Stephen Peterson is fired from Oak Brook police force

Stephen Peterson

This morning at a meeting by the Oak Brook Police and Fire Commission, by a unanimous decision, Stephen Peterson, son of accused murderer Drew Peterson, was fired from his position as police officer.

Peterson had been suspended with pay since August, when he was accused of interfering with an investigation, accepting an illegal firearm and failing to keep the investigation confidential.

He was found guilty of only one of the three charges: Obstructing the investigation into the disappearance of his step-mother, Stacy Peterson.

Charges against Stephen Peterson
Read story at the Daily Herald

~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.~

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Stephen Peterson is fired from Oak Brook police force

  1. As with any decision such as this, Stephen Peterson will be given the opportunity to appeal.

    Remember, his father was fired from the police department for outting an undercover officer, but was able to fight the charges, with a judge reinstating him, so Peterson’s son will have the same opportunity to do so.

  2. Wow! Good news indeed! The number of reprimands that Stephen received, even before the transfer of guns, shows that he had the same cocky attitude towards the law as his father. Glad that Oak Brook saw fit to get rid of him.

    I can just imagine how Brodsky, et al, will play this up as a lynch mob.

  3. Ugh…..I forgot. This is Chicago we’re talking about. Unions cover for their miscreants with immunity.

    Hopefully that will be changing soon.

  4. I don’t know, IMO, that there is any good way of looking at this. What is sad and pathetic is that he was dragged into a predicament he should not have been. I blame his father! He put his son in a position that he never should have.

  5. Another person pays the price for subjecting themselves to the manipulation of Drew Peterson. It’s awful to think a man would use his own son this way. Despite the claims that he’s such a “good father”. Wouldn’t most parents take a fall in order to protect their children? What kind of parent turns that around and puts his offspring at risk in order to save his own sorry ass? This fiasco, that unbearable TV appearance with Tom and Kris and now the “He wanted him to take a stand” letter. It’s despicable.

  6. Oak Brook dismisses Steve Peterson from police force

    By Marie Wilson

    Drew Peterson’s son, Stephen Peterson, was discharged from his position as an Oak Brook police officer this morning after the village’s Board of Fire and Police Commissioners ruled him guilty of misconduct.

    The board announced it found the former officer guilty of “failing to disclose facts to law enforcement officials in connection with the disappearance of his stepmother, Stacy Peterson,” according to the statement of findings.

    The board cleared Stephen Peterson of the two other charges against him: possession of an unlawful weapon and failing to keep an internal investigation confidential.

    Peterson had been on paid leave since August after Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan filed the charges.

    Peterson hugged some of his former colleagues after hearing the decision then left without comment. His police union attorney, Tamara Cummings, said Peterson intends to appeal the decision…

    http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110219/news/702199940/

  7. I think the Oak Brook decision demonstrated careful consideration and will be upheld should Stephen attempt to appeal. Stephen may have some even bigger problems to contend with when charges are finally filed in Stacy’s case. IMO

  8. Agreed DD. I don’t know how they could have possibly let him keep his job in the face of such flagrant disregard for the legal process. If anyone knew the right thing to do in that situation, it should have been a cop. It will be hard to argue otherwise on appeal.

  9. Oak Brook Sacks Peterson’s Cop Kid

    The Oak Brook fire and police board fired Drew Peterson’s patrol officer son for his involvement in his father’s troubles with the state police.
    By Joseph Hosey 12:24pm

    Twenty five years ago, Drew Peterson got fired from his job as a cop. Like father like son, his police officer kid got the sack Saturday for his involvement in the old man’s trouble over a missing wife.

    The three-man Oak Brook fire and police board voted as a bloc to ax Stephen Peterson from the department he worked at for more than six years.

    “This court is a kangaroo court, for lack of a better word,” said Stephen Peterson’s union attorney, Tamara Cummings, as she vowed to fight on for her client’s job.

    “We’ve won on appeal three times before and we’re going to win this time,” Cummings said, referencing the three victories she scored in reducing suspensions Stephen Peterson has received over the years.

    Cummings has 35 days to file her appeal in DuPage County court. She says she is ready, since she and Stephen Peterson sort of saw this coming.

    “We’re not surprised, but we’re disappointed,” Cummings said.

    Stephen Peterson did not comment as he left the brief hearing. He stopped on the way out to hug fellow officers and friends in attendance, and lingered in the parking lot of the Oak Brook Village Hall to chat with his supporters.

    Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan has been trying to fire Stephen Peterson since August, when he put him on paid suspension pending the outcome of the disciplinary process.

