Appellate court overturns hearsay decision. Drew Peterson finally going to trial

The appellate court has finally reconsidered the eight barred hearsay statements on their merits and have decided to reverse the earlier appellate decision to bar them. They have decided that the statements are reliable and admissable at trial which can now go forward. We could be seeing a trial as early as June!

However, this doesn’t mean that the earlier barred evidence will necessarily be heard at trial. In the decision Justice William Holdridge pointed out that,

…We do not mean to suggest, however, that the circuit court is required to admit those eight statements during the trial. Rather, we merely hold that the statements are admissible under Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and should be admitted under that rule unless the circuit court finds they are otherwise inadmissible.

In other words, the statements have been ruled admissible under the long-established common laws of forfeiture by wrongdoing, which is what James Glasgow had argued for back in February 2011, but they won’t all necessarily make it into the trial.

Although this decision is a huge win for the state, it did not come without some chastisement over the controversial hearsay statute (which has been referred to as Drew’s Law) that Glasgow first hung his case on but then ultimately begged the court to toss aside:

…one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.

These are the hearsay statements that have been deemed reliable (based on our research. The original decision was sealed, but leaked). The statements in red are the ones that were originally barred but are now admissible.

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.

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


109 thoughts on “Appellate court overturns hearsay decision. Drew Peterson finally going to trial

  1. Victory for prosecutors: Court allows hearsay statements in Peterson case

    By Stacy St. Clair
    Tribune reporter
    2:36 p.m. CDT, April 12, 2012

    Will County prosecutors have scored a significant victory in their case against Drew Peterson, with an appellate court granting their request to use several hearsay statements at the former Bolingbrook police officer’s murder trial.

    In a divided opinion by the Third District Appellate court, the justices ruled the trial judge cannot bar the so-called second-hand testimony because he found the statements unreliable. The Will County state’s attorney’s office contends the statements are crucial to their efforts to convict Peterson of the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    The case, which has drawn national media attention, has been put on hold for nearly two years as State’s Attorney James Glasgow pushed for the statements to be declared admissible. The trial judge retired while the case was on appeal.

    Peterson, 57, is charged with killing Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. Officials initially said the death was an accidental drowning, but authorities reopened the case after his 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 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.

    Will County Judge Stephen White had sided with prosecutors in finding that the preponderance of evidence showed Peterson’s wrongdoing, but he still barred the majority of hearsay statements because they did “not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability.”

    Glasgow argued that the courts do not need to consider the reliablity of hearsay because it’s not required by common law. The ruling called Glasgow’s reasoning “puzzling” even as it backed him.

    “This change in the state’s position is puzzling,” the ruling states. “If the legislature intended to facilitate the successful prosecution of criminal defendants who intentionally prevent witnesses from testifying (as the statute’s legislative history suggests), it is unclear why it passed a statute that imposed restrictions on prosecutors that are not found in the common law.”

    The defense can still appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, but it is unclear if it will do so.

    “As far as I am concerned, the statements the judge left out are the less troubling,” Peterson lawyer Steve Greenberg said. “Whatever the ruling is, the ruling is.”,0,7453508.story

  2. Court allows hearsay evidence against Drew Peterson
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter April 12, 2012 2:42PM
    Updated: April 12, 2012 3:17PM

    Dealing a crucial setback to Drew Peterson, an Illinois appellate court has ruled prosecutors can present additional hearsay evidence implicating the former Bolingbrook cop in the drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    The new ruling released Thursday could mean eight more secondhand statements — including some purportedly made by Savio before her 2004 death — will be used against Peterson by Will County prosecutors when he stands trial on murder charges.

    The 3rd District Appellate Court previously had upheld a lower court ruling barring those statements as evidence because their reliability was suspect.

    The ruling means Peterson’s attorneys can’t challenge the reliability of the dispute hearsay statements. But his attorneys still can raise other legal challenges to using the hearsay statements at Peterson’s murder trial.

    One of Peterson’s defense attorneys dismissed importance of the ruling.

    “All the statements are hogwash made by Johnny-come-lately media wannabes,” attorney Steven Greenberg said.

    The ruling likely clears the way for Peterson, who’s been jailed since May 2009, to stand trial later this year.

  3. As I recall Steve Greenberg was publicly bashing Joel Brodsky and the merits of the defense as of May 2009, and only joined the defense in April 2010.

    IMO “Johnny-come-lately media wannabe” very accurately describes Atty Greenberg’s presence on the defense team. 😉

  4. “All the statements are hogwash made by Johnny-come-lately media wannabes,” attorney Steven Greenberg said.

    What is he talking about? No, not “all the statements are hogwash” comments made by media wanabes. None are, in fact. In fact, one statement was attributed to an attorney, Harry Smith. He’s a “Johnny-come lately media wannabe?” I wish when Drew’s attorneys make comments, they’d think them out first, without sounding like an irate, irrational, sore loser.


  5. “The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office argued from the beginning that all of the statements it presented from Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio should be admitted as evidence at trial in the case of People v. Drew Peterson,” Pelkie said, pegging the start of the trial for late spring or early summer.

    Whenever the trial does start, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, one member of the shifting team of lawyers defending Drew Peterson in the nearly three years since he was charged with murder, doesn’t think it will be greatly affected by the hearsay statements.

    “So what? It still doesn’t mean anything,” Lopez said.

    The statements that can be used against Drew Peterson were testified to by a range of witnesses including a minister, Savio’s sisters, her divorce attorney and a male nurse from Stacy Peterson’s past.

    The various witnesses testified to Savio fearing for her life, telling how Drew Peterson threatened her at knife-point, and of Stacy Peterson relating how Drew Peterson coached her to give a cover story to police after Savio’s body was found.

    Drew Peterson’s longest serving lawyer, self-proclaimed “lead attorney” Joel Brodsky, failed to return calls for comment on what impact this evidence might have on the case. But Lopez was dismissive of what difference they will make.

    “If they prosecuted every person who said they wanted something bad to happen to their ex-spouse, there would be such a backlog it would be incredible,” Lopez said. “They still don’t have any evidence.”

