Drew Peterson adds two more new attorneys to his defense team

Two more big names join Peterson defense team
By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 4/22/2010 5:27 PM

Steven A. Greenberg

They don’t have cool nicknames like “The Shark,” but two other high-profile Chicago attorneys known for their aggressive courtroom styles are joining the Drew Peterson defense team. Attorneys Steven A. Greenberg and Ralph E. Meczyk are expected to file their appearances by Monday to defend the former Bolingbrook police sergeant on charges he killed his third wife as the former couple neared a financial settlement in their divorce.

Ralph E. Meczyk

Both attorneys have handled dozens of murder trials in their lengthy legal careers. Most notably, Meczyk defended former Chicago police officer Anthony Doyle in the landmark Family Secrets federal mob trial. And, late last year, Greenberg represented triple killer Brian Dugan for the infamous 1983 sex slaying of Jeanine Nicarico of Naperville.

In that case, a DuPage County jury in November initially signed a “life” verdict form after the defense explored functional brain imaging technology to explain Dugan’s mental makeup. The panel ultimately sent Dugan to death row, however, after the main holdout juror had a change of heart before the initial verdict was announced.

Greenberg and Meczyk join lead attorney Joel Brodsky, Reem Odeh, and Joseph “The Shark” Lopez, who also was a lead attorney in the Family Secrets trial. Lopez filed an appearance last week after Andrew Abood and George Lenard withdrew, citing “irreconcilable differences” with Brodsky regarding key trial strategy issues.

Drew Peterson, 56, maintains his innocence in Kathleen Savio’s 2004 drowning death. His fourth wife Stacy, 23, was reported missing in October 2007, but Peterson hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing in that case.

Jury selection is slated to begin June 14, but the trial may be delayed if prosecutors appeal Will Circuit Judge Stephen White’s anticipated ruling regarding the admissibility of about one dozen hearsay statements.

“The passing of a law designed to convict a specific person makes this a witch hunt; that offends my sense of justice,” Greenberg said of a recent hearsay law sparked by the Peterson case. “I look forward to the challenge of ensuring Drew gets a fair trial and is found not guilty.”

Peterson, arrested May 7, remains in the Will County jail on a $20 million bond.

Read the story at the Daily Herald

Steven A. Greenberg’s Site
Ralph E. Meczyk’s Site

~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

104 thoughts on “Drew Peterson adds two more new attorneys to his defense team

  1. Like I said – what gives? One guy’s clients is on death row and the other guy’s client was sentenced to 12 years.

  2. Good point TAI!

    Oh boy, more mob lawyers…

    Ralph E. Meczyk has tried over one hundred and fifty jury trials to verdict in both State and Federal District Courts throughout the United States. He has also tried hundreds of bench/judge trials, motions to suppress evidence, and motions to quash arrests in those same venues.

    Mr. Meczyk is one of a select group of highly qualified lawyers to be certified by the Illinois Supreme Court as lead counsel in death penalty cases. In addition to his over 30 years in the practice of criminal law and extensive trial work, Mr. Meczyk has exceptional appellate court experience.

    Mr. Meczyk represented one of the defendants in the nationally covered Family Secrets mob trial where he was lead counsel for Mr. Anthony Doyle…

    http://www.meczyklaw.com/Bio/RalphMeczyk.asp

  3. Chicago criminal defense lawyer Steve Greenberg is a highly qualified criminal defense lawyer, practicing throughout the Chicagoland area, including Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties, and across the country. From his office in Chicago, he represents clients in all areas of criminal defense, including federal crimes, felonies, misdemeanors, and serious traffic matters.

    Whether you need a State or Federal criminal defense attorney, Steve Greenberg can make a difference in the outcome of your case. In Illinois and the Chicagoland area, including the metropolitan counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will. Steve has tried the full range of cases, including death penalty cases. He is knowledgeable, aggressive, professional, and a zealous advocate, with a proven record of accomplishment of obtaining favorable results for his clients in high-stakes cases over many years. He has skillfully won acquittals in many cases, reduction of serious charges to lesser offenses, dismissal of serious offenses, and equitable sentences to the satisfaction of countless clients. Steve aggressively defends each client, using his extensive knowledge, skill, and experience. He strives to help every client understand the charges, analyze the issues of the case, explore the options, and present the best defense.

    Criminal defense lawyer Steven A. Greenberg focuses on the aggressive defense of major felonies and misdemeanors. These include offenses involving drugs and narcotics, firearms, murder and manslaughter, theft and property crimes, violent crimes, white-collar crimes, driving under the influence, and juvenile cases. Attorney Greenberg represents defendants at all stages of criminal proceeding, from investigation and arrest to arraignment and trial

    His record before the Appellate Courts is distinct. Attorney Greenberg handles all types of criminal appeals in State and Federal courts.

    Steve Greenberg counsels clients who are facing serious criminal charges that have grave and severe consequences. He has the expertise and skill to defend complex criminal matters. Steve is available on an emergency basis.

    Contact Steven A. Greenberg to schedule an appointment at (312) 879-9500.

    http://www.greenbergcriminaldefense.com/

  4. Jury selection is slated to begin June 14, but the trial may be delayed if prosecutors appeal Will Circuit Judge Stephen White’s anticipated ruling regarding the admissibility of about one dozen hearsay statements.

    Is that Brodsky pointing out to the reporter that he’s expecting the anticipated ruling to go his way after all? He hasn’t been right once, no matter how much he huffed and puffed. Just because he wishes it were so……

  5. Interesting to watch the first video on Meczyk’s site and hear the quote, “There are three ways to win a case. Preparation, preparation, and preparation.”

    Less than two months boys…

  6. Joel must like driving an overcrowded bus !!

    Did Drew have his line of credit re-instated to pay for all these guys ?

  7. Speaking of lawyers and fees, when John P. Carroll was still on the defense team, he must’ve gotten paid something, no? His website says fees are due upon acceptance/representation. On his website, this is how he lists his fees:

    Chicago Criminal Defense

    John Paul Carroll believes that every client has a right to immediately know what the attorney’s fees will be in any criminal case. These fees are fair and reasonable and are payable at the time representation of the client is accepted. John Paul Carroll will stand behind his fee agreement, no matter how long the representation or trial may take.

    Misdemeanor/drunk driving :: $4,000
    Defense of felony charges :: $10,000
    Defense in a murder prosecution :: $25,000
    Defense in a death penalty case :: $50,000

    Please be aware that these fees are what John Paul Carroll charges, and there are other attorneys who will require less money for their representation. If cost is your main concern then you should call other attorneys until you find a cheaper one.

    Maybe Drew can get a refund.

    BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

    In the Matter of:

    JOHN PAUL CARROLL,
    Attorney-Respondent,

    No. 401579.

    Commission No. 09 CH 78

    FILED – August 20, 2009

    (Failure to inform criminal defense client of plea offer and false statement to prosecutor)

    http://www.iardc.org/09CH0078CM.html

  8. I’m wondering how long it will be before these two pull the chord and ask to get off the bus?

    Also, for a defense that intends to forego an alibi defense and simply wash-rinse-repeat “This lady had an accident” why would you need a busload of heavy hitters like this?

    Greenberg sounds more like he wants to go after the hearsay exceptions, but the Judge hasn’t even ruled on that yet, so why are his undies in a bundle? In Gutowski’s story Joel made it sound as if he expects a judgement in favor of the defense.

  9. I think we’ve got it already. There’s no evidence tying DP to Kathleen’s death, and there’s no evidence putting him at the crime scene.

    But, she had an “accident” anyway, so what’s the hub, bub?

    If a juror were to believe that Kathleen’s injuries and death are consistent with a slip and fall, how do they get past the revelations that the initial investigation was bungled, flawed, the circumstances of the bath, the mildly secured house, even though she had multi-locks on doors and it was late at night, the alarm not being activated, the ensuing phoney baloney will, the questionable probate proceedings, the hitman accusations……

    There’s so many things that cannot be explalined away “reasonably,” IMO. Is it reasonable to believe that all of this should be discarded, yet, a convoluted, complicated fall should prevail? Bah!

  10. Drew might have brought on some meaner, uglier lawyers but all the “fierce, aggressive” tactics in the world still can’t make a mountain of circumstantial evidence disappear into thin air. I think The Amazing Kreskin might have been a better fit.

  11. I think from the video Greenberg seems like he’s just saying he considers it a targeted prosecution and the passing of the Hearsay Law is proof of that. I didn’t take it that he wanted to go just against the hearsay statements that may or may not come in. I think that whether or not they come in – the Hearsay Law would likely come up in the defense team’s closing arguments in an attempt to create some doubt.

  12. thinkaboutit2 :

    I think from the video Greenberg seems like he’s just saying he considers it a targeted prosecution and the passing of the Hearsay Law is proof of that. I didn’t take it that he wanted to go just against the hearsay statements that may or may not come in. I think that whether or not they come in – the Hearsay Law would likely come up in the defense team’s closing arguments in an attempt to create some doubt.

    I didn’t take it that way either and that’s not at all what I was saying.

  13. I’m not sure if he wants to go after the hearsay exceptions, but rather go after the idea that DP was unfairly targeted by the prosecution in passing the law just for him in the first place. The next court date appears to be on 6/10/2010. Is this the date the judge is going to rule on what hearsay is going to be allowed in? Thats 4 days before the trial. Unless of course there is an undisclosed court date for the judge to meet with the defense and prosecution on the issue. Stuff that makes you go hmm.

  14. I don’t think judges always have a hearing date set for when they give the defense and prosecution their rulings on motions or things like the hearsay staetments. I think the lawyers may just be notified via the court clerk and then they have the chance to submit new motions, file an appeal, or whatever they do. I’d think the judge would have to let the lawyers know much sooner than a few days before the trial starts on what evidence would be allowed in so the lawyers have time to prepare appropriately. I’m not certain though. I guess as with everything – only time will tell…

  15. Since there are only 15 statements in question here, I would imagine the defense would be preparing for all of them, whether or not they expect them to be admitted. Drew’s defense has known for a long time exactly what the statements are and all but two(?) of them were heard at the hearsay hearing so even if the Judge saved his decision for the day before the trial, I expect they should be prepared.

    I guess my point is that no matter what he decides or when he shares his decision, it would be pretty laughable for the defense to claim that they needed more time to prepare.

    That said, I can’t think of any reason why it would take the Judge that long to deliberate…or to reveal his decision to the attorneys.

  16. Hasn’t anyone noticed that, particularly in this case, when a new attorney comes on the DP defense, their past clients are what’s forefront? Not that that’s always a slam dunk, because not all of the clients these men represented fared well, but, nonetheless, famous thugs mean good PR.

    So, if nothing else, whether they win for Drew or lose, they can add him to their celebrity wall of defendants. That’s what’s going to get them their next big client, I guess, heh? Won’t matter if he’s sitting in jail for the rest of his life or not. It’s the fame that counts.

    Ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  17. Hmmmm, why so many lawyers with experience in major crime/death penalty cases if this was such an open and shut case of a simple accidental death.

    You’d think even Joel would be able to handle that on his own, so why all this heavy artillery ??

  18. Drew Peterson’s legal team grows
    April 24, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    JOLIET — Drew Peterson will add another pair of high-powered attorneys to his defense team. And he still has Joel Brodsky, too.

    Joseph “the Shark” Lopez, the flamboyant Chicago lawyer who joined Peterson’s legal stable last week, confirmed attorneys Ralph Meczyk and Steven Greenberg will be come on board next week.

    “He’s got a real heavy team, a lot heavier than he had before,” Lopez said of Peterson’s reconfigured front of lawyers.

    Last week, attorneys George Lenard of Joliet and Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich., jumped ship, citing irreconcilable differences with Brodsky, Peterson’s self-proclaimed lead attorney.

    Peterson faces murder charges for allegedly drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004. He is slated to go to trial June 14. The former Bolingbrook cop is also the sole suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    The two lawyers Lopez says will be entering the case have extensive experience in high-profile trials.

    “Ralphy Boy (Meczyk) has done a lot of murders,” Lopez said.

    Among Meczyk’s more notable recent court forays was the defense of former Chicago cop Anthony Doyle in the Family Secrets mob trial. Doyle was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

    Greenberg represented Brian Dugan in the murder of Naperville’s Jeanine Nicarico. Dugan was sentenced to death.

    Lopez was also in on the Family Secrets trial, representing mobster Frank Calabrese Sr.

    When asked what his role would be now that Peterson’s legal team was stocked with high-profile attorneys, Brodsky hung up the phone.

    And Brodsky might have even company when it comes to representing Peterson. Lopez said Chicago attorney Matthew McQuaid has been invited to the team as well. McQuaid could not be reached for comment.

    With or without McQuaid, Lopez predicted a high-pressure defense once Peterson’s trial starts.

    “We’re really going to turn up the heat in that courtroom,” he said. “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2195364,4_1_JO24_PETERSON_S1-100424.article

  19. Lopez said Chicago attorney Matthew McQuaid has been invited to the team as well. McQuaid could not be reached for comment.

    One more lawyer and it's going to be time for a 'lightbulb' joke.

