Drew Peterson to remain in jail

Drew Peterson isn’t going home today.

After both prosecution and defense argued their points in a Will County courtroom this morning, Judge Stephen White ruled that Drew Peterson must remain in jail while an appellate court reviews a decision on the hearsay evidence in his upcoming trial for murder.

Peterson has been in jail for 14 months, under a $20 million bail while awaiting trial for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Daily Herald
Chicago Tribune
Rule 604. Appeals from Certain Judgments and Orders
We’re following Joe Hosey on Twitter

~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>

About these ads

288 thoughts on “Drew Peterson to remain in jail

  1. Funny how Brodsky was so eager to charge down to the jail yesterday to “give Drew the good news” as he said he was going to do. Guess Drew’s bubble got burst….again. One day, maybe Joel will learn to keep his mouth shut until he really knows what he’s talking about. Nah, he’s not that smart.

  2. cfs7360 :

    Funny how Brodsky was so eager to charge down to the jail yesterday to “give Drew the good news” as he said he was going to do. Guess Drew’s bubble got burst….again. One day, maybe Joel will learn to keep his mouth shut until he really knows what he’s talking about. Nah, he’s not that smart.

    I was thinking about that and I really hope that was just bravado for the cameras because it really would have been unkind of him to let Drew think this thing was a done deal. In reality, Joel was rushing down to Will County to get that motion filed, don’t you think?

  3. No doubt Joel is frantically scrambling to to get in front of yet another camera or microphone and put his spin on the proceedings today. I must say, he does have some entertainment value, if only for a good laugh.

  4. You guys!!!!! How many times have I told you to expect the OPPOSITE of what Brodsky says! Have you seen but one time where he was right? Come on. He’s a lousy lawyer, and it shows. He can spit and spew all he wants, and the only one that believes him and listens to him is himself. :-)

  5. facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :
    Funny how Brodsky was so eager to charge down to the jail yesterday to “give Drew the good news” as he said he was going to do. Guess Drew’s bubble got burst….again. One day, maybe Joel will learn to keep his mouth shut until he really knows what he’s talking about. Nah, he’s not that smart.

    I was thinking about that and I really hope that was just bravado for the cameras because it really would have been unkind of him to let Drew think this thing was a done deal. In reality, Joel was rushing down to Will County to get that motion filed, don’t you think?

    Who knows? But I do know that he appears to act like he has a reliable crystal ball that shares the future with only him. He’ll never learn to keep his trap shut.

  6. Drew looked disappointed…GOOD!!!! I love it, glad he will be staying just where he belongs. It was kind of like waving a bone in front of a rabid dog and then taking it away. LOL

  7. cfs7360 :Funny how Brodsky was so eager to charge down to the jail yesterday to “give Drew the good news” as he said he was going to do. Guess Drew’s bubble got burst….again. One day, maybe Joel will learn to keep his mouth shut until he really knows what he’s talking about. Nah, he’s not that smart.

    Oh come on CFS… He did say one thing that was true. Didn’t he say that we would be entertained today? Well… I’m a little entertained. ;)

  8. rescueapet :
    You guys!!!!! How many times have I told you to expect the OPPOSITE of what Brodsky says! Have you seen but one time where he was right? Come on. He’s a lousy lawyer, and it shows. He can spit and spew all he wants, and the only one that believes him and listens to him is himself.

    Love it! And you’re so correct my dear.

  9. I’d almost feel bad for Drew about having a lawyer like Brodsky except he hand-picked the guy; felt an “affinity” with him. He totally deserves whatever comes with that decision.

  10. How can Peterson continue to have faith in his lead attorney, when he hasn’t done jack squat for the guy, except fill the news with his b.s.? Brodsky interprets the law as it suits him, then must think the repetition of repeating it is going to win the day. Only problem is, he hasn’t won much of anything to help Peterson. Now, really, has he?

  11. Remember when we posted information that Reem Odeh was overheard in the court hall expressing her dissatisfaction with her co-counsel’s motion to have Judge White removed from the case?

    Karma, baby. Judge White apparently wasn’t too eager to rush to the defense’s side and release the murder defendant.

    I’m just thinking out loud here, but Judge White is also familiar with the ongoing investigation regarding Stacy Peterson’s disappearance of late, so maybe there’s an angel sitting on his shoulder these days.

  12. facsmiley :

    cfs7360 :
    Funny how Brodsky was so eager to charge down to the jail yesterday to “give Drew the good news” as he said he was going to do. Guess Drew’s bubble got burst….again. One day, maybe Joel will learn to keep his mouth shut until he really knows what he’s talking about. Nah, he’s not that smart.

    I was thinking about that and I really hope that was just bravado for the cameras because it really would have been unkind of him to let Drew think this thing was a done deal. In reality, Joel was rushing down to Will County to get that motion filed, don’t you think?

    I’m sorry Facs, but I have to say your comment about Joel being unkind to Drew by getting his hopes up sort of gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling. The thought of Drew’s own attorney bursting his bubble by running his big mouth when he shouldn’t have is exactly what Drew deserves.

  13. man i wish i was there to see the look on his and brodsky face too bad droopy in the can you going to stay!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Hmmm, I wonder if the Judge’s ruling will be made public on what he based his ruling, where he found compelling reasons to keep Peterson incarcerated?

  15. This trial will be full of dirty defense courtroom antics. The whole idea behind those “chicken” remarks is to get under the skin of the prosecutor. When you lose your temper, you lose …

    During the trial the defense will deliberately say and do horrible things to rattle, intimidate, irritate and distract the prosecutor to cause him to make mistakes. They are ‘scrappers’ (fighters) who take nothing serious.

    Defense wants to open more windows for Appeal of the ‘expected conviction’ they are battling against.

    Drama classes are part of a student’s education to become a lawyer.

  16. rescueapet :
    Hmmm, I wonder if the Judge’s ruling will be made public on what he based his ruling, where he found compelling reasons to keep Peterson incarcerated?

    If reporters were in court when he made it, it will. What does Joe know?

  17. CFS – I just saw a local tv report, and, so far, it’s only being reported that Judge White made a short statement that he found compelling evidence to keep him detained.

    Also, she reported that this process can be a delay of up to two years. Wow.

  18. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/judge-hears-arguments-on-whether-to-keep-peterson-in-jail.html

    Judge: Peterson must stay in jail during appeal
    July 8, 2010 11:04 AM

    Drew Peterson will remain in jail while prosecutors appeal a ruling on hearsay evidence, a judge has ruled.

    Peterson showed no reaction as Will County Judge Steven White announced his ruling. He looked down and wrote on a yellow legal pad, then looked at his attorneys and tapped his fingers against the table.

    Peterson had arrived at court this morning carrying a suit bag.

    Asked for his reaction to today’s ruling, Peterson defense attorney Joseph Lopez had a succinct reply: “Ouch!”

    He said the defense would appeal White’s ruling.
    Lead defense attorney Joseph Brodsky said Peterson had been optimistic he would be freed from jail, but “he didn’t count on it, so he’s okay.”

    White made the decision after hearing arguments from both sides this morning, a day after prosecutors decided to delay the trial and appeal White’s ruling excluding much of the hearsay evidence the prosecution had hoped to use.

    Peterson attorney Lopez argued the state had no compelling reason to hold Peterson in jail during the appeal — which could take months — and continuing to hold him would violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

    “Is the defendant a threat to anybody on the street? He is not,” Lopez said.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said if Peterson wasn’t a danger, he didn’t know anyone who was. Not only does the case involve accusations that Peterson murdered his third wife Kathleen Savio, but evidence has been presented that he also killed his fourth wife, Stacy, to prevent her from testifying about Peterson’s role in Savio’s death, Glasgow argued.

    “I don’t know what could be more compelling,” he said.

    Glasgow said he was “very pleased” with White’s decision.

    –Steve Schmadeke

  19. rescueapet :CFS – I just saw a local tv report, and, so far, it’s only being reported that Judge White made a short statement that he found compelling evidence to keep him detained.
    Also, she reported that this process can be a delay of up to two years. Wow.

    TWO Years? Yikes!

  20. rescueapet :
    CFS – I just saw a local tv report, and, so far, it’s only being reported that Judge White made a short statement that he found compelling evidence to keep him detained.
    Also, she reported that this process can be a delay of up to two years. Wow.

    Maybe he didn’t specify what compelling reasons he based his ruling on when he made it, but it looks like he would have had to, to rule on it in open court, unless he disclosed it to the attorneys at sidebar or in chambers. I’m sure you guys will post whatever it is, or they are, when/if it’s made public.

  21. Two years!!! Wow…I wonder how many orange jumpsuits that equals to? J/K I am venting with sarcasm today. I am so relieved he will be spending time in jail awaiting news of the appeal.

  22. From article posted by Facs at #26:

    Peterson had arrived at court this morning carrying a suit bag.

    Asked for his reaction to today’s ruling, Peterson defense attorney Joseph Lopez had a succinct reply: “Ouch!”

    He said the defense would appeal White’s ruling.
    Lead defense attorney Joseph Brodsky said Peterson had been optimistic he would be freed from jail, but “he didn’t count on it, so he’s okay.”

    —————————————
    So…Brodsky says Drew was optimistic, but not counting on it. Yeah right. That’s why he showed up in court with suit bag in had.

  23. Sorry guys. I’m just oozing with meanness this morning. After nearly three years of disgust with this guy, and the notion that he may have been set free for who knows how long…well, I’m sure you all understand. At least he’s staying behind bars for now, and hopefully NEVER knows freedom again.

  24. I understand that Glasgow’s argument was short, and maybe not seen as convincing as Attorney Lopez’s. But, I believe Glasgow made some sort of statement like…you know the reasons when addressing the judge. Hmmm.

    Also, it did come up in today’s proceedings that Brodsky and Lopez failed to notify Judge White and/or the ARDC of yesterday’s interview on Fox and WGN. That is clearly, is it not, violating the gag order he handed down? Let’s see what’s going to come of that now. About time they have been called on shooting off their pie holes.

  25. rescueapet :
    I understand that Glasgow’s argument was short, and maybe not seen as convincing as Attorney Lopez’s. But, I believe Glasgow made some sort of statement like…you know the reasons when addressing the judge. Hmmm.
    Also, it did come up in today’s proceedings that Brodsky and Lopez failed to notify Judge White and/or the ARDC of yesterday’s interview on Fox and WGN. That is clearly, is it not, violating the gag order he handed down? Let’s see what’s going to come of that now. About time they have been called on shooting off their pie holes.

    Rescue, good info. I read the latest article and it just sounded like the argument Glasgow made about Drew being a “threat” was the compelling reason for the judge’s decision, but there may be a lot more that we don’t know that White does, if he and Glasgow had that type of exchange.

    And YES! I hope Judge White calls those guys on the carpet about these interviews, etc. Brodsky sure has seemed to be taking very generous liberties with the gag order for a good while now.

  26. “We put on evidence that Drew Peterson killed Kathleen Savio in an attempt to silence her and killed Stacy Peterson to silence her,” Glasgow said, referring to Peterson’s third wife, Savio, who he is charged with murdering and his fourth wife, Stacy, who disappeared in October 2007. “If that isn’t a danger … I don’t know what’s more compelling.”

    From the same story. That looks like pretty compelling evidence to show that if he was free he would pose a danger to any and all witnesses.

  27. Let’s hope that what Judge White found compelling enough to hold DP, was DNA evidence found in Peoria. As I recall, the coroner stated he would stay on the site as long as it takes. Then left quickly later that morning under police escort, after the media was moved far away from the entrance. Just seemed a bit strange at the time.

  28. http://bigjohnandamy.com/2010/07/joel-brodsky-on-drew-petersons-reaction-to-his-possible-release-from-jail/

    560 Wind

    Joel Brodsky, the lead attorney for former Bolingbrook cop and accused wife killer Drew Peteterson, told Big John & Amy this morning how his client reacted this morning to the news that he might be released from jail. Brodsky also talked about what the next steps are for the defense team as the trial of Peterson has now been delayed.

    - Listen to Brodsky’s reaction to the delay of the trial:

    - Listen to Brodsky’s account of Peterson’s reaction to the news:

    - Listen to Brodsky’s response to the assertion that Peterson, if released, would be a danger to the community and possibly his own children:

    Three audio files to listen to if you’re interested. They’re short.

  29. August 23rd is the next court date to get a status on how the State’s appeal is progressing.

    A legal analyst I just listened to, although I was unable to hear the whole segment (which will be posted here when the video is available) seems to think that Judge White may be leaving this up to the Appellate Court to decide. Judge White found Drew Peterson to be guilty of killing Kathleen by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, he feels he cannot very well release him after listening to the hearsay evidence and finding that he killed Kathleen.

    Also, there is evidence under seal at this point.

  30. I just listened to Joel Brodsky pooh poohing that Peterson is a flight risk or a danger to anyone.

    I find it very interesting that he mentioned that Peterson is closely watched while he is in jail. His conversations are taped, and he admitted that whenever there is news such as this past Peoria situation, he is observed to see what his reaction is. Sooooooooooo, what was his reaction when heard about the Peoria news? Hmmmm.

    Also, of course, he says he’s not a flight risk. I was waiting for him to say he’d never leave his family, his kids, and take off, never to be seen again. Well, at least he had enough brains not to do that.

    So, why isn’t he a flight risk? If Stacy “took off never to be seen again,” why not Peterson, with all of the baggage he’s dragging around? I’d say he’s a major flight risk. Unless Brodsky has a crystal ball that we don’t know about, but, if that’s the case, that crystal ball needs a new battery, cuz it’s been pretty unreliable.

  31. harleyjoey :
    joehosey
    .Drew looked pretty disappointed
    5 minutes ago via txt

    I’m just catching up on this thread……….I’m so relieved that Drew is to remain in jail pending the appeal.

    I would imagine Drew would be disappointed. After all, Joel rushed to Joliet to tell Drew he was going to be released today. I bet Joel had Drew thinking it was a sure thing that he was going to be released.

