Hearsay decision going back to appellate court for reconsideration

Today The Illinois Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reconsider whether eight (out of fourteen) hearsay statements should be allowed in Drew Peterson’s trial for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The prosecution had petitioned the Supreme Court to look at the decision handed down in July, which deemed the state had filed its appeal too late. The state’s position was that a recent decision in the case of People v. Hanson constituted a change in the law which allowed them to appeal beyond the deadline. The state is seeking a decision on the hearsay statements based on common law statutes rather than a more constrictive and recent hearsay statute.

State’s Attorney, James Glasgow says, “I am extraordinarily pleased by Wednesday’s Illinois Supreme Court order in the matter of People v. Peterson. I look forward to receiving an Appellate Court ruling on the merits of our appeal in light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s holdings in People v. Hanson. We anticipate a trial sometime in the spring.”

This will mean a few more months of waiting for the appeal to be reconsidered, and few more months for Drew Peterson to sit in jail.

Gossip columnist Michael Sneed reports that Drew’s teen sons, Kris and Tom, visited him in jail for the first time on Saturday. Tom was home from college for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Watch the video below to see the State’s Attorney’s press conference from July. We’re kind of back there again.

Read more at:
Shorewood Patch
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Hanson Ruling

~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

41 thoughts on “Hearsay decision going back to appellate court for reconsideration

  1. Well, at least we know where Drew will be spending Christmas…It has been so long since we have heard anything about this…His attorneys have even been keeping a low profile…I know that is hard for Mr. Brodsky cause he likes to be in the limelight…After all is said and done I am praying that ALL the heresay is admitted and that subsequent charges will be brought regarding the disappearance/death of Stacy….

  2. Joel was on Fox news at noon, spouting the usual half-truths and misinformation. It’s like he’s been saying it so long that he thinks it’s true.

    On the air he asserted that the appellate court will be revisiting the hearsay statute. I guess he missed the part from the last proceedings in which Glasgow is now asking the court to consider the statements using the reliability standards of common law (not the statute). Of course, Joel didn’t have anything to do with the oral arguments that day. He was sitting in the gallery while Steve Greenberg did the argument so maybe he napped through that bit.

    He’s even trying to convince the public (not sure why since they aren’t deciding anything) that hearsay evidence isn’t actually evidence. Dude, there are over 30 exceptions that allow certain kinds of hearsay at trial and it’s just sad that a seasoned attorney of his advanced age doesn’t know that by now.

  3. Here Joel, maybe this will help.

    Illinois Rules of Evidence

    RULE 804.
    HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; DECLARANT UNAVAILABLE

    (a) Definition of Unavailability. “Unavailability as a witness” includes situations in which the declarant–

    (1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

    (2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so; or

    (3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

    (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or

    (5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant’s attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.

    A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

    (b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

    (1) Former Testimony. Testimony given as a witness (A) at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in an evidence deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination, or (B) in a discovery deposition as provided for in Supreme Court Rule 212(a)(5).

    (2) Statement Under Belief of Impending Death. In a prosecution for homicide, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

    (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 in a criminal case is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

    (4) Statement of Personal or Family History.

    (A) A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or
    (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other’s family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

    (5) Forfeiture by Wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Evidence/Evidence.htm#804

  4. Judge White’s decision on the hearsay statements was sealed but then subsequently leaked. As far as we can tell, these are the statements. The crossed out ones were not allowed are now being argued.

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

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

    3. A fellow student at Joliet Junior College, Mary Park’s testimony that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

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

    5. Kathleen’s sister, Susan Savio’s testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

    6. Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman’s testimony that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

    7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

    8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

    9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company

    10. Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith’s testimony that Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

    11. Stacy’s friend, Scott Rossetto’s testimony that she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.

    12. The Rev. Neil Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the late morning on the day Savio’s body was found. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

    13. Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, Michael Miles’ testimony that Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it.

  5. Facs,Thanks for the updates and the recaps on the hearsay that was ruled out originally. I heard something about it on the radio at work, but just now was able to find out what it was about. I am very happy with the decision from the Supreme Court. I am also happy Drew will remain in Jail 🙂 Will keep checking in to see if there is any new updates.