  6. Joe is right that its a good thing they don’t prosecute every person who says they want something bad to happen to their ex-spouse…but its a great thing that they do prosecute people who follow through with the threat.

  7. No kidding, Charmed. Is it me or are the defense sound bites just getting lamer and lamer? It’s like they don’t even try to make sense any more.

    Two of those pieces of evidence are actual statements from Kathleen Savio. In one case on tape! So a woman who’s been dead 8 years is a Johnny-come-lately?

  8. Appellate court rules in prosecutors’ favor in Peterson case

    Tom Negovan
    WGN News
    4:48 p.m. CDT, April 12, 2012
    Drew Peterson’s defense lawyer Joel Brodsky tells WGN News that the ruling handed down Thursday afternoon by the third district appellate court was not unexpected, and says he will now be trying other means of keeping so-called hearsay evidence out of the Drew Peterson trial.

    Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow had argued that those statements are crucial to the effort to convict Peterson of the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Peterson also remains a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. Prosecutors say the hearsay statements would essentially allow the women to testify from the grave.

    “What I know about their case is they don’t have one. There is no evidence. And this hearsay- they’re trying to call it evidence, but it’s not. And its statements to the judge, judge white has already said, is unreliable. So what does that say about their case? And unfortunately this process takes time and my client has to lose years of his life until he’s set free. That’s the unfortunate part of it,” Brodsky said.

    Not unfortunate at all from the prosecution’s point of view, now that they have this ruling, they are hoping to bring the Peterson case to trial this summer. He remains in the Will County jail.,0,3346119.story

  9. “…And its statements to the judge, judge white has already said, is unreliable.

    So Joel Brodsky wants to defend this case from the past? Hope he can catch up by the time it goes to trial. LOL

  10. A reminder that the court did not overturn their decision on the other two appeals that were entered after the June 2010 decision. The prior bad acts statements and the testimony of Diane Panos are still excluded.

    1 – Testimony of Diane Panos, legal expert: “The State intended to present Panos’ opinion on the minimum possible financial impact that the marital property distribution proceeding would have had on the defendant had Kathleen lived. Panos’s proposed opinion included a prediction of what the judge would have ruled at the hearing.”
    Deemed to be speculative and not admitted.

    2 – Testimony of Eric Peterson, Vicki Connolley and Anna Doman: “Eric and Anna testified regarding an incident of domestic abuse that the defendant allegedly committed upon Kathleen during their marriage in 1993. The State also presented the testimony of the defendant’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, who was married to the defendant from 1982 to 1992. Connolly testified about three instances of threats and/or abuse that the defendant allegedly committed during their marriage and another alleged incident involving the defendant which occurred after she had divorced him in 1992.”
    Deemed to be too distant in time before Kathleen’s death so more prejudicial than probative and not admitted.

    3 – Certain hearsay statements:
    (1) statements that Kathleen allegedly made to her other sister, Susan Doman;
    (2) a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to her attorney, Harry Smith;
    (3) statements that Kathleen allegedly made to her friend, Kristen Anderson, regarding the alleged July 5, 2002, incident;
    (4) a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to Issam Karam, one of her former coworkers;
    (5) statements that Stacy allegedly made to Michael Miles, whom she had met at Joliet Junior College in 2002;
    (6) a statement that Stacy allegedly made to her friend, Scott Rossetto, in the fall of 2007 regarding her alleged encounter with the defendant on the night Kathleen died;
    (7) portions of an audiotaped statement made by Kathleen to an insurance agent; and
    (8) portions of statements that Kathleen made under oath during an examination conducted by a Country Insurance agent on August 6, 2003.
    Now deemed reliable and admissible evidence

  11. facsimily, re your 4pm comment-exactly what I thought, lol~

    I’m glad to see this case finally going to trial. Its nice to see a trial get stalled from starting due to the prosecution’s concerns and not the defense’s antics.

  12. I guess the defense could still appeal but so far they have been saying that they don’t intend to.

    BTW, I’m reminded that this case has been out of the public eye for a long time when I read some of the erroneous stuff printed after this recent decision.

    I’ve seen reports that this decision involves Neil Schori’s testimony and Kathleen’s letter to Elizabeth Fragale. That evidence was already cleared and admissible and today’s decision does not involve them.

    Also seeing people still complaining that the hearsay was admitted under Glasgow’s Hearsay statute, when the truth is 180 degrees from that. The court had to use common law hearsay exceptions to get the hearsay admitted and ignore the hearsay statute and its higher reliability standards.

    Lots of bad info out there and some major misunderstanding about what went down with the decision today and what it allows. You’ll learn more from reading the actual legal docs than reading some of these news articles!

  13. April 11, 2012

    Statement From Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow Regarding Appellate Court Ruling In People v. Peterson

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office argued from the beginning that all of the statements it presented from Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio should be admitted as evidence at trial in the case of People v. Drew Peterson. After considering the merits of the State’s case at the direction of the Illinois Supreme Court, the Third District Appellate Court today agreed that eight statements previously excluded by the trial court are admissible under the Illinois Rules of Evidence. (Page 12, Paragraph 25). The case has been remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. The State anticipates a trial to begin later this spring or early this summer.

  14. Good to see some movement on this case. Let the trial begin. It’s only fair that Kathleen have a voice in all of this.

  15. You are so right DD. It is only fair.

    I admit that it cracks me up to read the comments section on some of these news reports where people are bemoaning the ‘precedent’ that this decision sets.

    There is nothing new about hearsay exceptions, as we’ve now known for a long time. What do these people think courts relied on before the days of DNA and luminol? Shaking my head.

  16. (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.

  17. I don’t know if that area has been searched. It’s about a 20 minutes drive up the Stevenson from Bolingbrook and not far from the shipping canal.

    …”They are human [remains], but that’s all I can tell you,” said Tony Brucci, a spokesman for the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. “We don’t know the sex yet.”

    According to Brucci, an autopsy today was inconclusive and the remains will need to be studied further by a forensic anthropologist. Brucci said it would likely take a few weeks for more information to become available.

  18. From Brodsky’s Facebook page:

    “We will be challenging the alleged hearsay evidence on constitutional due process grounds (among several other grounds), when we get before the trial judge.”

