Peterson lawyers want answers about Peoria dig

UPDATE JUNE 24: Court in session today. Today is the deadline for the ISP to hand over their reports from the Peoria dig. Judge White will review and decide what information will be shared with Peterson’s defense team and possibly rule on some motions regarding hearsay statements.

White is scheduled to rule on the Peoria reports next Tuesday.

Check out the comments thread and Joe Hosey’s Twitter feed for the latest updates.

Peterson lawyers want answers about dig
June 23, 2010
By JOE HOSEY

JOLIET — The state police are trying to keep a lid on why they were poking around Peoria for the body of Stacy Peterson, but the lawyers for the missing mother’s husband want to pry that information free.

“We want to know why they’re digging in Peoria,” said Joel Brodsky, the lead attorney for Stacy’s husband — disgraced former cop Drew Peterson.

“We’re curious,” Brodsky said. “For a lot of reasons, we’re curious.”

Peterson is due to stand trial for murder next month — but not for the death of Stacy. He is charged with killing his previous wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004.

Savio was found drowned in a dry bathtub while she and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce. Despite the suspicious circumstances surrounding Savio’s death, the state police insisted she was the victim of a freak bathtub accident until Stacy Peterson — Drew Peterson’s fourth wife — vanished in October 2007.

The state police believe Stacy may also have been slain. Shortly after she disappeared, the state police named Peterson the sole suspect in their investigation, but have yet to charge him with harming her.

Acting on a tip earlier this month, the state police headed to a wooded field outside Peoria and started digging for Stacy’s body. After excavating for 12 hours, the state police gave up and have yet to return. The only remains the state police unearthed were the skeletons of a pair of opossums.

Brodsky, who has taken potshots at the state police since they launched the Peoria search operation, did so again this week.

“The state police finally have it right,” he said. “Stacy is playing possum.”

State police Master Sgt. Tom Burek said there is no timetable for resuming the search, but a source with knowledge of the investigation insisted the cops are confident that Stacy is in the ground in that area.

During a hearing last week, Assistant Attorney General Deborah Simpson argued against surrendering investigative reports related to the downstate dig.

“It’s an ongoing investigation and the Illinois State Police believe that providing that information will impact their investigation,” said Robyn Ziegler, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

While the state police are now reluctant to tip their hand on the Peoria situation, they seemed a lot looser earlier this year. During a month-long hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s murder trial, prosecutors flooded the defense with discovery evidence relating to the disappearance of Stacy. A state trooper also testified extensively about the investigation during the hearing, at which prosecutors attempted to prove Peterson killed both Stacy and Savio to keep them from testifying against him at trial.

“During the entire hearsay hearing, this never came up,” Brodsky said. “I think that’s disingenuous.”

Judge Stephen White said he wants the state police to turn the material over to him by Thursday. He plans to review the documents and decide what is relevant for Peterson’s attorneys to see. If a representative of the state police refuses to comply on Thursday, White can hold him in contempt of court.

By the Thursday deadline, Brodsky could conceivably figure out what spurred the state police to travel to Peoria. An informant supposedly came forward with information linking Peterson to the downstate site, but Brodsky said he does not know if that is actually the case.

“I have no idea what this is all about,” he said. “Probably just someone taking them for a ride.”

Read story at Herald News

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email 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

114 thoughts on “Peterson lawyers want answers about Peoria dig

  1. Their only hope must be that Peoria is a police hoax. White isn’t going to damage the investigation. 😉 (imo)

  2. Wow! I have to wonder why Joel Brodsky is so curious about the dig in Peoria? He and his client have always insisted that Stacy “ran off with another man”, and he’s made some pretty disgusting remarks about the search in Peoria. Joel has dismissed the efforts of LE, but now that there’s no news, he’s demanding to know what’s going on. I think he and his client are just a bit worried that maybe LE has solid information.

    I hope Judge White won’t disclose anything to the defense that could jeopardize LE’s investigation.

  3. Due to the ‘disingenuous’ conclusion in Kathleen’s death, I think I’d feel better if someone other than the ISP were investigating this, but that’s my opinion.
    Joe also brings to mind a question I’ve had for a long time…is there a statute of limitations that will apply if Stacy is never found? Or will Drew’s possible role in her disappearance just go away? I guess what I’m asking is if they need to file an unnamed charge.
    And Brodsky doesn’t want to know any more than we do-and he’ll just have to sit on his hands like the rest of us until they’re ready to say something. No way Judge White is going to complicate things. After all-this actually only has to do with Stacy, not Kathleen-right?

  4. Bucket, I can only dream of having just the facts, ma’am, just the facts. What a radical idea! Lucky you.

  5. During a hearing last week, Assistant Attorney General Deborah Simpson argued against surrendering investigative reports related to the downstate dig.

    “It’s an ongoing investigation and the Illinois State Police believe that providing that information will impact their investigation,” said Robyn Ziegler, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

    The Attorney General’s Office is involved with this? What does the Attorney General’s Office have to do with a dig in Peoria for the remains of Stacy Peterson? Wouldn’t the State’s Attorney’s Office be the ones to argue against releasing discovery information during an ongoing investigation, such as they did in the Peterson illegal weapons case? Now I’m really confused.

  6. Unless it’s because the Attorney General’s Office is acting on behalf of the ISP, who needs to maintain secrecy regarding their investigation of criminal activity, rather than the State’s Attorney’s Office arguing to keep control over discovery information prior to an upcoming trial. IDK, just trying to figure out why the AG’s Office is involved. I wonder, then, if there’s other information being developed that the ISP is investigating, rather than just the dig for the remains of only Stacy Peterson. In other words, it would seem possible that this so-called tipster gave information that may be leading ISP into other areas of illegal activity that involves this area, rather than solely looking for Stacy Peterson’s remains.

  7. Once again Brodsky has to put an inappropriate joke in the article. The guy has no heart IMO. How do you keep making fun of Stacy like this?? How do you keep making fun of the mother of two of Drew’s children and the woman who took over caring for his two older kids?? Brodsky has no heart IMO.

  8. So why is Brodsky once again bringing up this search yet again in the media when he was the one who was accusing the State of doing this to keep Stacy’s name in the news before his client’s trial begins??

  9. Brodsky is no more a dignified, professional defense attorney than he is a stand-up comedian, which he’s apparently trying to become, at the expense of a missing/presumed dead mother. Since his client is locked-up and gagged, Brodsky has to keep the attention ongoing, so he uses his brand of sick comedy to do it. Nothing he says is shocking anymore because his pie hole is always spewing out the same garbage.

    Brodsky should hope he gets better at his comedy relief, because his style of defense in the courtroom sucks. He can’t win a motion, and he has trouble staying awake when it counts. But, that’s good, as I always say, because Peterson deserves this schmuck and he’s getting the appropriate defense.

  10. Yep! Sure sounds, to me, Brodsky is worried about something. I don’t think he ever requested any info on any of the other searches LE has done. Why this one?

  11. My take is that Judge White is allowing Stacy’s hearsay at the trial for Kathleen’s death. Why else would the defense think the judge in this case can force that discovery evidence into their hands? I can’t see them getting it though as the prosecution only had to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” to the judge for the hearsay to be allowed so the prosecution didn’t have to put on their whole case at the hearsay hearings.

  12. Does anyone here know if the request for this information was handled during open court or if it was heard during the closed session? If it was during the closed session that supports my theory even more.

  13. thinkaboutit2 :

    My take is that Judge White is allowing Stacy’s hearsay at the trial for Kathleen’s death. Why else would the defense think the judge in this case can force that discovery evidence into their hands? I can’t see them getting it though as the prosecution only had to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” to the judge for the hearsay to be allowed so the prosecution didn’t have to put on their whole case at the hearsay hearings.