  6. Hi Lorie. If you look at the last thread, Rescue posted all the news stories from this morning.

    I’m hoping that when the appellate justices reconsider the evidence that they will take into consideration that Judge White never did consider it from a common law exception angle, which the ‘hearsay law’ provides for. It’s something Glasgow brought up during the oral arguments and only one of the three justices took it into account. IMO, it wasn’t fully considered since Judge White admitted that he only weighed it against the higher reliability standard.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/hearsay-ruling-is-in/#comment-67030

  7. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
    WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011
    THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE LEAVE TO APPEAL DOCKET WERE DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED:
    ………

    No. 112875 – People State of Illinois, petitioner, v. Drew Peterson, respondent. Leave to appeal, Appellate Court, Third District. (3-10-0513, 3-10-0514, 3-10-0515, 3-10-0546, 3-10-0550)

    Petition for leave to appeal denied.
    In the exercise of this Court’s supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, Third District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Peterson, case No. 3-10-0514, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court is directed to address the appeal on the merits.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/PLA_Ann/2011/113011.pdf

  8. Appeals court must consider evidence against Drew Peterson
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter/drozek@suntimes.com November 30, 2011 10:20AM

    Updated: November 30, 2011 10:01PM

    An Illinois Supreme Court ruling on disputed hearsay evidence is more likely to help prosecutors than aid ex-cop Drew Peterson when his murder trial begins, legal experts said Wednesday.

    The high court ordered an appellate court to take another look at allowing more of the secondhand evidence to be presented when the former Bolingbrook police officer stands trial for the 2004 drowning death of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    The Supreme Court already has ruled such evidence can be admitted even if its reliability is uncertain — so the decision sending the issue back to an appellate court is probably not good news for Peterson and his defense team, experts said.

    “I’d be optimistic if I were a prosecutor on this case,” said Richard Kling, a professor at Chicago Kent College of Law.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow seemed to share that sentiment in a statement he released after the high court ruling..

    “I am extraordinarily pleased by Wednesday’s Illinois Supreme Court order,” said Glasgow, who has contended hearsay evidence is critical in proving Peterson drowned Savio in her bathtub.

    Peterson’s attorneys downplayed the ruling, saying they fear it simply could further stall a trial originally scheduled to begin in 2010.

    “We’re disappointed in the delay, we’re not afraid of the merits of the case,” said defense attorney Joel Brodsky, who took a slap at prosecutors’ pre-trial appeals that have twice delayed Peterson’s trial.

    “It seems like they’re terrified of a trial,” Brodsky said.

    It’s not clear how quickly the appellate court could rule on the hearsay issue, but Glasgow in his statement said he still expects Peterson’s trial to begin in the spring.

    Peterson, now 57, has remained jailed since his 2009 arrest on charges he killed the 40-year-old Savio during bitter divorce proceedings.

    Peterson also remains a suspect in the still-unsolved disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who vanished in October 2007 from the couple’s Bolingbrook home.

    A 3rd District Illinois Appellate Court panel in July effectively limited the use of statements against Drew Peterson that purportedly were made by Savio before her death.

    By a 2-1 vote, the panel upheld a ruling by Will County Judge Stephen White barring eight of 14 statements allegedly made by Savio and Stacy Peterson because they weren’t sufficiently reliable.

    But the appellate court panel based its ruling on a timing issue, finding that Will County prosecutors missed a crucial 30-day deadline in appealing White’s original ruling.

    Justices, however, didn’t directly address the reliability of the purported statements.

    The Supreme Court ruling issued Wednesday directs the appellate panel to consider the “merits” of the case, which experts said would include whether such hearsay statements must be deemed reliable to be used as evidence.

    But a June 2010 high court ruling in another murder case clearly established that reliability isn’t an issue in allowing such statements, Kling said.

    In challenging the appellate ruling, Glasgow asked the Supreme Court to allow the eight banned hearsay statements to be used against Peterson.

    That question is now back before the appellate court — but this time the Supreme Court is prodding the lower court to make a ruling.

    “It puts the issue back on the appellate court so they take the heat on ruling what evidence comes in,” said Leonard Cavise, a law professor at DePaul University.

    http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/9155655-417/appeals-court-must-consider-evidence-against-drew-peterson.html

  9. Brodsky said it seems like the prosecutors are terrified of a trial. Yeah, right. He couldn’t keep his bobbing head awake during his expert witness’s testimony at the hearsay proceedings, so that comment is laughable.