    Sheahan charged Stephen Peterson with obstructing investigators, possession of an unlawful weapon, and failing to keep an internal investigation confidential. The board cleared him of the last two allegations but found him guilty of the first one.

    According to the board, Stephen Peterson obstructed law enforcement officials by hiding three of his father’s guns before the state police could execute a search warrant at Drew Peterson’s house, and for neglecting to mention to state agents that he had accepted nearly a quarter million dollars from his father. Drew Peterson feared he would be arrested and gave the money to his son with instructions to use it if that happened.

    The state police did indeed head over to Drew Peterson’s house with a search warrant on Nov. 1, 2007 to look for any sign of what happened to his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who had disappeared only days before.

    Drew Peterson knew they were coming, according to the complaint against his son, and smuggled three of the “favorites” from among his gun collection to Stephen Peterson’s home in North Aurora. Stephen Peterson proceeded to stash the guns in a spare bedroom and only turned them over after his father snitched him off to the state police.

    Stacy Peterson remains missing and the state police have said they suspect Drew Peterson may have had a hand in killing her. That may be, but the state police have yet to do anything along the lines of charging him with harming her.

    The state police did arrest Peterson on charges he murdered his previous wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. From the time of her death until shortly after Stacy disappeared, the state police insisted Savio was the victim of a freak bathtub accident.

    The Stacy Peterson case forced the state police to re-evaluate their performance in the Savio investigation. This second look led to them arresting Drew Peterson in May 2009.

    Drew Peterson remains jailed while he awaits trial on the murder charges. His case was before the appellate court earlier this week as prosecutors are attempting to increase the amount of hearsay evidence they can use at trial.

    Saturday’s decision gave the Peterson family a second man in two generations to have been fired from a police department. In 1985, Drew Peterson was not only fired but also indicted on charges of official misconduct and failure to report a bribe in connection with an unsanctioned undercover investigation he undertook while he was on loan from the Bolingbrook Police Department to the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad.

    The Bolingbrook Fire and Police found Drew Peterson guilty of those charges, as well as disobedience and conducting a self-assigned investigation.

    Drew Peterson’s problems in the 1980s started when he revealed to his supervisors that he had embarked on a solo narcotics investigation of Anthony “Bindy” Rock, a convicted cop-killer reputed to have ties to organized crime.

    A state police undercover officer was already working on Rock, according to court documents, but Drew Peterson went ahead with his probe and failed to tell his superiors until it hit a dead end.

    “You had better take your guns off. I have something to say that’s real bad,” Drew Peterson allegedly told his supervisors at the time. Then Drew Peterson’s former supervisor with the narcotics squad, retired state police Lt. Col. Ronald Janota accused Drew Peterson of leaking the state agent’s identity to Rock.

    Rock has claimed that Drew Peterson, who had previously arrested him, was extorting him with threats to trump up new criminal charges if he did not agree to sell cocaine Drew Peterson was stealing from drug raids. Drew Peterson denied this allegation.

    The criminal charges against Drew Peterson were eventually dropped. Sources have said the special prosecutor assigned to the case blew the speedy trial term.

    And Peterson ended up getting his job back, just like his son will try to do now.

    http://shorewood-il.patch.com/articles/oak-brook-sacks-petersons-cop-kid

    ShorewdILPatch Joseph Hosey
    Check back later for the photos.

  10. Facs: Despite the claims that he’s such a “good father”. Wouldn’t most parents take a fall in order to protect their children?

    Yes to that. I don’t think one even need be a parent to know the answer to that.

    Geesh, if you think about it, whether this is eventually reversed or not, the life and times of Stephen Peterson leave something to be desired. Within months of being a newlywed, he gets caught up in this gun mess, thanks to his father unloading on him. His father then entrusts him with the guardianship of his four minor children, should his suspicious involvement in lost wives result in his arrest.

    Stephen Peterson goes on to be handed at least one suspension for using the company car to attend a grand jury hearing that has nothing to do with his duties as an Oak Brook Police Officer. His troubles relating to his father apparently took a toll on his marriage almost immediately, and he and his wife split and divorced, but not before having a child of their own. He loses his house to a short sale.

    He goes on to get guardianship of four minor children, moves back into his father’s house, testifies to taking potential search warrant evidence on behalf of his father, and winds up getting fired from his career job as a police officer.

    No matter where you fall on whatever side of this sordid tale, there is one indisputable fact about Stephen Peterson losing his job today.