    I don’t quite understand your reasoning here, TAI. This isn’t discovery that the SA’s Office is holding, no? This sounds like an ongoing investigation that involves the ISP, and they’re the ones that are arguing against compromising this ongoing investigation, not the SA. I don’t know that it’s been reported that the SA has anything to do with this Peoria dig. Since Brodsky has proclaimed that only possum bones were found, what could there be as far as discovery evidence that ISP would have turned over to the prosecutors to use against Peterson at the KS murder trial? If ISP got a tip that was worthless as far as finding something incriminating against Peterson, then there’s nothing to turn over. Maybe revealing who the tipster was, but what would he/she have to offer if the information given was useless?

    Then, again, maybe there are incriminating factors here, it’s still ongoing, and the defense is working on getting insight into who and what ISP is investigating at this point. Ha, the easiest way to get an idea about what’s going on is, probably, to question the murder defendant, but, somehow, I think that’s a remote possibility that he’d have anything beneficial to divulge to his attorneys. You know, he’d probably say he’s never been there, he has no ties to that site, and he didn’t bury anyone there.

  14. I think it’s interesting as well, that Brodsky is asking for information about this dig when the defense had just filed a motion asking for Stacy’s name to not be mentioned at the trial for Kathleen’s murder. I mean, Drew still has not been charged with anything in regards to Stacy and if the defense’s stance is that Stacy is alive and off in Jamaica “playing possum” how could any of those findings be pertinent to Drew’s upcoming trial, or….anything?

    They weren’t clammering to get the low-down on those bones on the shore of the Des Plaines. Why so concerned about a couple sets of animal bones and a chatty forensic anthropologist?

  15. Exactamundo, Facs.

    Does the defense want to know if this is a legitimate lead that will come up later to bite Peterson in the ass? Because, at this point, the trial is set to begin, they didn’t want Stacy Peterson’s name brought up in it, and there’s, obviously, no new discovery on this that the prosecutors have recently turned over to the defense, right?

    It’s almost like the gun trial discovery issue. The defense wanted the prosecutors to turn over their work product to see if they could make their case for vindictive prosecution. As we know, the original dismissal of the case was overturned. Now, it seems, they’re asking for the same kind of thing. Let us see what you have so we can decide if it’s a negative PR campaign against our client, or if there’s something there that we should be concerned about in the defense of our client.

    Like I’ve said before – it’s like a gripping novel. Can’t wait to turn the page to see what’s going to happen next. Just that you can’t make this stuff up.

  16. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :My take is that Judge White is allowing Stacy’s hearsay at the trial for Kathleen’s death. Why else would the defense think the judge in this case can force that discovery evidence into their hands? I can’t see them getting it though as the prosecution only had to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence” to the judge for the hearsay to be allowed so the prosecution didn’t have to put on their whole case at the hearsay hearings.

    I don’t quite understand your reasoning here, TAI. This isn’t discovery that the SA’s Office is holding, no? This sounds like an ongoing investigation that involves the ISP, and they’re the ones that are arguing against compromising this ongoing investigation, not the SA. I don’t know that it’s been reported that the SA has anything to do with this Peoria dig. Since Brodsky has proclaimed that only possum bones were found, what could there be as far as discovery evidence that ISP would have turned over to the prosecutors to use against Peterson at the KS murder trial? If ISP got a tip that was worthless as far as finding something incriminating against Peterson, then there’s nothing to turn over. Maybe revealing who the tipster was, but what would he/she have to offer if the information given was useless?Then, again, maybe there are incriminating factors here, it’s still ongoing, and the defense is working on getting insight into who and what ISP is investigating at this point. Ha, the easiest way to get an idea about what’s going on is, probably, to question the murder defendant, but, somehow, I think that’s a remote possibility that he’d have anything beneficial to divulge to his attorneys. You know, he’d probably say he’s never been there, he has no ties to that site, and he didn’t bury anyone there.

    My semantics may be wrong but I meant the Assistant Attorney General and investigators as the prosecution in general. The article states that the prosecution handed over many discovery documents regarding Stacy during the hearsay trial so I assume that Brodsky and team are trying to get this investigative report included as discovery documents. IMO the defense can only successfully fight for this documentation if it is something that could come in as evidence in this current trial regarding Kathleen or they are trying to widen the net like they did with the gun charges. It still makes me think that the judge is allowing Stacy’s hearsay statements at the trial and they are trying everything possible in to find another way to get them out of the trial for Kathleen’s case – which is what any defense team would try to do.

  17. I hope it was clear that I was being facetious. Of course, I think the Peterson defense is very worried about the Peoria dig. They may not think anything is located there, but they may want to know the identity of the informant and other information…for a number of reasons.

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

    09CF001048 – People of the State of IL vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant MURDER/INTENT
    MECZYK RALPH EUGENE 7 8 10 1000 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W 7 8 10 402 1000 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Jury Trial
    PETERSON DREW W 7 8 10 402 1000 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Jury Trial

  19. Well – either way I was just speculating. The actual trial is getting closer and that is when we will learn what will happen. Patience is all I need.

  20. True, TAI. We are all guessing as to why Peterson’s team is requesting to know “why they’re digging in Peoria”, but the most interesting thing is that they are suddenly showing an interest in a dig that until now they have been calling more “rumor, gossip and innuendo”.

    “Ever since Stacy disappeared there have been numerous rumors, gossip and reports about Drew Peterson. The one thing all of these stories have in common is that they always prove to be false and there are never any facts or evidence to back them up

    It’s also really fascinating (as others have mentioned) that Joel was accusing the prosecution of orchestrating the entire incident as a way to make sure that Stacy’s name was in the public just weeks before Drew’s trial. So, now that the search has been quiet fro a couple of weeks and there was nothing in the news, Joel makes a move like this, which is sure to bring Stacy’s name to the forefront once more? Not very consistent.

  21. Also, I don’t think there is ANY WAY that those reports are going to be turned over to Drew and his lawyers.

    Drew is still the sole suspect in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and the investigation is still ongoing. It’s ridiculous to even entertain the thought that they are going to hand him their reports at this point.

  22. FYI – Some information to pass along.

    On June 18, 2010, the Chicago Tribune reported:

    Defense: Keep Stacy’s name out of Peterson trial
    A pre-trial hearing in the Drew Peterson murder case is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. today in Will County Circuit Court in Joliet.

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky said he will make a motion barring mention of Stacy Peterson during Peterson’s trial for the murder of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/brodsky-keep-stacys-name-out-of-peterson-trial.html

    Later, reporter Steve Schmadeke, of the Chicago Tribune, reported:

    Defense attorney Joel Brodsky was quoted before a lengthy court hearing Friday saying he planned to ask that prosecutors be barred from bringing up Stacy Peterson. Prosecutors have said Peterson is the sole suspect in her disappearance, but he has never been charged.

    After the hearing, Brodsky said only that the defense had filed a motion to keep jurors from hearing about Peterson’s prior “bad acts.” He said he could not comment further because Judge Stephen White had ruled on “those issues” after closing the courtroom.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-18/news/ct-met-0619-drew-peterson-20100618_1_defense-attorney-joel-brodsky-peterson-and-brodsky-drew-peterson

    In reality, the original quote attributed to Joel Brodsky filing a motion to keep Stacy Peterson’s name out of Kathleen Savio trial is inaccurate. Steve Schmadeke did not write the first story, but merely reported that Brodsky was quoted as saying he was going to present the aforementioned motion. At least three reporters covered the hearing on that day, and none of them was aware of this motion. It could be that the Trib reporter who wrote the story either received wrong information, misunderstood what was said, or something was lost in the translation. In any event, Joe Hosey was at the hearing that day and clarified this.

  23. FYI – The argument before Judge White regarding the ISP not wanting to turn over their investigational information regarding the Peoria search was held in open court.