  19. I know that sometimes it feels as if nothing is happening with the case but of course things are going on behind the scenes. It’s just not always the kind of thing that makes the papers.

    Here’s some recent activity on the murder case:

    02/27/2012	Impounded Document- Notice of Filing with attached Subpoenas
    03/21/2012	Impounded Document Subpoenaed Records from AT&T dated 3-14-12
    03/26/2012	Impounded Document List of Supplemental Witness
    04/04/2012	Impounded Document- Agreed Order for Subpoena Handling Entered Under
    04/05/2012	Notice of Filing Subpoenas
  20. Thank you for the update. I know I’m impatient, but I can imagine there are several families that are really anxious to find out more about this.

  21. Shaking my head today at how the rebroadcast of the Lifetime movie with Rob Lowe can spike our stats by thousands, while long-awaited news of something that could actually have a huge impact on this case and possibly mean justice for Kathleen Savio hardly raises a blip.

    Oh well, it’s either laugh or cry so I guess I’ll laugh. 🙂

    Plus, I learned a new word today, “interregnum”.

  22. I’ll try this again…I must admit that I am pleased with the most recent ruling…Now I might be premature in asking Mr. Peterson what he would like served with his goose…

  23. I am anxious to hear about the remains that were found the other day near Hodgkins, IL, and I am not ready to dismiss the idea that they might be Stacy. The location in relation to the Peterson house makes this recent discovery all the more curious. I pass that area day in and day out, and know exactly where it is.

  24. As a matter of fact, Drew Peterson, when he wasn’t awaiting his fate from a jail cell, passed by that location along I-55 (Stevenson Expressway) many times himself, on his way to any one of his many media events. It’s his main artery to the Chicago Loop/Downtown area, including his lawyer’s office.

  25. I do not think this is Stacy, although I wish she were found. I cannot believe Drew leaving her in the open like that, unless she was moved at a later date, to be found

  26. Those remains are someone, and in all honestly, anyone leaving a human being in a place like that is evil. So, it could just as well be her as anyone else, IMO. That spot is only minutes, a mere short drive, from the Peterson house. It’s not unreasonable to think it could be possible.

  27. I guess anything is possible, and her remains would be old enough to make identification difficult. Whose ever remains they are, I wish and hope for some sort of closure for the family. This whole thing just makes me sick

  28. Rescue:
    I agree with you. IMO….I think Drew could have easily pulled off the road, and dumped Stacy’s body, and went on to the shipping canal: Knowing his cell phone pings would be recorded, and cops would think she was in canal. He had to get rid of her body pretty fast that night, and get home. He could have thought he would move it later, and then the press was all around him, and he couldn’t move her, and had to leave her there. Of course, when he tried to set up Scott, that would be a good “ametur” way to get rid of her body. Scott got scared and just dumped her. OR new boyfriend did it. Either way, every one thought drew was too smart to do that. I think he wanted her to be found, early on in his plan, so he could blame someone else, and be done with it.
    Really pleased with the news.

  29. If we know anything, we know that Drew is a planner and a schemer, but that not everything he devised went according to plan. I’ve always thought it funny that Stacy’s car never got very far from home on the night of her disappearance. Drew probably ran out of time once Cass called him and he knew that she was probably already contacting police.

    …Morphey also said Peterson confided that Stacy was cheating on him with two possible lovers, one of whom he wanted to frame for Stacy’s murder. Peterson asked him to drive Stacy’s car to Shorewood, where one of Stacy’s men lived, and leave the car there with the keys in the ashtray in an attempt to lead the cops there, Morphey said. He also said Peterson tried to get him to rent a storage locker in Romeoville. “He said he wanted it in my name, that he would pay me $200 up front to rent it and when that ran out, he (would give) me more money. Concerned about a decomposing body beginning stink, Morphey said he asked, “What about the smell?” but Peterson reassured him. “He said a sealed container, he said it would be air-tight,” Morphey said. “He said I should check it from time to time to make sure there was no odor.” “He’d leave the container there for six months until the smoke cleared and then he’d dispose of it,” Morphey said, and “If something happened to him, if he had a heart attack, to dump it in the canal.”…

  30. Let me explain that last sentence better!! I am pleased with the ruling on heresay. NOT that a body has been found, unless it is Stacy’s, so Cassandra, and family can finally bring her home, and put her to rest. Then they don’t have to continue to be haunted by not knowing where she is, and can finally stop looking for her and wondering where she is. I do pray for that day to come soon.

  31. Jeannie, I thought you meant pleased with the recent ruling!

    That said, I’m sure there are a few families who would find a measure of relief in finally knowing what happened to a loved one.

  32. Thanks Facs. You are so right. No matter who it is, I am glad they found it.

    I meant to say that Drew went to canal, and Casandra called, and he had to change plans in a hurry, cause he knew pings would be recorded, and he better get his self home, as fast as he could, before cops showed up.. Could have left canal and on the way home, pulled off and dropped off body. You are so right about Morphy, Drew would have tried to set up anyone, to cover his own butt.

  33. The Canal and the DesPlaines River are very close to the area where the skeletal remains were recently found. It’s near Hodgkins. The Canal runs for miles, both north and south.

    I wonder what Peterson’s reaction would be to hearing that skeletal remains were found so close to his home, which are currently unidentifiable and being further investigated.

  34. Personally, I think that with all of Drew’s plans and schemes that he would not have resorted to simply leaving Stacy in the weeds off the freeway — not if he meant to keep her hidden. Although if he had panicked I guess he might have disposed of her in a hurry (but that said, he had plenty of time to move her at a later date).

    On the other hand, we’ve speculated in the past that he might at some point have wanted her remains to be found in order to have her declared dead and simplify the matter of any shared assets. It would also allow him to remarry and possibly shift assets to another party. So it’s possible that she could have been moved to an area where she might more easily be found. But I still think the risk of evidence linking his death to her would be too big of a risk for him to go that route.

    Who knows?

  35. The question is, what would he have done with her? He couldn’t follow through with storing her away in a rental facility, and it doesn’t appear he had the advantage of carefully thinking out his plan. In looking at the situation concerning Kathleen, the room she was found in was meticulously cleaned. It is ridiculous to believe she accidently splashed into a tub full of water, without leaving a drop of blood, or water for that matter, spotting the walls or floor. Or, that nary a bottle of soap or otherwise was fallen over with such a violent act of falling, hitting her head and drowning.