  20. BTW, Matthew McQuaid was formerly Steven A. Greenberg’s partner in the defense of Brian Dugan.

    Also…

    Chicago man gets 50 years in Villa Park slaying
    November 16, 2009 6:08 PM

    A Chicago teenager who was convicted of the 2007 slaying of a Villa Park man even though he didn’t actually strike the fatal blows was sentenced today to 50 years in prison…

    …The two other defendants already pleaded guilty to lesser charges of home invasion. Joshua Gordon was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and Dywayne Head, 19, was sentenced to 20.
    Moore declined similar plea negotiations, said prosecutors and his defense attorney Matthew McQuaid

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/chicago-man-gets-50-years-in-villa-park-slaying.html

  21. So I guess they are going for the sympathy defense.You know Facs my comp still has dents also from listening to the Shark. The truth is bigger than what ever high priced attorneys DP wants to waste money on. My opinion only of course. I have a question, Who said the judge didn’t issue a ruling yet on the hearsay?

  22. Well hmmmm, all these lawyers, more lawyers and more lawyers kind of flies in the face of this 33 page document with a lot of whining and moaning how Peterson can’t afford a proper Defense (especially page 15/16), because he doesn’t have access to his line of Credit etc etc.

    Even wants $ 75.000 compensation for Chase putting him in this predicament (!!)

  23. Sounds to me like Greenberg is tooling up for the gun charges, too maybe. “Targeted Prosecution”? (I bloody hope so!) do you think they mean malicious prosecution ala the gun charges? That’s what it sounds like to me. Drew’s Law indeed. It’s a rubbish claim and everyone knows it.

    He’s toast. There’s no getting off for Drew, and I mean that sincerely.

    Can’t place him at the scene? Funny, we *can* place him breaking into Kitty’s home more than once. He’s even gone out of his way to demonstrate how he’s adept at sneaking around dressed in black in the middle of the night. And then there’s Stacy’s cellphone records…and the Little Red Alibi Wallet….overhears(I hope we’ll get to hear some). Don’t despair 🙂 Not one but *two* would-be hitmen…See? It goes on and on.

  24. Hmmm. What I don’t quite see about all of this is why, if the prior three-team defense team wasn’t up to snuff and wasn’t representing Peterson properly, Peterson didn’t speak up sooner himself and lay down the law? After all, he’s totally immersed in his own defense and fully involved. If it’s true that his two prior attorneys left on good terms with him and they all wished each other well, why is he allowing his present shark attorney to continue to crack jabs at them, as though they’re incompetent boobs?

    The truth is, IMO, they’re conveniently overlooking the headmaster boob, and we all pretty much know it. If Mr. Lopez is considering Brodsky’s skills as being heavy hitting, based on the lack of professionalism and actions Brodsky’s taken all these past months, then I don’t put much stock in much of anything Lopez says about this case. Wouldn’t anyone really like to hear one of these newly hired attorneys answer questions put to them as to what they think of Brodsky parading his client around like a show dog, failing to keep him under control for his own good, and using him for his own personal business ventures? When each and every motion filed by this defense was lost after being ruled on by Judge White, Brodsky was driving the bus. Pretty lame to blame and point fingers, when he was and is the lead attorney.

    But, I suppose if they refrain from attacking the personal lives of the witnesses and attack the State’s case instead, maybe this case will take on a semblance of the law at work, instead of the Brodsky Circus Show.

  25. CNN – AMERICAN MORNING – Aired May 8, 2009 – 07:00 ET

    Excerpt

    KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: And hello again. Thanks so much for being with us. It’s 7:00 on the nose right here in New York. I’m Kiran Chetry, along with Carol Costello in for John Roberts.

    Well, new developments this morning. Former Chicago area police Sergeant Drew Peterson now accused of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Her body was exhumed after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished.

    Stacy’s body has never been found and police are hoping that this trial could lead to answers surrounding Stacy’s disappearance and possible death as well.

    Joining us now from Chicago is criminal defense attorney Steve Greenberg.

    Steve, thanks for being with us this morning.

    STEVE GREENBERG, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.

    CHETRY: So right now we have Will County state’s attorney, James Glasgow, saying that Peterson drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and that the state’s evidence is strong. They, as we said, exhumed the body, did another autopsy, and determined that she did die from drowning and that they called it a homicide even though it was at first ruled accidental. Do you think there is a strong physical case against Drew Peterson in Kathleen Savio’s death?

    GREENBERG: First of all, I don’t expect any prosecutor when they bring a murder prosecution to say anything other than we have a strong case. Let’s look at the case that they’ve got though, and sort of try and assess it.

    They’ve got two separate opinions from their own medical examiners, one saying it’s an accident, one saying it’s a homicide. Homicide means death at the hands of another.

    Those two opinions are going to conflict. It will be treated by a jury no different as if there was a defense expert and a prosecution expert…

    CHETRY: Right.

    GREENBERG: … who gave differing opinions. So the first thing the jury has to decide is which of those two people they’re going to want to believe. What they’ve also supposedly have in this case, though, is statements made by Stacy Peterson that Drew admitted committing this crime.

    CHETRY: Right, and let me get to that real quick just to give people a background on that.

    GREENBERG: All right.

    CHETRY: Apparently in the reporting – the “Chicago Sun-Times” has done a lot of reporting on this. But they’re citing apparently a meeting with her pastor where she told her pastor that her husband told her he killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio. And he, of course, said that she did not want him to go to the police about it and she didn’t go to the police about it. How is that going to factor in given that Stacy Peterson is missing?

    GREENBERG: Right. And they’ve got his just absurd – you know, we all want our clients to keep their mouths shut obviously in this case. His attorney hasn’t advised him of that. His absurd explanation that she had a crush on the pastor and she was sexing herself up when she was telling him these stories.

    Here’s how it’s going to play in. There’s something called forfeiture by wrongdoing. If they can show that he killed Stacy Peterson or had a hand in her disappearance in order to keep her from telling that story, then a jury will hear that she made that statement if a judge believed that this statement is reliable. And it was made to a priest.

    CHETRY: Right.

    GREENBERG: And a priest is testifying about it. So the judge is probably going to find that it’s reliable. And the jury is going to hear that he had a hand in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. They’re going to be told, well, you’re not supposed to consider whether he’s guilty of that murder.

    CHETRY: Right.

    GREENBERG: But they’re going to have to decide if he was involved in her disappearance. So you’ve got this strange…

    CHETRY: OK. I want to get to one other thing though real quick – I just want to get one other thing…

    GREENBERG: Sure.

    CHETRY: … because then apparently according to “Chicago Sun- Times” their two long-time friends of Drew Peterson who claimed they cooperated with the police wearing wiretaps and recording for seven months intimate conversations with Drew Peterson. Now, if they do have these recorded conversations as well, how significant could his own words on tape be?