    The motions that are filed in the Peterson case are filed under seal. Therefore, when motions are argued in court, no one, outside of the attorneys, has access to the actual motions, and it is my understanding that it is difficult, at times, for the media to understand what is transpiring. A motion apparently was filed by the defense asking for access to the Peoria/Stacy Peterson search information.

    The ISP maintains, I believe, that the Peoria search has nothing to do with the upcoming trial of Kathleen Savio, and, therefore, they do not want to turn over their reports. On the other hand, Attorney Brodsky’s position is that, during the hearsay proceedings, the prosecutors focused on information and testimony that was meant to show Peterson killed Stacy to silence her, and believes that he is entitled to this information.

    Thus, Judge White is going to review the information and make his decision as to what he feels should or should not be turned over to the defense.

    It would seem that each side has a valid point, and Judge White will have to be the mediator. However, if the ISP does not turn over what may be asked of them, they may be held in contempt.

    It could be that the ISP does not want the informant exposed, which would bring on an enormous amount of media attention. In that regard, if the Judge did require the reports, etc., to be turned over, he may ask that the individual’s identity not be divulged.

    There is still no indication that the search has been permanently ended, but it may very well be due to the excessive amount of rain that the region has had these past few weeks.

  24. rescueapet :
    Unless it’s because the Attorney General’s Office is acting on behalf of the ISP, who needs to maintain secrecy regarding their investigation of criminal activity, rather than the State’s Attorney’s Office arguing to keep control over discovery information prior to an upcoming trial. IDK, just trying to figure out why the AG’s Office is involved. I wonder, then, if there’s other information being developed that the ISP is investigating, rather than just the dig for the remains of only Stacy Peterson. In other words, it would seem possible that this so-called tipster gave information that may be leading ISP into other areas of illegal activity that involves this area, rather than solely looking for Stacy Peterson’s remains.

    It is confusing with the State Attorney’s office involved in arguing against the release of discovery in an ongoing investigation by the ISP. But, I think it might be a matter of the State Attorney representing the ISP at this time, only because some of the state’s investigative work has been made a part of the upcoming trial through the new hearsay law. The state prosecution will be presenting some evidence and witnesses in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson in the Kathleen Savio murder trial. So some discovery in Stacy’s disappearance has been made available to the defense. The defense now wants more discovery available to them, and in particular, any and all information regarding the search in Peoria.

    The more I’ve thought about this, I doubt Judge White will allow any information about the search in Peoria to be released because it’s an ongoing investigation, and also because that search doesn’t pertain to anything the state will be presenting in the state’s prosecution in the Kathleen Savio murder trial.

    If Stacy’s remains are eventually found at the search site in Peoria, that would be an entirely separate case.

  25. Molly – It is not the State’s Attorney’s Office arguing against releasing ISP’s investigative information. It is the Attorney General’s Office. That is what is confusing.

    Hopefully, we’ll get this clarified as to why the Attorney General is involved.

  26. rescueapet :
    FYI – The argument before Judge White regarding the ISP not wanting to turn over their investigational information regarding the Peoria search was held in open court.
    The motions that are filed in the Peterson case are filed under seal. Therefore, when motions are argued in court, no one, outside of the attorneys, has access to the actual motions, and it is my understanding that it is difficult, at times, for the media to understand what is transpiring. A motion apparently was filed by the defense asking for access to the Peoria/Stacy Peterson search information.
    The ISP maintains, I believe, that the Peoria search has nothing to do with the upcoming trial of Kathleen Savio, and, therefore, they do not want to turn over their reports. On the other hand, Attorney Brodsky’s position is that, during the hearsay proceedings, the prosecutors focused on information and testimony that was meant to show Peterson killed Stacy to silence her, and believes that he is entitled to this information.
    Thus, Judge White is going to review the information and make his decision as to what he feels should or should not be turned over to the defense.
    It would seem that each side has a valid point, and Judge White will have to be the mediator. However, if the ISP does not turn over what may be asked of them, they may be held in contempt.
    It could be that the ISP does not want the informant exposed, which would bring on an enormous amount of media attention. In that regard, if the Judge did require the reports, etc., to be turned over, he may ask that the individual’s identity not be divulged.
    There is still no indication that the search has been permanently ended, but it may very well be due to the excessive amount of rain that the region has had these past few weeks.

    I’m hopeful that because of the excessive rainfall in the area, and because of the media attention, the ISP is holding off on further investigation of the site in Peoria until the Kathleen Savio trial is well underway. At that time, hopefully the weather will be improved to the point of being able to conduct a thorough search, and with the media focused on the trial, the ISP might be able to conduct their search without media attention.

    If the ISP is discreet, they could bring in unmarked vehicles one at a time, and since the search site is not visible from the highway, they might be able to fly under the media radar on this one. 🙂

    In my wildest dreams……….DP convicted in the murder of Kathleen Savio, and the headlines the next day……”Stacy Peterson’s Remains Found.”

  27. rescueapet :
    Molly – It is not the State’s Attorney’s Office arguing against releasing ISP’s investigative information. It is the Attorney General’s Office. That is what is confusing.
    Hopefully, we’ll get this clarified as to why the Attorney General is involved.

    Oh……that does make a difference! Thanks for the clarification.

  28. Just seemed like time for a reminder of what my Defense Attorney friend said about Joel Brodsky and his handling of this case:

    Among the best criminal defense attorneys, yes, Peterson's attorney is seen as a bad joke. He's crazy, a media whore, says all kinds of stupid things that he thinks are clever but actually hurt his client

  29. On that note, let’s see how many of these “stupid things” Joel Brodsky has said we can remember. Please feel free to quote the many insensitive comments Drew’s attorney has made over the last few years.

  30. I was curious about the Illinois Attorney General’s office and why they might be involved in this case, arguing on behalf of the ISP against disclosure of information in an ongoing investigation. I checked the home page of the Attorney General and found that for the year 2008, there was this summary of the year’s activities under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s office:

    * Received 33,345 consumer complaints;

    * Collected $1,000,945,708.06 on behalf of the People of the State
    of Illinois;

    * Handled more than 2,000 cases ensuring that consumers have
    adequate health care coverage;

    * Assisted in the prosecution of 163 criminal cases;

    * Regulated the more than 29,000 charities that operate in Illinois;

    * Analyzed and recommended that approximately 4,018 compensation
    claims be awarded to victims of ciolent crimes and their families,
    hospitals and medical providers, funeral homes, counselors, and
    other identified service providers (FY 2008);

    * Handled more than 150 environmental protection cases;

    * Represented state government in more than 27,000 cases; and

    * Received more than 14,000 case referrals from state government
    agencies and constitutional officers.

    It would appear that the Attorney General’s office does assist in the prosecution of some criminal cases. In 2008 it assisted in the prosecution of 163 criminal cases.

    I wonder if the reason the Attorney General’s office is participating in this case is because it’s the first case to be tried in the state under the new hearsay law?

  31. Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Tom Burek told the press, “I don’t want to stand here and tell you this is the magical lead that’s going to solve the case. … Like any lead we hope that it has a positive outcome. … I don’t want to allude to (the idea that) we’re looking for a body. We’re looking for evidence of a crime based on this lead that we have.”

    AND THIS:

    By yesterday evening, after 12 hours of searching, Sgt. Burek said, “We’ve exhausted the digging portion [of the search] with the anthropologist,” and announced they had no plans to pick up the search today. Burek did note, though, that they would return to the area soon: “We are pursuing some other avenues in reference to this lead and we will be back in this area.”

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

    These statements by Master Sergeant Burek seem to indicate the Peoria site/info is a hornets nest all of its own and is relevant to “some other avenues in reference to this lead”.

    What could he possibly mean by that if there was nothing to find or search for ??