    As to these remains, yes, it’s not known yet what the circumstances surrounding the area are, but it’s possible those remains have gone undetected for an awful long time span.

    I’m only basing my ideas on the theory that this is a convenient area close to the Peterson home, and there were no tolls or cameras to have to pass by, With no details about the finding of these remains, there’s no way yet to know if they had been partially buried, strewn about by animals, or openly exposed. If the little information available is correct, there was nothing left to identify the sex of the remains, and there was no indication if the remains are intact. I can assume that the area was unearthed for clues and potential evidence.

    Wherever poor Stacy’s remains are, unless she was moved by him or someone else, the logical assumption is that she is close by, because the evil one was under strict time restraints.

  36. You are right Rescue. It is hard not to speculate, and wonder, about this being Stacy. I just hate that this means someone else has been killed, if this is not Stacy.
    But I know some other family will be very relieved to have found their loved one.

    Very interesting points you made about no tolls, or cameras in that area. Very helpful information, if you are trying to hide your movements, the night Stacy was killed. Information, that I am sure Drew would also know. I keep thinking about what he kept saying about not looking for Stacy. I am not going to go out and beat the bushes looking for Stacy, because she is not in the bushes. Or something very similar to that. Remember the saying…”Thou doest protest too much.” ? Sure fits this scene if, it is Stacy. IMO.

  37. Didn’t Len Wawczak also say that Drew had mentioned that he planned on being tried and acquitted before Stacy could be found (since you can’t be tried twice with the same crime, he would get away with murder)? Not sure exactly how you ensure such a thing but if he actually said that then it would mean Stacy was in a place and state where eventually she could be found (as opposed to being cremated, etc.).

  38. I remember that,too.
    What wonderful news. I’m so thrilled for the families. Kisses to them.I’ve only just seen the news. ( I’ve been busy exposing a paid PR troll for Amanda Knox saying that the father of her victim should STFU, but that’s another story…) So I toast you all a greater peace to come.and true justice for Kitty and Stacy and their survivors and champions. Salut!
    BTB I’ve been following Neil Schori’s tweets re domestic abuse and am interested in all the work being done. and Cheers to Sue Savio XXX It may be a great model for work elsewhere. Good job.

  39. Brodsky was on HLN yesterday afternoon. He was saying that the second autopsy, of K. Savio, might not be admissible because the coroner that did the first one has passed away and he cannot be questioned on his findings. Wouldn’t his report be sufficient?

  40. Facs said “Personally, I think that with all of Drew’s plans and schemes that he would not have resorted to simply leaving Stacy in the weeds off the freeway,”

    DP did say he didn’t want to go whacking the weeds and bushes? I wonder the exact quote but it’s very late here..

  41. Personally I feel someone else is involved with Drew, and he had them take her somewhere and get rid of her body. From the beginning it always seemed he had someone else involved with him, or to do his dirty work. We had the hit man who came forward, Ric Mims who he had following and spying on Kathleen, Mike R, who helped him with the cell phone etc. He tried to have Tom M, get the storage unit, among other things. When they found Kathleen he had Carcerano involved, and now with Stacy. He always has someone else involved in everything he does. Even when he thought Lenny and them were his friends he was telling them things, and asking them to do stuff for him. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find that he brought the barrel with Stacy in it, and passed her off to someone else to rid of her. So anywhere is possible for her to be found. He already knew they would check those pings, his phone calls, gps etc . It was all set up that way.

  42. Don’t forget that he came over to Lenny and Paula’s house and tried to burn something in the back yard to get rid of it! Lenny and Paula turned it over the police. 🙂

  43. LAUER:

    You did not really participate in any search for her – why?


    Well, they were searching in weeds and bushes and I don’t believe she’s in weeds and bushes. I believe she’s out there somewhere living her life.

    Bucket, he said that during his jailhouse telephone interview with Matt Lauer, May 15, 2009.

  44. Grandam, really??

    I’ll tell you what, I understand that the pathologist, Mitchell, died, but since he didn’t determine the manner of death maybe they should bring in the coroner’s jury to testify. I’d really love to hear from them. Especially, the ones who said they never would have ruled Kathleen’s death an “accident” had they known certain information. I’d also like to hear from the member who knew Drew and told the other jurors that he was a heck of a guy.

    That sounds pretty wacky that none of the autopsy reports would be deemed admissible because one of the pathologists had passed away in the interim. As you point out, the written report and photos are there, as is the jury’s decision.

    I’m just not buying it. Sounds like more Brodsky doo-doo.

  45. This was the quote I was looking for, from Nov. 20, 2007. ABC interview. Timeline Recap Nov. 16th thru 30th, , 2007

    “Why would I go search for someone who I don’t believe is there? Why would I go beat the weeds in the cold? It’s a waste of time,” Peterson said.”

  46. I think it’s pretty telling when a suspect seems to write a script for himself and sticks to it…
    If the suspect is anything like his lawyer, always believe the opposite of what he says to the media.

  47. Facs said:
    So Joel Brodsky wants to defend this case from the past?
    LOL! That is his usual approach, is it not? Arse-first?
    Thanks to you and Jeannie for finding those quotes. I *knew* I’d heard him say “weeds” .
    Hi Q4U
    I’m really looking forward to finding out what it was DP was trying to destroy in the garden.

  48. This is his direct quote from, May 1st, 2008, as referenced above. From acandyrose.

    “She’s not in the bushes and weeds, like Sharon and Roy said,” Peterson insisted, referring to his next-door neighbor, Sharon Bychowski, and son, Roy Taylor, who have spearheaded the volunteer search effort for Stacy.

    You are so right Facs. Sounds like a “made up script”, that he has memorized, and “sticking to his story”. Sounds like a recording, being repeated, over the course of years.
    He started saying this Very Soon After Stacy disappeared. He has said it enough times for people like me, you, Rescue, Bucket, and I bet a lot of others to remember it. I used to always think, “Yeah, that is probably where she is, in the weeds and bushes” someplace where you put her, you lying sack of you know what !!!
    I agree with you…..I have always thought……..If you want the truth from Drew….Listen to what he says, and Turn it Around, and more than likely, you will have the truth. The same as his Brodsky.
    They are 2 of a kind. IMO.