  32. Did i understand the legal analyst to say that he talked to the clerk at the appeals court, and she said they could deal with the appeal as early as this afertoon. But they hadn’t received any paperwork as of yet? Is Brodsky sitting on it or is he at lunch, again? Wouldn’t you think, he would have filed ASAP?

  33. rescueapet :
    Remember when we posted information that Reem Odeh was overheard in the court hall expressing her dissatisfaction with her co-counsel’s motion to have Judge White removed from the case?
    Karma, baby. Judge White apparently wasn’t too eager to rush to the defense’s side and release the murder defendant.
    I’m just thinking out loud here, but Judge White is also familiar with the ongoing investigation regarding Stacy Peterson’s disappearance of late, so maybe there’s an angel sitting on his shoulder these days.

    Excellent point! Judge White knows the intimate details of the search in Peoria. He knows from the pre-trial hearing in January what the evidence suggests, and combined with his knowledge of the Peoria search, he knows the danger of releasing DP.

    I’m hoping that the appellate court decision will be favorable to the prosecution and will be speedy enough to allow Judge White to preside over the trial. Perhaps Judge White will reconsider his October retirement?

  34. Sullivan…I didn’t rate him because he just kept ignoring the “compelling reason” exception. I also think that there is adequate compulsion from his history of talking about absconding and more to the point, threatening to use weapons against the police. You don’t even need to consider White’s hearsay rulings….but I guess it’s sexier to talk about.

  35. grandam :

    Did i understand the legal analyst to say that he talked to the clerk at the appeals court, and she said they could deal with the appeal as early as this afertoon. But they hadn’t received any paperwork as of yet? Is Brodsky sitting on it or is he at lunch, again? Wouldn’t you think, he would have filed ASAP?

    I think Sullivan is referring to the appeal filed by the Prosecution, which was probably done in Will County and then has to get to the 3rd District Appellate Court in Ottowa. It’s only been 24 hours since it was filed so it doesn’t seem SO long to me…

  36. I sure do hope he was disappointed, that made my day. Terry Sullivan did a great job,explaining it.

  37. facsmiley :
    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/judge-hears-arguments-on-whether-to-keep-peterson-in-jail.html

    Thanks Facsmiley! I love it that Peterson arrived at court this morning carrying a suit bag. He DID expect to walk out of court today free, and that all goes back to Joel Brodsky jumping the gun and telling Drew he was going home today. I note that JB is downplaying that today, with “he didn’t count on it, so he’s okay.”

    SA James Glasgow called it right stating that if Peterson wasn’t a danger, he didn’t know anyone who was. I would venture that Kathleen’s family and Stacy’s family, and a lot of other people are relieved that Peterson will remain in jail.

  38. Thanks Facs! You are just a wealth of knowledge! It is very much appreciated!

    I was looking to find out why there are no cameras in Illinois courts. I found the answer, but it seems to me that this is a very outdated ruling. Technology has come a very very long way since 1984. It’s 2010 for pete’s sake. They need cameras in the courtroom!

    For anyone who is interested here is a link to what I found:

    http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=3512

  39. cfs7360 :
    Sorry guys. I’m just oozing with meanness this morning. After nearly three years of disgust with this guy, and the notion that he may have been set free for who knows how long…well, I’m sure you all understand. At least he’s staying behind bars for now, and hopefully NEVER knows freedom again.

    CFS……….I fully understand and echo your sentiments. I hope DP is never, ever, free again!

  40. I’m not sure this clears up which of Neil’s statements are making it in to the trial, but it’s a start:

    A hearing was held earlier this year to determine what hearsay evidence a jury would be allowed to hear.

    A person familiar with the case told The Associated Press that among the statements White excluded was one from Stacy Peterson’s pastor, who said she told him she’d given Peterson a false alibi the weekend of Savio’s death. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the judge’s orders have been sealed.

    That person said the pastor, Neil Schori, will still be allowed to testify about other conversations with Stacy Peterson.

    For example, Schori can testify Stacy Peterson told him of seeing her husband, dressed all in black, dumping his clothes and women’s clothing that did not belong to Stacy into their washing machine the night before Savio’s body was found in her bathtub, the source said.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2478150,Drew-stays-in-jail_JO070810.article

  41. rescueapet :

    White said the “court finds compelling reason to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” but did not elaborate. He said the reasoning behind his decision would be clear to the state appellate court when it reviews the case.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/judge-denies-motion-to-566656.html

    Rescue………….this tells me that at least part of the “compelling reasons” Judge White based his denial on is sealed evidence. We know that the ISP report of their search in Peoria is sealed evidence, so there must be some pretty convincing evidence contained in that report.

    If it’s going to take several months for the appellate court process, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Stacy’s remains were found during this interim? We can hope!

  42. harleyjoey :

    Thanks Facs! You are just a wealth of knowledge! It is very much appreciated!

    I was looking to find out why there are no cameras in Illinois courts. I found the answer, but it seems to me that this is a very outdated ruling. Technology has come a very very long way since 1984. It’s 2010 for pete’s sake. They need cameras in the courtroom!

    For anyone who is interested here is a link to what I found:

    http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=3512

    Hah, I wish it was knowledge but really I don’t know very much. I just have the time and the inclination to poke around and find things.

    I totally agree about how outdated the law is regarding media in the courtroom. Making reporters rely on pen and paper for their notes is how we end up with bungled news reports. There should be a couple of hidden cameras in the back of every courtroom, with live feeds to every media outlet that wants them, IMO.

  43. mollymcgee :

    rescueapet :

    White said the “court finds compelling reason to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” but did not elaborate. He said the reasoning behind his decision would be clear to the state appellate court when it reviews the case.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/judge-denies-motion-to-566656.html

    Rescue………….this tells me that at least part of the “compelling reasons” Judge White based his denial on is sealed evidence. We know that the ISP report of their search in Peoria is sealed evidence, so there must be some pretty convincing evidence contained in that report.
    If it’s going to take several months for the appellate court process, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Stacy’s remains were found during this interim? We can hope!

    Molly, this is a quote from Joe Hosey’s latest article:

    “The court finds compelling reasons to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” White said. “I am not going to go into any specifics. It will be quite clear to the appellate court.”
    ————————
    I think what he’s referring to is that since he allowed SOME hearsay, he found Drew guilty of Kathleen’s murder by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that HE HIMSELF, can’t let a killer out on the streets. Since the appellate court is hearing the appeal on the hearsay the State wants to have allowed, they will be taking everything into consideration, which means ALL of the hearsay evidence and possibly even the sealed evidence, which may, in fact, contain additional hearsay from an informant. If the State appellate courts grants the State’s request, I imagine Brodsky and company will file another appeal with the Supreme Court. If they do, it shouldn’t interfere with with the appeal they will surely file at the end of the trial when Drew is hopefully found guilty, should it? I wouldn’t think it would, but I know they only get one appeal per trial, and the trial hasn’t started yet. Anybody know more about this?

  44. In denying the defense’s request for Peterson’s release, the judge did not state in open court what his reasons were. He noted that a trial is at least six to nine months away, but the defense attorneys later opined that it could be up to two years away and that appeals could take this case to the United States Supreme Court.

    The defense plans to appeal today’s decision.

    http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/08/drew-peterson-stays-in-jail-while-defense-team-plans-appeals/

  45. facsmiley :
    This is well worth a watch:

    Thanks Facsmiley! That’s a very informative video! I think this gives us a lot of material to digest. From what this legal expert says, keeping Peterson in jail is a rare move. If Judge White has in fact determined Drew’s guilt, he couldn’t in good faith allow him to be released.

  46. mollymcgee :

    facsmiley :
    This is well worth a watch:

    Thanks Facsmiley! That’s a very informative video! I think this gives us a lot of material to digest. From what this legal expert says, keeping Peterson in jail is a rare move. If Judge White has in fact determined Drew’s guilt, he couldn’t in good faith allow him to be released.

    He determined his guilt when he allowed some of the hearsay in, otherwise NONE would have been allowed.

  47. Who will be next in line to hear Drew Peterson’s case? Now that we know it’ll be months before there’s a conclusion to this appeal, it shouldn’t take long for an announcement, I would think, so the new judge can get caught up.

  48. cfs7360 :

    mollymcgee :

    rescueapet :

    White said the “court finds compelling reason to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” but did not elaborate. He said the reasoning behind his decision would be clear to the state appellate court when it reviews the case.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/judge-denies-motion-to-566656.html

    Rescue………….this tells me that at least part of the “compelling reasons” Judge White based his denial on is sealed evidence. We know that the ISP report of their search in Peoria is sealed evidence, so there must be some pretty convincing evidence contained in that report.
    If it’s going to take several months for the appellate court process, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Stacy’s remains were found during this interim? We can hope!

    Molly, this is a quote from Joe Hosey’s latest article:
    “The court finds compelling reasons to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” White said. “I am not going to go into any specifics. It will be quite clear to the appellate court.”
    ————————
    I think what he’s referring to is that since he allowed SOME hearsay, he found Drew guilty of Kathleen’s murder by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that HE HIMSELF, can’t let a killer out on the streets. Since the appellate court is hearing the appeal on the hearsay the State wants to have allowed, they will be taking everything into consideration, which means ALL of the hearsay evidence and possibly even the sealed evidence, which may, in fact, contain additional hearsay from an informant. If the State appellate courts grants the State’s request, I imagine Brodsky and company will file another appeal with the Supreme Court. If they do, it shouldn’t interfere with with the appeal they will surely file at the end of the trial when Drew is hopefully found guilty, should it? I wouldn’t think it would, but I know they only get one appeal per trial, and the trial hasn’t started yet. Anybody know more about this?

    CFS…………excellent points. I would imagine that the appellate court will be hearing ALL the hearsay evidence and will based their decision on that basis. And, as you say, it will possibly hear the evidence from the sealed ISP report on the Peoria search too.

    I don’t have a legal background, but it would be logical to assume that the appeal Brodsky is lodging with the appellate court for Pederson’s release pending the prosecution’s appeal, would be a different type of appeal than the one the defense will lodge upon a conviction.

  49. I’m getting some bits and pieces of information that’s going to be in Joe Hosey’s upcoming story.

    Judge White was not going to let in some of the testimony of three witnesses: Anna Doman, Vicki Connelly and Eric Peterson. With Eric Peterson, apparently, Judge White must have barred his testimony because of the time that has passed. Don’t know what’s up with the other two.

  50. @Molly #64 – I don’t have a legal background, but it would be logical to assume that the appeal Brodsky is lodging with the appellate court for Pederson’s release pending the prosecution’s appeal, would be a different type of appeal than the one the defense will lodge upon a conviction.

    ——————-
    No doubt, and then there will be an appeal by the defense to the Supreme Court if the Appellate Courts favors the State’s hearsay evidence appeal, followed by another appeal if Drew is found guilty, so looks like there will be a few. My question is which appeal will be the only and final, no more chances appeal??

  51. rescueapet :
    I’m getting some bits and pieces of information that’s going to be in Joe Hosey’s upcoming story.
    Judge White was not going to let in some of the testimony of three witnesses: Anna Doman, Vicki Connelly and Eric Peterson. With Eric Peterson, apparently, Judge White must have barred his testimony because of the time that has passed. Don’t know what’s up with the other two.

    Good gosh! No wonder Glasgow is appealing White’s ruling.

  52. I still don’t know how White is putting up with all of this stuff being released though, if his ruling is supposed to be sealed. WTH?

  53. Oh, remember now Joel says the State has nothing on Drew, nothing but hearsay evidence! Obviously the State does have a case Joel, and there is compelling evidence to prove that this man remain behind bars even while an appeal is going on.

    Appeal away Joel because the judge obviously knows more than you do about your own client. Drew is a danger to society and needs to remain bars! IMO I think Joel is more upset that he couldn’t do his stand up comedy act, and entertain the court room than Drew not getting out. After all two women’s demise is nothing but a big joke to him, isn’t it Joel?

  54. So did Hosey say what happened with the gun case? Or do we have to wait until after midnight when his newspaper finally posts his articles.

  55. LOL – Somehow I got stuck on the last thread because it let me post a couple of comments after the new one was created. I was wondering where everyone went but whenever I refreshed my screen, my last 3-4 comments were still the last ones.

  56. It’s all good and the gun case is back on !

    Just in case he was going to walk, the gun case is back again !

    Wonderful timing whichever way you look at it

  57. There is a Hosey story languishing somewhere with this information.

    Contact: webmaster@suntimes.com

    Drew Peterson case ::
    ERROR ::
    Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.

    * If you are trying to reach a page from a bookmark, the page URL may have changed. Please choose a community from the navigation at the top of this page.

    * If you are looking for an older news story, it may no longer be here. Free archives of stories are maintained on our site for one month.

    If you still have trouble finding what you need, please contact our webmaster.

  58. Looks to me like the Prosecution has a strategy, whilst the Defense is forever flip flopping being totally unprepared for anything that comes their way.

    The fact Drew had his suit bag with him already speaks volumes – LOL !

  59. Peterson grimaced slightly in court when the judge announced his decision; he was dressed in a suit and tie and looked ready to walk out and go home. Instead Will County Judge Stephen White ruled he should stay locked up.

    Judge White did not say why he was compelled to keep Peterson in jail, but the appeal process could take six to nine months, even years.

    Attorneys outside the courtroom let out a loud ouch. Peterson said they told him they did the best they could.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/drew-peterson-jail-20100708

  60. Molly said “this tells me that at least part of the “compelling reasons” Judge White based his denial on is sealed evidence. We know that the ISP report of their search in Peoria is sealed evidence, so there must be some pretty convincing evidence contained in that report.”

    I’m pretty sure that there was sealed evidence given to White back when the Defense Team protested the high bail. That sealed evidence is what made White agree to the $20million. There was a lot of chatter at the time about what could possibly be in there that would cause such a high bail.

    I would guess that this is the same sealed information he’s going to be sending to the Appellate Court.

  61. Judge: Drew Peterson will remain in jail

    July 8, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Defense attorney Joel Brodsky bragged he’d have Drew Peterson on Chicago’s Rush Street on Thursday night, scarfing down a steak dinner in Gibsons. Instead, Peterson was back in jail where they were serving beefaroni for supper.