  32. facsmiley – They weren’t clammering to get the low-down on those bones on the shore of the Des Plaines. Why so concerned about a couple sets of animal bones and a chatty forensic anthropologist?

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

    That is an excellent point !

    The Peoria site must have touched a nerve for the Defense Team to suddenly spring into action (!!)

  33. Attorney General of Illinois Lisa Madigan

    The Illinois Attorney General is the highest legal officer of the state of Illinois in the United States. Based in Chicago and Springfield, Illinois, he or she is responsible for providing legal counsel for the various state agencies including the Governor of Illinois and Illinois General Assembly. He or she also conducts all legal affairs pertaining to the state.

    The General Law Bureau represents the State of Illinois, its officers, agencies, boards, commissions, and employees in general civil litigation.
    http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/

    Cook County States Attorney’s Office Anita Alvarez, State’s Attorney
    The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office acts on behalf of the citizens of the State of Illinois in prosecuting crimes committed in Cook County, Illinois, …
    http://www.statesattorney.org/

    DuPage County State’s Attorney – Joseph E. Birkett
    The primary mission of the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s Office is to seek justice in each individual case.
    http://www.co.dupage.il.us/statesattorney/

    Will County State’s Attorney: James Glasgow
    http://www.willcountysao.com/

  34. MM – I think that someone else pointed out that the Assistant Attorney General was representing the ISP. This falls under one of the items that is listed on your post – “Represented state government in more than 27,000 cases”. They represent the ISP in court cases so they were likely the legal representation making the argument as to why the ISP should not have to turn over information on an ongoing investigation that would not be part of the current criminal trial being held. At least that is what I think. 🙂

  35. My take on these statements, and this is just speculation, is that the lead that resulted in the ISP coming to Peoria to search that specific site, may have been developed through a number of people/sources and other evidence. One piece of information leading to another person or piece of information/evidence, and another. When Sgt. Burek said “we are pursuing some other avenues in reference to this lead”, there may have been other people they haven’t yet spoken to, or were awaiting forensic analysis of other evidence……..maybe not specifically evidence from the search site.

    When we first heard about this new lead, we first heard that the information came from an inmate. Then we heard that it wasn’t an inmate. It went back and forth for a while with claims of an inmate and other claims that there wasn’t an inmate. With all these claims and counter-claims, I immediately thought there’s more than one person involved in the new lead. One of those people may very well be an inmate, but not for a crime related to the Peterson case, and if there is an inmate, he didn’t have any contact with DP in the past year or so.

  36. Thanks, Facs. It’s nice to have professional confirmation. LOL

    The children having to be told that Lenny and Paula don’t really love them; that they were used. This is the quote that I can’t forget even for a moment. Most ignorant and cruel. I feel I could still beat him to a bloody little pulp for that.

  37. BTW, three cheers for Paula and Lenny, again. I was telling friends the story of the overhears just a couple of days ago and all were open-mouthed at their courage, especially poor Paula being mauled and pursued by Drew and going up in his microlight with him. I hope life has been kind and happy for them since. 😀

  38. Here’s a link to that letter that Joel wrote where he said the children would have to be told that L & P didn’t really love them:

  39. Deadline looms for police in Stacy Peterson case
    Updated at 10:42 AM today

    June 24, 2010 (WLS) — Thursday is the deadline for state police to give a Will County judge information on their latest lead in the search for Stacy Peterson.

    Earlier this month, police searched a wooded area near Peoria for the missing Bolingbrook mother’s body but found nothing. Her husband, Drew Peterson, 56, is suspected in her disappearance.

    Last week, Judge Stephen White ordered state police to give him their investigative reports on the search so he can determine what Drew Peterson’s attorney can see.

    Drew Peterson is set to stand trial next month for the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He denied killing Savio and insists that Stacy Peterson left on her own.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7517912

  40. “Now these children have to be told that it was all an act. Wawczak and Stark really didn’t love them, they were pretending. Worse they were pretending in order to trap their father, who they dearly love, in order to take him away from them….”

    Also from this complaint:
    I’m liking Brodsky referring to Len’s behaviour as immature and sophomoric…Pot-Kettle-Black

  41. joehosey:
    Closed argument over what will be admissible regarding conflicting hearsay accounts of the alleged incident where Peterson menaced Savio with a knife in her home.
    less than 5 seconds ago via txt

  42. thinkaboutit2 :
    MM – I think that someone else pointed out that the Assistant Attorney General was representing the ISP. This falls under one of the items that is listed on your post – “Represented state government in more than 27,000 cases”. They represent the ISP in court cases so they were likely the legal representation making the argument as to why the ISP should not have to turn over information on an ongoing investigation that would not be part of the current criminal trial being held. At least that is what I think.

    Yes, I think that’s what’s happening and why the assistant from the Attorney General’s office was there representing the ISP. 🙂

  43. Apropos of the knife pulling incident.

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

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

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

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

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-23/news/ct-met-drew-peterson-box-0224-20100223_1_kathleen-savio-hearsay-testified

    This morning Anna Doman wrapped up her testimony and a friend of Kathleen’s, Kristin Anderson took the stand.

    Anderson testified that the two became friends after she rented Kathleen’s basement for a few months while some work was being done on her house. She testified that Kathleen told her about the time that Drew held a knife to her throat and also showed her a briefcase where she kept police reports and letters. Anderson said that these documents were kept as a paper trail in case Drew killed Kathleen, there would be something to point at who did it.

    Anderson stated that Kathleen seemed “almost resigned” to the thought that Drew Peterson would kill her and make her death appear accidental.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-day-11/

    So, perhaps Karam’s, Anderson’s and Kathleen’s account don’t all jive.

  44. Judge in Peterson murder trial: ‘Fox taped autopsy?’
    June 24, 2010 1:14 PM

    The judge hearing the Drew Peterson murder case seemed appalled after being told today that a Fox News producer videotaped an autopsy of Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio after her body was exhumed in 2007.

    Judge Stephen White said that if a tape of Dr. Michael Baden performing the autopsy on Savio isn’t turned over to defense attorneys, he may not allow the high-profile pathologist to testify at trial next month.

    “You’re saying Fox videotaped the autopsy?” an incredulous White asked during a hearing today. “Somebody allowed a TV station to videotape an autopsy?”

    Assistant state’s attorney John Connor said the video was made with “a surreptitious camera.” Kathy Patton, another assistant state’s attorney, said Baden’s autopsy, performed after a pathologist hired by Will County finished his work, was done on behalf of Savio’s family.

    Savio’s body was exhumed after Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy disappeared in 2007. Savio’s death was reclassified from an accident to a homicide. Last year Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, was charged with killing her.

    Judge White was also set today to get a briefing from Illinois State Police on not-yet-completed files in their investigation into Stacy’s 2007 disappearance, including their recent search of a field near Peoria.

    White will review their completed records to see if anything needs to be turned over to defense attorneys.

    He is scheduled to issue his ruling Tuesday. An attorney for the state police said today that, depending on White’s ruling, they may withhold records and appeal even if it means that White holds them in contempt.

    White denied yet another defense motion to delay the trial past July 8.

    Defense attorney Joel Brodsky said outside court that this would be their last attempt to push the trial date back unless something “extraordinary” happens.

    -Steve Schmadeke

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/judge-in-peterson-murder-trial-fox-taped-autopsy.html

  45. Of course, the State had nothing to do with Dr. Baden’s autopsy, which Fox arranged and Steph Watts assisted at.

    The autopsy that is going to be relevant is the independent one performed by Dr. Blum.

