is another illogical finding. Slips, hits back of head, falls forward, twists, yet sustains bruises while her body was cushioned by a tub full of water. Bruises to the breast that he claims weren’t fingerprints, but soap prints. Does that make sense? The doctor said in a slip and fall, he would expect to see drugs or alcohol involved, yet neither was the case.

    I personally think the defense’s accidental drowning theory is full of you-know-what, but it’s their story and they’re sticking to it. We’ll see what weight that holds, combined with all of the reasons, the means, and the possible lack of credible alibis that Peterson had to cause Kathleen’s death.

  9. She also kept yelling “I’m 10-79,” which is police code for “call the coroner,” according to the sheriff’s department.

    I guess it really isn’t funny, but it sure is hard not to laugh! :)

  10. It’s difficult to wait for things to progress, but I’m always able to refill my Patience Pouch merely by remembering that DP is in jail.

    (Who did that Deputy Coroner think she was?.. Mel Gibson?!?)

  11. Well, Coffee, judging by her behavior, as described in the news articles, she apparently thought the careers of the cops handling it all were hers to alter.

    She’s probably just not used to dealing with people that are still walking and talking, heh? You know, ones that answer back.

  12. Well, well, well, now this story is on the main page of the Chicago Suntimes website. At least the police are being described in a way that shows they handled a touchy situation with a Will County employee in the way they should have. Instead of the employee quietly going through the process of a bad situation and working to get it all straightened out when calmness prevailed at a later time, she started throwing out names and threatening jobs. Too bad she didn’t think to call her buddies to come retrieve her from wherever it is she was before she got in the car that lost it’s tire on the front lawn of a home. Then, instead of trying to clear-up the confusion of whether or not she was altered due to alcohol, she refuses to cooperate and goes ballistic instead.

    I guess I’m just glad to see that she was treated as any one should be under the circumstances, and didn’t scare anyone into a corner because she threatened their jobs or made some phone calls.

    I’d say she is a major embarrassment that is going to have to be dealt with. Times are-a-changin’.

  13. Anyway, this week was when Judge White was to have issued his ruling on the hearsay testimony, no?

    I would imagine there might be some activity in the days ahead if one side or the other doesn’t agree with his ruling. Or, can they keep that zipped too?

  14. rescueapet :
    Anyway, this week was when Judge White was to have issued his ruling on the hearsay testimony, no?
    I would imagine there might be some activity in the days ahead if one side or the other doesn’t agree with his ruling. Or, can they keep that zipped too?

    Do you know if the prosecution can get another judge to rehear the hearsay testimony?

  15. No I’m being serious. Its a new law so I’m not sure what the procedure is on it. Can the prosecution appeal it to have it reheard or do they have to go with the whatever hearsay the judge allows in?

  16. 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.

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

    “If we lose the case, then we can take it up on appeal, but we don’t plan on losing,” Brodsky said about the admission of hearsay statements.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202443284478

  17. 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.

    Thanks rescue.So if the prosecution potentially appeals the decision by the judge and wins an appeal then what happens? Do they go through the whole hearsay hearing again with a different judge or does the current judge have to allow in certain hearsay decided by the appellate court? You see my dilemma now of how complex this seems to get. We can safely assume now however that this trial could drag on for awhile if the prosecution appeals it. We may find out also if the judge didn’t allow some hearsay in the prosecution wants or needs by the announcement of their appeal sometime after the judge lets the two sides know about his decision. I’m assuming the defense won’t appeal it now and wait until the end of the trial for that. I read that they only get one appeal with this case and I’m not sure if the hearsay somehow allows them some special separate circumstances that they can appeal it separately thus being able to still appeal any other unfavorable outcomes resulting from the trial in the end.