    He took his father’s guns. He was asked to do it and he did. Right or wrong. But, in the end, when his father was asked where the missing gun was at the time the search warrant was served, he answered in the way only Drew Peterson could.

    My son, Stephen, has it, I gave it to him.

    How would anyone ever had known the answer to that question had it not been for Drew Peterson giving the answer? Falling on his sword for his son was not one of his options. Instead, his son is taking the fall for him.

    Blame it on the murder defendant. That’s MHO.

  11. Stephen Peterson isn’t the first cop to be dismissed from employment by Oak Brook. Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan has a responsibility to ensure the citizens of Oak Brook that the department is being held to high standards. Stephen Peterson always had choices, and he still does.

  12. Bear in mind that it isn’t just what Stephen Peterson did for his father during those first days of Stacy’s disappearance that is so concerning. There are things that we will never know because Stephen was cut some slack by investigating officers. He did not turn over the guns immediately when they came to his house. Instead he was granted permission to bring the weapons to the station later in the day. We’ll never know what else was in his possession or what he did with it, and it’s a damned shame:

    While the state police were searching Drew Peterson’s home, Dave Margliano, an investigator with the state’s attorney’s office, found ammunition for an AR-15 assault rifle, Lawson said. But no one could find the AR-15.

    When investigators questioned Drew Peterson, he reportedly told them, “I knew you guys were coming and I took it to my son’s house Tuesday.”

    So Lawson and state police Special Agent Herbert Hardy headed over to Stephen Peterson’s home on Nov. 2, 2007. Earlier in the hearing, Stephen Peterson had denied a meeting with the state investigators ever happened.

    Despite Stephen Peterson’s denials, Lawson described not only the exterior of the house, but the sparsely furnished interior. He went on to say that Stephen Peterson asked to meet with him and Hardy later in the day at the Bolingbrook Police Department, where his father worked for 29 years leading up to Stacy’s disappearance. Weeks after the disappearance, an internal affairs probe prompted Drew Peterson to retire from the Bolingbrook force.

    Stephen Peterson asked to move the meeting with the state investigators elsewhere. out of concern that his wife, Teresa, would find out about the investigation of his father.

    “He said he’d cooperate in the investigation but he didn’t want to be interviewed in the house because he didn’t want his wife to know what was actually going on with his father,” Lawson testified.

    Teresa and Stephen Peterson initiated divorce proceedings earlier this year.

    Lawson said he and Hardy agreed to put off their interview until later because Stephen Peterson “was a police officer and he was agreeing to cooperate with the investigation.”

    When he met with Lawson and Hardy that afternoon, Stephen Peterson surrendered the three guns and submitted to an interview.

    And if everything was on the up and up, why wasn’t Stephen out in the open with his wife about the guns being in the house, the money or anything else? Why was he so concerned about her knowing what he had done?

    http://hinsdale.patch.com/articles/state-investigators-cut-stephen-peterson-a-break-during-investigation

  13. While the state police were searching Drew Peterson’s home, Dave Margliano, an investigator with the state’s attorney’s office, found ammunition for an AR-15 assault rifle, Lawson said. But no one could find the AR-15.

    When investigators questioned Drew Peterson, he reportedly told them, “I knew you guys were coming and I took it to my son’s house Tuesday.”

    I cringe every time I see that.

  14. So bizarre that Joel feels it’s his place to weigh in on this situation. He’s not Stephen’s lawyer. Who cares what he has to say? Especially when it comes to saying that Stephen has been “hurt’ solely because he’s the son of an accused murderer.

    If Stephen is ‘hurt’ it’s due to the actions of his own father, who could have turned over all of his guns as he knew would be expected, instead of dragging his son into his mess, having him hide guns and money and interfere with an investigation; and it’s also due to Stephen himself, who couldn’t stand up to his father and say “No” when he was asked to do something he knew was wrong. Shame on Joel Brodsky for such a ridiculous statement.

  15. Joel is the jailhouse voice of Drew Peterson, and he has to figure out a way to get those media minutes. Totally random, but are we also supposed to notice that Joel is now choosing his media outfits to coordinate with the background paintings? (Sorry, green shirt, splash of red.)

  16. Facs- well stated. Behind all of the “he’s only being targeted because he’s Drew Peterson’s son” is a father sitting in Wil County Jail, who knows exactly why his son lost his job.

    I hope that keeps you awake tonight, Drew.