    GREENBERG: Well, I think Drew Peterson, if he is guilty of these offenses is one of the smartest and most cunning criminals we’ve ever seen. And I sincerely doubt if he admitted to these friends after he was – there was this firestorm, he admitted to anybody doing anything wrong. My guess is there’s nothing on those tapes. They probably just want their free trip to New York to talk on the shows.

    CHETRY: All right. And then, of course, the last thing is his stepbrother Tom Morphy, who apparently is going to be testifying or made some sort of deal with prosecutors. This is also the reporting from the “Sun-Times” that he says he helped move a barrel that he described as feeling warm and weighing about 120 pounds.

    GREENBERG: Right.

    CHETRY: So if he goes there and gets that type of evidence regarding Stacy’s disappearance, is that also going to factor in to Kathleen Savio’s case?

    GREENBERG: Well, that’s part of the testimony that will be heard by a judge beforehand when he determines whether Drew Peterson had a hand in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and whether her statement should be used in the murder prosecution for Kathleen Savio. It’s got a lot of interesting twists and turns. His attorneys definitely have their work cut out for them at this point.

    CHETRY: Certainly sounds like it. Steve Greenburg, Chicago criminal defense attorney, good to talk to you this morning. Thanks.

    GREENBERG: Thank you.

    No, thank YOU, Mr. Greenberg. 😉

  26. Listening to a voice long silent
    Peterson murder case hinges on words of his drowned wife

    May 10, 2009
    By Erika Slife, Matthew Walberg and Jeff Coen, Tribune reporters

    Excerpt

    Records from the investigation and second autopsy indicate that a small gash on the back of Savio’s head was an attempt to make her death look like an accident, authorities say. She had bruises on both shins and her lower abdomen and abrasions on her hand, wrist and arms, according to the original autopsy report. Defense attorney Steve Greenberg, who has analyzed the Peterson saga for national news shows, said he sees the case as a tale of two autopsies.

    “The second Savio autopsy is just a different interpretation of the injuries,” he said. “The same injuries were documented in the first one, but what apparently happened is it was treated differently because Drew Peterson was a police officer. It’s just a fact that authorities at the time took his story and didn’t really look into it.”
    .
    Greenberg said he doesn’t expect Glasgow will undercut his own case by running from the first autopsy, however. “He’ll say, ‘That was just that pathologist’s opinion at the time, but it’s really up to you to decide,'” he said. Glasgow will then point to the injuries noted in both autopsies and ask the jury to use common sense.

    “He’ll ask, ‘Do you think that someone who falls in a bathtub would have 17 bruises on their body?’ “But Peterson’s legal team expresses confidence a jury will be unable to reconcile why a second autopsy, or investigation, would indicate murder.
    .
    “We believe that the death was accidental,” Abood said, “and we have an autopsy to support that, along with a county coroner’s investigation.”

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-10/news/0905080570_1_james-glasgow-hearsay-kathleen-savio

  27. GREENBERG: Right. And they’ve got his just absurd – you know, we all want our clients to keep their mouths shut obviously in this case. His attorney hasn’t advised him of that. His absurd explanation that she had a crush on the pastor and she was sexing herself up when she was telling him these stories.

    The truth is, IMO, you don’t critique a high profile case as a defense attorney, jab at the defense attorney by acknowledging that he didn’t advise the client properly to keep his mouth shut, and then expect to be taken seriously about being the coming of the defense that shall set him free. Bah, it’s for the media coverage and the publicity, and most of us know that. It’s smoke and mirrors and talk.

    Brodsky was a joke to reputable defense lawyers then, and he is now. These attorneys are just exercising their self-control by keeping their mouths shut about this ship’s captain. What, do these lawyers think most everyone but themselves have functioning brains in which to think and come to reasonable conclusions?

  28. Steve Greenberg:

    “The second Savio autopsy is just a different interpretation of the injuries”.

    “The same injuries were documented in the first one, but what apparently happened is it was treated differently because Drew Peterson was a police officer. It’s just a fact that authorities at the time took his story and didn’t really look into it.”

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

    Steve Greenberg hit the nail on the head there !!

    Now he’s on the Defense Team himself is he going to stand by that statement ???

  29. That’s quite the find Rescue.

    So just to make sure I have this straight, a year ago one of Peterson’s new attorneys, Steven Greenberg, was making television appearances and telling reporters that:

    1. Kathleen Savio’s original death investigation was deliberately mishandled because Drew was a police officer.

    2. Joel Brodsky did a bad job with Drew by not advising him to stay silent.

    and

    3. The statements Drew put out saying that Stacy had a crush on Pastor Schori and that she dressed provocatively to see him were “absurd”.

    What a circus!

  30. Yeah, it’s pretty cool, isn’t it, that there’s one way or another to show that Drew Peterson is a gravy train. No one on his team cares what the outcome as far as his freedom is concerned. All they care about is whether they’re going to be involved in clearing a notorious “circus clown” of charges due to technicalities, or get his case reversed on appeal.

    The odd thing is, like in this particular instance, I have never heard of an attorney becoming so personally absorbed with his client, going so far as bar hopping with him. Remember when Brodsky and Peterson hit Tailgaters a few times, but Brodsky decided he was going to get him Downtown to a higher class of people? Brodsky and Peterson went way past the line of having a professional relationship. So, maybe it was time for him to look past his goomba and find the real deal. Heh?

  31. Facs @#39. Lest we not forget that his attorney, Reem Odeh, said she was going to talk to Brodsky about the blabbing that was going on in the media, when, in reality, it’s best to keep a low profile. Remember he told her it’s good for them because they’ll all have book deals? Gravy train, gravy train.

    BTW, when these lawyers speak out of both sides of their mouths, which side is the one that should be listened too?

  32. rescueapet :

    BTW, when these lawyers speak out of both sides of their mouths, which side is the one that should be listened too?

    Well, of course we “ain’t” dummies and we all know that what they argue in court is the only thing that will matter, but isn’t it just sort of…gross…to see how their “expert opinions” can change from sound bite to sound bite, depending on what’s needed for a news show?

  33. *GOSSIP ALERT* Hmm, wonder what was “so close”?

    From Ms. Odeh’s Facebook:

    …as u know the sh*** hit the fan and we are trying to re-organize the Peterson defense team. I think we are ok now but it was so close, and trial is a month and a half away!
    41 minutes ago

  34. Interesting that Reem does not sound as cock-sure as some of these newcomers to the case. Since she’s been on-board since the beginning, I’d trust what she tells her FB friends over what the Johnny-come-lately fame-whores are spouting to the media.