  18. AFAIK, Judge White will continue to reside over this case until Peterson is either convicted or acquitted (or he retires). Merely disagreeing with a judge’s ruling is not grounds for a change of judge! If that were the case, nothing would ever be decided. As Rescue showed in the quotes above, if either prosecution or defense are unhappy with the decision about the hearsay statements, the proper course is to appeal (which apparently can be done before the trial). I don’t imagine that the hearsay testimony would need to be re-heard since it has been documented.

    The defense already filed a motion to exclude the hearsay statements once. They challenged the constitutionality of the hearsay law. The judge ruled against them. From Brodsky’s quote, it sounds as if he would wait until the trial was over and then appeal the decision to convict if there was one.

    Judge White’s decision about which of the 15 hearsay statements will be allowed in court is expected to be sealed. It most likely will not be made public.

  19. rescueapet :
    Ever hear the phrase “don’t you know who I am?”
    This is OT and has nothing to do with Drew Peterson, but you just have to read this story. Will County at its finest.
    10-79. A new meaning for those numbers.
    ******************
    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2109369,4_1_JO18_DUI_S1-100318.article
    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/deputy-coroner-busted-for-dui-dont-you-know-who-i-am.html

    On the other hand, there’s this Chicago-on FoxNews.com this morning.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/20/evidence-rotting-closed-ill-police-hq/?test=latestnews
    “You’re not talking about ineptness, neglect, you’re talking about outrageous conduct of a police department that didn’t care about the residents out there,” Dart said.

  20. From what I have learned over these months, Judge White’s rulings are going to be based on his opinion regarding the credibility and reliability of each witness, and whether he believes their testimony is credible, thus, allowing it into the trial.

    Weren’t each side’s closing arguments meant to convince Judge White what and who he should believe regarding the hearsay testimony? Common sense would indicate that if he believes Drew Peterson, by a preponderance of the evidence, killed Kathleen and Stacy to silence them, then he’s going to allow in the hearsay. That would then give the defense a reason to appeal his rulings if Peterson is convicted, which, for the most part, may be based on a substantial amount of this hearsay testimony. After all, the defense did say that these statements are merely lies, gossip and innuendo. That is what they believe. If Judge White rules otherwise, they will argue it’s merely his opinion, not facts.

    Back in December, we posted Karen Conti’s opinion regarding the hearsay proceedings

    Excerpt

    We are pretty much on uncharted grounds. This law is new so I am not aware of any such hearing that has ever been conducted. The way the law reads, it seems that the judge here must find that there is a preponderance of evidence that Peterson’s actions silenced Kathleen and whether the hearsay is otherwise reliable. This is a much less rigorous burden than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is used at civil trials and means that if it is more probably true than not true that Peterson killed Kathleen, the burden is met. It seems the prosecution would also have to show that Stacy’s disappearance was caused by Drew in order to use her words which were spoken to the pastor. If allowed in, Stacy’s words would be very compelling to prove that Peterson killed Kathleen as I believe they include Drew’s admission that he killed her in the bathtub after returning home from her house with bloody clothing on. As to how the hearing works, I do not know. It would have to include the prosecution putting on witnesses and allowing Peterson’s lawyers to cross examine them.

    Also:

    I am certain that the jury in the full trial will not get to hear that the judge made a ruling that there was a preponderance of evidence that Peterson killed Stacy or Kathleen. The jury will only get to hear the hearsay testimony and will probably know that there was a prior proceeding that caused some of the witnesses to have testified previously.

  21. IMO, if Judge White allows into trial all or most of the hearsay testimony, obviously, that is against the defense. If the defense were to appeal prior to the trial, but happened to lose the appeal, and the jury went on to convict Peterson, they wouldn’t, IMO, be able to bring that up on appeal after the trial. Of course, if he’s found not guilty, then it’s over and done.

    If the trial goes on, hearsay and all, and Peterson is convicted, then, as the defense has already said, they’ll appeal based on the hearsay being allowed into trial. Since they only get one shot at it, I would think they’d wait to see what the outcome of the trial is before appealing the hearsay testimony.