    “Drew is an innocent man. He’s being held without sufficient evidence,” Brodsky said of Peterson, whose trial on charges he murdered his third wife was set to start Thursday but was derailed by a last-minute appeal by State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

    Defense attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez said they planned to appeal Judge Stephen White’s refusal to let Peterson out of jail as soon as possible.

    Glasgow took the case to the appellate court after White refused to reconsider his ruling on hearsay statements the prosecution wants to use against Peterson, who allegedly drowned third wife Kathleen Savio in March 2004. Peterson is also suspected of slaying his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished in October 2007. He has not been charged with harming her.

    Needed testimony
    On Wednesday, Glasgow filed paperwork claiming he could not go through with the murder trial if evidence presented at a landmark hearsay hearing was suppressed. Specifically, Glasgow said he needs the testimony of Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly; Peterson’s eldest son, Eric Peterson; and Savio’s sister, Anna Doman.

    During the hearing, Connolly testified that Peterson held her at gunpoint and threatened to kill her three or four times during their 10-year marriage. She also said Peterson stalked her after they divorced and that on one occasion, she woke in the middle of the night to find he had slipped into her home and was standing above her.

    Eric Peterson, who is the son of Drew Peterson and his first wife, Carol Brown, recounted a savage tale of domestic abuse he says Drew Peterson perpetrated on Savio in 1993. He told of his father hauling Savio into the house by her hair and dragging her down to the basement, from which he heard a commotion he compared to a train running through the house.

    Doman claimed Peterson battered her sister and threatened to kill her, and one time bound her hands and feet and threw her down a flight of stairs. Doman has also repeatedly said Savio predicted Peterson would kill her and make her death look accidental.

    When Savio’s body was found, state police determined she died in a freak bathtub accident. But after Stacy Peterson disappeared, they decided Peterson killed Savio.

    Two-year delay?
    Glasgow’s appeal could take two years to sort out, said Lopez, and might make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He maintained that Peterson, who has already been locked up for a year and two months, should be freed while the appeal is pending.

    White apparently disagreed. After hearing a brief argument from Glasgow on Thursday that lacked any critical reasons for keeping Peterson locked up, the judge ordered the accused wife-killer be returned to jail.

    “The court finds compelling reason to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” White said. “I’m not going to go into any specifics. It will be quite clear for the appellate court.”

    Brodsky was at a loss when asked what those compelling reasons might be.

    “I don’t know his reasons,” Brodsky said. “I really thought he was getting out. I guess being Drew Peterson is an exceptional circumstance.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxvalleysun/news/2479632,Peterson-stays-in-jail_JO070810.article

  62. “The court finds compelling reason to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” White said. “I’m not going to go into any specifics. It will be quite clear for the appellate court.”
    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    This statement speaks volumes to me!

  63. Here’s the opinion on the weapons charges, remanding the dismissal of the case, filed February 10, 2010.

    CONCLUSION

    We reverse the judgment of the Will County circuit court granting defendant’s motion to compel discovery on the vindictive prosecution claim and dismissing the criminal charges. The matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=jife&searchTerm=hYUU.Xfea.ZjOL.TaiN&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

  64. From joe Hosey’s article @ #79

    Needed testimony
    On Wednesday, Glasgow filed paperwork claiming he could not go through with the murder trial if evidence presented at a landmark hearsay hearing was suppressed.
    ——————————-
    I’m having a hard time believing that this is exactly and factually correct. Wish we could read the actual Certificate of Impairment to see how it’s worded because I can’t believe Glasgow would completely forego the trial altogether, if this hearsay he wants admitted isn’t allowed. Am I not understanding something I should be?

  65. Wow!

    Does anybody know why Judge White won’t allow the testimony of Vicki Connolly, Anna Doman and Eric Peterson? To my non-legal mind it seems what they have to say is extremely relevant to the case.

  66. I still think that was part of the decisions about “bad prior acts” that weren’t going to be allowed. Maybe Glasgow threw that it with the other hearsay evidence that was going to be suppressed??

  67. aussienat :Wow!
    Does anybody know why Judge White won’t allow the testimony of Vicki Connolly, Anna Doman and Eric Peterson? To my non-legal mind it seems what they have to say is extremely relevant to the case.

    I was wondering the same thing. How is what they have to say “Hearsay”? I don’t get it.

  68. Anna Doman I can see as she would probably testify that Kathleen told her, “Drew said he could kill me and make it look like and accident”, but I don’t know about the other two…as far as hearsay.

  69. Are they nixing ALL of their testimony or just SOME of their testimony?? Maybe the ruling was only going to limit what they could say or not say???

  70. I’m wondering about the search in Peoria. Is it usual to take this long? I would have thought if they were using Ground Penetrating Radar equipment, as we do in Australia, they would find a person buried in the ground very quickly.

    The wait must be pure agony for Stacy’s family and friends. I can’t even imagine. My stomach would be in knots in the same situation!

  71. Not much talk about the Peoria search. I think the area is too big for them to just go through it all like that. I think they are trying to get more information from the tipster before they use resources that way. The longer it goes with nothing coming up – the less likely the tip was real. I do wish someone would stumble upon Stacy’s remains or a solid tip would come in. It must be horrible for her family to wait without knowing like they’ve had to for so long.

  72. atlgranny :
    Molly said “this tells me that at least part of the “compelling reasons” Judge White based his denial on is sealed evidence. We know that the ISP report of their search in Peoria is sealed evidence, so there must be some pretty convincing evidence contained in that report.”
    I’m pretty sure that there was sealed evidence given to White back when the Defense Team protested the high bail. That sealed evidence is what made White agree to the $20million. There was a lot of chatter at the time about what could possibly be in there that would cause such a high bail.
    I would guess that this is the same sealed information he’s going to be sending to the Appellate Court.

    Thanks Atlgranny…………I remember the discussion about the high bail amount. I’m sure the Appellate Court will have a lot of material, both sealed and material that’s been made public, they will use to reach a decision. I just hope we don’t have to wait two years for that decision. With the defendant in jail, I hope this case will go to trial by late this year or early next.

  73. thinkaboutit2 :
    Not much talk about the Peoria search. I think the area is too big for them to just go through it all like that. I think they are trying to get more information from the tipster before they use resources that way. The longer it goes with nothing coming up – the less likely the tip was real. I do wish someone would stumble upon Stacy’s remains or a solid tip would come in. It must be horrible for her family to wait without knowing like they’ve had to for so long.

    This trial delay could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. With the trial delayed for an indefinite period, LE doesn’t have to worry about the defense trying to charge the state with trying to taint the jury during a trial.

    It would be great if they could find Stacy’s remains prior to the trial, and charge DP with Stacy’s murder. I think there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence in regards to Stacy, but without a body, a more difficult case to prosecute.

    Finding Stacy’s remains would give more weight to Pastor Schori’s testimony, and perhaps allow more hearsay evidence to be allowed in the trial.

  74. Joe “The Shark” Lopez, known for his zealous representation of mob clients in Chicago, argued that the State failed to list any compelling reason why Peterson should not be released. Lopez said that continuing to jail Peterson without a trial date is punishment and that pretrial detention as punishment is unconstitutional. With no trial date on the calendar, Lopez said Peterson is being denied the right to a speedy trial.

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

    No wonder the Defense lost in Court to-day.

    What a stupid and nonsensical argument, especially in view the Defense themselves did not opt for a speedy trial more than a year ago and as recent as a week or so ago wanted time, more time and still more time again !!

  75. JAH, I really wish that some of the media folk who are giving these bozos so much airtime would call them out on some of their more fanciful claims!

  76. rescueapet :

    Peterson grimaced slightly in court when the judge announced his decision; he was dressed in a suit and tie and looked ready to walk out and go home. Instead Will County Judge Stephen White ruled he should stay locked up.
    Judge White did not say why he was compelled to keep Peterson in jail, but the appeal process could take six to nine months, even years.
    Attorneys outside the courtroom let out a loud ouch. Peterson said they told him they did the best they could.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/drew-peterson-jail-20100708

    Wonder how safe he feels with his life in their hands now?

  77. White said the “court finds compelling reason to keep Mr. Peterson detained,” but did not elaborate. He said the reasoning behind his decision would be clear to the state appellate court when it reviews the case.

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

    Judge White is not hiding the reasoning behind his decision will leave no room for second guessing by the Appellate Court either.

  78. I’m still hoping that the Feds have quietly been investigating Drew’s various extracurriculars/associates/ just how Kitty’s murder was covered up. 20 million’s gotta be backed up with something pretty hefty. …and that’s from way before Peoria. A federal indictment under seal would stop any pre-trial release. Just sayin…my fond fantasy that he and those who helped him will not get away with a single thing.

    This prior bad acts thing has got me wondering. If it’s a prior bad act against one of his murder victims (Eric’s testimony) how can that not count??

  79. bucketoftea :
    I’m still hoping that the Feds have quietly been investigating Drew’s various extracurriculars/associates/ just how Kitty’s murder was covered up. 20 million’s gotta be backed up with something pretty hefty. …and that’s from way before Peoria. A federal indictment under seal would stop any pre-trial release. Just sayin…my fond fantasy that he and those who helped him will not get away with a single thing.
    This prior bad acts thing has got me wondering. If it’s a prior bad act against one of his murder victims (Eric’s testimony) how can that not count??

    Bucket, I agree. And obviously, Glasgow feels confident that he can win this appeal. Just from what is being reported about how Judge White delivered his ruling on denying Drew’s release, as well as his not allowing certain crucial/relevant testimony, my opinion is that he (White) allowed in what little hearsay he felt he legally and objectively could, but only just enough to give Glasgow the opportunity (or actually sort of force him) to appeal the remainder to a higher court, which in effect, gets the burden off White so that he (or his replacement) could me a more impartial/objective judge without having the stigma/burden of having literally found Drew guilty, by the preponderance of evidence, before the trial even started. I mean basically, it puts the monkey on the Appellate Court’s back, and not the sitting trial judge….if this all makes sense. It completely does to me in my mind, but I’m not sure I’ve written it comprehensibly. There’s so much Judge White knows that we don’t, and I have no doubt he expected, and probably preferred, to have Glasgow appeal his rulings. Whether White suspects Glasgow will win the appeal or not is unknown, but I tend to believe he thinks he will, and that may be why he made the decisions/rulings that he did. After all, there are precedents on hearsay now. And whether White will defer his retirement to see this through, I don’t have a clue, but I sort of doubt it, especially if it could add a couple of more years to the process. At least another presiding judge won’t have the stigma of having already basically found Drew guilty, and hopefully will eliminate chances for a SUCCESSFUL appeal, if Drew is handed a guilty verdict at the end of the trial, when it FINALLY gets underway.

  80. No Evidence Changed in Peterson Case: Greenberg

    Updated: Friday, 09 Jul 2010, 8:08 AM CDT
    Published : Friday, 09 Jul 2010, 8:08 AM CDT

    FOX Chicago News

    There was a lot of action in the Drew Peterson case this week. The trial was supposed to begin, but instead was put on hold.

    Criminal defense attorney and member of the Peterson defense team Steve Greenberg joined us.

    Video

  81. I’m good with making sure the conviction is safe, and for adding clarity and consensus regarding its interpretation for *all* victims.

    Thanks for the link, Rescue :D I know I can’t be the only one who sees Greenberg as a Bovver Boy….think unrecontructed skinhead.

    New post coming? Peterson’s lawyer Greenberg LIES AGAIN? There is no statute anywhere i the world (not even Italy ;) )(although it’s not a bad idea) against anyone called “Drew Peterson”. Give it up, smirking, lying bonehead.

  82. Greenberg said that the prosecution filed 3 notices (one of them being the hearsay stuff). So that explains why some of the things mentioned in Hosey’s article that wasn’t hearsay was included. And what does he mean that the hearsay appeal was too late?? That hearsay ruling came down just days before the prosecution filed and it gives them legal precendence that they didn’t have until that ruling was made by the Supreme Court. They can’t appeal if Drew is found guilty so they appealed just before the case started just like the prosecution did in the Oswego crash case.

  83. I guess this about sums up why the State is appealing rulings by Judge White:

    Though White sided with prosecutors in finding that the preponderance of evidence showed Peterson’s wrongdoing, he still barred the majority of hearsay witnesses because they did “not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability.”

    Prosecutors asked White to reconsider his decision in light of a June 24 Illinois Supreme Court ruling upholding the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slaying of three relatives.

    White rejected the request and said Thursday that he is bound to follow the guidelines established under the new hearsay statute. Hanson was convicted before the passage of Drew’s Law and therefore faced a different standard, he said.

    Prosecutors also appealed the judge’s refusal to allow an attorney to testify to how much money Peterson would have lost to Savio in their divorce settlement, court records show.

    Glasgow’s team also is asking the appellate court to overturn White’s decision to bar three witnesses from testifying about so-called prior bad acts involving Peterson. Among the three is Peterson’s adult son Eric, who testified at an earlier hearing about a violent incident between his father and Savio in 1993.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/judge-compelling-reason-to-keep-peterson-in-jail.html

  84. I think you are right Rescue. But I think Anna may also have had some hearsay testimony too as her sister (and maybe even nephews) had confided things in her and she probably witnessed some things (arguments, bruises, etc.) firsthand.

  85. Glasgow’s team also is asking the appellate court to overturn White’s decision to bar three witnesses from testifying about so-called prior bad acts involving Peterson. Among the three is Peterson’s adult son Eric, who testified at an earlier hearing about a violent incident between his father and Savio in 1993.

    Ah, now I see. The prosecution is complaining about numerous types of the evidence/testimony not making it into court — not just the hearsay evidence.

  86. Enough with the hearsay. Savio was found in an empty bathtub naked, with dry, blood-soaked hair and the drain in the down position. The Bolingbrook Police blew it, Savio’s family blew it, the Coroner blew it. He’s gonna walk if they don’t find Stacey.

  87. Another interesting bit from the Tribune story:

    About 200 prospective jurors went to the courthouse in Joliet expecting the selection process to begin. However, the last-minute appeal postponed the trial indefinitely.