    Dr. Larry W. Blum, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy, concludes in his report that the actual cause of Kathleen Savio’s death was drowning and that the legal manner of death was homicide. Dr. Blum’s report was delivered to the Will County Coroner’s Office on Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008 and immediately forwarded to the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office and the Illinois State Police

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5972961

  46. facsmiley :
    Here’s a link to that letter that Joel wrote where he said the children would have to be told that L & P didn’t really love them:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/4107524/Broadsky-Letter

    Facsmiley…………that letter is so terrible and so cruel! How dare Joel Brodsky talk about psychological torture when his own client is guilty of inflicting psychological torture on all his children. He murdered two mothers, and then lied to the children about what happened. He’s lied to his children about their maternal relatives to discourage them from having a relationship with them. These children are going to have emotional scars for years because of their father. Even DP’s two adult sons have emotional scars. When the children are adults, they will want to know the truth.

    If I might go off topic for a moment…..I have a friend who is now in her 80’s. When she was 4-years-old, her father shot and killed her mother right in front of her. Her mother was dead, her father went to prison. My friend and her two-year-old brother went to live with their maternal grandmother, and the brother was adopted by friends of the grandmother, and moved away. Even knowing what happened my friend was a 60-year-old woman before she decided she wanted to know the details of what happened, and looked up newspaper articles about her mother being shot and her father’s trial. She researched prison records and found that her father was released from prison in the 1950’s, became a ranch hand, and was killed in a car accident a few years later. She researched other records and found her brother and the two were reunited after more than 50 years. It was a painful journey.

  47. Drew Peterson judge asks: ‘Somebody allowed a TV station to videotape an autopsy?’

    June 24, 2010
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter

    A Will County judge denied a last-ditch attempt today by Drew Peterson’s attorneys to delay next month’s scheduled start of his murder trial.

    Defense attorneys sought to push back the scheduled July 8 trial date, saying they need more time to obtain and review evidence, including autopsies done by pathologists likely to testify when the former Bolingbrook cop stands trial for the 2004 drowning death of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Judge Stephen White flatly rejected the request, telling Peterson and his attorneys he wants no delays.

    “Right now, the July 8 date is going to stand,” White said bluntly.

    Among the evidence defense attorneys still want to obtain is videotaped footage of an autopsy performed on Savio by celebrity pathologist Dr. Michael Baden. He conducted the 2007 autopsy at the behest of her family after another pathologist chosen by Will County prosecutors had examined her exhumed remains.

    A Fox News employee taped the autopsy as part of a TV news program focusing on Peterson.

    “Somebody allowed a TV station to videotape an autopsy?” a seemingly surprised White asked during the hearing.

    But White put aside his surprise to say that if defense attorneys can’t obtain a tape of the autopsy, he may ban Baden from testifying during the trial.

    That didn’t stop defense attorneys from seeking to delay the trial until late August, saying they still have voluminous files to examine, including autopsy results done by other pathologists.

    “We need more time,” said defense attorney Darryl Goldberg.

    Savio’s bathtub drowning death just after her divorce from Peterson originally was ruled an accident. But her body was exhumed in late 2007 after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished from the couple’s Bolingbrook home.

    Savio’s death then was ruled a murder — and her former husband was charged last year with her slaying. Peterson remains a suspect in Stacy Peterson’s still-unsolved disappearance, but hasn’t been charged in that case.

    While the judge refused to push back the trial, he has yet to rule on several key issues, including whether Peterson’s attorneys can have access to State Police reports regarding Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. Defense attorneys are particularly interested in details about an unsuccessful police search earlier this month for Stacy Peterson’s remains on a wooded site near Peoria.

    White said he would review that information and rule next week on what Peterson’s attorneys may see — but he warned Peterson’s defense team he wants the trial to begin next month as scheduled.

    Peterson’s attorneys said they won’t seek any further delays.

    “This judge has indicated, hell or high water, he wants to go on July 8,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said. “We’re going to be working 24/7 to be ready.”

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2429680,drew-peterson-trial-autopsy-taped-062410.article

  48. I recall reading in an article about the hearsay trial that a Fox producer who was taking photos had helped Baden during the autopsy because no one else was available. I just would have thought Baden would have done the autopsy in a fully professional manner with a formal staff rather than having to use a Fox employee. I also didn’t realize that any of the footage was going to be used for a show. Right now this doesn’t sit right with me at all. Did Kathleen’s family know that this was part of the “free” autopsy? I pray that Baden’s decision to do so doesn’t hurt the the case.

  49. Brodsky and team knew that she drowned from the get go and should have been gathering that kind of evidence all along – not in the 24th hour.

  50. I doubt that Dr. Baden’s autopsy will be an important addition to the trial, whether it is admitted or not. Fox news arranged the procedure for the benefit of Kathleen’s family after the State had already exhumed her body and performed their own autopsy. But yes, I also hope the family was aware that the findings, including the videotape, were going to be potential evidence if it came to a trial.

    I believe Dr. Blum’s autopsy may be all that is needed by the prosecution.

  51. The Fox autopsy and taping is one of those things that I can see getting a lot of media coverage, even though ultimately it won’t be very important to the trial. Well, not as important as Dr. Blum’s. But I’m repeating myself.

  52. The Fox video never shows the body or any of the the procedure, so there’s nothing really to see, only to hear. If the defense wants the video, I sure can’t see any problem with them getting it, but Dr. Baden’s opinion adds weight to the prosecution, so I hope he does testify.

  53. I think the thing that is a shame is that the media often does things for themselves and their ratings but makes it appear to families (like the Savio’s) that it is for them. I don’t think Baden has to testify since there was a second official autopsy – but if the way the autopsy was handled prevents Baden from being allowed to testify then it takes away some extra expert testimony that could have helped the prosecution.

    Are they absolutely certain that is all that is on the tape? This is probably why the defense will want the whole tape – uncut and unedited. All we can do is wait though. Thankfully the judge is doing his darndest to keep the stake in the sand on the trial start date.

  54. I guess Judge White isn’t familiar with the Dr. G show where countless autopsies are filmed for TV, sans close-up of the bodies.

  55. I would imagine that any murder trials that come out of those autopsies would get the full, uncut, unedited version of the tapes. I think I’m more surprised that wasn’t turned over with discovery since it seems the prosecution was planning on calling Dr. Baden to the stand. IDK. It just isn’t sitting right with me. Plus on Dr. G she has her staff taking official photos and they are the only ones who are touching the deceased I would hope.

  56. The defense can hiss and piss all they want and make a big deal out of this Baden/Watts autopsy.

    To me, that is nothing compared to what the defense’s expert witness testified to, such as Kathleen’s ability to breathe in water even after death, or, after possibly suffering a fatal heart attack, it not showing up in the autopsy. I can’t even describe what I thought of Dr. Jentzen’s unbelievable testimony.

    So, whether Dr. Baden and Steph Watts did or did not do the appropriate thing by recording the autopsy, that’s still not trying to wahoo the jury into thinking water can be sucked in by a dead person.

    JMO.

  57. I agree that the Dr. Jentzen’s testimony was not strong at all. But right now the judge is warning that he may not let Baden testify at the trial and he was going to be the second person to explain to the jury how the first autopsy was wrong. Baden not being part of the full trial would be hit to the prosecution IMO. Not a huge hit since they still have the expert who did the second official autopsy but a hit nonetheless.

  58. I agree that it’s neither here nor there for the case. For dignity’s sake, IMO a surreptitious filming of an autopsy is not on. This isn’t The Archaeology Channel The non-private autopsies would have photographs. It’s something that Bratsky can latch onto and make a fuss of to try to cause a diversion/annoyance.

  59. Prosecutors could still have an expert up their sleeves who didn’t perform an autopsy, but could explain and corroborate the salient bits. I don’t think Baden’s opinion is tainted, but I don’t think he’s that important.

  60. TAI:

    But right now the judge is warning that he may not let Baden testify at the trial and he was going to be the second person to explain to the jury how the first autopsy was wrong.

    Well, technically, there is yet another doctor who disagrees with Dr. Jentzen, and that was the expert that Brodsky stiffed on his bill. He won’t be called, of course, because he said he signed a confidentiality agreement, but he did admit he didn’t agree with Dr. Jentzen.