  17. It’s interesting that Joel can remember the sequence of Stephen’s involvement with Drew during the first few days of Stacy’s disappearance, but when Joel was asked whether Tom was in the house when Stacy disappearred by the Fox reporter, Joel didn’t know anything about it and would need to review the Grand Jury information.

  18. This plays heavy on my heart. As a parent myself, I would lay down my life for my children. I can not grasp how a father threw his son under the bus. All I can say is that my heart aches and breaks for all of the Peterson children, as well as Stephen’s daughter. It angers me to no end, what this poor excuse of a human being has done to everyone who came into contact with him. He has destroyed his children. People like that should rot in HELL. this is MHO.

  19. Oh and for the record, YES Stephen can get unemployment for being fired but, if he was fired for Mis-Conduct, OakBrook will fight it and win. Now will Stephen even be able to drive a cab at this point

  20. In one sense Stephen Peterson is another victim of his own father’s narcissism/sociopathy. Everything Drew Peterson does is for himself, and he uses people for his own selfish goals, even his children.

    It’s a shame that Stephen didn’t have the strength of character to tell his father “no.” Had he refused to help his father, had confided in his wife what was going on, and cooperated with the authorities, things might have turned out differently.

    Stephen’s brother, Eric, appears to know just who and what his father is, and maybe some day Stephen will get to that point too. I’m glad Stephen’s mom was there for him. Perhaps she can give him some guidance.

    In the meantime, there’s four other children who are being hurt by all that’s going on. Drew has brain-washed the four younger children into thinking that their father did nothing wrong. It’s going to be a terrible let down someday when they realize what really happened.

    I agree with Facsmiley in regards to what we don’t know. There was ample time for some things to disappear before Stephen met with the authorities at the Bolingbrook PD.

    And another thought along the same line…….one thing that’s always bothered me is that among Drew Peterson’s acquaintances there’s likely someone who either knows something or is hiding evidence, much like Drew asked Stephen to take his guns. I feel Drew had to have had help in making Stacy disappear. There’s certainly some likely candidates that could have helped him too. There’s several suspicious characters who were involved with Drew at the time of Stacy’s disappearance, not to mention the criminals he was involved with who might have owed Drew a favor.

  21. “Rock has claimed that Drew Peterson, who had previously arrested him, was extorting him with threats to trump up new criminal charges if he did not agree to sell cocaine Drew Peterson was stealing from drug raids…”

    For some reason this detail had eluded me until now. Doesn’t it sound, um, what’s the word?…er..likely? MO, of course. 😉

  22. Joel really needs to STFU!

    Stephen lost his job, but I don’t think it is ENTIRELY because of his father (Can’t believe I just said that! 😉 ). I think hiding the guns was the last straw. He was already an arrogant cop, in trouble before. Even if he had not hidden the guns and taken the money, I think he would eventually have been fired anyway. His past history was of his own doing, and he probably would have continued to think he was above the law.

    Glad to see he has been taken off the streets!

  23. Well, at least the Oak Brook Police and Fire Commission finally got off their duffs and did something. They know this will be appealed, o in effect, they know they’re just he first stepping stone. I would love to know the ratio of their decisions vs decisions overturned.
    One thing that has bothered me for days, though, goes back to Drew. (Sheesh. ALL of this goes back to Drew.) But how did he know ‘they’ were coming that day?
    I feel sure that Bolingbrook PD doesn’t call ahead of time to make a n appointment. I’m wondering how many rats are left in that department woodpile.

  24. Did his firing revoke any of his law enforcement credentials?
    Here in Texas, with a class A or B misdemeanor you are no longer eligible to be a law enforcement officer, and you lose your concealed handgun license for 5 years and must reapply to have it reinstated. Nothing says it will be.
    If this was covered, I apologize-I was reading quickly in order to get caught up. Thanks.

  25. Doggies – Stephen wasn’t convicted of any crime, just fired from his job, so I doubt he’s lost any credentials. I don’t know that for sure, but I doubt it.

    Not sure how Drew knew that LE was coming to his house, but I have read that he called Stephen at 7 a.m. when the media trucks were starting to show up in the cul de sac. As far as I can tell he was making a lot of phone calls, meeting with various people, and moving numerous items and money – basically in full crisis intervention mode – within 24 hours of Stacy going “missing”.

    IMO, he fully expected an investigation and thought he would be arrested from the very beginning. He scrambled to prepare himself and the family just as he did when Kathleen was killed (i.e., coaching Stacy on what she needed to say, etc.)

  26. Thanks, Facs. I think he got a ‘heads up’ from one of his buds, but since I wasn’t there and can’t prove it, I’ll have to let it go.
    Concealing possible evidence isn’t a crime? Criminy.