    The judge, who was clearly unhappy with the 11th-hour maneuver, said the delay could last between six and nine months. White chastised prosecutors for not giving him advance warning of the appeal, which could have spared the potential jurors from having to spend the day at the courthouse.

    Several prospective jurors were overheard grumbling about the inconvenience at a Joliet restaurant during the lunch hour.

    The current jury pool still could be tapped for the trial, as the judge instructed them to continue avoiding media reports and conversations about Peterson.

    and a mention of rulings beyond the hearsay decision:

    Prosecutors appealed three separate rulings in court documents filed Wednesday, including White’s decision to bar several witnesses from offering hearsay testimony.

    Glasgow largely has built his case around pathology reports and 13 hearsay statements that he says would allow Savio and Stacy to speak from the grave. He even pushed for a new Illinois statute — dubbed Drew’s Law — to allow secondhand testimony at trial if the judge finds it reliable and if the bulk of evidence shows that the defendant made the witness unavailable.

  88. Yup – I think initially it was confusing because it kept being reported that they were appealing the hearsay stuff based on that ruling but didn’t spell out that they threw a couple of other things into the request that were unrelated.

  89. Oh yeah – the silliest part of Greenberg’s interview is when he says that they “wrote a law” in order to get the hearsay statements heard and then when the law wouldn’t allow them all, they looked for “a different law”.

    Maybe I’m not too smart but it isn’t that what good lawyers do? Not the “wrote a law” part because that’s just silly, but citing laws and precedent to bolster their arguments? Geez, how many motions and appeals have been filed by the defense since this all began citing everything they could pull out of the legal books? IMO Greenberg is sneakier on camera than Joel as far as tainting the jury. Good thing he sports the perma-sneer to counter it!

    BTW, Joel and the Shark were admonished by Judge White yesterday for doing the WGN interview without permission. Is Greenberg getting permission to spout off every other day on Fox?

  90. Looks as if we’re going to be getting our hands on some documentation of the State’s appeal. Not sure if it’s the actual Certificate of Impairment, but whatever we get, I’ll make it available on the blog as soon as we have it.

  91. facsmiley :

    Oh yeah – the silliest part of Greenberg’s interview is when he says that they “wrote a law” in order to get the hearsay statements heard and then when the law wouldn’t allow them all, they looked for “a different law”.

    Umm, wasn’t it Brodsky that came up with the “vindictive prosecution nonsense, a “different” kind of defense, and, certainly, not one that many had heard used, if any? Then, on top of that, he expected the Judge to order that the State’s notes and memos be turned over so that they could actually see if they could make it work. Of course, the Judge made an incorrect ruling by dismissing the case, which was later overturned. But, “different” certainly isn’t a stranger to the Brodsky-led defense team now, is it?

  92. Meanwhile…

    Investigators return to Alwan farm
    Journal Star
    Posted Jul 07, 2010 @ 10:33 PM
    Last update Jul 08, 2010 @ 10:26 AM

    DUNLAP —
    Peoria County Sheriff Michael McCoy has confirmed that Will County investigators returned to Peoria County last week to continue their investigation into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    McCoy said this week officials with the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office and Illinois State Police returned to a secluded site off West Grange Hall Road near Jubilee College State Park to gather some soil samples.

    “They didn’t call us, and I don’t know how long they were there,” the sheriff said, adding investigators talked to the landowner, David Alwan, rather than his office when they went out there.

    They certainly are interested with the site and are continuing their investigation. We are working with them as best we can,” he said…

    http://www.pjstar.com/news/tricounty/x104354669/Investigators-return-to-Alwan-farm

  93. BTW, Joel and the Shark were admonished by Judge White yesterday for doing the WGN interview without permission. Is Greenberg getting permission to spout off every other day on Fox?

    -Facsmiley
    I don’t understand a lot of things about this, but this really has me puzzled. Judge White seems to run a very tight courtroom, and has been a real breath of fresh air w/all the muck being raised by the defense-so why isn’t he handing out sanctions instead of admonitions?
    Maybe there’s a give and take on both sides, a ‘choose your battles’ type of compromise-I’m still surprised, though…these interviews are an awfully public way of thumbing your nose at the court. (A la’ Lohan). I think if I were an attorney for Drewpy, I’d be writing a check to the court and just leaving the amount blank.

  94. IMO, Judge White is keeping the focus on the issues before him … not allowing the defense to run his train off the right track … while JB drives his bus from ditch to ditch honking his horn, circling the courtroom looking for attention.

    Some re-actions are anticipated and not worth commenting on. There will be a time when justice prevails and those defense tactics will keep the defense team from reaching their own goal and the judge will smile, sneer and smirk when he gives his answer.

    A ‘good’ loser is still a LOSER!

  95. Do I have to play the ‘sad trombone’ again?

    Selig and his various entities have this (or similar) going out all over Twitter:

    PublicityAgency

    Drew Peterson: States atty Jim Glasgow took oath to uphold constitution, but now is violating constitution “to try to get me.” #drewpeterson

    Judge White, will you please shut Drew Peterson the fuck up? Thanks.

  96. As for Judge White’s requirement that both parties in the case alert him and the state’s attorney’s regulatory body of any planned media interviews or press releases, James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel of the agency, said he could not comment on how they would handle the information from parties.

    He said that there were staffers “very well-versed” in the rules of pre-trial publicity. “It is rare to have a situation where judges have referred matters to us for prior screening,” he said.

    Maybe, this is who we need to contact.

  97. bucketoftea :
    I’m still hoping that the Feds have quietly been investigating Drew’s various extracurriculars/associates/ just how Kitty’s murder was covered up. 20 million’s gotta be backed up with something pretty hefty. …and that’s from way before Peoria. A federal indictment under seal would stop any pre-trial release. Just sayin…my fond fantasy that he and those who helped him will not get away with a single thing.
    This prior bad acts thing has got me wondering. If it’s a prior bad act against one of his murder victims (Eric’s testimony) how can that not count??

    Bucket………..I agree. I think Eric’s testimony is as close to an eye-witness testimony as we’re going to get in this case. It’s direct evidence, as opposed to hearsay. It’s a prior bad act, but relevant to one of his murders.

    And there had to have been a lot of complicity on the part of many for Drew to have gotten away with two murders.

  98. The one that has me really puzzled is the financial information that’s being blocked. I would think it is quite important to point out how much $ Drew stood to lose. That, more than anything else, shows a motive.

    I can’t understand why White would prohibit that evidence from being admitted.

  99. I guess the Judge has decided that testimony about some of Drew’s ‘prior bad acts’ is more prejudicial than probative. It’s always surprising to me the kinds of information that gets banned from trials. I understand why, but sometimes it’s galling.

  100. atlgranny :

    The one that has me really puzzled is the financial information that’s being blocked. I would think it is quite important to point out how much $ Drew stood to lose. That, more than anything else, shows a motive.

    I can’t understand why White would prohibit that evidence from being admitted.

    I can only guess, but I think it’s because they never got to the point of finalizing the division of assets, and although we can assume Peterson would lose money in the divorce, it’s only speculation in retrospect, even if an expert testifies about it.

  101. PublicityAgency

    Drew Peterson: States atty Jim Glasgow took oath to uphold constitution, but now is violating constitution “to try to get me.” #drewpeterson

    I’m sorry to post again about this Twitter campaign launched by Drew’s PR firm, but it’s really got me fired up.

    Yes, the State’s Attorney is out to get Drew Peterson. He, in fact, is out to get Drew Peterson convicted of murder and put in prison for the rest of his life. That’s Jim Glasgow’s job at the moment. The State’s attorney can’t ‘violate the constitution’ because the State’s attorney has no judicial power.

    If the Judge in Peterson’s murder case rules that Drew will stay in jail during an appeal by the State, then it’s the judge’s decision and no one else’s. If the defense wants to use their PR firm to send out tweets to taint the jury, they should at least accuse the correct party of ‘violating the constitution’ .

    Why can’t the defense just go through legal channels to help their client? The media shenanigans never end.

  102. Joe “The Shark” Lopez, known for his zealous representation of mob clients in Chicago, argued that the State failed to list any compelling reason why Peterson should not be released. Lopez said that continuing to jail Peterson without a trial date is punishment and that pretrial detention as punishment is unconstitutional. With no trial date on the calendar, Lopez said Peterson is being denied the right to a speedy trial.

    Peterson, dressed in a taupe suit, yellow shirt and tie, entered the courtroom shackled at his wrists and ankles, with a chain connecting them. He sat with four attorneys listening intently to the arguments and did not display any emotion as the judge denied his release. Outside the courthouse, his attorney, Joel Brodsky, said that Peterson was “hopefully optimistic but didn’t count on [his release] …he’s OK.”

    From Beth Karas’ blog:
    http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/08/drew-peterson-stays-in-jail-while-defense-team-plans-appeals/

  103. facsmiley :
    I guess the Judge has decided that testimony about some of Drew’s ‘prior bad acts’ is more prejudicial than probative. It’s always surprising to me the kinds of information that gets banned from trials. I understand why, but sometimes it’s galling.

    I understand that our laws protect those wrongfully convicted but sadly some of the laws favor the defendant over the victim. :/

  104. The defense team needs to get off of all of these interviews and actually prepare and request whatever motions are needed to appeal the judge’s ruling instead of getting their mugs on TV or wanting to hear their voice on the radio. Do your job – find the legal precedents that will get your guy out of the pokey or find a way to raise the $2M to get him out. Heck – Call Lenard Padilla – he seems to like to be tied to big bond cases. But don’t whine when you lose your argument.

  105. facsmiley :

    atlgranny :
    The one that has me really puzzled is the financial information that’s being blocked. I would think it is quite important to point out how much $ Drew stood to lose. That, more than anything else, shows a motive.
    I can’t understand why White would prohibit that evidence from being admitted.

    I can only guess, but I think it’s because they never got to the point of finalizing the division of assets, and although we can assume Peterson would lose money in the divorce, it’s only speculation in retrospect, even if an expert testifies about it.

    I know, facs, but isn’t that what a trial is about? Both sides present their case and the opposing attorney gets to grill them about they got their numbers.

    That one truly baffles me. It is a direct motive and I would think it’s critical to the case.

  106. No point arguing it to me. I didn’t make the decision and sometimes the judge rules evidence as being unreliable, prejudicial or otherwise unsuitable. As I said, I can only guess.

  107. The link above is from an interview today with the media. They must not have gotten too much of a noodle lashing by the judge. At this point, I’m surprised they haven’t just put a complete gag order on this case.

  108. At 20:33 “the Shark” talks about how Drew was given a $20M bond. He actually says that the motion was done ex-parte and behind closed doors and no one was representing Drew. Ummm – Hello! Isn’t that when Joel was on vacation in NY and doing a little media tour?? How is it the prosecution’s fault that Drew’s lawyer thought the court would wait for him?

  109. No input?? Heck – Joel went before the judge to lower his bond (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.joel.2.1006330.html) when he returned from his mini-vacation and then even appealed the high bond to a higher court and lost (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/peterson-defense-bail-appeal-denied.html). So don’t whine that you didn’t have a chance to get it lowered. Drew’s lawyers just didn’t put up a good enough battle to win that fight twice.

  110. I’m gobsmacked by the PR Twitters, absolutely shocked. They’re not even going to pretend to be respectful….it’s got me pretty fired up, too, Facs.

  111. …and another thing…who was it who compared Drew to the Richard Gere’s character in Internal Affairs? Was it Glasgow?…that character *didn’t* murder his wives.

    ….and *another thing*….TAUPE and YELLOW? with HIS complexion????? he sould swing for that alone.

  112. Thanks from me, too, for the link think, but I just had to turn it off when the Loopy Lopez referenced Drew’s “stellar past”.

  113. I rolled my eyes at that one too but it is his job I guess – kind of like mother’s of criminals saying how sweet of a kid they were and how big their heart was even when the criminal beat someone to a blood pulp or killed an innocent child while trying to shoot a rival gang member.

  114. 725 ILCS 5/115-7.4

    Current as of: 2009

    Sec. 115-7.4.

    Evidence in domestic violence cases.

    (a) In a criminal prosecution in which the defendant is accused of an offense of domestic violence as defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of domestic violence is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.

    (b) In weighing the probative value of the evidence against undue prejudice to the defendant, the court may consider:

    (1) the proximity in time to the charged or predicate

    offense;

    (2) the degree of factual similarity to the charged

    or predicate offense; or

    (3) other relevant facts and circumstances.

    (c) In a criminal case in which the prosecution intends

    to offer evidence under this Section, it must disclose the evidence, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony, at a reasonable time in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown.

    (d) In a criminal case in which evidence is offered under

    this Section, proof may be made by specific instances of conduct, testimony as to reputation, or testimony in the form of an expert opinion, except that the prosecution may offer reputation testimony only after the opposing party has offered that testimony.

    (Source: P.A. 95-360, eff. 8-23-07.)

  115. Well then – I am glad to see that be the case and think it should be expanded for all kinds of crimes especially sexual assault crimes.

  116. Don’t you find it nteresting how in the Certificate of Impairment Victoria Connelly is listed separately, but in both places, Eric Peterson and Anna Doman are listed as one?

  117. I see what you mean, Cheryl.

    Makes me think that only Vicki Connolly’s testimony was under “prior bad acts”, while Eric and Anna’s testimony fell under the domestic violence law.

    Thanks for spotting that!

  118. (b) In weighing the probative value of the evidence against undue prejudice to the defendant, the court may consider:

    (1) the proximity in time to the charged or predicate

    offense;

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

    Maybe the above is the bugbear in Judge Whites decision by not allowing Erics testimony, that the terrible beating Kathleen had gotten in 1993 did not result in her being murdered in 2004.

    It also doesn’t help Drew was never charged with any acts of domestic violence, as that would have strengthened everyones statements regardless its passing of time, but Drew knew how to avoid that dilemma in being a Police Officer (!)