    I don’t think the defense has experts standing in line to say Kathleen’s death was an accident, so they’re looking at ways to make a mockery, of course, of whatever they can. But, hey, that’s their job, as disgusting as it is.

  61. I agree. The opinion of any expert doesn’t matter for the case unless they are called to the stand. Baden was planned to be on the stand and he may no longer be allowed. Brodsky surely doesn’t have people lined up but experts who take both sides can be found that if they find one they can add to their defense witness list. I can’t say it is likely or that their opinion will matter to the jury as much as an expert who saw Kathleen Savio’s actual body in addition to the photos and reports of the first autopsy.

    If I were a juror I’d put more weight on the people who saw something and the how the autopsy was done. I find fault with the first one being by a coroner’s jury who have no medical background getting the final say and if they prove they didn’t even have “undetermined” as an option that would be even more reason to believe the subsequent autopsy findings over the first one.

    This is mostly white noise but the judge’s response is what makes me think more about this than I would have otherwise.

  62. bucketoftea :

    Prosecutors could still have an expert up their sleeves who didn’t perform an autopsy, but could explain and corroborate the salient bits. I don’t think Baden’s opinion is tainted, but I don’t think he’s that important.

    Well, that is how Dr. Jentzen came to his conclusions. He even relied on inaccurate information, and that is the pictures that showed a bath towel, or towels, in the immediate area that weren’t there when Kathleen was first discovered. He also used the fact that a delicate necklace that Kathleen was wearing didn’t get damaged, so, therefore, she must not have been in a violent struggle for her life. You believe that, right?

  63. What I would like to know is why the ISP is not about to give up their investigative reports, even risking contempt at this point. I mean to say, they gave it up to the judge, but if he rules that it be given to the defense, theyre not going to do it, apparently. That is very intriguing. Another “page turner.” All I can think of is that it’s more complicated that we can know. But, that’s just my imagination taking over, I guess.

  64. rescueapet :

    What I would like to know is why the ISP is not about to give up their investigative reports, even risking contempt at this point. I mean to say, they gave it up to the judge, but if he rules that it be given to the defense, theyre not going to do it, apparently. That is very intriguing. Another “page turner.” All I can think of is that it’s more complicated that we can know. But, that’s just my imagination taking over, I guess.

    Yes, it’s a blast from the past of the weapons charges. Maybe not a crazy thing to pull seeing as the gun charges are back on the table again.

  65. This was posted by JB on Legal Pub:

    “Joel A. Brodsky said…
    Nobody has a sense of humor anymore. Its kind of sad. I can remember shen people got taken in a gag they used to laugh at themselves and their own gullibility. (Who remembers Alan Funt and Candid Camera) Now people get fired, charged, sued, etc. I think we were better off when we could laugh at ourselves and our situations, rather than be so serious. Life is real short, so lighten up!!!!!

    August 25, 2008 8:16 PM

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/your-thread-august-25/

    Source: Legal Pub
    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/08/consequences-of-big-foot-hoax.html

  66. Hey, I was poking around looking for Joel quotes and isn’t this an interesting contrast to his reaction to the Peoria search? This is what Joel had to say in May 2009 when remains were found on the banks of the Des Plaines:

    “We’re very sure to positive that it’s not going to have anything to do with Drew and it’s unfortunate that Stacy’s family has to be put through this, what’s got to be a lot of stress waiting for an autopsy result, when there’s really nothing special, nothing about this particular body that makes it any more likely than is a body being found in Arizona, that it belongs to Stacy.”

    A far cry from his callous “possum family closure” comment.

  67. Yeah, that is a contrast, Facs. Like this is. A year after Stacy’s disappearance, Brodsky was “worried” about Stacy, that harm may have come to her. Yet, with the Peoria dig information, he cracked jokes about it and ridiculed the search.

    In a statement to mark the one-year anniversary, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow called the investigations “highly productive.”

    “I fully expect there to be a resolution in at least one of these investigations in the near future,” he wrote, but would not elaborate.

    Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky, wonders if something’s happened to her since her disappearance.

    “The longer it goes on, the more possible that some harm came to her,” he told the AP. “Maybe she fell in with bad people … I’m not saying it happened, but it certainly starts creeping into your thoughts as a possibility.”

    WTH? She’s run away having a good time, she may have been harmed, she’s run away having a good time……..

    Which is it?

  68. facsmiley :
    A link to a Huffington Post story about the Fox autopsy and the taping. I’m not going to post the content. We’ve already seen it.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/drew-peterson-trial-judge_n_624634.html
    BTW, here’s a link to what Watts had to say about helping out with the autopsy:
    http://stephww.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/i-helped-perform-autopsy-watts-up-with-this/
    And that’s as much as I’m going to comment on this.

    Thanks for the links. 🙂 I read the link to Steph Watt’s blog, and according to him the Savio family was aware that he would be in the room filming, but that the body wouldn’t be shown. He said there were 6 state troopers in the room at all times, and that he only filmed and didn’t help in the autopsy at all.

    I would hope that with two weeks left before the trial begins, Fox News could send the defense a copy of the footage filmed during Dr. Baden’s autopsy, and Dr. Baden would therefore be permitted to testify.

  69. rescueapet :
    What I would like to know is why the ISP is not about to give up their investigative reports, even risking contempt at this point. I mean to say, they gave it up to the judge, but if he rules that it be given to the defense, theyre not going to do it, apparently. That is very intriguing. Another “page turner.” All I can think of is that it’s more complicated that we can know. But, that’s just my imagination taking over, I guess.

    It sounds like there might be quite a bit of information in the ISP’s investigative reports. At this point, if there’s names of people who’ve cooperated with the ISP and given information, I would think the ISP would want to safeguard those people from harassment. Even though DP is in jail, I’m sure he would be able to make contact with people who could harass potential witnesses.

    As you said, this could be more complicated that we know.

  70. rescueapet :What I would like to know is why the ISP is not about to give up their investigative reports, even risking contempt at this point. I mean to say, they gave it up to the judge, but if he rules that it be given to the defense, theyre not going to do it, apparently. That is very intriguing. Another “page turner.” All I can think of is that it’s more complicated that we can know. But, that’s just my imagination taking over, I guess.

    It is not a page turner. It is called an ongoing investigation. WHy Is Joel Brodsky so worried about what is going on in Peoria and the search. He said numerous times that Stacy ran off with another person.
    Joel Brodsky knows his gravy train has run empty. The dude is getting backed into a corner and he’s going to get bushwacked.

  71. I believe he is just curious because the news article in TMZ came out with stuff like jailhouse informants and accomplices.

  72. Some new bits from today’s news (updated):

    …But Steph Watts, a freelance reporter then working for the Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, disputed the account by prosecutors and defense attorneys, saying in a phone interview that he never filmed the body.

    Watts said he has been subpoenaed by Peterson’s attorneys but doesn’t have a copy of the tape. He said he shot “less than 5 minutes” of footage strictly of Dr. Baden.

    “There is no videotape of the body,” Watts said.

    Defense attorney Darryl Goldberg said the videotape was a vital piece of evidence.

    “This is something we have to have,” he said.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0625-drew-peterson-hearing-20100624,0,7402137.story

  73. cfs7360 :

    I guess Judge White isn’t familiar with the Dr. G show where countless autopsies are filmed for TV, sans close-up of the bodies.

    Or with the HBO show “Autopsy” hosted by Dr. Baden.

  74. givarat :
    I believe he is just curious because the news article in TMZ came out with stuff like jailhouse informants and accomplices.