  35. rescueapet :

    I have never heard of an attorney becoming so personally absorbed with his client, going so far as bar hopping with him. Remember when Brodsky and Peterson hit Tailgaters a few times, but Brodsky decided he was going to get him Downtown to a higher class of people? Brodsky and Peterson went way past the line of having a professional relationship.

    Client or not, would you have your daughters pose for photos with this man?

  36. You know regardless which side of their mouth these lawyers are talking from, they have all been critical of Joel Brodsky’s style and conduct at one point or another and considering Joel is the supposed Lead Council in whatever Defense Team line up we’ve seen so far, that does not bode well for Joel in more ways than one – LOL !

  37. Bar hopping with your piece of shit client in this case means…more column inches! More photos!! More soundbites!! and the vicarious thrill of hanging with a real baddie!! (Oh I can’t wait to hear some overhears)

  38. rescueapet :CFS – Facs posted Joe’s story at #24. Thanks, though!

    Well dang Rescue. I’m so sorry. Guess I overlooked it while trying to catch up. Please delete my post, and this one too if you want. It was funny though…especially the part about Joel hanging up on Joe, or whomever it was that called him.

  39. rescueapet :CFS – Darn right it was funny! I think it caught the attention of us all – that silly sense of humor Brodsky has. Not!

    The Shark is stealing Brodsky’s thunder. Wonder how well that’s going over, HA!

  40. “When asked what his role would be now that Peterson’s legal team was stocked with high-profile attorneys, Brodsky hung up the phone.”

    LOL!!!! Broksky’s ego is in for a kicker now!!! Bahahahahah

  41. Did Joel really think all these high flying lawyers are going to let him drive the bus for very long.

    They’re not wanting him to so erratically drive the bus any more than Andrew Abood and George Lenard did – LOL !

  42. Joel Brodsky certainly had a “feel good” moment around April 16 when he declared he “wins most of his cases” and how much a group of about five high profile lawyers respected him and “all of them know my ability” – he then rattled off the names of these lawyers who think so highly of him and the majority of them are now members of the Drew-Dream-Team with a seat on the bus.

    Goes to show if you tell Joel “he’s a good lawyer” you get a seat on the bus – LOL !

    Video Joel Brodsky part 1 – at approx 3.31 mins

  43. I don’t know. I find this disturbing. Steve was the divorce lawyer for a good friend. He also helped someone very close to me. Until now, I didn’t know about Dugan. I have to say I am sadly dissappointed in Steve. I really thought he was better than this.

  44. Hi Harley. So, you know of the attorney, Steve Greenberg?

    I guess it is hard, at times, to imagine anyone wanting to help a murder defendant. But, as they say, everyone is entitled to a defense, and this is the way it has to be. Not to mention they get paid well to do it.

    Sorry for your disappointment in Attorney Greenberg, though.

  45. Hi Bucket! Apparently Greenberg defended a child killer Dugan – He was ultimatley found guilty and sentenced to death.

    Yes Rescue I know of him. It is …. um…. just so odd to me. Yep everyone is entitled to a defense.

  46. Hiya Bucket.

    Greenberg represented Brian Dugan is what Harley means. She didn’t realize that until recently. He also is representing a guy named Lumpkin, who is accused of running down and killing, while on cocaine, a woman and her niece (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/driver-in-crash-that-killed-6-year-old-had-cocaine-in-system.html), and has been involved in the defense in the Family Secrets trial.

    So, he does have some clients who are “deep.”

  47. But, then again, Brodsky is representing, or at least was, a woman who brutally beat to death her niece. Remember that one? They made more of a stink about the fact that the client, who is Arab was required to remove her Hijab for mug shots, than they showed sympathy for the death of the baby (http://arabwritersgroup.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/hijab-case-04-12-09-lawyers-claim-woman-humiliated-into-confessing-to-crime/).

    He’s also representing an individual who is charged with shooting to death Chicago Police Officer Alex Valdez last year (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6843502).

    So, as you can see, the clients, once again, are “heavy hitters.”

  48. Hey HJ, Rescue. (loving your avatar, rescue). Taking on the defense of *really* bad monsters gives you a sort of “out” for having a poor record of losing. How can you really blame the lawyer if when someone is truly guilty? lol. Reminding me of the lazy lawyer approach…

  49. Yeah, Bucket, I agree. It’s the challenge of defending the worst of the worst, I guess. The notoriety that comes with it is useful to these attorneys. I was reading something online yesterday relating to Greenberg, and, of all things, the author of the piece I was reading referred to him as a “media whore.” Where have I ever heard that term used before?????

    I also reason that it’s not so much about about helping these people in a way that is fair and just, because it’s not. It’s about finding the loopholes, the inept investigating, the flaw in the case that will get these people the freedom in which to return to their sorry lives. And make money for the defense attorneys.

    Everyone has to make a living. For some, its a “dirty job,” which takes on, at times, a whole new meaning, heh?

  50. They want it to be about them. lol
    I was really disappointed to witness some pretty shocking media-whoredom connected to the murder of Meredith Kercher. I think I mentioned John Q Kelly making an arse of himself by calling the investigation and conviction of Amanda Knox “the most egregious international railroading I’ve ever seen” which is total pants, and Ted Simon who looked like and spoke like a reasonable person until he was hired by Knox’ defense. There’s a really embarassing youtube where Simon’s challenged by the interviewer and you see him fall to pieces and struggle to very obviously read from his propaganda teleprompter.

    BTW, just how hard could it be to win the civil case against OJ?

  51. Reem Odeh

    “I’m concerned that there’s more emphasis and more of an effort to cater to the media frenzy than there is to looking into the issues surrounding the investigations,” Odeh said. “It just seems to me that when there’s nothing going on with the investigation and things are quiet in the media, it seems like sometimes either Joel or Drew says something to start the media frenzy all over again.”… “I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

    And, that, my friends, is the crux of the Drew Peterson defense.

  52. Back in August 09, an investigative piece was done by Fox News, which involved a convicted man named Greg Long. He was convicted of strangling his friend, and the pathologist who did the autopsy was Dr. Mitchell, the same pathologist who did Kathleen’s autopsy.

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

    Here’s Atty Steve Greenberg’s opinion about the findings, when he was asked to review the case and comment:
    Excerpt

    Exclusive: New Scrutiny in Peterson Case
    Updated: Thursday, 13 Aug 2009, 8:35 PM CDT
    Published : Thursday, 13 Aug 2009, 5:59 PM CDT
    BY JEFF GOLDBLATT – WFLD

    “It is said there are six degrees of separation between all of us, but the link between Drew Peterson and Greg Long is downright uncanny.”