  119. Well I am a happy camper, let poor pitiful Drew sit in the clink, eating his beefaroni….hopefully, they served garlic bread with it, I bet he misses Stacy”s home cooking.

  120. JAH – Well he did have an emergency order of protection filed against him for a while. Doesn’t that count for something?

  121. thinkaboutit2 :
    JAH – Well he did have an emergency order of protection filed against him for a while. Doesn’t that count for something?

    Do you know what year that was TAI ?

    That must have been a later incident, as I looked at Kathleens 1993 hospital emergency report and paperwork relative to Eric’s testimony, but I did not see anywhere Drew was ever reported or charged with anything over that incident.

  122. facsmiley :

    Glasgow’s team also is asking the appellate court to overturn White’s decision to bar three witnesses from testifying about so-called prior bad acts involving Peterson. Among the three is Peterson’s adult son Eric, who testified at an earlier hearing about a violent incident between his father and Savio in 1993.

    Ah, now I see. The prosecution is complaining about numerous types of the evidence/testimony not making it into court — not just the hearsay evidence.

    It makes sense. The prosecution is appealing more than just the hearsay, in hopes of getting more in total for their case. If just one prior bad act is allowed, in addition to more hearsay, the prosecution can go into the trial with a stronger case and a better chance at a conviction. They’re only going to get one chance and they want that chance to have a strong foundation.

  123. facsmiley :
    Meanwhile…

    Investigators return to Alwan farm
    Journal Star
    Posted Jul 07, 2010 @ 10:33 PM
    Last update Jul 08, 2010 @ 10:26 AM
    DUNLAP —
    Peoria County Sheriff Michael McCoy has confirmed that Will County investigators returned to Peoria County last week to continue their investigation into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.
    McCoy said this week officials with the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office and Illinois State Police returned to a secluded site off West Grange Hall Road near Jubilee College State Park to gather some soil samples.
    “They didn’t call us, and I don’t know how long they were there,” the sheriff said, adding investigators talked to the landowner, David Alwan, rather than his office when they went out there.
    They certainly are interested with the site and are continuing their investigation. We are working with them as best we can,” he said…

    http://www.pjstar.com/news/tricounty/x104354669/Investigators-return-to-Alwan-farm

    Thanks Facsmiley! Does anyone have any ideas why LE wants soil samples? Maybe to compare the soil to soil found on something belonging to Drew?

  124. mollymcgee -It makes sense. The prosecution is appealing more than just the hearsay, in hopes of getting more in total for their case. If just one prior bad act is allowed, in addition to more hearsay, the prosecution can go into the trial with a stronger case and a better chance at a conviction. They’re only going to get one chance and they want that chance to have a strong foundation.

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

    Yes and that is exactly what the States Attorney was saying in his Press Conference.

    On behalf of the People of Illinois he is utilizing every law available to him to represent the strongest possible case and get as many testimonies represented to do so.

  125. Well I will say that if they do find Stacy’s remains then they will probably be able to take some soil samples from Drew’s underpants! :) (Reusing a joke I used elsewhere here…)

  126. atlgranny :
    The one that has me really puzzled is the financial information that’s being blocked. I would think it is quite important to point out how much $ Drew stood to lose. That, more than anything else, shows a motive.
    I can’t understand why White would prohibit that evidence from being admitted.

    Altgranny………I agree! In almost every criminal case there’s a money motive. I think it’s highly important in this case. Certainly there’s going to be a question in the juror’s minds of “why would he murder Kathleen”, and it needs an answer.

  127. mollymcgee :

    atlgranny :The one that has me really puzzled is the financial information that’s being blocked. I would think it is quite important to point out how much $ Drew stood to lose. That, more than anything else, shows a motive.I can’t understand why White would prohibit that evidence from being admitted.

    Altgranny………I agree! In almost every criminal case there’s a money motive. I think it’s highly important in this case. Certainly there’s going to be a question in the juror’s minds of “why would he murder Kathleen”, and it needs an answer.

    That one point, more than any other, shows motive. Especially since it was known to be a contentious point of their divorce. Everything else had been settled and they were legally divorced. The hearing to determine how the marital assets would be split up was due in only a couple of weeks, if I recall correctly.

    In my mind, the whole case pivots on this as the motive. Without it? Geez….I would almost think that if this was taken away from the Prosecution, it would greatly reduce their chances of successful prosecution.

    What other motive makes as much sense as the theory that he wanted all the money for himself to continue in the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed?

  128. I can’t believe the totally stupid reaction and comments by the Defense Team about this for them major defeat.

    One yells out “OUCH” and the other one starts laughing like it’s all a big joke their client has to remain in jail.

    Next Joel even goes a step further by saying it doesn’t really matter, Drew just goes back to the life he’s led in the past year or so and it doesn’t really bother him (!!)

    What a stellar Defense Team that is !

  129. If there was ever a moment to illustrate how the defense think of this case, that would be the one. But Drew picked these guys….*shrug*.

  130. I wonder if the defense team still meets with DP in person, without shackles and jail guards … or are they “chicken”?

  131. Oh and Drew is not a threat to anyone.

    He’s only sitting in jail awaiting trial on two counts of murder with a 20 million dollar Bond on his head – that’s all !

  132. You’re absolutely right, JAH …

    Sitting in jail awaiting trial on two counts of murder with a 20 million dollar Bond on his head,Drew is not a threat to anyone! :)

  133. Oh, and how he must love all the attention he’s getting … they watch every move he makes in his little mancave.

  134. judgin :
    Oh, and how he must love all the attention he’s getting … they watch every move he makes in his little mancave.

    And they will watch him for at least another year. I feel really sorry for the guards (they have to look at his face every day!) ;)

  135. Really makes you wonder doesn’t it…. since he doesn’t get to see tv/papers etc., it would be really interesting to know what he thinks about his attorneys uking it up on oh well, guess he stays!! “You tried,” said drew. Yeah right! if he only knew!!!
    I’m sure he was upset about the ruling, why “tap his fingers” on the table then? It probably took all he had not to burst out…. ‘WTF, u guys said I was getting out today!’

  136. Table turns for Peterson case prosecutor
    Drew’s Law advocate now finds himself fighting it in pretrial appeal

    By Stacy St. Clair and Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporters
    July 11, 2010

    Saddled with a botched police investigation, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow pushed for a state law that would allow prosecutors to use hearsay statements against Drew Peterson at trial.

    Dubbed Drew’s Law by legal experts and legislators, Glasgow hailed the bill’s passage as a way of letting Peterson’s third and fourth wives speak from the grave.

    But now in an ironic move to convict Peterson, Glasgow finds himself fighting the law he helped create.

    On the eve of Peterson’s much-anticipated murder trial, Glasgow delayed the case Thursday by appealing a ruling on the admissibility of some hearsay evidence. He argues that the judge’s decision — made under the guidelines established by Drew’s Law — should have adhered instead to less-restrictive common law.

    “They wrote the rules for the game, and then when we were about to play, they picked up their ball and demanded new rules,” defense attorney Steven Greenberg said.

    Legal experts, however, contend the state’s attorney was correct to launch an appeal, even if it meant assailing his own law.

    “Is he arguing with a forked tongue?” asked defense attorney Terry Sullivan, who also prosecuted John Wayne Gacy. “I would say yes. But he has to argue what falls in his lap. He’s doing the right thing.”

    Glasgow’s involvement in the case began shortly after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in October 2007. The police officer’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, had apparently drowned in a bathtub in 2004, and a quick review of her then-closed case showed signs of a mishandled investigation.

    Police collected no evidence from the death scene. They didn’t look into Savio’s repeated claims of domestic abuse. And they interviewed Stacy Peterson — who provided her husband’s alibi — with him sitting beside her.

    Glasgow ordered Savio’s body exhumed in November 2007, and her death later was reclassified as a homicide. Within a year, the state legislature passed a law expanding the forms of admissible hearsay at trial.

    At the time, Glasgow maintained that the new statute simply codified common law and provided a helpful road map on how to determine the admissibility of secondhand testimony. The new statute requires judges to consider two things: whether the statement is reliable and whether the bulk of the evidence shows that the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify.

    To no one’s surprise, the law’s first big test came from Peterson’s murder case. Peterson, now 56, was arrested in May 2009 and charged with killing Savio amid a contentious property settlement. He has not been charged in Stacy’s disappearance, though he remains a suspect.

    He denies wrongdoing in both cases.

    After a landmark hearsay hearing this year, Judge Stephen White sided with prosecutors in finding that the preponderance of evidence suggested Peterson killed Savio and caused Stacy’s disappearance. The “preponderance” standard does not imply that Peterson would be found guilty at trial because the burden of proof is lower than the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard imposed on juries.

    Though he ruled in the state’s favor on that point, White still barred the majority of hearsay witnesses because they did “not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability.” The sealed ruling was issued May 18.

    Five weeks later, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slayings of four relatives. In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled that common law does not require judges to weigh a hearsay statement’s reliability.

    Glasgow asked White to reconsider his decision in light of that ruling.

    “He couldn’t have been more fortunate to have Hanson come down when it did,” Sullivan said of Glasgow. “He must have a green rabbit’s foot in his pocket.”

    But White rejected the request and said Thursday he is bound to follow the guidelines established under Drew’s Law. Hanson was convicted before passage of the Glasgow-backed statute and therefore faced a different standard, he said.

    “When you codify common law … that codification (Drew’s Law) takes precedence over the common law,” White said.

    DePaul University law professor Leonard Cavise, who watched oral arguments in the Hanson case, said it’s difficult to predict how the Appellate or state Supreme Court would rule in the Peterson matter.

    “The judge makes a very strong argument,” Cavies said. “But it’s going to be a very interesting appeal with a lot of meaty issues. This is an appellate lawyer’s dream.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-peterson-prosecutor-drew-law-20100710,0,517525.story

  137. I know prosecutors have filed their appeal. Has anyone heard if JB has filed his appeal for Drew to be released? Maybe he’s taking a little vacation, since he’s been working from ten am to ten pm. LOL

  138. How silly to claim that Glasgow’s fighting against a law he had tried to use. The state isn’t fighting the law — they’re fighting the judge’s decision. You could just as easily say that they went down one legal avenue until it was exhausted and are now trying another.

    We’ve all seen the Certificate of Impairment and it challenges the decisions on three different motions involving not just the hearsay, but also prior bad acts, and earlier domestic violence offenses.

    It’s just another of Greenberg’s pointless attempts to fight the battle in the media instead of the courtroom, as a good lawyer would. It has nothing to do with winning the case. It’s about getting his face on camera.

  139. Facs – That is what it’s all about with this Scheme Team. Their legal and personal lives will go on, regardless of whether Peterson is detained, let out, convicted or acquitted. Their notoriety is what matters, and their face time on the news shows.

    The clients that will seek these people out, no matter how you look at it, are not going to be daily law-abiding citizens. They are going to be the caliber of the street rats Peterson surrounded himself with throughout his life. Who the hell wants to support and push for the release and acquittal of this piece of “police” crap? Drew Peterson’s career highlights, as he and his attorney like to spew, pale in comparison to the recent death of officers shot down in cold blood, spoken of with the highest of praise for the good they did in their lives. Instead, Peterson jeopardized a narcotics officer by exposing his identity, conducted his “own” narcotics surveillance (yeah, right), befriended questionable individuals who added nothing to his police career but adversity, used the police department’s database for his own use, followed around his wives while in uniform and driving the company car, and is even charged with keeping an illegal weapon.

    I don’t care if he rots in that cell for the rest of his life. I don’t care if the charges against him aren’t what meets the standards of media-hungry defense attorneys, sympathetic fellow street rats, or hard ass armchair critics. This man lead a crazy life, sometimes, IMO, along the lines of the people he was supposed to be pursuing, and whatever comes down on him is no surprise to anyone. He got caught. Touch luck. Deal with it and prove the prosecutors wrong.

    Oh, and him being a “good father” is laughable, for obvious reasons. At least one of his sons sees him for the “man” he really is. Neither “good” nor a “father.” He destroyed his other adult son’s chance at having a serene home life with a wife and child. Instead, his son is now the guardian of four minor children, living in his father’s house. His life is not his own. His life is his father’s.

    Drew Peterson is NO hero, no matter how many years he served on the police department. He’s the perfect example of what goes wrong with the ones that play by their own rules, instead of enforcing the right rules.

    All JMHO!!!

  140. So…..in the end, the courts will decide if Peterson’s “prior bad acts” will come back to haunt him or not, and whether repeated recounts by those close to the victims of their fear of this man will be allowed at trial. Not the defense team’s spin on the news shows, or soundbites on the radio and/or papers.

    It’s only because of this man’s notoriety that they can gravitate to the next camera. Trying to fire up those who want to take up this man’s cause.

    Oh, and BTW, if Peterson thinks he was such a Marlboro man and cop, let him out for a week or so and put him on a few of the dark and evil Chicago streets that have been in the news so much, and let him man-up with those street rats. Follow him around with a camera so we can see what a real “hero” he is. Getting his internal organs handed back to him in a baggie.

  141. I totally agree with you, rescue. He spoiled any sense of security to his ALL children.

    BTW, if he simply was a good father, he wouldn’t have to try to convince anyone that he is. Making breakfast on TV to prove it is funny.
    If being a good father means only providing money for food and basic things for the family, and spending the rest on expensive toys for himself (paid of the money his children should have gotten), paying ealier $100-allimonies and control any cent spent by his wife, I just come from another world…
    This man wanted his wives/women for sex and bringing up children (from his former relationships) only.

  142. Hey Cyrhla! I was in Cardiff this afternoon surrounded by mobs of Poles and Polish flags (and, unfortunately many vuvuzelas). They were here for the Speedway Grand Prix.

  143. Hi, bucket:) That must have made you think about me, right? ;)
    I would love to be with you there today. Not that I like motorcross so much but because of much lower temperatures. We have a heat wave here.

  144. facsmiley :

    Do I have to play the ‘sad trombone’ again?

    Selig and his various entities have this (or similar) going out all over Twitter:

    PublicityAgency

    Drew Peterson: States atty Jim Glasgow took oath to uphold constitution, but now is violating constitution “to try to get me.” #drewpeterson

    Judge White, will you please shut Drew Peterson the fuck up? Thanks.