    Or they are looking to find some kind of misconduct by the investigators so he can file another vindictive prosecution motion to throw the case out…

  75. I wouldn’t put anything past them. I bet there aren’t many vindictive prosecution motions out there for handgun violations either. 🙂

  76. Time is running out – but they sometimes do things at the last minute. When they did the vindictive prosecution attempt with the gun charge it was leaked (by Armstrong intentionally or unintentionally) just a month before the trial started. Link to PR about leak: http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?z=39&a=967

    Defense teams will do everything in their power to get their client acquitted or to have the charges dropped. Whatever it takes.

  77. Well, we’ll see. So far the “Seven Samurai” have tossed the requisite flurry of motions at Judge White, and so far things have gone about the way we’ve all expected.

    But while the weapons charges may have rung the ‘hinky bell’ with a lot of people, the Kathleen Savio murder charges tend to ring out like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I’m not sure even this defense team would dare to go the “vindictive prosecution” route with this.

  78. facsmiley :
    Well, we’ll see. So far the “Seven Samurai” have tossed the requisite flurry of motions at Judge White, and so far things have gone about the way we’ve all expected.
    But while the weapons charges may have rung the ‘hinky bell’ with a lot of people, the Kathleen Savio murder charges tend to ring out like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I’m not sure even this defense team would dare to go the “vindictive prosecution” route with this.

    According to their news article statements it seems like they are trying to do just that. I could be wrong however.

  79. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/jury-to-hear-stacy-petersons-false-alibi-confession.html

    Jury to hear Stacy Peterson’s false alibi confession

    June 25, 2010 12:41 AM

    On the eve of Drew Peterson’s much-anticipated murder trial, a judge has ruled that a suburban pastor can testify about a counseling session in which Stacy Peterson alleged that her husband coaxed her into providing a false alibi for the weekend of his third wife’s death, the Tribune has learned.

    However, the jury will not hear some details of an alleged 2002 incident in which Peterson allegedly broke into the home of his third wife, Kathleen Savio; held a knife to her throat; and threatened to kill her, according to sources and comments made by defense attorney Joel Brodsky in court Thursday.

    The judge’s ruling on important witnesses for the state follows a landmark hearing under a new Illinois statute — dubbed Drew’s Law — that allows certain types of hearsay at trial. The full decision is being kept under seal until after the trial, which is expected to begin next month.

    Peterson, 56, was charged last year with killing Savio in 2004. Officials initially ruled her death an accidental bathtub drowning, but after Stacy Peterson disappeared in October 2007, authorities reopened Savio’s case and determined she had been killed.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant has not been charged in his fourth wife’s disappearance, though he remains a suspect. Peterson denies wrongdoing in both cases.

    It’s unclear why Will County Judge Stephen White opted to allow Pastor Neil Schori’s testimony and banned some references to the alleged home invasion. But for each statement to be admitted, the law required White to weigh the witness’s reliability.

    Without physical evidence or a confession, prosecutors have largely built their case around pathologist findings and 13 hearsay statements that they say will allow the women to speak from the grave. Sources told the Tribune that statements from several of the women’s friends have been barred, including some testimony about the July 2002 incident in which Peterson is accused of breaking into Savio’s house and holding a knife to her throat.

    The alleged home invasion was a major focus of the hearsay hearing held earlier this year, with at least seven witnesses testifying about it. One of Savio’s former co-workers told the judge that Savio said Peterson, clad in all black and carrying a knife, snuck into her home, pinned her on the stairs and then balked at killing her because it would be “too bloody.”

    Though the co-worker’s account and some statements related to the incident have been barred, Brodsky suggested in court that the incident may be mentioned in other testimony. If the allegations are brought up, Brodsky told reporters, he would like jurors to hear recordings of statements Savio made about the incident — in which she does not mention a knife — to an insurance company investigating her claim that jewelry had been stolen from the house.

    White banned the recordings in his sealed ruling, Brodsky said during Thursday’s hearing.

    The attorneys are precluded from discussing the contents of the judge’s decision, but Peterson defense attorney Joseph Lopez said he was happy with the overall ruling.

    “I’m extremely content,” he said. “As content as a puppy with a new bone.”

    Charles Pelkie, spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, declined to comment.

    The defense, however, was dealt a setback when the judge ruled that Schori could testify about an August 2007 counseling session in which he says a tearful Stacy Peterson admitted to lying to police after Savio was found dead. According to Schori’s testimony during the hearsay hearing in January, Stacy Peterson hugged her knees to her chest as she told him that she woke up to find her husband missing the night before Savio’s body was found.

    She tried calling his cell phone, but he didn’t answer. Peterson returned after midnight, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothes that didn’t belong to Stacy Peterson. He dumped everything in the washing machine, Schori testified.

    Schori also told the judge that Stacy Peterson said Peterson coached her “for hours” on what to say to police and that she lied to investigators at his behest.

    Stacy Peterson, then 23, asked her pastor not to report her false alibi, Schori testified, because “it wouldn’t do any good” given that Peterson was a decorated police officer.

    The defense has tried to tarnish Schori’s credibility, questioning why he broke his public silence on national television instead of in a courtroom. Schori has said he went on Fox News after Stacy Peterson disappeared to raise awareness.

    In an earlier ruling, White put a dent in the prosecution’s case by limiting Schori’s testimony. The judge previously barred him from telling the jurors that Stacy Peterson told him Peterson confessed to Savio’s slaying. Such a statement would fall under marital privilege, White ruled.

    He also banned statements made during marriage counseling sessions at the Petersons’ home and in Peterson’s squad car. In both locations, White said, there was an expectation of privacy.

    White ruled that the jury could hear about the false alibi discussion, in part because it took place at a Starbucks where anyone could have overheard the conversation. By sharing her deepest secret there, Stacy Peterson essentially waived her right to keep conversations with her religious adviser private, the judge said.

    Two months after the tear-filled counseling session at the Bolingbrook coffee shop, Stacy Peterson allegedly made a similar confession to her friend Scott Rossetto. The judge, however, has barred that statement from the trial.

    “She lowered her voice and said, ‘Can you keep a secret?'” Rossetto testified. “She said the night Kathleen Savio died, he (Peterson) came home really, really late, all dressed in black and said, ‘If anyone ever asks where I was, tell them I was home.'”

    About 48 hours later, Stacy disappeared.

    –Stacy St. Clair and Steve Schmadeke

  80. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2430474,4_1_JO25_PETERSON_S1-100625.article

    Judge: No more delays in Peterson trial

    June 25, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — The evidence against Drew Peterson keeps piling up, and his attorneys once again implored Judge Stephen White to grant them more time to sift through it.

    “There is simply not enough time for us to do that,” Darryl Goldberg, one of the six lawyers representing accused wife-killer Drew Peterson in his murder case, said of the difficulties the defense team has experienced while preparing for trial.

    Goldberg told White that he and his colleagues are still receiving evidence from prosecutors — and that there is even more that they are waiting to get their hands on.

    Just recently, the state’s attorneys office revealed that two pathologists expected to testify about the demise of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, performed more than 150 autopsies on drowning victims. The defense team now wants the reports from those autopsies, and the time to read through them.

    Peterson allegedly drowned Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in March 2004.

    For three and a half years following Savio’s death, the state police insisted that Savio was the victim of a freak accident. They suddenly reversed course when Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, mysteriously vanished in October 2007.

    Peterson was arrested and charged with Savio’s murder in May 2009. Despite the state police naming him the lone suspect in their investigation of Stacy Peterson’s “potential homicide,” he has yet to be charged with harming her.

    Besides trying to plow through the scores of autopsy reports before Peterson’s trial starts July 8, which Goldberg called “virtually impossible,” the disgraced former cop’s lawyers are also trying to obtain and research vital forensic evidence, including the results of toxicological testing performed on Savio’s body.

    “This is highly technical stuff that takes more than two weeks to study and digest and review, because we’re lawyers, not doctors,” Goldberg explained.