    I don’t think he deserves any amount of respect for the way he uses Peterson’s children by feeding his b.s. snipets to Sneed. His “Tommy” updates are disgusting. It’s too bad the two teens couldn’t have visited their father in private, without him running and spewing the news to Sneed. What a guy.

  10. As for being afraid of a trial, just reference the youtube video posted above of Glasgow, who addresses previous infantile remarks on the part of the defense about the state being “chicken”. Thankfully, the state recognizes that this is a case about a dead woman and two motherless kids…not an opportunity for a glib remark and a sound bite.

  11. If you want to do some reading about hearsay evidence and its admissibility in US courts, here’s one place to start:

    Common misconceptions

    One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions.

    There are two other common misconceptions concerning the hearsay rule. The first is that hearsay applies only to oral statements. The hearsay rule applies to all out-of-court statements whether oral, written or otherwise.[4] The Federal Rules of Evidence defines a statement as an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if the conduct is intended by the person as an assertion. Even written documents made under oath, such as affidavits or notarized statements, are subject to the ‘hearsay rule’.

    The second common misconception is that all out-of-court statements are hearsay. This is not the case. An out of court statement may or may not be hearsay depending on the purpose for which it is offered. If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay. When offered for any other purpose the statement is not hearsay. For example: Witness testifies that yesterday he spoke to Jim (who was in Vermont) on the phone and that Jim made the following statement, “It’s raining in Vermont!” If the attorney is seeking to use this statement to prove that it was in fact raining in Vermont, then it is hearsay. But, if the attorney is seeking to use the statement to prove that the phone lines were working that day, or that Jim had not lost the power of speech, or for any other purpose, then the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it is not hearsay…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

  12. Let’s face it, Joel Brodsky hates hearsay evidence because it’s evidence. He hates first-hand testimony too, and he hates forensic evidence and expert witness testimony. As a defense lawyer the only reaction he can have to any kind of evidence is to kick and scream about its admission to trial.

    If this case was built on DNA evidence he’d be on the news every day telling you that DNA is not reliable and shouldn’t be allowed in court. Then he’d tear down the personal history of each of the investigators who gathered the DNA evidence and call them drug addicts and say they are money-hungry fame seekers.

    He’s going to rant and he’s going to call names and he’s going to wave the constitution and the American flag around, but it really all boils down to the fact that he’ll say anything to try to exonerate his client.

    Why he wants to do it on TV instead of in a courtroom is a more interesting question.

    In the end it doesn’t matter if Joel Brodsky likes hearsay evidence or not. The court is going to reconsider and rule based on existing laws which do allow some exceptions to hearsay evidence. The state is right to push for whatever evidence they can get admitted. As Glasgow says, they only have one shot at a conviction.

  13. Could Joel Brodsky show less understanding of the the Supreme Court ruling here? Note also that says that there is only one exception to the hearsay rule. BTW, he also thinks that the public dislike of Drew Peterson is ultimately going to work in his client’s favor. Also, in other news: night is day, black is white, and cats are dogs.

  14. A more in-depth story from the Tribune:

    Appellate court ordered to consider hearsay in Peterson case
    Supreme Court decision could push murder trial back to spring

    (Joel Brodsky and other members of Drew Peterson’s defense team suffered a setback when the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a lower appellate panel to consider the merits of hearsay evidence that prosecutors want to use in their prosecution of the ex-police officer in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.)

    By Stacy St. Clair and Steve Schmadeke, Chicago Tribune reporters
    December 1, 2011

    Will County prosecutors netted an appeals-court victory Wednesday as the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a lower court to consider whether eight hearsay statements should be allowed at Drew Peterson’s murder trial.

    The high court’s ruling breathes new life into the state’s efforts while keeping the long-delayed trial on hold for at least a few more months.

    In a divided opinion by the 3rd District Appellate Court this summer, the justices ruled the Will County state’s attorney’s office missed the 30-day appeal deadline when it sought to overturn a trial court’s decision barring eight of 14 hearsay statements from being heard by jurors. Prosecutors contend the testimony is crucial to their efforts to convict Peterson in the drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    But the high court ordered the justices to consider the issues involved in the appeal, not its timeliness. The appellate court now must opine on whether the trial judge properly barred eight statements because he believed they were unreliable.