    Yeah, but he can still breathe air into that pie hole of his, a luxury neither of his past two wives have. Drew Peterson so, so screwed up. After Kathleen died, and I believe he killed her, he had a chance to go on and live an enchanted life. He slipped under the radar. He had money, a young wife, beautiful family, nice house, close to retirement. Instead, yet another mother of his children met with ill fate. If anyone is out to get Drew Peterson, it’s the victims’ families, friends, and interested justice seekers. Glasgow will go on to enjoy family events, nice dinners, good wine, maybe even a few exotic vacations, whether Drew Peterson is convicted or not. Peterson should just get over himself and STFU. He might not be convicted of this particular crime, at least not yet, but he’s going through money like it’s water, he is responsible for putting an enormous responsibility on his adult son, his kids have neither mothers nor a father, lawsuits and court cases will chase him for years, he’s one of the most disliked people of recognition, and his win-a-date-with-Drew days and schmoozing with radio jocks are long gone. Maybe he can hook-up with a love-lorn groupie or two, but, from where I’m looking, he’s a washed-up, useless has been. Oh, but maybe he can still manage a bunny whore house. :-)

  145. atlgranny :

    mollymcgee :

    atlgranny :The one that has me really puzzled is the financial information that’s being blocked. I would think it is quite important to point out how much $ Drew stood to lose. That, more than anything else, shows a motive.I can’t understand why White would prohibit that evidence from being admitted.

    Altgranny………I agree! In almost every criminal case there’s a money motive. I think it’s highly important in this case. Certainly there’s going to be a question in the juror’s minds of “why would he murder Kathleen”, and it needs an answer.

    That one point, more than any other, shows motive. Especially since it was known to be a contentious point of their divorce. Everything else had been settled and they were legally divorced. The hearing to determine how the marital assets would be split up was due in only a couple of weeks, if I recall correctly.
    In my mind, the whole case pivots on this as the motive. Without it? Geez….I would almost think that if this was taken away from the Prosecution, it would greatly reduce their chances of successful prosecution.
    What other motive makes as much sense as the theory that he wanted all the money for himself to continue in the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed?

    In most criminal cases the prosecution has to prove three things – the means, the opportunity, and the motive.

    In this case, not allowing the financial aspects to be presented leaves the question of motive open, and not allowing Pastor Schori to testify about all that Stacy told him leaves the question of opportunity open.

    We know that Drew had the means – he had previous broken into and entered Kathleen’s home and had made access that allowed him to come and go as he pleased. He had the opportunity as Stacy provided the false alibi that he was home with her the night Kathleen died. A motive has to be addressed.

    So allowing the testimony of those who knew that Drew had easy access to Kathleen’s house – the means; allowing Pastor Schori’s testimony to all that Stacy told him – the opportunity; and allowing a financial expert to testify regarding what Drew would lose financially if the property settlement was made – the motive, are the three things the prosecution should have to present their case.

  146. FYI – Some things I recently learned.

    Remember when a PR fluff piece was put out about Reem Odeh’s good looks, referring to her as a former model, but an individual who is smart and brings organization to the team? You know, where it said “Drew Peterson Attorney Not Just a Pretty Face?”

    We really don’t have a way of knowing positively if she had nothing to do with this, but, apparently, she has told a few reporters that she didn’t. In fact, a Tribune reporter (you know who you are) talked to her about it when it came out, and that was the first Reem Odeh admitted to even knowing about that PR. She said she was never a model. She did not write or contribute to that PR.

    IMO, my conclusion would be that either someone gave Mr. Selig the information that went into that PR, or Mr. Selig, perhaps, used his own writing skills.

    The Tribune reporter that Ms. Odeh spoke to, unfortunately for her, didn’t point out that Ms. Odeh denied contributing to the piece or knowing anything about it. Also, if you look at the recent defense bio the Tribune wrote (two reporters are listed), Ms. Odeh didn’t even get a mention. Brodsky, Lopez, Greenberg, Meczyk and Goldberg are. I think that’s called “ignoring” her, maybe?
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0706-drew-peterson-news-focus-20100706,0,2597323.story?page=2

    In light of recently learning this Ms. Odeh is the “former law partner” of Joel Brodsky, it’s a shame that she’s not been able to speak up or speak out regarding these moments where she has been complimented more for her looks first, rather than her lawyering abilities. Well, that’s for her to sort out, but, IMO, telling a reporter that she didn’t contribute to something she was being asked to comment about, and at, the very least, not reporting her comments of denial, sure stinks!!!!!

    Just sayin’………

  147. Rescue……………I agree with all you so well stated!

    I have to wonder about the average person, going about their daily lives and reading the newspapers and occasionally hearing one of the members of the defense team on a television program.

    Back in 2007 when news of Stacy’s disappearance broke and all the daily media attention that garnered a spot on the nightly news and dominated the newspaper headlines for a couple of months, left the average person with a sense that Drew Peterson is/was a dirty cop who probably killed both wives.

    Now, nearly three years later, the story is back in the news with Drew’s pending trial, then the trial being delayed, and hearing the defense teams lame excuses, in addition to the news that LE is concentrating efforts in the Peoria area looking for Stacy’s remains.

    Those of us that have followed this case and know all the details, know how awful the defense team is. But what about Mr. and Mr. Joe Citizen?

    I would think that only knowing what they read in the newspapers or saw on television at the time Stacy disappeared, they formed an opinion of Drew Peterson. Just with what they read or heard, and with all his antics trying to get media attention……..most would think he’s a man who murdered two wives. Now they see members of his defense team making lame excuses for Drew Peterson, and Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen wouldn’t think too highly of them.

    The defense team might be shooting themselves in the foot, trying too hard to defend Drew Peterson. At some point they come across as being obnoxious.

    And……….these are the people who form the jury pool.

  148. After yet another fiasco in the Courtroom and the Defenses equally bizarre performance in front of the cameras, it is becoming crystal clear the Defense Team doesn’t have anything going for it.

    They seem to be winging everything, there is no cohesion, they are nauseatingly bombastic, yet extremely ill prepared, they file ridiculous, inappropriate motions and bizarrely worded appeals, they completely contradict themselves from one statement to the next, lawyers come and go and yet there is not one iota bit of improvement in their performance as a team or their performance in the Courtroom.

    They need to get it together or they will be an unworkable entity to the Jurors as how are they supposed to make heads or tails about anything presented to them by the Defense Team ??

  149. From JAH:
    They seem to be winging everything…
    Well, no wonder Brodsky is the lead counsel! LOL! I nearly covered my computer screen w/tea! Man, that’s priceless. Thanks.

  150. bucketoftea :

    Wait a minute….Reem is a former partner?

    Oh Bucket, where have you been?
    Evidently, they split up about the time we posted the story about Reem being unhappy about the way her co-counsel was treating her.

  151. I been in the garden. lol. I remember the post and the circumstances, but guess I somehow missed the separation……and then Frau Brodsky wrote on her wall….no wonder JB is in a bad mood. Dissolving a partnership is complicated and will be time consuming. Good job he’s got a bit more time on his hands than he thought.

    Ree, honey, make extrasure you don’t leave any of your clients’ files behind. Too much temptation for JB.

  152. I don’t know if you chaps would know this French cartoon, but I hear this theme song every time I read “Shark” Lopez. Every time I see him, I think he’s a Blues Brothers tribute act.

  153. Thanks for the link, DD. I had heard them mention this on the radio while in the car today. I’ll listen now. Guests are Terry Sullivan, a legal analyst and former prosecutor in the John Wayne Gacy case, Richard Kling, a Kent College Professor and defense attorney, and Christy Gutowski, reporter for Daily Herald.

  154. They bring up some good points. If ISP are close to locating more evidence in Stacy’s disappearance, this will prove to be good move on their part. I tried to locate the script of the show, but I’m not seeing it yet.

  155. Bucket, for some reason my speakers have quit working, but I have to tell you I laughed all the way through that cartoon anyway! LOL-I think your analogy is perfect! Reminds me of the Sneaky Snake song: “…Goes dancin’, wigglin’ and a-hissin’”
    LOL!

  156. I would be very grateful if you did, facs.

    BTW, I wonder what about the gun case. I mean how it influenced the decision of the Judge for Drew to stay in jail and when the court proceeding starts again.

  157. by the by, cyrhla, yes, I did think of you when I was surrounded by Poles. When I think of Poland now I think of Chopin and Cyrhla. lol

    I’ll be listening to that link now in bed. Night all! Beware the sneaky snakes!

  158. docsdaughter :
    Bucket, I’ve always thought Lopez’s voice sounded like a cartoon voice. LOL

    That’s probably what triggered the association in my unconscious mind. ha ha

  159. If Reem can extricate herself from this mess, she’ll be the only one with a decent reputation and a career at the end of it

  160. docsdaughter :
    They bring up some good points. If ISP are close to locating more evidence in Stacy’s disappearance, this will prove to be good move on their part. I tried to locate the script of the show, but I’m not seeing it yet.

    This is exactly what I was thinking in the hours after it was announced that the prosecution was appealing the judge’s decision on the hearsay.

    This could end up being a blessing in disguise. What if LE finds Stacy’s remains between now and the eventual trial? That in itself would make the state’s case a lot stronger. Finding Stacy’s remains could lead to more evidence on Drew as her killer. We don’t know what the state has in the way of evidence……what forensic evidence was found in Stacy’s car, Drew’s car, or in the house. Something found with Stacy’s remains could be the missing piece to something found in one of the cars or the house.

    So this delay could be the best thing to have happened.

  161. For me, they can call the law whatever they like to. I would rather prefer to have my name associated with Chopin (like Bucket does ;)) than with murders. If Drew hadn’t been showing himself in the media so much, maybe that would have been called after Stebic or another man like that. He didn’t even give anyone a chance ;)

  162. Host Name: Steph Watts
    Show Name: INSIDE DREW PETERSON’S MURDER TRIAL

    Date / Length: 7/11/2010 7:00 PM – 1 hr 1 min
    Description:
    h:90737 s:1101681
    This trial is about the murder of Kathleen Savio, But this case is also about the murder of Stacey Peterson. Lets keep the focus on the victims. Did a Bolingbrook IL. Police officer murder 2 wives?? Please join my guests Dr Brian Russell and Pastor Neil Schori. “JUSTICE IS JUST A CLICK AWAY”

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/watts-up-with-this/2010/07/12/watts-up-with-this

    I haven’t listened to this.

  163. http://wbbm.cbslocal.com/2010/07/12/drew-petersons-lawyers-to-file-motion/#more-8418

    Drew Peterson’s lawyers to file motion

    Steve Miller
    Local News, More 780 Headlines
    7/12/2010
    2:40 PM

    CHICAGO (WBBM) – Drew Peterson’s lawyers have indicated they plan to file motions in court this week to get the murder trial going again soon – and to try again to get Peterson released from custody.

    Drew Peterson’s defense team is expected to file at least a couple of documents with the court – probably as early as this week:

    First, to try again to have Peterson released from jail. And to try to force Peterson’s murder trial to proceed sooner rather than later.

    Last week the Will County’s State’s Attorney’s office announced it was appealing the judge’s ruling to ban some hearsay testimony in the murder trial.

    That appeal is expected to delay the trial for months.

    Now Peterson’s defense team says the state’s attorney waited too long – that is, more than 30 days – to appeal the judge’s hearsay ruling. And Peterson’s lawyers say the state’s attorney shouldn’t be allowed to challenge the hearsay ruling now – so, they say, the trial should go on.

    Newsradio 780 is trying to reach the Will County State’s Attorney for comment.

  164. Now that I spent all that time listening to the show again, I wasn’t as impressed as the first time through.

    For one thing, I’m puzzled why Sullivan thinks it would be so damaging to the prosecution’s case if Stacy was to suddenly show up alive. Why does he imagine that her testimony would refute any of what has already been testified about the manner of Kathleen’s death?

    I understand he was thinking in terms of challenging the hearsay law, because it would be odd if statements were admitted on the basis of the judge believing Drew killed her…but if she (after her miraculous return) testified that Drew did tell her he killed Kathleen, and that she did provide him with a false alibi…would the evidence be all that different than we have now? And truth be told, it looks as if most of the evidence relating to Stacy was barred anyway so it’s kind of a moot argument.

    A better question would be, what impact would it have on the Savio case and the hearsay statements if Stacy’s remains were found? I mean, this is a much more likely scenario than any in which she is ever seen again, alive.

    I’d like to have heard that addressed.

  165. I also wish they had talked more about what the prosecution’s options are if they cite the new hearsay statute, and the judge rules against them (as he did for the most part) why then is it not possible to cite common law ‘forfeiture by wrongdoing’ doctrines?

    I remember when we started looking at this stuff, finding a bunch of exceptions to the hearsay rule. If the new law doesn’t favor the statements that the state wants admitted, why can’t they then make use the more tried and true exceptions?

  166. If Brodsky and team was ready to go on June 14th (or even earlier) then this appeal wouldn’t have even happened. Now all of the sudden they want the wheels to start spinning quickly on the trial when they have been the ones asking for delays time and time again.

  167. I agree that I was really taken aback when Sullivan elaborated on what might happen to the State’s case if Stacy were to walk back into everyone’s life. I mean, come on, 99.9% of anyone who is familiar with this case doesn’t believe that will ever happen. There is only one person on who can be relied upon to explain Stacy’s disappearance, but I don’t think anyone is standing in line to listen to his version of her exit. His actions since her disappearance speak volumes about that, as well as any lack of respect he’s shown when discussing anything about the mother of two of his children. At the very least, he could have, and should have, kept his distaste for his young wife to himself, private, and not discussed her in any way so publicly.

    I would have preferred he discussed the other likely event–that is, Stacy’s remains being found. Or, he could have at least brought it up. I think that’s what most people wonder. What would be the next step in this case if Stacy’s remains were found?