  49. Latest case event:

    Case Number: 2009CF001048

    04/13/2012 Impounded Document- List of Witnesses & Notification of Reports

    The term “impoundment” means to remove all access to the file, record or document except for users authorized by statute or court order.

  50. Drew has been talking about “beating the weeds and bushes” from the day searches began ( early November 2007).

    At one stage he also crowed about “if Stacy’s body were to be found “down the road”, he would have already been acquitted.

    We had a discussion on this Board if he meant “down the road” to be literally down the road (nearby) or if he meant “down the road” to be “in the future”.

    Maybe “down the road” meant “down the road”

    We will see………..

  51. Hoda Kotb: How come there was no communication between the two of you on that day?

    Drew Peterson: She was going through a period where she said she wanted her space. So I just gave her her space that day

    But he says Stacy finally did call — at 9 pm — to tell him she’d found someone else and was leaving him — and that the car was parked at a nearby airport.

    Hoda Kotb: And then you went out looking for her. And you wound up, according to phone records, by the Chicago area shipping canal.

    Drew Peterson: There was an individual that lives close by there that I thought she might have been romantic with and I was driving through there.

    Isn’t odd that he says he was “close by there” when the shipping canal is 30 miles long? Kotb never said what area he was pinpointed in. She just says “by the canal”.

  52. Did Peterson Appeal Kill ‘Drew’s Law?’

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow won his appeal in the Drew Peterson case, but has his triumph effectively killed the law he helped push through the state legislature?
    By Joseph Hosey

    About 13 months after Drew Peterson’s fourth wife vanished in Oct. 2007 and five months before he was jailed in May 2009 on charges he murdered his third wife, a bill crafted by former state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow was passed into law.

    The law allowed judges to admit hearsay evidence from witnesses who were made unavailable to testify, so long as the statements were deemed reliable.

    Eight months after Peterson’s arrest, the new law was put into use during a landmark, month-long hearing to determine what, if any, hearsay evidence could be used at Peterson’s murder trial. Dissatisfied with the decision by Judge Stephen White to prohibit eight of 14 hearsay statements presented to him, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow brought the matter to the Third District Appellate Court.

    Nearly two years later, the appellate judges overturned White’s ruling and gave Glasgow all his hearsay statements.

    But in winning his appeal, Glasgow had to ask the court to disregard the law he helped create in favor of the state’s common law, which doesn’t include the reliability requirement, a fact not lost on the appellate judges.

    “This change in the State’s position is puzzling,” Judge William Holdridge wrote in the appellate court’s decision.

    “If the legislature intended to facilitate the successful prosecution of criminal defendants who intentionally prevent witnesses from testifying (as the statute’s legislative history suggests), it is unclear why it passed a statute that imposed restrictions on prosecutors that are not found in the common law,” Holdridge wrote. “Regardless, after passing a more restrictive statute, one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.”

    And Holdridge wasn’t the only one to find Glasgow’s change in course puzzling.

    “There’s irony, foremost,” said Harold J. Krent, the dean of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, who noted that Glasgow was “actually potentially undercutting the power of prosecutors” when he passed his new law.

    “The common law’s power was broader,” Krent said.

    But Glasgow’s spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, pointed out that the new law was put together and passed before the state supreme court rejected an appeal by Naperville murderer Eric Hanson, who shot his mother and father in the head and bludgeoned to death his sister and brother-in-law.

    Hanson appealed his conviction on the grounds that hearsay cannot be used as evidence under the common law. The state supreme court denied this, upholding Hanson’s conviction and giving Glasgow the grounds for his appeal of Judge White’s ruling.

    The Hanson decision came less than a month before Peterson’s trial was to start and a more than a year and a half after the bill sponsored by Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, passed into law.

    “If it wasn’t for the supreme court’s decision on Hanson, there would have been no appeal and the trial would have been over a long time ago,” Pelkie said.

    Regardless, criminal defense attorney and Chicago-Kent Professor Daniel Coyne expected the appellate court’s decision on the Peterson case to be challenged at some point.

    “It’s the first step in going back to the (state) supreme court,” he said of the ruling handed down Thursday.

    Peterson’s attorneys can appeal to the state supreme court but it does not seem likely that they will. For one thing, Peterson attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez questioned the importance of the hearsay statements and the very existence of prosecution evidence. For another, Drew Peterson has already spent close to three years in jail while he awaits the start of his trial.

    “Sometimes you have to be patient to exercise your rights,” Coyne said.

    Whether the defense appeals or not, Krent believes Peterson’s team has a chance to prevail at trial.

    “They have a real shot at winning,” he said. “I don’t think anyone would be surprised if Drew is acquitted.”

    For now, Glasgow has his hearsay evidence, but at the cost of urging the appellate court to ignore his new law, and the appellate court agreeing to do so.

    “It’s just so weird,” Krent said. “The (appellate) court has made a dead letter of Drew’s Law.”

  53. Facs,
    Isn’t that what the cops call….”placing yourself at the scene of the crime”….IF that turns out to be Stacy?

  54. Drew Peterson is down in the dumps after court ruling on evidence
    Updated: April 17, 2012 7:16AM

    The blues have hit accused wife murderer Drew Peterson, who’s spent three years in jail awaiting trial for the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Gone are the wisecracks, jovial patter and jailhouse rock.

    “They took away my right to a speedy trial,” said Peterson, via a phone call to a Sneed source. “They took away my right to confront witnesses. They’ve taken away my right to be with my children. Now they say they can use unreliable evidence [from witnesses who talked to former wives],” said Peterson. “What else can they take away. They call me a murderer of two, why don’t they call me a father of six?”

    “We were ready to go to trial two years ago. I feel as if the past two years awaiting this [Illinois Appellate Court] decision have been wasted living in a cell no bigger than a walk-in closet,” Peterson told a Sneed source.