    The defense attorneys also complained that the Fox News network has failed to comply with a subpoena demanding video of a private autopsy performed at the behest of Savio’s family. Judge White seemed appalled and disturbed that the network recorded the postmortem, asking, “You’re saying Fox News taped the autopsy?”

    Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, informed White that was indeed the case and Goldberg told the judge, “This is something we have to have before we proceed to trial.”

    That might be, but White was not budging on the start date.

    “The judge has indicated that, come hell or high water, he wants to go July 8,” Brodsky said.

    Also during Thursday’s hearing, Assistant Attorney General Deborah Simpson presented White with state police reports regarding Stacy Peterson’s disappearance and its connection to the downstate town of Peoria. The available reports only go through 2009, and anything more recent — including the excavation of a property outside Peoria earlier this month — were imparted to White verbally by state police Capt. Carl Dobrich.

    White will determine whether the information is relevant and if it should be surrendered to Peterson’s attorneys. If the state refuses to comply, Brodsky believes the prosecution might be deprived of employing evidence related to Stacy.

    “Whatever reference may or may not have been made to Stacy certainly is going to be thrown out,” said Brodsky, who claims he is in the dark about why the state police were poking around in Peoria for his client’s missing wife.

    “I really want to know what this is all about,” he said.

  81. They can’t discuss it, so they’re discussing it. 🙄

    “Assistant state’s attorney John Connor said the video was made with “a surreptitious camera.” Kathy Patton, another assistant state’s attorney, said Baden’s autopsy, performed after a pathologist hired by Will County finished his work, was done on behalf of Savio’s family.”

    If it’s only 5 minutes long and shows only Baden, why filmed covertly? Not for any benefit to the case, the victim or the family.

    I’m afraid I don’t believe Steph Watts that he doesn’t have it unless by that he means Fox or Baden has it. All my own suspicious opinion, of course, but it was a crass mistake.

    I’m so upset that the knife episode may have to be barred. Poor Kitty. We know why she neglected to mention it in the insurance claim. During the divorce The Judge stole most of my pension fund by fraudulent acts but I had 2 small children and no support from anywhere, no job. If I had made a complaint he could lose his career and may have gone to prison, the children would lose their home. It’s a rock and hard place for a mother.

    If you’ll forgive another Perugian comparison, under the non-adversarial justice system, the court would probably consider Kitty’s possible motive for selectively not mentioning the knife rather than throw it all out. More like justice, less like a game of cards.

  82. “As content as a puppy with a new bone.”

    I spy a Freudian slip. He got the judge to throw him a bone.

  83. Per Hosey’s article ”

    “This is highly technical stuff that takes more than two weeks to study and digest and review, because we’re lawyers, not doctors,” Goldberg explained.”

    Ummm – haven’t they had that autopsy report for a long, long time?? Just because Drew decided last-minute to change legal teams and the new team isn’t up to speed because the old team didn’t look at it further is not grounds for delaying the trial IMO. Heck – Joel has been the lead attorney all along so why didn’t he send that thing off for review by experts before now? Or am I missing something?

  84. thinkaboutit2 :

    Per Hosey’s article ““This is highly technical stuff that takes more than two weeks to study and digest and review, because we’re lawyers, not doctors,” Goldberg explained.”

    I think, but I could be wrong, the issue is the State added two additional experts recently, and that is the reason the defense is requesting additional time. These experts may have been added since the hearsay hearings, but I’m not sure.

    In which case, I suppose it’s a decent request to ask for an additional month to get their reports, etc., read and analyzed. But, it’s up to Judge White and he’s set on going forward July 8. Maybe, if Peterson is convicted, the defense will use this unwillingness by Judge White in their appeal, saying that they were denied sufficient additional time to properly wage a defense. Hope not, and that’s what my concern is.

  85. When Brodsky and team initially asked for the continuance, it was reported they (he) said the prosecution had “just” added the two additional experts “a couple of weeks ago.” If the prosecution only had a headstart of two weeks for their experts to glean additional information, why would the defense need two extra months to dispute that information? I suspect Judge White wonders the same. Will locate the reporting and post shortly. Granddaughter is was wanting to go swimming at the moment.

  86. CFS @ #103. Well, yes, that’s true, Judge White did give them a month to catch up on the reports, and did delay the start of the trial. So, it can be debated either way, but Judge White’s the boss, and he made the decision. The defense can still bring it up on appeal and say they were denied sufficient time in which to prepare. Also, when they did request the two month delay, the State did not object.

  87. rescueapet :
    This was posted by JB on Legal Pub:

    “Joel A. Brodsky said…
    Nobody has a sense of humor anymore. Its kind of sad. I can remember shen people got taken in a gag they used to laugh at themselves and their own gullibility. (Who remembers Alan Funt and Candid Camera) Now people get fired, charged, sued, etc. I think we were better off when we could laugh at ourselves and our situations, rather than be so serious. Life is real short, so lighten up!!!!!
    August 25, 2008 8:16 PM

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/your-thread-august-25/
    Source: Legal Pub
    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/08/consequences-of-big-foot-hoax.html

    I found this statement hilarious, coming from a defense attorney. Where would he be if people laughed instead of suing?
    ***
    And did I get this right? Brodsky wants all 150 cases from the two pathologists? Ludicrous!
    ***
    And thank you, Pastor Schori, for being wise and circumspect about where you counsel women. Woo-hoo, the judge is going to let it in!

  88. Now that we know that Pastor Schori is going to be allowed to testify regarding his hearsay information, but another witness isn’t, what happened to the premise that all of this was supposed to remain under seal, and it wasn’t supposed to be revealed until the jury was seated?

  89. Ah – thanks Rescue. When I looked at the article the first time I thought they were just talking about the results of Kathleen’s autopsy but looking back it looks like that comment may have also included the other autopsies they want to review.

  90. rescueapet :
    Now that we know that Pastor Schori is going to be allowed to testify regarding his hearsay information, but another witness isn’t, what happened to the premise that all of this was supposed to remain under seal, and it wasn’t supposed to be revealed until the jury was seated?

    Seal Schmeal…. It makes no sense that they’d discuss any of that stuff in open court if it was supposed to remain a mystery until the jury was seated.

  91. TAI: Seal Schmeal…. It makes no sense that they’d discuss any of that stuff in open court if it was supposed to remain a mystery until the jury was seated.

    Tell me about it. The inmates seem to be running the asylum.

  92. And why wouldn’t the judge have stopped them from discussing it in court?? or did he?? IDK – the reporting of what happens in court is just little snapshots so it is hard to see the whole picture.

  93. I say rots of ruck to the samurai. The reason why they want to review a bazillion autopsies of drowning victims,(imo) is they’re looking for any other case with the tell-tale signs of forced drowning that was ruled a suicide. They’ve already had a long time to prepare. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Bratsky had gained a further continuance he would use it for a pretrial vacay. Like DP getting permission to leave the State to take the children on holiday, but then went without them.

  94. Maybe the defense should spend more time mulling over documents than thinking of witty things to say, taking on more high-profile clients, or taking time to setup recorded interviews with the media that they advertise via the PR agent…

  95. http://www.cltv.com/news/wgntv-drew-peterson-false-alibi-june25,0,4228016.story

    Judge agrees to key piece of testimony in Peterson trial

    Pastor Neil Schori will be allowed to testify

    WGN News
    June 25, 2010

    CHICAGO – A judge has agreed to accept a key piece of testimony in the upcoming murder trial of Drew Peterson.

    Peterson is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio in 2004.

    Pastor Neil Schori will be allowed to testify that Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, confided in him that she and Peterson concocted a phony alibi for his whereabouts, the night of Savio’s murder.

    The government’s case will rely heavily on such hearsay testimony because there is no confession and no physical evidence to link Peterson to Savio’s murder.

Comments are closed.