Drew Peterson fires attorney Steven Greenberg from his defense team

Steven A. Greenberg

According to a tweet from the Chicago Tribune’s Stacy St. Clair, Drew Peterson has fired Attorney Steven Greenberg.

Greenberg, an experienced criminal defense attorney, handled most of the motions in Peterson’s trial for murder and was widely thought to be the most effective attorney on his defense team.

During the last days of Peterson’s trial, Greenberg was overheard in a courtroom hallway warning Attorney Joel Brodsky not to call Kathleen Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, to the witness stand — advice that fell on deaf ears. The testimony of Smith, which placed Drew Peterson at the scene of Savio’s death, was cited by jurors as being the key piece of evidence that made them decide to convict Peterson.

Since the guilty verdict was handed down on Thursday there have been indications in the media that all was not good between Joel Brodsky and Steven Greenberg. Courtroom observers had also commented on the dynamic between the two attorneys. one described a scene in which Drew was sandwiched between the two sparring members of his team, a hand on the shoulder of each, in an attempt to intervene during an argument.

A few weeks into the trial Joel Brodsky’s wife, Elizabeth, had criticized Attorney Greenberg via Twitter writing, “Greenberg should pay more attention to the case and less to the media maybe he wouldn’t make so many mistakes.”

After the guilty verdict and the subsequent write-ups in the media, she accused Greenberg via Twitter of having thrown people “under the bus”:

@inhiheels has identified herself in past tweets as “Ellie Brodsky”.

Which makes one wonder, was it truly Drew Peterson who was unhappy with Greenberg’s defense?

Visit the comment thread for some great quotes from Steve Greenberg. As of 9:30 CST Joel Brodsky posted a status update on his Facebook page:

Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
11 minutes ago


Steve Greenberg was given a job to for the defense team, which was to bring motions and make objections, as well as cross examine a few witnesses. He failed to bring the most important motions, such as to bar the 2004 “botched investigation” evidence, saying he would object when the state tried to get the evidence in. Then he failed to object when the State started with this evidence, potentially causing the loss of several important appellate issues. He also missed several other important objections which are required to preserve issues to appeal. It was then that Mr. Greenberg was relieved from the job of making objections. Further, even though Mr. Greenberg he did win many of the motions, these were on small issues. Greenberg lost the big ones, such as barring the hearsay previously found to be unreliable, and keeping the “hit man” testimony out. During the trial he was frequently absent from the defense table because he was hanging out in the press room, or by the TruTv television tent. He also failed to attend almost all after court team meetings, and was unprepared for his cross-examination of the few witnesses he had, fumbling for papers while the witnesses were on the stand. Mr. Greenberg was let go because of his failure to accomplish most of the tasks he was brought on board to take care of.

Also, for the record, Greenberg did not object to Harry Smith being called as a witness by the Defense, and in fact was in favor of him being called as late at the day before Smith was called. Further, Smith was never barred from testifying, nor was his testimony reduced in scope by a motion that Mr. Greenberg made and any statements to that effect are false. Finally, Greenberg never argued with me not to call Smith, and his statement to that effect is not true. Greenberg didn’t change his story on the Harry Smith issue until after Smith testified and he felt that the testimony may have hurt Drew’s case, and only then did he vocally (to others but not to the defense team members), start saying that it was a mistake. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distance himself from the conviction that was not really anyone’s fault, as the jurors public comments show that they were going to convict Drew Peterson no matter how lacking the evidence was.”

~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.~


238 thoughts on “Drew Peterson fires attorney Steven Greenberg from his defense team

  1. 😆 So Drew fired Greenberg. Interesting. Kind of funny that he fired the only with with a brain. I assume he is keeping his bromance in tact.

    I’m sure Steve will continue on quite well with his life, and continue to have success in his career. I wish him well, and I’m sure this is really no big loss for him! 😉

  2. Actually not only is it not a loss, its a blessing.

    In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Greenberg wanted a public falling out with Drew, so he could disassociate himself from the highly unpopular Drew Peterson and his floozy Joel Brodsky.

    That’s exactly what Robert Shapiro did after the OJ trial when he publicly feuded with Cochran in order to reestablish his reputation in a “disgusted” LA community. And as we know Shapiro went on to flourish…even serving as the face of Legal Zoom.