  27. FYI – Attorney Abood was asked if Stephen Peterson can be criminally charged for the actions which resulted in his termination.

    Attorney Andrew Abood: I doubt it. Obviously issuing an indictment isn’t a very high standard. There is an old adage that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. But I don’t think that based on what I know Steve Peterson committed a crime or engaged in criminal behavior. The government has no right to find evidence. It had a right to execute a search warrant and they were able to do that. Further, receiving money from your father is not a crime.

    I would say … that on the several occasions that I met his children they all seemed to love their father and were very respectful. Even the son I crossed, I think his name was Eric, he appeared to have genuine emotion for his father while testifying. It is unfortunate what has happened to Stephen. I wish him and his family all the best in these difficult times.

  28. bucketoftea says:
    February 20, 2011 at 5:44 am
    “Rock has claimed that Drew Peterson, who had previously arrested him, was extorting him with threats to trump up new criminal charges if he did not agree to sell cocaine Drew Peterson was stealing from drug raids…”

    For some reason this detail had eluded me until now. Doesn’t it sound, um, what’s the word?…er..likely? MO, of course.
    ~~~~

    yeah, definitely makes me say hmmmmmmm….

  29. I missed this radio interview a few days ago with John Howell, Amy Jacobson, and Joel Brodsky. I wonder if Sneed’s writing regarding Drew’s weight gain came from this interview? Joel states the defense is ready to go and can be ready in two weeks. He also states the confinement is wearing on Drew. I wonder if Drew wants to move forward no matter what hearsay is allowed? I also found Brodsky’s comments about the judges interesting. “elected officials, but now everyone is going to know who they are” …?????

    http://bigjohnandamy.com/2011/02/joel-brodsky-on-drew-petersons-fight-against-the-hearsay-law/

  30. I appreciate Andrew Abood’s professionalism, and his respect for the Peterson children. He, no doubt, was working quite hard on the case during that time period. However, we don’t know what the Grand Jury is sitting on right now, nor does the defense team. Brodsky has made mention of that in several interviews. Since no charges have been brought forward against Drew Peterson for Stacy Peterson’s disappearance/death, we have no idea if other charges will result for those associated with Drew during October of 2007. Personally, if I were Stephen, I would quickly give up eating ham sandwiches.

  31. So…Joel thinks that justices will rule differently due to the fact that the public can see their faces? That sounds ridiculous. Why would Joel want to insult them when there is so much at stake for him in this case?

  32. bucketoftea says:
    February 20, 2011 at 5:44 am

    “Rock has claimed that Drew Peterson, who had previously arrested him, was extorting him with threats to trump up new criminal charges if he did not agree to sell cocaine Drew Peterson was stealing from drug raids…”

    For some reason this detail had eluded me until now. Doesn’t it sound, um, what’s the word?…er..likely? MO, of course. 😉

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

    Oh Yeah, an interesting bit of information that is and as you say, first time it has come to the fore.

    Perhaps all this is part of the huge timeline that was discovered and the reason a 20 million dollar bond is being upheld.

    Who knows what will come out in due time …..

  33. As far as Steven goes,

    Another shining example how this man (Drew that is) involves, burdens and incriminates his own children to whatever extend is necessary to serve his own purpose.

  34. DD…………..I’m hoping that at some point the defense will simply decide to move forward with the trial despite what evidence might be allowed. It’s been almost 7 years since Kathleen’s murder, and almost 2 years since Peterson was arrested. If the trial were to happen later this year, it will be more than 2 years since his arrest. It’s time to get this trial underway.

    As far as Bindy Rock is concerned……..I think that Drew Peterson’s involvement with known criminals like Bindy Rock makes it possible that he had some sort of help in making Stacy disappear. Someone may have owed DP a favor and he called on them for help.

  35. Bad day for another Peterson Pal and disgraced Oak Brook cop:

    Appeals court rules for Oak Brook in Mucha case
    February 22, 2011
    By STEVE SCHERING Contributor

    The seventh circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled in Oak Brook’s favor in a lawsuit filed by former police sergeant Randy Mucha.

    Mucha was arrested in 2006 for unlawfully requesting a criminal background check against an Oak Brook resident. Police Chief Tom Sheahan, hired by the village in March 2005, had Mucha arrested Aug. 16, 2006…

    …According to the court’s ruling, Mucha created a false electronic identity to e-mail Gaik and gather information about the CBG.