    “The appellate court is directed to address the appeal on the merits,” the Supreme Court stated in a three-sentence order.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow released a statement saying he was “extraordinarily pleased” by the decision.

    “I look forward to receiving an Appellate Court ruling on the merits of our appeal,” he said. “We anticipate a trial sometime in the spring.”

    Peterson’s lawyers expressed disappointment in the decision.

    “But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no evidence in this case,” defense attorney Steven Greenberg said.

    The Third District Appellate Court panel can take up the case again after the Supreme Court issues its official order, which typically occurs within 35 days, Court Clerk Gist Fleshman said. Once the panel resumes jurisdiction over the case, it can either work from the record it already has or order new briefs or oral arguments.

    At stake in the matter are several damning statements, including testimony from Savio’s divorce attorney, who says Savio told him that Peterson threatened to kill her and make it look like an accident. Prosecutors also want jurors to hear several witnesses recount how Savio accused Peterson of breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat.

    The majority did not address the merits of the state’s arguments in the original ruling, but Presiding Justice Robert L. Carter — the lone dissenter in the case — suggested that the eight hearsay statements would be allowed under the hearsay laws. However, they may be inadmissible on other grounds, he said.

    Peterson, 57, is charged with killing Savio, who was found in a dry bathtub in 2004. Officials initially said the death was an accidental drowning but reopened the case after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007. He remains a suspect in her disappearance but has not been charged.

    Glasgow largely has built his case around pathology reports and the 14 hearsay statements that he says would allow Savio and Stacy Peterson to speak from the grave. He even pushed for a new statute — dubbed Drew’s Law — to allow secondhand testimony, though the appellate court has all but said the law was unnecessary.

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

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

    On the eve of trial, Glasgow announced he would appeal the judge’s ruling to help convict Peterson and give Savio a voice. He argued the judge’s decision — made under the guidelines established by Drew’s Law — should have adhered instead to the less restrictive common law.

    Peterson’s defense team has likened the move to changing the rules in the middle of a game.

    “The state wants to change its position because they have been losing this fight since it started,” Peterson attorney Joseph Lopez said.

    Peterson, a father of three school-age children, has been jailed since May 2009 on $20 million bail. His attorneys have repeatedly argued he should be released while the case is on appeal, but the motions have been denied each time.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-ruling-1201-20111201,0,7476782.story

  15. Joel Brodsky IMO speaks street language instead of how a professional Attorney would speak. All the name calling, and remarks that comes out of his mouth is something a grade school, or middle school kid would do while in an argument with another peer. What a school yard bully! I am surprised he isn’t out in front of the courthouse beating up people for lunch money! It’s a good thing he isn’t the main attorney in the front line because I am sure his mouth would probably get him barred from the courthouse if not thrown behind bars himself lol Of course it is just my opinion wouldn’t want Joel, Drew, or their loyal ally getting their panties in a bunch threatening people with lawsuits! The last I remembered we still have the right to Freedom of Speech right?Hopefully this case will get to trial to soon, he will be convicted, and we will never have to hear, or think about any of them again! What paradise, and justice that will be! Especially for Kathleen, and Stacy’s family.. Always in my Prayers and Thoughts!

  16. Great post, Lorie. I agree that Peterson’s lead attorney lacks professionalism when he goes on the airways to discuss his take on everything. No one expects him to say his client is guilty and the evidence is compelling, but he is so uncouth and unprofessional.

    Brodsky says he will, most likely, make another attempt at trying to get Peterson out of jail. Gee, hmmm, let me think. Who does he see about that? Glasgow? Nope. The jail personnel? Wrong. The Sheriff? Naw. Oh wait, it’s the court. The judges. The ones that have denied, denied, denied every single motion up to this point. The ones that have the current evidence/facts of the case at their disposal, who continue to rule that Peterson should stay where he is. Oh wait, there is no evidence or facts to do this. Damn. Why is Peterson still locked up? Oh, I am so confused. I’m going to have to wait for Brodsky’s next divine revelation about what the truth really is……

  17. What is that old saying?

    “If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullsh:)t. …!