    …….“I don’t know if he’s innocent or not innocent. I know he was convicted based on bad science,” said Chicago attorney Steve Greenberg. Long asked that Greenberg review his options in his case, after losing the first round of his appeal. By a 2-1 margin, the Third District of the Appellate Court of Illinois turned down Long’s request for a new trial.

    “When a case goes on appeal, the judges are looking if this verdict (the original decision against Long) is out of hand or irrational… they don’t retry the case. They don’t re-look at the evidence. They don’t see the credibility of the witnesses. They just say, does it smell so bad, we can’t sanction it.”

    For Greenberg, what’s especially noteworthy about Long’s case, is that for the first time he can recall, an appellate judge not only dissented -which he says in itself is unusual- but the judge singled out and admonished the pathologist, for the record.

    ********

    Bad science? Does that mean when he’s critiquing Dr. Mithell’s findings for a convicted murderer, but it’s okay for him when the same doctor ruled accident regarding his new client’s ex-wife?

    See what I mean? These particular lawyers blow with the wind when it suits them. Bah. They leave nothing behind to respect. Show them the media and the money. Book deals. Interviews.

  53. Looks like there is a new court date appearing for Drews case tomorrow.
    PETERSON DREW 4 27 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Motions

  54. Someone emailed us recently with some thoughts about Kathleen’s bruising and how the defense might try to explain them. I thought I’d just paste them into a comment here rather than replying by email:

    I may have missed this someplace, but I can’t find any posts for the bruises on Kathleen. It seems to me, since DP and JB are going for the accident defense, they will have to explain those bruises. I keep thinking that Drew coached those boys, I believe it will be Thomas, to testify about them. I think he had Thomas testify to the Grand Jury, and will again in this trial, that they, Thomas, and Kris, had been rolling Kathleen up in a rug, and pushing her down the stairs, and that is how she got the brusies. Not from Drew beating her, but the kids playing with her. I remember her brother saying she played with them like that. Remember after Thomas testified at the GJ, Drew made sure he told some reporter, that Thomas had the Jury laughing? That has really stuck in my mind. The same with Kris, when he came home after testifing, he had a really bad headache, and Drew was waiting outside the house for him, giving an interview, and he asked Kris, Did you tell the Truth? I thought he may as well have said, Did you say what I told you to say? Kris just said yes, that he had a really bad headache, and went on in the house. Is it just me, or does any of this seem odd to you?? You know how Drew sets stuff up. I think that is why he had someone there, when Kris came home and he asked him if he told the truth. Seems a really Strange thing to ask your young son when he gets home from testifing, don’t you think?

  55. I found the instance where Henry Savio mentioned the rough play:

    Need for control drove Peterson, families say
    By Erika Slife, Josh Noel and Gerry Smith, Tribune staff reporters.
    Tribune staff reporter Matthew Walberg contributed to this report
    November 18, 2007

    [excerpt]

    …They married in 1992 and had two boys. Throughout the 10-year marriage, Henry Savio said he never felt comfortable about it.

    “I was kind of on my guard all the time,” he said. “[Peterson and the kids] would do crazy stuff with my sister. They had a staircase at my sister’s house. They would tie her up and roll her down the stairs. It was the big joke of theirs. I would say, ‘What’s wrong with you? Why would you let them do that stuff? There’s no respect.’ She would say, ‘It’s fine.’ “…

    IMO, seeing that it was Kathy’s brother who brought this up in an interview, it isn’t necessarily an angle that the Peterson defense will take. The defense has already attempted to attribute the bruising to rough sex and/or clumsiness, something that Dr. Baden disagreed with in his testimony at the hearsay hearings:

    The defense tried to downplay the bruises by suggesting they were the result of rough sex or clumsiness. While Baden conceded some could have been made that way, a few — particularly a hemorrhage of the diaphragm — was the result of blunt force trauma.

    “You can get a lot of injuries from rough sex, but a hemorrhage of the diaphragm is not one of them,” Baden said.

    That said, It looks to me as if the defense has every intention of putting one of Kathleen’s boys on the stand (they have indicated that Reem Odeh will be questioning him) and I have no doubt that he would say whatever he feels he needs to, to help his dad. I do agree that Drew’s control over them is very strong. This is all, of course, only my opinion.

    Thanks for the thoughtful email and please feel free to comment on the blog!

  56. Yeah, we know how Peterson felt about “control” and his family. Only problem is, when his wives didn’t stay in line, they met with mysterious and unusual circumstances.

    When told that his former wives had accused him of being controlling, he replied, “I controlled my family. I think more people in America should control their family.”

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23385930/

  57. Peterson lawyer crew up to six
    April 28, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    JOLIET – Drew Peterson’s substitute attorneys checked into the case Wednesday, with the number of lawyer’s working to keep him out of prison ballooning to six.

    Steven Greenberg, Ralph Meczyk and Meczyk’s partner, Darryl Goldberg, all filed to represent Peterson at his June murder trial.

    Peterson is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004. He is also a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished in October 2007.

    Peterson had been represented by Chicago attorney Joel Brodsky, local lawyer George Lenard and attorney Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich., until a few weeks ago, when Lenard and Abood jumped ship. Both attorneys cited irreconcilable differences with Brodsky, who insists he is Peterson’s lead attorney despite taking a back seat to his two colleagues during a pivotal hearsay hearing earlier this year.

    Chicago attorney Joseph “the Shark” Lopez replaced Abood and Lenard the same day they withdrew from the case. Brodsky’s law partner, Reem Odeh, also is in on the case but has done next to no courtroom work on it in the near year since Peterson was arrested.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2210694,Peterson-lawyers-added_JO042810.article

  58. Maybe this is silly but this is all the “news” I could rassle up for Darryl A. Goldberg:

    Criminal defense lawyer selling River North 2BD
    by Betty Verdun, published April 12, 2010 ShareThis

    Darryl A. Goldberg has listed for sale a two-bedroom, two-bath condo at 500 W. Superior St. in River North for $729,000.

    Goldberg, along with Susan Meczyk, paid $672,000 for the property in July 2005. The 1,647-square-foot Unit #605 measures is part of the Montgomery development, which was built in 1976. Marla Pierson of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage is the listing agent for the home.

    Goldberg is an associate at Ralph E. Meczyk, where his practice focuses on criminal defense, drug crimes, white collar criminal defense, federal criminal defense, serious state crimes and major felonies, personal injury, medical malpractice and civil litigation issues. Before that, he was a prosecutor and assistant corporation counsel with the City of Chicago Corp. Counsel’s office.

    He received his J.D. from the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2004 and his B.A. from the University of Michigan in 2000.

    http://chicago.blockshopper.com/news/story/500066749-Criminal_defense_lawyer_selling_River_North_2BD

  59. That’s not the attorney that was mentioned last week as being “invited” to join the defense team. In that case, there will be seven. McQuaid was a co-counsel in the Brian Dugan trial with Greenberg.