    “Drew is now frustrated and disconcerted, depressed a bit … but I don’t think clinically so,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, who had to deliver news last week that previously excluded hearsay evidence dealing with Savio and Peterson’s missing wife, Stacy, may wind up being used in Peterson’s trial.

    “But this decision is not all that devastating,” said Brodsky, who claims he has other weapons in his legal arsenal.

    “We have a solid base to object to the hearsay which is why Drew is not devastated … just frustrated. Disappointed.

    “Drew never gets visibly angry, but there are times he gets choked up … like a cracking in his voice — particularly about his two littlest kids,” said Brodsky.

    “Look. If this were me I’d be enraged. Furious. Pounding on a desk,” said Brodsky.

    “Here’s a guy who has been in law enforcement for 30 years, a former Bolingbrook cop and all he wants is everyone to play by the rules. He feels they are violating their own rules to get to him.

    “I sometimes feel that if he felt everyone was playing fair and he was found guilty in a fair trial with real evidence — he’d jump on the gurney himself”… although, Brodsky added …“we don’t have the death penalty!”

    Who is “everyone” and what isn’t fair? You call saturating the media for months on end and dragging every opposing witness’s reputation through the mud is fair? None of the other attorneys have or do engage in this blubbering nonsense. Why do they let Brodsky continue to do so? Is it that the closer the case gets to trial, the more it’s necessary to taint a potential jury into thinking that Peterson got the shaft, not Kathleen Savio?

  55. Ummm…”they” didn’t take away his right to a speedy trial. He waived that right, therefore he took it away. Brodsky wants everyone to play by his rules, not necessarily “the” rules…and expect those rules to change based on what comes to light and which side is talking. As far as Drew being a cop and playing by the rules, we all know he made those up as he went along also.

  56. Everything Sneed reports is from a “source.” Then, along comes Brodsky to clarify it, and rehash it. Isn’t it a coincidence that he is the one that calls and talks to Peterson, but never admits to being the one that runs to Sneed with this b.s.? So, this “source” took down Peterson’s reaction, word-for-word, and ran it to Sneed for public consumption?

    Isn’t that special… the only murder defendant around who gets his thoughts published on a continual basis, even though the former trial judge has a gag order on the parties.

  57. Rescue, You nailed it. isn’t it time to give up the “anonymous” bullshit when it’s painfully obvious that it’s just Joel, and always has been Joel feeding these poor-Drew lines to Sneed over drinks at the University Club?

    And now Joel is a psychiatrist, who can tell the difference between your average old disappointment and clinical depression? I thought they had someone there at the prison who did that.

    Most of the time I find the guy and his “drinks for dirt” arrangement with Sneed laughable. Today’s item is simply ridiculous.

  58. The story is also badly in need of some copy editing. Charmed already pointed out a few factual errors and I’ll add to that “Former wives” needs to be replaced with “Dead and missing wives”.

  59. According to the time line, Drew waived his right to a speedy trial July 14, 2009.

    Facs, also he is whining because he can’t be with his children…neither can those dead and missing wives, but Cass is alive and well, why not let her see them, why is he robbing his children of their family?

  60. Drew Peterson’s murder trial won’t be going ahead next month as planned, after he waived his right to a speedy trial today.

    During a hearing at the Joliet courthouse, Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky told Judge Stephen White that the defense team needs more time to review some 40,000 pages of evidence.

    Peterson was scheduled to stand trial Aug. 24 on charges that he murdered his ex-wife Kathleen Savio in 2004. But White canceled that trial date today, after asking Peterson whether he understood that he was giving up his right to a speedy trial.

    Peterson, wearing blue jail scrubs, stared down at his lap and replied “Yes, your honor.”

  61. Joel says:

    Here’s a guy who has been in law enforcement for 30 years, a former Bolingbrook cop and all he wants is everyone to play by the rules.

    And yet Drew has told us over and over how duplicitous he is and how much he enjoys lying and deceiving people:

    “I was undercover actually for a total of five years,” Peterson said. “You basically spent your day working a con and you were getting people to believe you were something other than what you actually were and it was fun. It was exhilarating. I think the most sadistic fun you had in the whole part of the job, the look on people’s faces when you arrested them and they found out you were actually a [policeman].”

    Two years later, he was back at the altar but was unfaithful to his second wife, as well.

    “The big joke at one particular time was you had to lie to your girlfriend to see your wife,” he said.

    If you want to read more about how little Drew Peterson has ever played by the rules, just take a look at the book Derek Armstrong wrote for him called “Drew Peterson Exposed”. There are chapters devoted to nothing but the Drew breaking the rules, first in the military, then in law enforcement and oh yeah…the many many times he cheated on his wives and girlfriends. Every story told with the kind of zeal and relish that only an unrepentant liar and cheat can bring.

  62. While we’re talking about Drew’s flaunting of the rules, let’s not forget the time he was fired for trying to pull his own under-cover sting that put a fellow officer’s life at risk.

    Retired State Police Lt. Col. Ronald Janota hasn’t spoken to Drew Peterson in more than a decade, but Peterson is a man he hasn’t forgotten and will never forgive…
    “Peterson, for reasons Janota said he has never been able to explain, allegedly sabotaged one of the squad’s drug stings and gave the identity of an undercover narcotics agent to a convicted killer under investigation for dealing drugs, Janota said. “We found out from different sources that the identity of an Illinois State Police officer was revealed to the [killer], by Mr. Peterson,” Janota said. ” . . . We immediately notified the undercover officer that his life was in jeopardy.” Added Janota, “Putting a fellow officer’s life in jeopardy is unforgivable as far as I’m concerned.”

    …the village board of police and fire commissioners found him guilty of disobedience, conducting a self-assigned investigation, failure to report a bribe immediately and official misconduct. He had been indicted two months earlier on charges of official misconduct and failure to report a bribe. Peterson was working under the auspices of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad at the time. Indictments alleged he solicited drugs in exchange for information about his agency.

    Drew later got his job back and claims that he was just trying to do an independent investigation. Bindy Rock maintains that Peterson was trying to shake him down for money and drugs.

    Yep, good old “Play by the Rules” Drew Peterson.