    Mucha allegedly used the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System to run a criminal background check on Gaik on Feb. 1, 2005. Sheahan testified he did not learn of the background check until July 31, 2006.

    In mid-2006, Mucha was asked if he ran a background check on Gaik and replied, “I don’t recall.” Later, Mucha reportedly admitted the response was a lie, according to the ruling….

    http://www.pioneerlocal.com/oakbrook/news/3082562,oak-brook-mucha-022211-s1.article

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/5M19M0JF.pdf

    http://www.oak-brook.org/dep_news/PressRelease/20110214.pdf

  36. Randy Mucha used to blog fairly regularly on GretaWire, and as a result, gave a lot of information out about himself. He also had a wesite with a picture of his new baby on it, and he ALWAYS stood up for Stephen Peterson. He would deny any wrongdoing for either one of them. Reading the ruling, however, I can understand it. It’s not the background check that upsets me-it’s the lying about it.

  37. Oak Brook police union holds ‘no-confidence’ vote over chief

    Snippets

    Oak Brook’s police union has held a vote of no confidence over the leadership of Police Chief Tom Sheahan.

    Fraternal Order of Police Attorney Gary Bailey announced the vote Tuesday night to Oak Brook village trustees.

    “(The vote is a way) to communicate to the community and city management that the union and its members perceives its police chief as incompetent, disinterested, non-communicative and/or uncaring,” Bailey said. “The vote passed by an overwhelming measure.”

    The union met this weekend and Bailey presented the board with a letter Tuesday night. He said the officers believe Sheahan has caused a “steady deterioration in the morale of the police department.”

    Sheahan believes the recent ruling against former Police Sgt. Randy Mucha Feb. 14 as well as Officer Stephen Peterson’s firing on Saturday caused emotions to flare.

    “I believe this was brought up by the reaction to two recent case decisions,” Sheahan said. “Both were emotional to some officers, and who do you blame but the guy who brought the actions forward?”

    Sheahan also believes recent tough union negotiations, combined with the officers’ discipline, created a perfect storm.

    http://www.pioneerlocal.com/oakbrook/news/3083094,oak-brook-policeunion-022211-s1.article

    Joel Brodsky posted this yesterday:

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    I know the Chicago mayoral election is the big news today, but watch and see what happens at the Oak Brook Village Board of Trustee’s meeting today. It might be both interesting and revealing about the Oak Brook Police Department.

  38. Brodsky is a joke.

    Hey, anyone here work for a jerk and want to see him or her ousted and replaced with someone warm and fuzzy?????

    Heh, maybe the rank and file is disgruntled, and maybe their concerns are legitimate, but aren’t things about the same in Corporate America? I mean, who runs around praising their bosses/supervisors and patting them on the back? Anyway, is Brodsky going to have Sneed run another column, asking the public to rise up and fight for the troops in Oak Brook because Mucha and Peterson are victims of the chief? Oh, puleeze. Mucha went through the court system, and I’m sure so will Stephen Peterson. If he’s been wrongly terminated, he’ll be reinstated by a court.

    If you have a jerk for a boss, contact Brodsky. He knows Sneed. Maybe he can help. Now that the mayoral election is over, this could be big news.

    LMAO.

  39. It’s really strange to me how Joel Brodsky has gone from being Drew Peterson’s legal representation, to inserting himself into every story that has to do with a family member, friend and even friends of family members. It’s even rumored that he has compensated people for planting stories via the Internet. I can only guess that he is hanging his career on the publicity from the case, and therefore he’s going to make sure his name is attached somehow to every public facet of it. If that’s not the case then the whole case has gotten to a personal level with him that is veering far from the professional.

    I thought it especially bizarre that he wrote an introductory letter and filed Tom Peterson’s request to release Drew from the civil suit. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. Joel is not Tom’s attorney – he’s Drew’s. Stephen Peterson also has his own attorney, Tamara Cummings, and yet there’s Joel in the media interjecting his opinions about Stephen’s disciplinary issues. Strange. And now Joel is closely following the internal matters of the Oak Brook Police Department because…umm…why again? Oh yeah, because Sheahan brought the charges against Stephen Peterson, who is the son of Drew Peterson, who Joel Brodsky defends in the murder case of his third wife Kathleen Savio. It’s getting rather baroque.

    I guess if Joel Brodsky had a larger caseload (more along the lines of someone like George Lenard – check out the Will County Court schedule!) he wouldn’t need to busy himself with such tangents.