    …Lopez said Chicago attorney Matthew McQuaid has been invited to the team as well. McQuaid could not be reached for comment.

    With or without McQuaid, Lopez predicted a high-pressure defense once Peterson’s trial starts.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2195364,4_1_JO24_PETERSON_S1-100424.article

  60. Actually, I had forgotten, that Peterson does have a seven-member attorney team, even without Matthew McQuaid.

    Brodsky says Peterson has hired Walter Maksym, a nationally known, veteran attorney to file the suit against JPMorgan Chase Bank in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

    “Everyone is entitled to use their property in order to maintain a defense against the might of the State, that we are taxed to sustain. Mr. Peterson should be able to use HIS OWN MONEY so that already overburdened and struggling taxpayers do not have to also pay for the enormous defense costs,” says Maksym. “We will hold Chase, the bank that is sitting on billions of our hard earned ‘bailout’ tax money, for refusing to honor and reneging on their commitment for the benefit of us all.

    “I decided to take this highly controversial case because of the critical issues involved that are of public importance and to stop Chase from getting away with unconscionable conduct.”

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1758&z=4

  61. “We got some green alligators and long-neck geese, some humpty-back camels, and some chimpanzees! Some cats and rats and elephants but sure as your born… You’re never gonna see no unicorn!!”

    (But hey – in this case I wouldn’t rule that out either!)

  62. Violence expert taps Peterson case for book
    Author: ‘Time’s Up’ can help women escape abusive relationships

    April 29, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Friends and family of missing mother Stacy Peterson told how she feared that the husband she wanted to get away from would kill her before letting her go.

    A new book from family violence expert Susan Murphy-Milano would have given Peterson the ways and means to escape her allegedly abusive relationship.

    “It was born out of Stacy’s death, actually,” Murphy-Milano said of her new book, “Time’s Up,” which was released April 12.

    While Peterson remains missing, the state police investigating her disappearance believe she may have been slain by her husband, former Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson, although they have yet to bring criminal charges in the case.

    Women’s advocate
    Murphy-Milano has firsthand experience of an unhinged police officer perpetrating acts of violence on their wives. Her father, a Chicago detective, murdered her mother before committing suicide in 1989. Murphy-Milano found their bodies.

    “It was something he always said he would do,” Murphy-Milano said of her father.

    The startling event propelled Murphy-Milano on her path to becoming an advocate for battered women.

    “It chose me, I don’t think I chose it,” the former investment banker said of her current vocation, which has included penning two other books on the subject of domestic violence prior to “Time’s Up.”

    Peterson case
    Murphy-Milano said the idea for “Time’s Up” came to her after she got involved in the Stacy Peterson case and spoke with a preacher Stacy confided in about her fears of her husband. Stacy also told the preacher, Neil Schori, that her husband allegedly killed the woman he was married to before her, Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. Drew Peterson currently faces a murder charge in connection with Savio’s March 2004 death.

    “It was after I met with Neil Schori, and we talked,” Murphy-Milano said of the preacher, who now presides over a church in Naperville.

    Murphy-Milano said she spotted the extensive video equipment in Schori’s church and told him that she has taped all of her interviews with victims of domestic violence since 2004.

    Leaving behind a videotaped statement might be enough to dissuade a murderous spouse from acting on a violent impulse, Murphy-Milano pointed out. And if it isn’t, the tape could be used in court to help convict a spouse charged with murder.

    “If Lisa Stebic would have done this — that’s another case that’s not been solved,” Murphy-Milano said of the Plainfield mother of two who vanished in April 2007. Police suspect her husband, Craig Stebic, of doing her in, but he has not been charged with harming her.

    Protecting victims
    The book “Time’s Up” provides a roadmap to safety for victims of domestic violence by showing them the unseen pitfalls of leaving a violent relationship and how to navigate around them.

    “Time’s Up” also has explicit details and instructions how to fill out an “evidentiary abuse affidavit,” one of the unique things that Murphy-Milano has created and used through the years in high danger cases. She believes the evidentiary abuse affidavit, which after it is filled out is notarized, has saved many lives.

    Murphy-Milano also envisions her book being distributed by prosecutor’s offices and court systems to both promote justice and save money.

    “I can’t see it not happening,” she said.

    “It makes the prosecution’s case easier,” she said. “Look at the millions of dollars they’ve spent on this whole (Peterson) investigation.”

    “Time’s Up” is available at bookstores and on Internet book sites.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2213628,4_1_JO29_THEBOOK_S1-100429.article

  63. Peterson lawyer crew up to six
    April 29, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — The way he’s going, Drew Peterson’s lawyers are going to outnumber the jury.

    Another three attorneys filed Wednesday to represent accused wife killer Drew Peterson, doubling the size of his defense team.

    The three newest members of Drew’s crew are Steven Greenberg, Ralph Meczyk and Meczyk’s partner, Darryl Goldberg, all of Chicago. Along with Peterson’s self-proclaimed lead attorney, Joel Brodsky; Brodsky’s partner, Reem Odeh; and flamboyant Chicago lawyer Joseph “the Shark” Lopez, they will attempt to fend off the murder charges facing Peterson at his June 14 trial.

    Peterson allegedly drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004. He is also a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished in October 2007.

    When, following Stacy’s disappearance, Peterson first fell under suspicion for murdering at least two wives, he hired Fred Morelli and Gary Johnson, who accompanied him to a November 2007 grand jury appearance.

    Building on Brodsky
    But soon after his star turn in front of the grand jury, Peterson went on the “Today” show and begged for a lawyer to represent him on the cheap, saying, “Talking to lawyers Monday night, it could cost as much as a quarter million dollars to defend one of these cases. So, basically, I’m reaching out to attorneys of America for help. If anybody would like to take my case and help me out here, please call. Let me know what you can do for me. Help me out.”
    The man to lend Peterson a hand in his time of need turned out to be Brodsky who, according to sources with knowledge of Peterson’s financial dealings, did indeed come at a bargain. Both sources said Brodsky agreed to take Peterson’s case solely for the money they could generate through publicity.

    Brodsky was later joined by attorney Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich. Local lawyer George Lenard, who also represents Craig Stebic, the husband of missing Plainfield mother Lisa Stebic, threw his hat in the Peterson ring in December.

    Abood and Lenard bailed on Peterson earlier this month and blamed their departure on irreconcilable differences with Brodsky.

    Despite insisting he was the lead attorney in the case, Brodsky’s role on the defense team appeared to be overshadowed by that of Lenard and Abood during a pivotal hearing earlier this year to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s trial. Odeh attended some of the month-long hearing but did not cross-examine a single witness.