    Sullivan did point out that the State does have more time now to do further investigations, but I believe he was referring to the Kathleen Savio case, not Stacy being found. But, he also did say that the defense better well do their work and continue their investigations too.

  168. He fails to realize that even if Stacy did come back that she could actually bolster the case against Drew by coming forward and testifying for the prosecution as to what happened the night she gave that alibi. So that doesn’t mean the case is over. The same evidence could potentially be admitted but it wouldn’t require the hearsay rule then because she’d be able to give direct testimony. I don’t think Stacy is ever coming back though unless it is in the paranormal sense – as I truly believe she is no longer among the living.

  169. And before I forget, I keep meaning to say that I’m not sure what the big deal is with the judge making a decision pretrial that the defendant probably killed a witness. The judge isn’t the one who is going to decide guilt or innocence in the trial at hand — that’s up to the jury. And certainly, the judge is not going to explain to the jury why he chose to admit or not admit any of the evidence. They never do that!

    Plus, if you read the hearsay law, the witness who has been made “unavailable” does not have to be the victim of the trial in question.

    In other words, pretend for a minute that Drew killed one of the people he approached with an offer to do a hit on Kathleen. Under the new hearsay law that poor would-be hitman’s testimony might make it to trial, because Drew killed him to keep him from testifying. But he’s on trial for killing Kathleen not poor hitman dude. So perhaps the judge has decided pretrial that Drew is guilty of killing someone, but it’s not Kathleen. So he can judicate with clean hands. In this case the person who was made unavailable just happens to be his fourth wife, Stacy. Where’s the conflict?

    This is why I was always puzzled that Kathleen’s statements (as told to friend and family) were even being entered under the new hearsay statue. There are already hearsay exceptions in place for domestic partners and I have no idea why those weren’t used instead.

    Is it too late to do that? I don’t know.

  170. Maybe I can clear up the comment posted on 201 Sue Savio is her madin name her new married name is Sue Doman all tho there is a nether Sue Doman in the Doman family. I hope this clears up the misstake?

  171. A comment was made that the hearsay pretrial makes it hard for the defendant to get a fair trial if he went with a bench trial instead of a jury trial. (Note: I have always felt Drew should ask for a bench trial because the judge would be less inclined to include any emotion as part of his decision and would base it only on the laws at hand).

    So what the panel didn’t get is that a judge should surely understand the difference between the level of proof required for the hearsay statements to be allowed (preponderance of the evidence) versus a criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt). So I do not think that a judge wouldn’t be able to put his legal hat on and be able to find for the prosecution to allow the hearsay in yet still not find the defendant guilty of the crime at hand. Judges are there to be fair.

  172. theo1104 :

    Maybe I can clear up the comment posted on 201 Sue Savio is her madin name her new married name is Sue Doman all tho there is a nether Sue Doman in the Doman family. I hope this clears up the misstake?

    Hey, I’m just going by what Sue posted on her FB wall:

    Sue Savio
    ok My friends, Sue doman is my sister in law and she is my friend and my sis ex sister in law oh god long story
    July 2 at 9:23pm · Comment · Like

    Sue Savio
    Please all the media. Get it correct sue doman is my husbands sister in law also mine! I am the proud sister of Kathleen Savio Lord help me? oH i LOVE MY SISTER IN LAW THOU. she is very special in my heart So do not call her!!!!!!

    But I can totally see why people are confused. :)

  173. thinkaboutit2 :
    If Brodsky and team was ready to go on June 14th (or even earlier) then this appeal wouldn’t have even happened. Now all of the sudden they want the wheels to start spinning quickly on the trial when they have been the ones asking for delays time and time again.

    Too right TAI,

    They’ve wasted precious Court time over and over again flip flopping around filing nonsense appeals (such as the Shark wanting more time because he has other Court cases to attend to) and now there is a sudden sense of urgency for the trial to start.

    It looks like the Defense is in such a bind, they’ll just throw everything and anything out there, even if it is against their own previous Court filings and appeals – LOL !

  174. So from what I’m reading, the new hearsay law PRECLUDES the older common law? That can’t be right. It has to be in addition to and not instead of-
    doesn’t it?

  175. thinkaboutit2 :
    http://wbbm.cbslocal.com/2010/07/12/drew-petersons-lawyers-to-file-motion/#more-8418

    Is this the same defense team that each time they came to court asked that the trial be delayed? Now that it’s been delayed, they want to force the trial to proceed sooner rather than later? And of course, they’re trying again to get their client released pending the decision of the appellate court.

    I strongly doubt that the defense team is going to be successful with either of their motions. The prosecution made a special request of Judge White to reconsider his decision on the hearsay that he excluded, based on a state supreme court ruling in another similar case. The judge said he’d inform both defense and prosecution of his decision prior to the start of the trial. His decision came two days prior to the start of the trial and the prosecution filed an appeal with the appellate court the next day. I don’t think the prosecution can be faulted for not being timely with their appeal, given the nature of the appeal……….based on another supreme court ruling that had just been made. And, I don’t think anyone is going to change their mind about Drew being released from jail.

  176. thinkaboutit2 :

    Last week the Will County’s State’s Attorney’s office announced it was appealing the judge’s ruling to ban some hearsay testimony in the murder trial.

    That appeal is expected to delay the trial for months.

    Now Peterson’s defense team says the state’s attorney waited too long – that is, more than 30 days – to appeal the judge’s hearsay ruling. And Peterson’s lawyers say the state’s attorney shouldn’t be allowed to challenge the hearsay ruling now – so, they say, the trial should go on.

    From the Certificate of Impairment:

    1. Defendant is charged with two counts of first degree murder.

    2. On June 18, 2010, this Court entered an order suppressing as evidence certain evidence offered under both a motion to admit prior bad acts and a motion to admit evidence under 725 ILCS 5/115-7.4, to wit: (1) testimony of Victoria Connelly; and (2) testimony of Eric Peterson and Anna Doman.

    3. The suppression order substantially impairs the state’s ability to proceed with this case.

    June 18 to July 7. More than 30 days? Huh?

  177. facsmiley :

    June 18 to July 7. More than 30 days? Huh?

    Thanks Facsmiley…………….it looks like no one on the defense team majored in math. :)

  178. There is not enough evidence to prove that June has only 30 days…LOL

    Thanks for clearing that, Facs.

  179. Gun charge back on docket
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16''/SHOTGUN 1 Status

  180. Video at the link with Maksym:

    Motion could dismantle some of prosecution’s case against Peterson
    He is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio
    WGN News
    July 13, 2010

    CHICAGO – Drew Peterson’s defense lawyers will file a motion Wednesday that could dismantle some of the prosecution’s murder case against Peterson.

    He is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Much of the government’s case is based on hearsay evidence from people who spoke to Savio about the couple’s troubled relationship.

    Prosecutors are appealing a judge’s order that some of the hearsay statements can’t be used.

    Now, the defense lawyers will tell a judge the prosecutor missed an important deadline, and his appeal should be rejected.

    http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-peterson-defense-file-motion-july13,0,3186423.story

  181. So, it’s crystal clear that the Certificate of Significant Impairment mentions only a decision handed down by Judge White on June 18th. I mean, just read it! The whole document is only a few pages long and it’s very concise.

    So where is it that reporters like Christy Gutowski are getting this info that an earlier decision is being appealed?

    Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow filed a motion to appeal to third district appellate court based on the trial court’s earlier decision in May to bar several hearsay statements that the prosecution really needs to clinch a conviction against former police sergeant Drew Peterson because they lack a confession, a murder weapon, or any physical evidence.

    Is there additional documentation (maybe another C of SI that we haven’t seen?) mentioning an earlier decision? Am I just missing something? Maybe it’s time to ask some legal sources…

  182. Notice: Lawyers

    http://willcountycircuitcourt.com/
    09L 000326 In Re: Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased wrongful death suit
    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 9 13 10 900 WCCA PETERSON DREW 09L 000326 CIVJ
    PETERSON DREW 9 13 10 WCCA 900 09L 000326 Case

    08 CF 1169 – People of the State of IL vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant GUN CHARGES
    ANDREW ABOOD 8 23 10 930 405 PETERSON DREW W 08CF001169 RCS
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16 IN/SHOTGUN 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 405 930 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16''/SHOTGUN 1 Status

    09CF001048 – People/State of IL vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant MURDER/INTENT
    MECZYK RALPH EUGENE 8 23 10 930 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 8 23 10 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Status

  183. I am also confused about the dates now.

    I do not know how it works in the States, but here in Poland, after a judge makes an oral decision during a session, you can request him/her to substantiate it in writing. Then the time to appeal such a decision starts from the date of its delivery to the interested party.

  184. Here is my thoughts on the whole date deal. The judge may have made preliminary rulings on all of the hearsay back in May. I know they were sealed – but that only means they were sealed to the public (the lawyers got the answer and weren’t supposed to talk about it).

    However, it seems the prosecution filed a motion and met again in court to argue to get the current judge to reconsider some that he had rejected. It doesn’t look like the appeal covers every single hearsay statement but only those that seem to somehow be associated with prior bad acts.

    So when does the appeal clock start? Since the prosecution seems to have filed a motion which then finalized the judge’s decision then it would seem that 6/18/10 is when the clock started.

    Well that is my theory at the moment. But as we know in this case – you never know when another curve ball will be thrown.

  185. facsmiley :
    “ANDREW ABOOD 8 23 10 930 405 PETERSON DREW W 08CF001169 RCS”
    Abood, really?

    Ahh – maybe Drew is keeping Abood for the gun charges. Is Brodsky listed that day as well? Either that or they didn’t file the formal documents to withdraw Abood from that case??

  186. IIRC Abood didn’t have a problem with representing Drew – he only had a problem with working with Brodsky.

  187. cheryljones :
    So from what I’m reading, the new hearsay law PRECLUDES the older common law? That can’t be right. It has to be in addition to and not instead of-
    doesn’t it?

    That seems to be what the judge may have ruled. It will be up to the appellate court to rule. Some things I have read out there state that when there is a specific rule written that it supersedes common law others say it refines the information so the information out there isn’t clear to me.

  188. thinkaboutit2 :

    IIRC Abood didn’t have a problem with representing Drew – he only had a problem with working with Brodsky.

    Here’s what Attorney Abood said in recent Facebook comments:

    Abood Law FirmThe Abood Law Firm and Georgel Lenard represented Drew Peterson at the hearsay hearing and then withdrew on April 14, 2010 because of differences with Joel Brodsky. Although the hearsay ruling it supposed to be under seal, it appears from this article that our services were instrumental and achieving a great result at the hearing.
    Yesterday at 9:32am

    Karen XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX congrats!
    Yesterday at 9:35am

    Abood Law FirmThank you. Glad to be done with the case, but also pleased with the work we did while on the case.
    Yesterday at 9:36am

  189. This is what I’ve got on the dates issue so far. It look as if the Certificate of Significant Impairment (prior acts, domestic violence – ruled on June 18) may be a separate deal from the appeal on the hearsay ruling (ruled on in May and sealed).

    I’ll let you know if/when I find out more.

  190. facsmiley :
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/susanmurphymilano

    Original Air Date: July 12, 2010
    Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation Debuts Hosts Sheryl McCollum and Susan Murphy-Milano

    Available for download now. Joe Hosey and Steph Watts were the guests and there was discussion of the Peterson cases. I haven’t listened yet.

    Looks like SMM doesn’t realize that JC is Petersonstory/Wordpress.

  191. Oh – not saying to quibble – I just thought it was funny that they were saying the same thing but not knowing it. :)

  192. I think it’s because the site name is different from the URL.

    I just listened and they all said some really nice things about the site. How great to hear that. :)

  193. SMM has got me interested in that “404B” ability (?) as it relates to self-incrimination. If anyone knows something about that, please post.

  194. The show was very good. It actually gets more interesting as it rolls along (and I’m not saying that just because they were complimentary to the site). The last 20 minutes are the best.

  195. Here is what I found on Rule 404:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm

    Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes

    (a) Character evidence generally

    Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

    (1) Character of accused – In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404 (a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution;

    (2) Character of alleged victim – In a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor;

    (3) Character of witness – Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609.

    (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

    Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

  196. Thanks, TAI. I still don’t really understand how it relates to Stacy’s statements under questioning but maybe we’ll find out more.

    Steph Watts was so funny during the end of SMM’s show. He said Joel questioned him when he was on the stand and was just terrible. He asked him completely vague and bad questions like, “So, what happened then?” and he wanted to say, “What happened then? Then I scratched my butt.” LOL

    Isn’t it the first rule of examination that you never ask a question unless you know what the answer is going to be?

  197. Yeah – Personally I think it falls more under 804(b)(3)

    Here is information from the same link and I only pulled out the applicable parts so the post wouldn’t be too long.

    Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

    (b) Hearsay exceptions.

    The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

    (3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

  198. I kind of think 804(b)(3) is why Stacy’s comment to the pastor in public admitting she gave a false alibi falls under that rule already. And depending on which paper you read – that statement may already have passed the test.

  199. Vickie, Erick, and Sue Doman don’t fall under that rule though. So I think that the prosecution may have already successfully applied this rule.

  200. I looked online to see if David Turvey ever put anything else out there about his movie but didn’t find anything new.

  201. He did testisfy at the Grand Jury right? I would imagine that the prosecution somehow tried to get access to his film footage and Armstrong’s tapes. Once again – there is some evidence not related to the hearsay that the prosecution has not put out in the spotlight for us to see yet.

  202. Hahaha! Shouldn’t the defense be happy there is a delay and possibly a new judge since they were the ones asking for both of these things??

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=393788

    Drew’s lawyers: Prosecution stalling case to get new judge
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald StaffContact writer Drew Peterson, May 2009.
    Associated Press

    Drew Peterson’s defense team is accusing Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow of intentionally delaying the trial until after Circuit Judge Stephen White’s anticipated retirement in October.

    Late last week, just before jury selection was to begin in the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant’s murder trial, Glasgow appealed White’s May 18 hearsay decision. In it, he barred the majority of more than a dozen hearsay statements the prosecution argues helps prove Peterson killed third wife Kathleen Savio in 2004.