  40. “I thought it especially bizarre that he wrote an introductory letter and filed Tom Peterson’s request to release Drew from the civil suit. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. Joel is not Tom’s attorney – he’s Drew’s.”

    Exactly Facs! When I first read about that, all I could think about was the will that Drew and Carroll put together.

    Great post. Joel gets more bizarre as time goes on!

    Hi Rescue! 🙂

  41. Interesting blog post here. I’m not sure if I understand it though…

    Following his fourth wife Stacy’s mysterious October 28, 2007, disappearance, Peterson announced his plans to retire as a Bolingbrook police sergeant as of December 2007. On November 15, 2007, the Bolingbrook Police Pension Board voted to allow Peterson to collect his pension of $6,067.71 per month, stating current law gave them no option, as Peterson had not been convicted of a crime.

    This put Mr. Peterson into the Illinois Municipal Retirement funds for his income, starting in Nov. 2007.

    We are unsure if he is still collecting his IMRF money or not.
    But we are sure that the Village of Bolingbrook Treasurers Report, finally posted online, declares him as a paid employee.

    The May 1, 2009 to April 2010 annual treasurers report claims that D. Peterson made $73,577 from jail, not counting his IMRF monies.

    http://bolingbrookreport.blogspot.com/2011/02/drew-peterson-update-to-tax-payers.html

  42. Facs says….It’s even rumored that he has compensated people for planting stories via the Internet

    Ha, yeah, what a great way to make use of billable time on behalf of a murder defendant who’s fighting for his freedom. Who would’ve believed it.

    That I’m a super sekrit mole, who used to be Joe Hosey, but now I’m not. Just call me Sybil. You never know who might show up as Rescueapet tomorrow. I’m sure we’ll get it all straightened out in due time. I do want to know who I really am. I already know who I used to be.

    😉

  43. No worries. If you forget Rescue, I’ll remind you who you are. At least I know who you aren’t and that’s all the many people you were supposed to be. Wait, didn’t I used to be someone too? Naw…I just checked. Still me. 😉

  44. lol very true Facs, and Rescue after all I have been accused of being many names on these blogs myself. I am posting all kinds of stuff according to certain individuals. No matter who says something it is always assumed it is one of us three lol. We all know what it means to ASSUME something don’t we? 🙂

  45. I am curious about what is going to trigger the appointment of a new judge in the Peterson case. He or she will certainly have transcripts to read to get caught up on the proceedings. That would be a monumental task. Why not now, as opposed to later?

  46. What is it they used to say in the old movies? Oh yeah, “Tell it to the judge.”

    Locked up for 21 months, Peterson takes aim at people keeping him from his family
    By Cindy Wojdyla Cain ccain@stmedianetwork.com Feb 24, 2011 7:06PM

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson, who has been charged with murdering one wife, said he wasn’t trying to thwart an investigation into the disappearance of another wife when he gave three guns to his oldest son, Stephen.

    Stephen Peterson was fired as an Oak Brook police officer Saturday. The Oak Brook Board of Fire and Police Commissioners voted 3-0 in ruling that Stephen Peterson failed to disclose information during an investigation into the disappearance of his stepmother, Stacy Peterson.

    Stephen Peterson accepted three weapons and a transfer of $236,800 from his father on Oct. 30, three days after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    “I am very angry that the police and fire board of Oak Brook are in the police chief’s pocket and that they can’t make a fair decision on their own,” said Peterson, who commented via his attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    Peterson’s comments were e-mailed by Brodsky to The Herald-News. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant is being held at the Will County Jail while awaiting trial on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    “When I gave Steve my guns there was no investigation to impede,” Peterson said. “They were my favorite guns, and I was going to give them to Steve when I retired anyway. I only gave him three of the dozen or so guns I owned, and I kept most of my guns in my house and the police confiscated them all, so how could giving him those three guns impede anything?”…

    Read more at the link:

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/3991297-418/locked-up-for-21-months-peterson-takes-aim-at-people-keeping-him-from-his-family.html

  47. More from the same link:

    Peterson, who has been held in the Will County Jail for 21 months on $20 million bond, can only communicate with reporters through his attorneys.

    That wasn’t always the case. When he was first arrested, he would call Chicago radio stations from jail. But Sheriff Paul Kaupas stopped that with a court order. Now Peterson can only call people on a pre-approved list of lawyers and family, Kaupas said.

    “No reporters, no TV stations, no talk shows,” Kaupas confirmed Thursday.

    The sheriff said he took action because Peterson was making a “circus” out of the case.