    “Give ’em the old Razzle Dazzle”

  18. You’re so right, Judgin. I can’t help wondering if Brodsky just makes this stuff up because he feels that he has to put a positive spin on everything (winning!) or if he genuinely believes what comes out of his mouth. Either way, it’s just weird.

  19. Please, someone send this news story to Joel Brodsky. It’s irrefutable proof that Stacy Peterson is alive and well!

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/bizarre&id=8364524

    Seriously, the man seems to have gone around the bend. He can’t even pen a cohesive sentence at this point. Found this little gem on his Facebook page “I there is are several very strong arguments for keeping all of the hearsay “evidence” out of any trial.” I THERE IS ARE? Is that any better than the writing that got Maksym booted off the Peterson defense team? Maybe Greenberg and Lopez will be asking him to “step aside” soon…

    I can’t help but begin to wonder if Drew is starting to crack as well. Maybe it’s time to just confess, hmmm?

  20. ROFL keyword “ATTEMPT” to get Drew out of jail once AGAIN! As he racks up Drew’s Atty fees, and takes more and more money from the children who are without two wonderful beautiful mothers because of their Father. They won’t have much to live off of by the time Joel gets through with him. After how many attempts do you realize YOUR NOT GETTING OUT, and just sit and wait till your trial? Everytime Joel does anything it is costing Drew I am guessing hundreds of Dollars for filing, and appearance fees Oh, and…Seriously? He really thinks people are buying all of his stories? Joel needs to realize people are starting to realize NO courts are allowing Drew out. Every judge is agreeing that this man needs to remain behind bars. Obviously this man is dangerous, or guilty of something. They wouldn’t hold a man behind bars , and violate his constitutional rights knowing they are going to get the pants sued off of them. It is pretty obvious they have something, and know something to WHY they are detaining him till the trial.

  21. rescueapet :
    I’m beginning to wonder myself about Brodsky. He’s entered the Twilight Zone I think.

    Some people just can’t handle it well under pressure, or when they get a touch of stardom, or publicity.. They lose it, and become wreckless, and spiral out of control. (loose cannon). Look what some of these celebrities have done the last few years!

    Oh, and a , Joel don’t let it go to your head! Your not “special” just yet so no need to put your helmet on right now!

    Although in some peoples minds as we have seen they seem to think they are one!

  22. rescueapet :
    I’m beginning to wonder myself about Brodsky. He’s entered the Twilight Zone I think.

    Early onset Dementia or Frontotemporal dementia (a clinical syndrome caused by degeneration of the frontal lobe of the brain and may extend back to the temporal lobe..
    often following the hairline.)

  23. Early onset Dementia or Frontotemporal dementia (a clinical syndrome caused by degeneration of the frontal lobe of the brain and may extend back to the temporal lobe..
    often following the hairline.)

    LOVE IT!!!!!!!

  24. Cyril Wecht’s newest book has a chapter about the Drew Peterson cases. I glanced through the samples on Amazon and didn’t see any new information but if you want to read absolutely everything written about the case, you might want to check it out.

    Interesting that he looks at the cases very objectively (Interesting because at one point, Joel Brodsky was saying that Wecht thought Kathleen’s death was an accident). He doesn’t give an opinion as to whether or not Kathleen was murdered, although he does state that he thinks there won’t be sufficient evidence to get a conviction. He doubts that he will be called to testify at Drew’s trial since he did not examine Kathleen’s body directly, and only looked at the autopsy report.

    The book is co-authored with true crime writer, Dawna Kaufmann.

    “From Crime Scene to Courtroom: Examining the Mysteries Behind Famous Cases”

    I just noticed we got cited as a reference in the book. Well, that’s refreshing!

  25. Back in November 07 the good doctor had this to say about the case so…

    WECHT: Well, I agree it is almost certainly a homicide. I have not disagreement with that. And I believe that this exhumation autopsy is absolutely necessary. In saying that I don’t think they are likely to come up with anything, I am not criticizing the undertaking of this procedure. It is wise, necessary tactically strategically in preparation for the reopening of the case.

    I’m just being realistic based upon 50 or 100 exhumation autopsies that I have done in 45 years as to what is likely to be found. The fact of the matter is that this case was botched horribly in March of ’04. You find a woman 40 years of age, she has no heart disease, she has no other significant medical problem, she has no alcohol, she has no drugs, and nobody commented on this. She is sitting in the tub.

