Two more big names join Peterson defense team
By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 4/22/2010 5:27 PMSteven 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>
Justice Café 
Like I said – what gives? One guy’s clients is on death row and the other guy’s client was sentenced to 12 years.
Good point TAI!
Oh boy, more mob lawyers…
http://www.meczyklaw.com/Bio/RalphMeczyk.asp
http://www.greenbergcriminaldefense.com/
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……
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…
Joel must like driving an overcrowded bus !!
Did Drew have his line of credit re-instated to pay for all these guys ?
JAH, I was wondering the same thing. It’s got to be coming from somewhere.
Hi everybody. I just noticed that Charles B. Pelkie Jr has become Facebook friends with Stacy.
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:
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
FREE Publicity.
Greenberg on Fox this morning:
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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 ??
How many Major Crime lawyers does it take to show someone slipped on the soap ??
“That incident didn’t happen… never happened!” LOL
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2195364,4_1_JO24_PETERSON_S1-100424.article
Gosh, and he’s never been caught! 😉
Seriously though, I checked out his web site and his page of “recent cases” look to be about 85% drug posession charges where he’s gotten his clients off on technicalities. I think I saw a total of two murder cases.
See for yourself:
http://www.meczyklaw.com/CM/Custom/TOCRecentCases.asp
One more lawyer and it's going to be time for a 'lightbulb' joke.
BTW, Matthew McQuaid was formerly Steven A. Greenberg’s partner in the defense of Brian Dugan.
Also…
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/chicago-man-gets-50-years-in-villa-park-slaying.html
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?
GAR – we heard from a very reliable source that the ruling has not yet been delivered.
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 (!!)
make that page 14/15/16
I don’t think you’re wrong, there Grandam.
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.
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.
No, thank YOU, Mr. Greenberg. 😉
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-10/news/0905080570_1_james-glasgow-hearsay-kathleen-savio
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?
Steve Greenberg:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 ???
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!
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?
Joel Brodsky & Drew Peterson: A Strange Marriage Indeed
Rebekah Price
March 17, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/55482
Excerpt
Now Brodsky´s even snubbing Drew´s old Boughton Road watering hole, Tailgaters, on his client´s behalf. He states Drew Peterson will be enjoying Gibson´s in Chicago instead, so he can enjoy a better class of folks.
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?
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?
*GOSSIP ALERT* Hmm, wonder what was “so close”?
From Ms. Odeh’s Facebook:
Rolling eyes.
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.
Client or not, would you have your daughters pose for photos with this man?
Facs @ #47. Now, that’s something to be proud of.
CFS – Facs posted Joe’s story at #24. Thanks, though! 😉
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 !
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)
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.
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!
“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
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 !
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
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.
GAWD!
Sorry… Hi! Everyone.
This is just really sad for me to see.
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.
Dugan? What did I miss?
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.
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.”
Thanks Rescue!
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.”
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…
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?
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?
Reem Odeh
And, that, my friends, is the crux of the Drew Peterson defense.
I found this interesting. The reforms look like fantastic idea, and much more like the non-adversarial version of a trial. Pursuing the truth, not one side winning. What do you think?
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/20/judge-gets-personal-on-jury-reform-2/?iref=allsearch
Sounds interesting, Bucket. I’ll take a look.
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
********
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.
Looks like there is a new court date appearing for Drews case tomorrow.
PETERSON DREW 4 27 10 RVJC 900 04P 000232 Motions
That’s the probate matter, Givarat
Thanks. I figured as much. It just was listed in the last few days is what I meant by new.
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 found the instance where Henry Savio mentioned the rough play:
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:
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!
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.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23385930/
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2210694,Peterson-lawyers-added_JO042810.article
Joel Brodsky
Reem Odeh
Joseph Lopez
Steven Greenberg
Ralph Meczyk
Darryl Goldberg
So if you are keeping track Darryl Goldberg would be the newest addition.
http://www.goldbergdefense.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp
http://www.meczyklaw.com/CM/Custom/Custom7.asp
Maybe this is silly but this is all the “news” I could rassle up for Darryl A. Goldberg:
http://chicago.blockshopper.com/news/story/500066749-Criminal_defense_lawyer_selling_River_North_2BD
Nice pomade!
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.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2195364,4_1_JO24_PETERSON_S1-100424.article
Actually, I had forgotten, that Peterson does have a seven-member attorney team, even without Matthew McQuaid.
All aboard!
How many seats does Brodsky’s Bus have?
“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!)
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2213628,4_1_JO29_THEBOOK_S1-100429.article
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!
Two anonymous sources willing to dish some dirt on Brodsky, eh? Can’t imagine who those might be… 😉
“Both sources said Brodsky agreed to take Peterson’s case solely for the money they could generate through publicity.”
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.
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.
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!
If I could stop laughing long enough to comment………….
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…
Drew must be very proud of his team members. ALL of them. Even Nurse Rene.
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.
Ouch, Bucket!
A bit off-topic, but not too far:
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!
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
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.
New post is up now:
https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/medical-examiner-says-petersons-defense-stiffed-him/