    Since then, Peterson’s lawyers have forwarded comments to the media from their client.

  48. “When I gave Steve my guns there was no investigation to impede,” Peterson said. “They were my favorite guns, and I was going to give them to Steve when I retired anyway. I only gave him three of the dozen or so guns I owned, and I kept most of my guns in my house and the police confiscated them all, so how could giving him those three guns impede anything?”…

    Feeling a little guilty about that now, Drew?

    Perfect timing giving him those guns right around Stacy’s disappearance and your retirement. You sound like you’re regretting what you did to your son. Good, you should.

  49. That gun bull is so easy to see through. People might very well get past what Steve did by taking those guns. He was helping out his father, and he was being loyal. But how many people can get past a father using his son to hide potential evidence. Peterson knew he was going to be investigated. Maybe for a change, he’s actually thinking about one of his children, instead of his sorry self. And he caused his son a great disservice and probably destroyed his career over it. He knows it, and so does everyone else.

  50. Drew: “When I gave Steve my guns there was no investigation to impede,”

    Wow, that just does not jive at all with what Stephen testified to:

    Sheahan alleges that Peterson, a village police officer since 2004, violated state law and at least 10 departmental rules when he kept quiet after Drew Peterson asked him to hide three of his “favorite” guns at his son’s North Aurora home a day after Stacy was reported missing.

    Peterson, who said Tuesday that he stored the guns because his dad worried that police would damage them when they searched his Bolingbrook house, is also charged with keeping an illegal weapon and failing to keep quiet about the internal investigation against him.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-30/news/ct-met-stephen-peterson-hearing-20101130_1_drew-peterson-bolingbrook-police-sergeant-chief-thomas-sheahan

    Sounds like Drew knew very well that he was being investigated, at least according to Stephen.

    It’s all just so much nonsense. Of course it was impeding an investigation. They executed a search warrant because they wanted to examine all of Peterson’s guns, not just the ones he wanted them to see. For heaven’s sake – do they think we’re morons?

    Speaking of…I’ll just end with a quote from Joel Brodsky:

    The husband is always a suspect, whether you declare him so or no.”

  51. Peterson said his long pre-trial incarceration is forcing him to miss “critical parts” of his children’s lives, “like Lacy’s first day at school, or Tommy’s choosing his college, or prom night, and stuff like that.”

    I don’t believe Drew Peterson wrote this. I think Brodsky did. Brodsky is the ONLY one that calls Tom Peterson “Tommy.”

    I was recently told by someone that Tom Peterson hasn’t been called “Tommy” since his mother died.

    I’m sure this is easy enough to verify.

  52. I think Brodsky should quit doing his client a favor (wink, wink) with sending newspapers this garbage. He’s digging a deeper hole than you can imagine. The father is spewing one story, and the son testified to another.

    Way to go…….

    Great comparison, Facs.

  53. Yep it sure doesn’t jive when Drew said originally he gave him the guns because he didn’t want the police to damage them. So now he is saying that there wasn’t an investigation,he just gave them to Steve because he was going to give them to him anyway when he retired? Oh yeah sure real nice give your son who doesn’t have the legal right to own your illegal gun and let him hold onto them!! The story, always changes with Drew, and his Atty. You never know what is going to come out of their mouth next. ( A confession would be nice)

  54. Gee Drew, so sorry you missing things/time with your kids, but for once think of what they are missing…..like not just 1 mother, but 2, and now a father. This is not the police cheif’s fault, this is not Glasgow’s fault, heck it isn’t even Brodsky’s fault, it most definitely isn’t Stacey or Kathleen’s fault….Its all about you, just like you like it. Spin it anyway you like….its all your fault.

  55. No wonder Greenberg, one of Brodsky’s co-counsel, told him to STFU in court. Twice. No wonder he didn’t even sit at the defense table during the Appellate hearing, even though he’s the lead attorney. Sharkette, who’s been admitted to practice law less than a year got that honor. At one hearing, Lopez refused to sit at the same table with him, and chose to sit in the jury box with Drew that day. Brodsky gets no respect from his team members, and he’s acting like a big loser with these silly letters and emails. But that’s okay. Drew’s getting the defense he so deserves, and let’s hope it stays that way.

  56. charmed4sr, you said it! Those kids had not just one, but two moms torn out of their lives and there’s one man responsible.

    Every time that man asks (or has someone ask) for sympathy doesn’t he realize that it immediately reminds people of the fact that Stacy and Kathleen will never see those milestone moments in their kids’ lives? Not too smart…

Comments are closed.