    She is not submerged in water. Her head isn’t down. Even if one says, well, gee, what if the water were up, well, if the water is up over her mouth and over her nose and she’s sitting in the tub reclining like this, the water is over the top of the tub…

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/your-thread-august-22/#comment-30348

  26. Now that ex-governor Blabo received a fourteen year prison sentence, in spite of being handled by PR guru Glenn Selig, also Drew Peterson’s media wiz, I thought a blast-from-the-past might be interesting to read.

    Rod Blagojevich, Drew Peterson just trying to play us for fools
    Tribune reporter
    January 26, 2009|By Rex W. Huppke

    By hiring the public-relations firm that represents former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson, the impeached governor of Illinois has accomplished two things.

    He has given the green light to those of us who felt timid about drawing comparisons between his brash behavior and Peterson’s. And he has cemented our state’s new marketing slogan as: “Come to Illinois. Chock full o’ crazy.”

    Granted, Rod Blagojevich’s situation and Peterson’s are vastly different. One stands accused of trying to sell President Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat; the other is a suspect in the death of his third wife and disappearance of his fourth. Both, without question, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    But would it be too much to ask that they remain quiet until proven innocent?

    Blagojevich’s impeachment trial begins Monday, and the governor will spend the day on a national media blitz, appearing on “Good Morning America,” “The View,” and in the I-Didn’t-Do-It! chair across from Larry King. Portions of an interview with the governor appeared Sunday on NBC’s “Today” show, putting him on a chatty path similar to the one Peterson has followed.

    And it’s baffling. Just about anyone who has watched Peterson’s antics — flirting with female reporters, considering a “Win a Date with Drew” radio contest — would struggle to see how the former cop has helped himself by accentuating what many consider a spine-tingling creepiness.

    And yet there went Blagojevich on Friday, spinning a political conspiracy theory over Chicago airwaves that made the rather unintimidating Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn sound like the head of some tax-hungry cabal. The governor proceeded to hire Peterson’s PR firm, which seems a bit like hiring the town drunk to boost your image following a DUI arrest.

    Presumably more nuttiness will come Monday. And while voyeuristically satisfying, a PR blitz like this should be recognized for what it is: an affront to our intelligence. Whether it’s coming from Blagojevich or Peterson, innocent or guilty, it’s a rope-a-dope strategy, and we’re the dopes.

    Criminal suspects such as Blagojevich and Peterson, along with their supposedly media-savvy handlers, are hoping our focus on the actual crimes alleged will be lost like socks in a spin cycle. The guy with the mustache and the guy with the perfect hair want to make themselves guilty pleasures, infectious media characters, Biggest Losers or Paris Hilton-esque oddities.

    It’s the only way to explain how two wholly different Illinoisans could be handling their situations in such a strikingly similar fashion. With what Blagojevich would call “testicular virility,” they seem to be laying out insanity defenses, or at least delusional defenses, before the court of public opinion.

    Perhaps there’s some capitalist end to all this. Maybe Peterson and the governor are hoping to make their stories irresistible to Hollywood, shaping plots even the best screenwriters couldn’t drum up. Maybe they’re dreaming of a payday and some form of celluloid immortality.

    We should deny them that. We should tune out and look away from the diversionary fires they keep setting. We should remind them that, while we have our guilty pleasures, we aren’t a nation of dummies.

    Then perhaps the accused will stop hiring PR firms, and start recognizing there’s an admirable grace to keeping your mouth shut.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-26/news/0901250459_1_pr-blitz-rod-blagojevich-dui-arrest

  27. Drew Peterson Lifetime Movie to be Aired in January
    Hollywood star Rob Lowe will play the accused wife-killer.

    The Drew Peterson Story, Lifetime’s made-for-TV movie based on the Drew Peterson saga, will air in January, said Joseph Hosey, author of the nonfiction book Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Drew Peterson, which the book is based off of.

    Hosey, who is also editor of Shorewood Patch, said the airing date is set for Jan. 14, although he noted it could change depending on circumstances.

    The movie has been in the works for nearly a year. In June, it was reported Rob Lowe signed on to play the former ex-Bolingbrook cop Peterson.

    The film will explore the two cases in which one of Peterson’s wives was killed and another mysteriously disappeared and also features Kaley Cuoco, who stars the Big Bang Theory, as Stacy Peterson.