  22. Rescue, that makes sense to me.

    As for the prosecution, I doubt they would appeal if the hearsay statements are not allowed under the new exception (before trial). I actually think they could get some of those statements admitted under older, tried-and-true exceptions…or they may just choose to continue with the prosecution based on what evidence and testimony they have, IMO.

  23. Well, I look at it this way. If Judge White allows in all or most of the hearsay, and the defense decides to halt the trial to file an appeal, they’re basically confirming that the testimony is damning, without giving the jury the chance to weigh it themselves. Wouldn’t it be wise to use their “expertise” to convince the jury that it is what they say it is: lies, gossip and innuendo? To me, if they appeal, it would show that they are, for lack of a better term, afraid of the hearsay testimony, without knowing what the jury might think of it.

    What if they appeal prior to the trial and lose? The jury still gets to hear it, weigh it and vote to either acquit or convict. If they convict, at the very least, the defense can appeal this issue.

    So, I really don’t think, at least IMO, the defense would make an issue of the hearsay testimony and keep it out, without knowing, one way or the other, what the jury would do with it. Convince the jury it is all lies and gossip. Isn’t that what the defense is there for?

  24. I just wanted to clarify the statement about the one appeal for the defense. Meaning the defense gets one appeal(As to a higher court hearing the case) and can of course go up the chain with higher courts. Also I’m not positive on whether they only get one or not so don’t quote me.The summary to what I read is that it was more than likely an appeals court would not keep hearing issues over and over. Also if one appeals court decides against it’s not likely a higher court would take it up.It’s just something I read from multiple law sources that I’m still trying to figure out. It’s a pain googling this type of thing for you can’t really find similar cases with similar instances.

    The defense already filed a motion to exclude the hearsay statements once. They challenged the constitutionality of the hearsay law. The judge ruled against them.

    This is a good example. Why didn’t Brodsky take this to a higher court at the time or didn’t he have that option? If the judge rules against the prosecutions complaints can they take it to a higher court? I’m just trying to answer these questions to know what the options are so I don’t make assumptions to say something like “We will know that the hearsay went favorably/unfavorably with the prosecution for there is/isn’t news that they are appealing it.” Right now I can only assume if they do go to a higher court and appeal it we will know that key hearsay statements weren’t allowed in that the prosecution would of liked to have admitted. For news of that you would think would be made public even though it is sealed. Maybe it would be easier to make that statement and learn the hard way and be set straight on it lol. I just want to be correct on my statements on here or any other board is all.So that is why I’m asking questions to get help on it.

  25. GAR, I think Rescue’s commment above yours might help. It really doesn’t seem as if it would behoove either side to appeal the decision before the trial commences. I really doubt that will be the case.

  26. Maybe they didn’t read the letter and just sent it back. Otherwise you’d think they would of gave more info on what it did say.

  27. Will County Circuit Court Schedule
    http://willcountycircuitcourt.com/
    04P 000232 – In Re: PROBATE Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased
    PETERSON DREW 3 29 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status
    PETERSON KRISTOPHER 3 29 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status
    PETERSON THOMAS D 3 29 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Status

    09L 000326 In Re: Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased wrongful death suit
    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN NOT ON SCHEDULE PETERSON DREW 09L 000326 CIVJ
    PETERSON DREW NOT ON SCHEDULE 09L000326 Case
    VARSEK LAWRENCE E. NOT ON SCHEDULE SAVIO HENRY J 09L 000326 CIVJ
    SAVIO HENRY J NOT ON SCHEDULE 09L 000326 Case

    09MR000648 – In Re: COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE vs. Drew Peterson, Henry Savio,
    PETERSON DREW NOT ON SCHEDULE 09MR000648
    SAVIO HENRY J NOT ON SCHEDULE 09MR000648
    SAVIO KATHLEEN NOT ON SCHEDULE 09MR000648
    DOMAN ANNA M NOT ON SCHEDULE 09MR000648