  63. I am puzzled by this. Brodsky made a point of saying how strong Peterson has been, and he never gets down. He lets it all roll off of him.

    This hearsay ruling shouldn’t mean the end for him. He has a team of lawyers to disspell what might get in, and they are going to be picking their choices for jury members as closely to their way of thinking as they can.

    Could he be depressed because human remains were found in a location that isn’t far from his home, a route which he could have taken in a short time?

    Now that would be something to be depressed and down about. Well, for Peterson, that is.

  64. “Here’s a guy who has been in law enforcement for 30 years, a former Bolingbrook cop and all he wants is everyone to play by the rules. He feels they are violating their own rules to get to him.

    Yeah, whose rules were these, Peterson and Brodsky????? What a joke!

  65. He’s probably just depressed to have Joel Brodsky as his lawyer. Poor Drew. Here “they” are breaking rules right and left to keep him in jail and away from his kids, and using inadmissible evidence against him and there he sits in his tiny cell, on his tiny cot with his skin rashes and contraband cereal bowls while his lawyer does nothing about it.


  66. Considering Drew has been so chummy with the King Of Siam, you’d have to wonder why Joel Brodsky has’nt approached the King for Drews bail money yet.

    He has approached just about everyone else ……

  67. Boy, it’s amazing what you can stumble upon from years ago regarding this case! Remember this?

    December 20, 2007
    BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist

    The Peterson story: Sneed hears rumbles investigators probing the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and the mysterious death of her husband’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, are looking into the water usage at the Peterson home during the time sequence surrounding the death and discovery of Savio’s body.

    •• Translation: They are reportedly checking water surges that may have occurred at the home of Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook cop, whose current wife, Stacy Peterson, was last seen Oct. 28.

    •• Background: Sources tipped Sneed on Nov. 28 that Stacy had told a clergyman her husband claimed to have killed Savio, his former wife, and made it look like an accident.

    •• Upshot: Drew’s admission to Stacy reportedly came shortly before Savio was found dead in an empty bathtub in her home.

    •• Backshot: Last week, Fox TV sleuth Mark Fuhrman reported Stacy saw Peterson throwing some black clothes he was wearing into a washing machine around the time Savio may have died.

    •• The big question: Did Stacy play a role in her husband’s alibi or was her role a case of omission because of abject fear for her own life? Or did any of this happen?

  68. “Look. If this were me I’d be enraged. Furious. Pounding on a desk,” said Brodsky.

    lmao yeah Brodsky has a history with this in the courtroom doesn’t he? Except if I remember right he chained himself to the desk in a courtroom didn’t he? Oh my lol How he admits he also would be enraged, and furious…hmm weren’t the cops at his house also for some domestic thing? (Birds of a feather flock together)

  69. Rescue,
    In answer to your question, below.

    “Could he be depressed because human remains were found in a location that isn’t far from his home, a route which he could have taken in a short time”?

    “Now that would be something to be depressed and down about. Well, for Peterson, that is.”

    You got that right, since Drew wanted to be tried and acqitted for Stacy’s murder, before they found her remains. I bet he has a lot to think about, and be depressed over. Things just may not be as funny to him, as he wants everyone to think they are. And I say…It is about time for him to start getting what is due to him. !!! Justice for Kathleen and Stacy. May their voices be heard, loud and clear, in this trial. May they have their chance, in court, to finally drown out Drew and Brodsky. and all their stupid, disgusting, white noise, as they speak from their graves.

  70. Somehow I can’t see him trying a hunger strike just to convince people that he’s depressed…Is he crying all the time (crocodile tears)?…Or is he contemplating suicide??? Just what makes Brodsky think Drew is depressed???

  71. I read the Sneed story online, but I had NO idea that Peterson’s mug was nearly the whole front page of the Chicago Sun Times yesterday. Not until my husband brought it home did I realize that. OMG, I’ve seen it all now–a detained murder suspect, making the front page of one of Chicago’s main newspapers. Wanting all to join in his pity party.

  72. It’s awfully hard to keep in mind this is one of Chicago’s main newspapers. Not a national rag whose reporters hide under rocks like snakes.

    Really, I’m shocked. But, on the other hand, the ST editorial staff has made it clear they are utterly opposed to what they like to refer to as “Drew’s Law.” They don’t seem to grasp the concept that this law was not used by the Appellate Court in handing down their ruling. Kind of scary that these people have control over what their readers are presented with as far as informed and accurate reporting. I mean, lack of it.

  73. Very good observation charmed !! LOL
    Of course, Brodsky always has to come up with something, to take the spotlight off of the prosecutions side of the case. I am referring to the skeletal remains found, not far from Peterson’s house. I wouldn’t want attention on that, if I were Brodsky, or Peterson. So, best to come up with some story to take the attention away from those remains. Just anything will do, in a pinch. right Joel?

  74. Drew Peterson Murder Case Coming Back — But When Will It Get Here?
    By Joseph Hosey

    The appellate court made its decision on the Drew Peterson case, but when is it going to be back in Will County court, and what’s going to happen when it gets there?

    The appellate court’s long-awaited decision on the Drew Peterson case cleared the way for the former Bolingbrook cop’s murder trial to start in Will County court — but when will that be?

    “The bottom line is, nobody knows,” said Joseph “Shark” Lopez, the Chicago attorney tasked with presenting the closing argument at Peterson’s murder trial, whenever that murder trial closes.

    One thing certain is that the case will not make it back to the Will County courthouse in Joliet any sooner than May 17, and could likely take even longer than that. The minimum 35-day period between the appellate court announcing its decision and the case coming back to Joliet gives the losing side a chance to appeal the ruling.

    And once it returns to the Will County courthouse, a judge must be appointed to preside over it. The judge who had been assigned to the Peterson case for almost a year and a half, Stephen White, retired in October 2010.

    Three other Will County judges — Richard Schoenstedt, Carla Alessio Policandriotes and Daniel Rozak — also have been taken out of the mix. State’s Attorney James Glasgow used his one uncontested challenge to bypass Schoenstedt, and Peterson’s lawyers used their two substitutions to remove Alessio Policandriotes and Rozak.