    Peterson allegedly drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004 but was not arrested until the disappearance of his next wife, Stacy Peterson, attracted attention to her death.

    Peterson has been in jail ever since awaiting trial.

    In February, the appellate court heard arguments from prosecutors and defense attorney Steve Greenberg over what—if any—hearsay evidence can be used against Peterson at his murder trial.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow had brought the case to the appellate court in a bid to reverse Judge Stephen White’s decision to exclude most of the 13 hearsay statements he wants to use against Peterson.

    The case had ascended all the way to the state’s highest court, but just last week, the Illinois Supreme Court sent the case back to the Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa to take the case again and make up its collective mind about it.

    Peterson will likely spend at least another three months in jail before his trial could conceivably start, meaning he won’t likely be able to see the movie when it airs.

    According to reports, it took Lowe, who now stars in NBC’s hit comedy show Parks and Recreation, nine hours to get into full Peterson attire.

    “I have to say, it’s an interesting choice,” Hosey said upon hearing Lowe would play Peterson. “They’re really going to have to ugly him up, but that’s showbiz, I guess.”

    Lowe has said he’s never played anyone quite like Peterson, calling his story “so compelling and dark and tragic… very complex.”

    “It’s a real transformative character for me to play,” Lowe told Parade Magazine. “It’s just a very different style than anything I’ve ever done before and I think people are going to be surprised.”

    Lowe said crews shot two different endings should Peterson’s trial move forward and he be found guilty or innocent, the Parade report said.

    A verdict, however, seems unlikely considering where the case stands now.

    What do you think of Lifetime releasing a movie about Drew Peterson? Weigh in with a comment below.

    By Brian Feldt

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-lifetime-movie-to-be-aired-in-january

  28. Drew Peterson Lifetime movie starring Rob Lowe sets air date
    December 8, 2011 12:26PM
    Updated: December 8, 2011 2:04PM

    The date of Drew Peterson’s murder trial remains up in the air — but the date of his Lifetime movie is now set.

    The Lifetime network announced “Drew Peterson: Untouchable” starring Rob Lowe as the former Bolingbrook cop will air at 7 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 21.

    The Lifetime Original Movie also stars Kaley Cuoco (“Penny” on the CBS’ “The Big Bang Theory”) as Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson’s missing fourth wife.

    Drew Peterson is currently sitting in the Will County Jail, accused of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in her dry bathtub in 2004.

    Here’s how Lifetime describes the made-for-TV movie:

    “Charming Chicago-area officer Drew Peterson (Lowe) seemed virtually ‘untouchable’ in more ways than one when it came to his womanizing ways, having been married three times before landing the eye and affection of Stacy Cales (Cuoco), a woman half his age.

    “As Peterson’s relationship with Stacy blossoms, his relationship with third wife Kathleen Savio (Cara Buono, Mad Men) unravels in a bitter divorce — until Kathleen is inexplicably found dead in an empty bathtub.

    “Soon after making Stacy his fourth wife and having their first child, Peterson’s jealousy and controlling ways begin to strain their marriage. Suddenly Stacy disappears, leaving her two children, and Peterson’s older children behind. Peterson insists that Stacy left him for another man but in the wake of her disappearance, new questions are raised about Kathleen’s death and her case is re-opened, drawing national media attention to Peterson and the strange cases of Kathleen and Stacy.

    “Peterson seems to bask in the media attention, professing his innocence and announcing his engagement to yet another younger woman. But when authorities take a closer look at the circumstances surrounding both cases, a different kind of spotlight is placed on him as more questions arise. Are Kathleen’s death and Stacy’s still-unknown whereabouts just a tragic coincidence? Or is there more there than meets the eye?”

    http://www.suntimes.com/9324257-417/drew-peterson-lifetime-movie-starring-rob-lowe-sets-air-date.html

  29. Snippet from NBC story about airing of the Drew Peterson story:

    Lifetime’s website describes the movie like this: “Based on a true story, the film follows the fascinating tale of police officer Drew Peterson’s fall from grace after the mysterious disappearance of his fourth wife.”

    Peterson’s lawyers have tried to halt the movie, saying the book the movie is based on is “extremely opinionated (and) blatantly biased.”