    09CF001048 – People of the State of Illinois vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant MURDER/INTENT
    JURY SELECTION BEGINS JUNE 14, 2010 PER JUDGE WHITE 02/23/2010
    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN NOT ON SCHEDULE PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    LENARD GEORGE DEAN NOT ON SCHEDULE PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W NOT ON SCHEDULE 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Hearing
    PETERSON DREW W NOT ON SCHEDULE 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Hearing

    NO. 3-08-1025 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    REINSTITUTED BACK TO WILL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT:
    08 CF 1169 – In Re: People of the State of Illinois vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant GUN CHARGES
    NOT ON SCHEDULE – JUDGE, TIME AND DATE TO BE DETERMINED
    http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2010/3rdDistrict/February/3081025.pdf

    08CF000098 – In Re: ROBINSON MICHAEL
    DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY
    Circuit Judge Circuit Judge AMBT [b]Amy M. Bertani-Tomczak [/b]
    ROACH STEVEN R 4 12 10 930 404 ROBINSON MICHAEL 08CF000098 AMBT
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 0
    DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 12 10 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Pretrial

    10F 000038 – ROBINSON PAUL J FELONY
    ROBINSON PAUL J 4 21 10 900 10F 000038 Case

    09TR114610 – In Re: STEBIC CRAIG R
    LENARD GEORGE DEAN 3 18 10 0 STEBIC CRAIG R 09TR114610

    10TR015841 – In Re: STEBIC CRAIG R
    STEBIC CRAIG R 4 9 10 PFLD 10TR015841 20454 DRIVING 15-20 MPH 1 Return Date

  28. Thanks for all the info, Ladies!

    I think I may start referring to DP as “3825″ – sort of a nickname from his inmate number.

  29. 10F 000038 – ROBINSON PAUL J FELONY
    ROBINSON PAUL J 4 21 10 900 10F 000038 Case

    anyone know what the felony charge is for, or when the arrest occurred?

  30. During this lull, folks, we still check around to see if there’s any “news” to share with you.

    Drew Peterson has hired himself a defense team that sings itself praises, yet, hasn’t done much for him in the way of success. In this latest example of WTF, Andrew Abood’s law firm has a heading for today on their website blog, basically saying it’s sound practice to get exposure by having a website.

    Mr. Abood says:

    As I understand it, Google will pick up on your website if you are constantly making changes to your blog. We update it at least once a week.”

    “The truth is that we receive about 7 or 8 contacts a month through our website from people who have gone to the website and then contact us. Most of our clients come to us through normal channels.”

    In this case, I think Mr. Abood & Company should get themselves a good spell checker to start with, unless there’s a new word I’m not aware of: BEDIA. Hmmm? ;-) I mean, screwing up in the heading of your objective paragraph is just plain ridiculous. Thanks for the laugh Aboodlaw.com!

    Monday, March 29, 2010
    Andrew Abood Speaks on Using Social Bedia to Build a Law Practice
    Read the article at:

    http://www.legalnews.com/ingham/670974/

  31. “Social Bedia,” eh? Sounds like he either has a really bad head cold or a disabled spell check. :-)

  32. Nothing to report on that?

    I still see that on the Will County website. I didn’t see anything from Selig either.

    Could it be that nobody was interested in the outcome? LOL Or did it just get rescheduled?

  33. Day Two, and still not corrected. Way to go Abood Law! Maybe your potential clients won’t notice that you don’t pay attention to detail.

    Social Bedia to Build a Law Practice.

    Say that 10x fast, and maybe it’ll come out right after all.