    Peterson, who faces charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004, was set to go to trial in July 2010, but a last minute appeal by prosecutors over what hearsay evidence will be allowed sent the case on a 21-month journey through the appellate and state supreme courts.

    And while that journey looks to be reaching its destination with a trial in Joliet, no one can be sure.

    “It’s just a guess,” Lopez said, suggesting the case’s future might be better predicted “if we had a Ouija board, maybe.”

  75. LOL…The crystal ball is foggy too…Tarot cards were all wrong…Let’s just hope we don’t have a very long wait and that it will at least be sometime THIS year…This back and forth stuff is as bad as watching a Tennis game…Has anyone done Drew’s astrological chart lately?

  76. Ha! When I was a kid and did the Ouija Board with my friends or my sister, I could get it to answer anyway I wanted it to. It’s all how you play the game, heh?

  77. Drew Peterson drops appeal, says he’s ready for trial to begin

    By Stacy St. Clair Tribune reporter
    2:55 p.m. CDT, April 24, 2012

    Drew Peterson is ending the protracted battle over hearsay statements and is signaling he’s ready to go to trial in the slaying of his ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    In a motion sent to the Third District Appellate court today, Peterson’s attorneys say they will not fight a recent higher court ruling allowing prosecutors to use previously excluded hearsay statements at the former Bolingbrook police officer’s murder trial.

    The defense asks that the appellate court send the case back to Will County courts as soon as possible, essentially waiving the 35-day waiting period to formalize a ruling.

    The move reflects a renewed effort by the defense to downplay the significance of the hearsay statements, which prosecutors say will allow Peterson’s ex-wives’ to speak from the grave.

    “We are not appealing because we want to get this case moving,” Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky said. “Drew has been locked up long enough and we are ready to go to trial.”

    The trial, which prosecutors said could begin as early as this spring, has been postponed almost two years while appeals over the statements from Peterson’s drowned ex-wife, Savio, and missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, wound their way through the higher courts.

    During the appeals, the trial court judge retired and a Lifetime movie about the case starring Rob Lowe as Peterson was made and aired to stellar basic cable ratings.

    Peterson, 58, is charged with killing Savio, who was found dead in her dry Bolingbrook bathtub in 2004. Her death was ruled an accidental drowning, but prosecutors exhumed Savio’s body and reopened the case after Peterson’s fourth wife vanished in 2007.

    Peterson remains the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance but has not been charged. He has denied any wrongdoing in either case.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow largely has built his case around pathology reports and 14 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 and passed in 2008 — that he argued was needed to ensure the statements could be heard.

    A three-judge panel of the Third District Appellate court ruled earlier this month that while Judge Stephen White correctly applied the new law, the statute itself was “manifestly erroneous” and superseded by existing — and much broader — Supreme Court rules of evidence.

    It found that eight statements excluded by the trial judge are allowed under existing Illinois common law, which does not require safeguards for reliability.,0,49005.story?track=rss

  78. BTW, a very smart reporter I know, who isn’t with the Tribune, did make a good point. Peterson didn’t appeal the ruling to begin with, so there’s no appeal to drop, is there?

  79. Yeah, what appeal is being dropped? Sounds more like they are saying they are simply not going to appeal.

    As far as I know, the reporters don’t write the headlines and as we’ve seen, papers don’t always get it right. Maybe they’ll change the headline.

    I think the first headline I saw for the appellate win last week was something about the “defense loses appeal’ when it was the state that had filed it. *eyeroll*

  80. Yeppers, Joe Hosey is right.

    Chicago Tribune Reports Drew Peterson Dropping Nonexistent Appeal

    But if Drew Peterson had appealed the recent decision from the appellate court, he would have dropped it today. Or something, says the Chicago Tribune.
    By Joseph Hosey

    The Chicago Tribune reported today that Drew Peterson is dropping an appeal that he never made in the first place.

    “Drew Peterson drops appeal, says he’s ready for trial to begin,” blares the story’s headline.

    Except there’s no appeal to drop.

    The story also said Peterson’s lawyers sent a motion to the Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa in hopes of hurrying the case along by waiving a mandatory 35-day waiting period. Except for the 35-day waiting period is mandatory.

    Peterson has been locked up in the Will County jail for nearly three years while he waits on the start of his trial on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Peterson is also the sole suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. The state police consider Stacy Peterson’s disappearance a “potential homicide” but have not charges anyone with harming her.

    What mandatory waiting period? Just file a motion and watch the 35-day mandatory waiting period go poof. Right? 🙂

  81. For some reason, I can’t imagine that Attys Lopez or Greenberg are in on this motion to cut short this mandatory 35-day waiting period. Could it be Brodsky’s doing? Ya think?

  82. **Updated**

    By Stacy St. Clair Tribune reporter

    4:40 p.m. CDT, April 24, 2012

    Drew Peterson is ending the protracted battle over hearsay statements and is signaling he’s ready to go to trial in the slaying of his ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    In a motion sent to the Third District Appellate court today, Peterson’s attorneys say they will not fight a recent higher court ruling allowing prosecutors to use previously excluded hearsay statements at the former Bolingbrook police officer’s murder trial.

    The defense asks that the appellate court send the case back to Will County courts as soon as possible, essentially waiving the 35-day waiting period to formalize a ruling.

    The move reflects a renewed effort by the defense to downplay the significance of the hearsay statements, which prosecutors say will allow Peterson’s ex-wives’ to speak from the grave.

    “We are not appealing because we want to get this case moving,” Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky said. “Drew has been locked up long enough and we are ready to go to trial.”

    Will County spokesman Charles Pelkie said prosecutors are “ready to move forward at trial. The sooner the better. We’re ready to go.”,0,49005.story

  83. More of the same:

    Drew Peterson abandons appeal, wants trial date
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter April 24, 2012 4:12PM

    Drew Peterson wants a speedy trial, not another lengthy appeal.

    “We want to get the case rolling,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said. “We want to get it back and get a trial date.”

    His attorneys on Tuesday formally asked the 3rd District Appellate court to return his case quickly to Will County, with Brodsky predicting the 58-year-old Peterson could stand trial as early as July.

    “We’re ready to go to trial,” spokesman Charles Pelkie said.

Comments are closed.