    Joseph Hosey, author of “The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson,” disputes that. “They obviously failed to halt the movie and there’s nothing biased or opinionated in my book,” Hosey said.

    Haha, “extremely opinionated (and) blatantly biased.” That’s a joke. As if the lead attorney himself didn’t crawl up the ass of that two-headed monster!

    Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Drew-Peterson-Movie-Set-to-Air-on-in-January–135315808.html#ixzz1g423WtqB

  30. Ah come now. I’ve read Fatal Vows and I don’t think it’s biased.

    Now if you want a biased book, go look in the bargain bin for the book by the author that Joel and Drew handpicked to put things in a Drew-friendly light. But these days, that dude doesn’t seem to want to be associated with the case at all.

    Do a search for “Peterson” on his Facebook page. Nope. Nuthin’

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000578578307

  31. OMG, what a moron. Brodsky must be hurting for attention. I can’t even believe how stupid this is:

    Drew Peterson Wants Apology from State Cops
    [SNIP]
    …Peterson believes Stacy is alive and said in a statement Tuesday he wants an apology after another woman, Judith Bello, was discovered alive in California after disappearing 18 years ago….

    …“There is a huge cloud of suspicion cast over Drew Peterson because of the Illinois State Police’s statement that Stacy Peterson is presumed dead; however there is absolutely no evidence to support that statement,” said Drew Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky….

    Brodsky said in the statement Stacy Peterson’s mother disappeared when her kids were young. “In Stacy’s mind disappearing may be ‘normal,’” Brodsky said.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Drew-Peterson-Wants-Apology-from-State-Cops-135516238.html

  32. Drew Peterson still remains the prime and only suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. Let Brodsky exonerate his client and then he can start whining about an “apology”.

  33. I’ll stick with what Cassandra Cales had to say on the anniversary of Stacy’s disappearance:

    “I hope you regret what you’ve done, taking someone so sweet and so fragile away from your family and you — and me and my family,” Stacy’s sister, Cassandra Cales, told CBS 2’s Mike Puccinelli in October. “She meant no harm to you and she wasn’t going to take all your money and everything. You just couldn’t live with her being with another man. She loved you very much and she just couldn’t put up with your jealousy and that’s what we talked about the night before you murdered her.”

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/peterson-missing-woman-found-in-california-proves-stacy-could-still-be-alive/

  34. I demand an apology from Drew Peterson for demanding an apology from the State Police because I have irrefutable PROOF that men do kill women and hide their remains away in places like storage lockers, even though they tell everyone that the women left voluntarily. Gimme a break. 🙄

    DNA confirms body in freezer is that of woman missing for 28 years
    The Associated Press

    LEWISTON – Human remains that were found in a freezer in a storage unit this fall were those of a former girlfriend of the man who rented the unit for nearly 20 years, law enforcement officials said Friday.

    Because of decomposition, tissue samples from the body had to be sent to a Pennsylvania laboratory, which used DNA from the remains and a relative’s DNA sample to confirm the identity of Kitty Wardwell, said Steve McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety.

    The state Medical Examiner’s Office determined that Wardwell’s death was a homicide, but the cause of her death was being withheld Friday.

    “We’re in the initial stages of this investigation. At this point, withholding the cause of death is appropriate as we try to get further answers,” McCausland said.

    The storage unit was rented by Wardwell’s former boyfriend Frank Julian, who died Oct. 1 at the age of 80. Wardwell had been missing for 28 years.

    Dwight Collins, Wardwell’s older brother, said the family believed from the beginning that Julian had something to do with her disappearance.

    “We’re relieved that we finally have closure on it,” Collins said from his home in Bucksport. “We know it’s her. We can put her to rest now.”

    http://www.pressherald.com/news/dna-confirms-body-in-freezer-is-that-of-woman-missing-for-28-years_2011-12-03.html

  35. I really, really, really think Brodsky’s lost it. Finding stories about missing people turning up, and then asking the ISP for an apology on behalf of his client because of a media story, sounds absurd. Professing that Stacy is alive, based on a totally unrelated matter, with no proof other than babble, is doing more to make him look like a complete moron than any of us could ever

    Peterson, per Brodsky, wants an ISP apology? SO WHAT!!!!!

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/2011/12/13/drew-peterson-demands-apology-from-illinois-state-police/

Comments are closed.