    Lopez filed to replace Lenard and Abood the same day they split from the case. He has called Brodsky the “coach” of Peterson’s defense team.

    Joe’s been busy! My gratitude for the reminder of his first representation, and nice to see more confirmation that Joel has been leveraging Peterson’s notoriety rather than being paid a normal retainer. The best wings in town!

  64. Oh, to be reminded of what a horse’s ass this murder defendant is. Yeah, the good old April Fool’s Day joke, where Peterson and Mancow strung listeners along leading up to that broadcast, giving the impression Peterson was going to make some kind of “confession.”

    Well, Peterson is talking to himself in a jail cell, Mancow was shown the door, Brodsky isn’t generating much money by having his publicity stunts choked off, and his chicken wings are but a mere memory. It goes along with all of the predictions Brodsky made about his client “not” being arrested, and every single motion he’s filed being ruled against.

    So, there is justice after all. Would YOU want Brodsky as an attorney? Good luck with that.

    Thanks for the reminder, Facs.

  65. Ugh! Brodsky’s tie in the picture above looks like blood splatter. Hope he wears it to court. I can’t be the only one that thinks that.

  66. I think we all deserve a little comic relief. Here you have it, including bad courtroom art; Mrs. Brodsky taking pot shots at Andrew Abood; Abood going after Joel; and Reem making reference to “that blog site”. I love it!

  67. My gratitude to the whole group for livening up the day. 🙂

    “See Joel in the back stabbing George. He couldnt reach me. That is what happens when you have alligator arms.” Hee hee heee…

  68. facsmiley :
    Maybe this is silly but this is all the “news” I could rassle up for Darryl A. Goldberg:

    Criminal defense lawyer selling River North 2BD
    by Betty Verdun, published April 12, 2010 ShareThis
    Darryl A. Goldberg has listed for sale a two-bedroom, two-bath condo at 500 W. Superior St. in River North for $729,000.
    Goldberg, along with Susan Meczyk, paid $672,000 for the property in July 2005. The 1,647-square-foot Unit #605 measures is part of the Montgomery development, which was built in 1976. Marla Pierson of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage is the listing agent for the home.
    Goldberg is an associate at Ralph E. Meczyk, where his practice focuses on criminal defense, drug crimes, white collar criminal defense, federal criminal defense, serious state crimes and major felonies, personal injury, medical malpractice and civil litigation issues. Before that, he was a prosecutor and assistant corporation counsel with the City of Chicago Corp. Counsel’s office.
    He received his J.D. from the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2004 and his B.A. from the University of Michigan in 2000.

    http://chicago.blockshopper.com/news/story/500066749-Criminal_defense_lawyer_selling_River_North_2BD

    This made me laugh/shake my head. My ex, The Judge, did the same thing when we sold our house upon divorce. He turned a feature about the house being the “property of the week” into an advertisement for his law firm.

  69. A bit off-topic, but not too far:

    The Lisa Stebic case, three years later
    April 30, 2010

    By JANET LUNDQUIST jlundquist@stmedianetwork.com
    Plainfield mom Lisa Stebic has been missing for three years. The mother of two was last seen at her home the morning of April 30, 2007.

    No one has been charged with her disappearance but local law enforcement says the case is still open.

    Lisa’s family will join Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow and Plainfield Police Chief William Doster at a press conference this afternoon to mark the third anniversary of her disappearance.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2219846,Stebic-anniversary-third-JO43010.article

    BTW, WordPress.com continues to have technical issues today off and on. Hope they are resolved soon!

  70. ME: Peterson’s attorney owes me money

    April 30, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET – A medical examiner is accusing Drew Peterson defense attorney Joel Brodsky of shafting him on his fee.

    Dr. Brian L. Peterson, the medical examiner for Milwaukee County, Wis., said Brodsky is holding out on paying him for reviewing the autopsy of Drew Peterson’s slain third wife.

    “For the first time in my forensic pathology career, now over 21 years, I have been stiffed for the fee ‹ a whole $4,000, by the way,” Dr. Peterson wrote in an e-mail.

    Dr. Peterson said he was approached by the “Brodsky team” to review the death of Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. Drew Peterson is charged with murdering Savio in March 2004 and making her death appear to be an accidental bathtub drowning.

    An autopsy that determined Savio did drown was conducted soon after the death. A coroner’s jury later ruled Savio was the victim of an accident.

    Three and a half years later, in the wake of the vanishing of Drew Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, Savio’s body was exhumed and two more autopsies were performed. One was conducted at the behest of State’s Attorney James Glasgow and the other after her family asked celebrity medical examiner Michael Baden to step in. Both of these autopsies determined Savio was the victim of a homicide.
    Confidentiality

    During a pivotal hearing held earlier this year to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s murder trial, defense attorneys presented testimony from a forensic pathologist of their own, Jeffrey Jentzen of Michigan, who insisted Savio may have accidentally died in her bathtub.

    Dr. Peterson said Jentzen recommended him to Peterson’s attorneys.

    “They wanted an independent review of the Savio case,” Dr. Peterson wrote in an e-mail. “Joel (Brodsky) even, for the first time in my career, asked that I sign a confidentiality agreement regarding my work. I did. And being an honorable guy, I will not tell you what my opinions were – note, however, that I was not called to testify recently.”

    Dr. Peterson went on to elaborate on his findings, saying, “What I can tell you, which doesn’t violate confidentiality, is I disagree with Jeff (Jentzen).”

    Dr. Peterson said the attorneys told him not to write a report and to simply submit his bill. He said he followed these instructions in December but is still waiting to get paid.

    Brodsky blamed the lack of payment on his former colleague, attorney Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich., who left Drew’s crew earlier this month.

    “Abood went to consult with Dr. Peterson all by himself, without first consulting me or the client,” said Brodsky, who answered questions via e-mail and provided an invoice billing Abood for the service.

    “The bill is Mr. Abood’s responsibility, not mine, and that is why he is paying it,” Brodsky said.

    Abood said he is picking up Dr. Peterson’s tab, but only so the consultant does not lose out on his fee.

    “Andrew seems to be a good guy and has now agreed to pay me independently, out of his own funds,” Dr. Peterson said.

    Brodsky did say that, as Drew Peterson’s lead attorney, he must “manage the budget and logistics of a large and complex case.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/stebic/2220568,Peterson-Brodsky-ME-fee-JO043010.article

  71. You just can’t make this stuff up!

    Does it sound to anyone else that, even though this gentleman was hired by the defense to do a complete and “honest” evaluation, since he couldn’t slant the truth, he suffered the Brodsky consequences? He got stiffed on his fee.

    I hope he gets called by the State. Slammo.

Comments are closed.