    Glasgow cited a June 24 Illinois Supreme Court decision upholding a DuPage County death penalty conviction that shows prosecutors are entitled to present additional hearsay evidence at Peterson’s trial.

    But in the latest twist, defense attorneys argue Glasgow is well aware he missed a 30-day appeal deadline, but pursued one anyway as a stalling tactic to push the start of trial beyond White’s expected retirement date. They’re asking appellate justices to deny Glasgow’s appeal.

    “This is pretty open and shut,” lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky said. “(Glasgow’s) either incompetent or he’s doing it to intentionally delay the trial because he wants a different trial judge. Judge White was going to give Drew Peterson a fair trial and (Glasgow) doesn’t want that.”

    But the defense team also is appealing one of White’s rulings. They’re asking justices to allow Peterson’s release from jail until his trial, which is expected to be delayed at least several months. White declared last week there is “compelling reason” to keep Peterson behind bars on a $20 million bond.

    Glasgow said he researched his options after the Illinois Supreme Court decision and, after consulting with other legal experts, such as DuPage State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett, made the decision to pursue the hearsay appeal to ensure he is best prepared for trial. Birkett said he’d have appealed, too.

    Chuck Pelkie, the Will County State’s Attorney spokesman, said Brodsky is wrong about the 30-day deadline.

    “It’s an issue (prosecutors) took under consideration before they made the decision to appeal. Perhaps (the defense) should spend more time in a law library then parading their case in the media.”

    Pelkie noted it was the Peterson defense that sought repeated trial delay requests in recent weeks.

    Prosecutors also have asked the appellate court to overturn White’s June 18 ruling that bars the testimony of three other witnesses who have alleged the defendant committed prior “bad acts.”

    Glasgow argues Peterson faced “financial devastation” from the couple’s contentious divorce as he tried to begin a new life with his bride, Stacy Peterson, about 30 years his junior, and their new baby. Peterson owed Savio a lump sum of $200,000, monthly child support and alimony. With Savio dead, Peterson stood to gain all of that plus benefits to raise their two sons, and her $1 million life-insurance policy. But before her death, Savio had removed Peterson as the beneficiary and replaced him with their boys.

    Authorities initially called the 40-year-old Savio’s bathtub drowning an accident, but they exhumed her body and ruled otherwise after suspicions grew about Peterson in light of the October 2007 disappearance of Stacy, who still hasn’t been found.

    Peterson, 56, denies wrongdoing in both cases. He is not charged with anything related to Stacy’s disappearance.

  203. Christy Gutowski has a new story up at the Daily Herald.
    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=393788

    [SNIPPET]

    Drew’s lawyers: Prosecution stalling case to get new judge
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff

    Drew Peterson’s defense team is accusing Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow of intentionally delaying the trial until after Circuit Judge Stephen White’s anticipated retirement in October.

    “This is pretty open and shut,” lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky said. “(Glasgow’s) either incompetent or he’s doing it to intentionally delay the trial because he wants a different trial judge. Judge White was going to give Drew Peterson a fair trial and (Glasgow) doesn’t want that.”

    What is the defense trying to pull now? It was a little over a month ago that the defense filed a motion to get Judge White removed from the case.

    Closed hearing about judge

    Prior to the defense team arguing to delay the trial’s start, Judge White ejected the public from the courtroom to hold a secret hearing. During this secret hearing, heard by Judge Edward Burmilla, Peterson’s attorneys tried and failed to have White removed from the case, a source said.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2329816,Peterson-motion-judge-white-JO052810.article

  204. First of all, maybe the State’s Attorney should come out swinging for now on and throw back the same kind of garbage the defense is slinging. The defense lies, the defense is full of bull crap, and the defense is trying to poison whoever they possibly can with this junk.

    The defense filed a motion to have Judge White removed in the recent past. How come Christy didn’t mention that in her piece? Why doesn’t the whole scenario get printed, for a change?

    Also:

    “It’s an issue (prosecutors) took under consideration before they made the decision to appeal. Perhaps (the defense) should spend more time in a law library then parading their case in the media.”

    If this turns out to be accurate and the prosecution is correct that they are within the boundaries of filing an appeal, then, once again, the defense will look like asses, as they usually do. But this isn’t about that at all. It’s about poisoning the public’s perception of what’s going on, and they’re finding a forum in which to do it. They talk to their reporters, it makes it in the paper, and their job is done.

    I think the defense should use the delay to catch up on what’s happening in this case. For example, Attorney Greenberg might want to reconsider what he reported on Fox News in the morning the other day, when he blatantly lied and said no one tried to come forward after Kathleen’s death. What an unbelievable remark, and no one that’s done a story lately has called him on it.

    I’m so disgusted with the reporting that this case gets, it makes me sick.

  205. Why doesn’t someone do a story, for a change, on why Lopez didn’t want to sit with his defense-team members at a recent hearing. Or why is it that Reem Odeh is the “former law partner” of Brodsky now. Maybe we can read a story about what the other members think about how Peterson was paraded around like a monkey to radio shows, tv shows, whore houses, and an engagement thrown in. Why terms like Brodsky used in describing the bones that were unearthed have to be used, or why 3rd grade name calling words like “chicken” are used by a guy who wears pink socks.

    Bah!

  206. But in the latest twist, defense attorneys argue Glasgow is well aware he missed a 30-day appeal deadline, but pursued one anyway as a stalling tactic to push the start of trial beyond White’s expected retirement date. They’re asking appellate justices to deny Glasgow’s appeal.

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

    If that is the bizarre basis for an appeal, they’re not going to win that appeal either.

    It’s just more ludicrous nonsense.

    It’s irrelevant “what Glasgow knew” or “used as a stalling tactic, the 30 day appeal dead line is either right or wrong within the appeals process itself.

  207. Excerpt
    May 29, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    Closed hearing about judge
    Prior to the defense team arguing to delay the trial’s start, Judge White ejected the public from the courtroom to hold a secret hearing. During this secret hearing, heard by Judge Edward Burmilla, Peterson’s attorneys tried and failed to have White removed from the case, a source said.

    Brodsky said he could not comment on the closed hearing.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2329816,Peterson-motion-judge-white-JO052810.article

  208. So, let’s see, the defense tried to get the trial delayed, which they’re moaning about now and trying to fast-forward, and they’re whining about how the prosecution is trying to play games with the court to keep Judge White from presiding over the case, after the same defense tried to have him booted off the case a month and a half ago.

    Okay.

  209. “This is pretty open and shut,” lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky said. “(Glasgow’s) either incompetent or he’s doing it to intentionally delay the trial because he wants a different trial judge. Judge White was going to give Drew Peterson a fair trial and (Glasgow) doesn’t want that.”

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

    Isn’t Joel showing his own hand here, as this is exactly what the Defense has been doing all this time – procrastinate and get rid of the Judge (!!)

  210. Yeah, how do you stand up and pretend to be a real lawyer, when you’re accusing the prosecution of doing what you just finished up yourself? I mean, come on, this would be a joke, if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    Look who’s calling who incompetent.

  211. God…this is starting to look to me like a bunch of little toddler boys fighting in the sandbox…

  212. Hi ya Lostacres.

    Yep, it sure does, but they found someone sympathetic to their whining. As long as the defense can get it in the news and in the papers, they’re happy, whether they believe what they’re saying or not.

  213. I’m hearing that Joel Brodsky has stated that the sealed hearsay ruling was May 18th and that the State filed a motion to appeal it on June 30th, which would of course be more than 30 days later.

    It would seem that appeal is separate from the July 7th Certificate of Impairment which mentions the June 18th decision.

  214. Peterson’s defense says prosecution appealed too late
    July 13, 2010 6:29 PM

    Drew Peterson’s defense team asked an Illinois appellate court today to dismiss the prosecution’s 11th-hour appeal on the basis that it was filed too late.

    In a motion written by defense attorney Steven Greenberg, the Peterson legal team argues Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow had 30 days to appeal after Judge Stephen White issued his ruling on hearsay testimony May 18. The prosecution filed its appeal July 7, shortly after an Illinois Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of secondhand statements was issued.

    Though prosecutors submitted their petition 49 days after the original ruling, they believe they are within the legal timeframe, a spokesman said. Peterson murder’s trial has been postponed pending the appeal.

    “It’s an issue we took under consideration when we filed, and we feel it’s a timely appeal,” Glasgow spokesman Charles Pelkie said. “We believe the defense is wrong on this.”

    In a sealed ruling, White barred the majority of secondhand statements because the witnesses did “not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability.”

    Five weeks after issuing that decision, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slayings of four relatives. In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled that common law does not require judges to weigh a hearsay statement’s reliability.

    Glasgow asked White to reconsider his decision in light of the high court ruling on June 30. White rejected the request last week, prompting prosecutors to appeal.

    Over the defense team’s objections, White ordered that Peterson be kept in jail on $20 million bond during the appeal. Peterson’s lawyers vowed to appeal that ruling, as well.

    Peterson, 56, is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in March 2004. Officials initially ruled the death an accidental drowning, but authorities reopened the case after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007.

    Peterson denies wrongdoing in both cases.

    –Stacy St. Clair

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/petersons-defense-says-prosecution-appealed-too-late.html

  215. If this is the best the “Drew Dream Team” can come up with then their defense strategy is a very sorry state of affairs.

    Just compare the preparation by the State and presentation by the States Attorney, the compelling and informed manner of speech by the States Attorney, the States clear and concise application of the Law in presenting their case and appeals against the flip flopping by the Defense, their crazy Media profile, the utterly bizarre, semi literate and irrelevant appeals, the often non sensical dialogue by the Lead Council and it is obvious the Defense and everything they stand for is a total SHEMOZZLE !!

  216. More of the same bull. The defense whining about the judge themselves and about him rushing the trial.

    Excerpt

    Peterson lawyer says judge rushing trial
    June 3, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s lead lawyer says there is no way he can be ready for a July 8 trial. But if he loses in court, he is set to appeal on the grounds the judge rushed the case through.

    “It’s certainly a constitutional issue,” Joel Brodsky, the longest serving of Peterson’s six attorneys, said of scheduling Peterson’s trial before he and his legal team want it to go.

    “In the unlikely event of a conviction, it’s certainly something we’d ask the appellate court to look at,” Brodsky said.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/2347580,Peterson-trial-postponed-JO060210.article

  217. We apologize if you are experiencing slow load times due to the many comments on this thread. There should be a new post up tomorrow.

  218. I have much more respect for the prosecution keeping their lips sealed and not stooping to the level that the defense has been doing. The defense keeps flip-flopping on this pissing and moaning depending on which way they wind is blowing up their boxers.

  219. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2495222,Drew-Peterson-appeal-motion_JO071310.article

    Peterson motion: Prosecutors dawdled

    July 13, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Prosecutor’s dawdled too long before appealing a ruling on hearsay evidence, Drew Peterson’s lawyers are claiming in a motion to be filed today in appellate court.
    It’s pretty much black and white,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said of prosecutors supposedly blowing a 30-day deadline to appeal the hearsay decision.

    Drew Peterson
    Peterson, the accused wife-killer and disgraced former cop, faces murder charges in connection with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is also suspected of slaying his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    Earlier this year, Judge Stephen White ruled that Peterson probably killed both women, clearing the way for a substantial amount of hearsay evidence to be allowed at trial. But a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision prompted State’s Attorney James Glasgow to ask White to reconsider his ruling and allow all of the hearsay evidence.

    White refused and Glasgow appealed the hearsay ruling, but Peterson’s lawyers claim the state’s attorney blew a 30-day deadline to do so.

    Brodsky said late Tuesday that his motion was “in the hands of Federal Express” and would reach the appellate court in Ottawa by this morning.

    Glasgow’s spokesman Charles B. Pelkie maintained that the appeal would stand.

    “We believe it’s a timely appeal,” Pelkie said. “We believe the defense is wrong in this case. We’re going to deal with this on the appellate level. We look forward to it.”

    Brodsky accused Glasgow of filing his appeal for no other reason than to get Judge White off the case. White is due to retire in October.

    “He wanted to get rid of Judge White because Judge White was being fair and even-handed,” Brodsky said. “I don’t believe Glasgow wants a fair and even-handed judge. He wants a judge who will get Drew Peterson.”

  220. thinkaboutit2 :
    Here is what I found on Rule 404:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm

    Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
    (a) Character evidence generally
    Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
    (1) Character of accused – In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404 (a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution;
    (2) Character of alleged victim – In a criminal case, and subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 412, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor;
    (3) Character of witness – Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609.
    (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts
    Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

    Thanks TAI,

    This paragraph is interesting………….”Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity………”

    One thing that I’m wondering if admissible under this clause in regards to “intent” or “plan” is the statements Drew made to Stacy, Kathleen, and Victoria about being able to kill them and make it look like an accident. He said that to all three wives. I think it goes to “intent” or “plan.”

  221. Molly said:
    “One thing that I’m wondering if admissible under this clause in regards to “intent” or “plan” is the statements Drew made to Stacy, Kathleen, and Victoria about being able to kill them and make it look like an accident. He said that to all three wives. I think it goes to “intent” or “plan.”
    ——
    I am afraid it does not, molly, but I may be wrong.

    All the three wives’ testimonies (a also of Eric and Anna) rather prove the ability to kill or harm another person by Drew and his bad behaviour than his plans and intent to kill.
    IMO, if those testimonies had not been rejected, I believe Rick Mimms’s is worth more (as he was following Kathleen on Drew’s request during the time of their divorce), the hitman’s and the policeman’s Drew had confessed to that it would be better if Kathleen was dead.
    IMO again, the procecution does not have to worry about proving the motive and intend so much if they have at least those two testimonies accepted by the judge. They do not even need the expert in regard of the money issue so much as it clearly comes from the documentation that Drew advantaged of Kathleen’s death (all the money taken over and the allimonies ‘saved’).

    I believe judge White rejected some of the testimonies not to lose the case. If he had accepted all of them, the case would look vindicative.

    I personally would love to see all the witnesses in court and I treat their absence as something humiliating to them as they had had courage to step forward.

Comments are closed.