  34. Bucket, I just saw this avatar on an avatar site, but it reminded me so much of a picture I have of my daughter … the same sense of style. :)

  35. Will County Circuit Court Schedule
    http://willcountycircuitcourt.com/

    09L 000326 In Re: Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased wrongful death suit

    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 6 10 10 900 WCCA PETERSON DREW 09L 000326 CIVJ
    PETERSON DREW Not on schedule
    VARSEK LAWRENCE E 6 10 10 900 WCCA SAVIO HENRY J 09L 000326 CIVJ
    SAVIO HENRY J Not on schedule

    09CF001048 – People of the State of Illinois vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant MURDER/INTENT
    SCHEDULED DATE 6 14 10 PER JUDGE WHITE 02/23/2010

    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN NOT ON SCHEDULE PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    LENARD GEORGE DEAN 6 14 10 930 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W NOT ON SCHEDULE 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Hearing
    PETERSON DREW W NOT ON SCHEDULE 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Hearing

  36. docsdaughter :Tomorrow will mark the eleventh month mark for DP’s Will County stay.

    at least we know he’s not skulking around the neighborhood terrorizing people!

  37. Hi everyone. Hope you’re all doing well.

    It’s recently come to our attention that Attorney Lawrence Varsek is no longer a part of the Savio family wrongful death case against Peterson. Attorney Martin Glink will be handling the matter on behalf of all Savio family members.

  38. Hi Cheryljones. No, we don’t know the reason Attorney Varsek is no longer working on the wrongful death matter for the Savio family.

    Any information we get, we’ll pass along.

  39. Just found this about murder convictions w/out a body
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36393312/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
    Murders without bodies were long considered one of the most complex challenges in the legal profession, but advances in technology have made the once-unthinkable prospect more common.
    The last paragraph states:
    “Traditionally, a prosecutor would say: ‘No body, we don’t have a case,’” Pendergast said. “But now that people are seeing these cases can be won … it’s not ‘the perfect crime’ anymore.”
    ***
    There is a website run by Thomas “Tad” DiBiase that looks very interesting:
    http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/

    “Welcome to my website!

    For over 12 years I was an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia and I prosecuted homicide cases for most of those years. In January of 2006, I prosecuted the second “no body” murder case tried in D.C. and have been interested in “no body” cases ever since.

    On this site I track “no body” murder cases, trials and investigations. My table of “No body” Murder Trials lists nearly 300 “no body” murder trials in the United States. I also have consulted, for free, with law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and Canada. If you know of a “no body” case, investigation, or trial, contact me and I’d be happy to add it to my table or blog about it.

    All the best,

    Thomas A. (Tad) DiBiase, “No Body” Guy
    ***
    I hope it’s OK to cite these.

  40. cheryljones @ #84 :) It is my understanding from Susan Murphy-Milano that Thomas A. (Tad) DiBiase, “No Body” Guy, appeared on her show and also offered his services to ISP and/or James Glasgow’s office.

  41. Wow, Judgin. Wonder if anyone took him up on it? Someone with experience and knowledge may very well be an asset. I’m guessing that since Susan Murphy-Milano had him on her show, he’s credible, hm? Looked like it to me.
    Hope money is not the issue.

  42. cheryljones @ #84 “I also have consulted, for ‘free’, with law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and Canada. If you know of a “no body” case, investigation, or trial, contact me and I’d be happy to add it to my table or blog about it.”

    ~~~

    Apparently, Glasgow was working first on the Kathleen Savio case and not the “No Body” case of Stacy Ann Peterson disappearance.

  43. http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/blog.html
    posted by Admin on February 23rd, 2010 at 11:47 AM

    Investigator wants missing musician case treated as a murder

    Steve Miller reporting

    DiBiase was contacted by John Spira’s sister Stephanie McNeil, who has led the search for Spira.

    DiBiase says he’s tracking this as a “no body” murder case.

    “It’s an interesting case because typically the victim in the ‘no body’ case is a female.”

    “Think, as some would allege, Stacy Peterson.

    DiBiase has taken the case pro-bono–at no charge. He says his job is to work with Spira’s family and police – to maybe nudge police into pursuing some new leads.

    “Generally most people don’t want to kill random people. They want to kill people who piss them off of jilted them.” “

Comments are closed.