    Whether Greenberg planned it or genuinely was “fired” from his ‘high-paying’ pro bono relationship with Drew Peterson…its likely the best thing that could have happened to him..

  3. Here’s Stacy’s story:

    …Drew Peterson has fired the attorney who loudly warned against calling Kathleen Savio’s divorce lawyer as a defense witness – a move which Peterson’s lead counsel insisted upon and many considered a devastating miscalculation.

    Peterson notified attorney Steve Greenberg of his decision Tuesday, just days after jurors said divorce lawyer Harry Smith’s testimony tipped the scales in the prosecution’s favor and led to the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant’s conviction…

    …“I think Mr. Peterson was represented by five wonderful lawyers out of six,” Greenberg said Tuesday. “His loyalty to the sixth is disconcerting.”…


  4. Drew Peterson fires lawyer who opposed Savio divorce lawyer as witness

    Drew Peterson has fired the attorney who loudly warned against calling Kathleen Savio’s divorce lawyer as a defense witness – a move which Peterson’s lead counsel insisted upon and many considered a devastating miscalculation.

    Peterson notified attorney Steve Greenberg of his decision Tuesday, just days after jurors said divorce lawyer Harry Smith’s testimony tipped the scales in the prosecution’s favor and led to the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant’s conviction.

    heres the link from wgn

  5. …“I think Mr. Peterson was represented by five wonderful lawyers out of six,” Greenberg said Tuesday. “His loyalty to the sixth is disconcerting.”…

    😆 So, I am not the only one who sees a bizarre bromance here!

    Causing one to feel unsettled.


  6. Bet Brodsky told DP it was him or Greenberg. Is anyone surprised that DP made another bad decision? But good luck to Greenberg and I think he was likely DP’s only hope at this point. I doubt SG wanted to stay for the appeal anyway, and Brodsky wanted to beat him to the punch. Can’t stand that guy!

  7. From the Trib article above:

    Brodsky, who had never tried a homicide case before Peterson hired him in 2007, did not return a request for comment Tuesday. In a series of emails to the Tribune over the weekend, Brodsky criticized Greenberg for not being a team player.

    😆 I wonder why he is hiding? He has certainly never been shy with the media before.

  8. Hosey’s story on Patch:

    “Apparently I’ve been fired,” said defense attorney Steve Greenberg.

    “I’ve been discharged,” Greenberg said. “I’ve been terminated.”

    Greenberg said he got a signed notice from Peterson Tuesday. He also said he received a letter from lead attorney Joel Brodsky warning him not to publicly comment about the case.

    “I’m not going to comment on incompetence,” Greenberg said…

    …Greenberg also said the error in calling Smith to testify was compounded by the manner in which Brodsky questioned him.

    “The problem is also how it was handled in court, which was ineptly,” he said.

    “Was it the biggest bonehead move in the history or of jurisprudence?” Greenberg said. “I don’t know. Was it up there?”

    Lopez was staying out of the rift.

    “Joel’s the boss and he calls the shots, and whatever he says goes,” he said. “I’m just sitting on the bench taking orders in that case.”..


  9. I love the fact that DP is digging himself deeper and deeper with his love for Brodsky. Face it you two, you will never sit in a bar and have chicken wings and a beer and chicks hanging over your shoulders together. NEVER going to happen. DP has been convicted, and JB does not have the ability or knowledge to get that conviction overturned.

  10. 😆 Lovin’ Hosey’s article!

    JB “Warned” him? OMG. 🙄

    I love this:

    “I’m not going to comment on incompetence,” Greenberg said…

    Yup, Steve just move on. 🙂

  11. The lawyer you hire can be the difference between winning and losing. Somehow Drew Peterson had at least six defense attorneys on his case. At least three of them are considered to be some of the best around and while I thought the closing argument by one of them wasn’t strong, their work on cross examination of the witnesses was excellent. These are lawyers that do nothing but criminal defense all day, every day and have hundreds if not thousands of cases in their track record, including multiple high profile media cases. Unfortunately for Drew, he for some reason picked Joel Brodsky as the guy to call the shots and act as his lead attorey. The two of them seem to have the same odd personality and desire for the spotlight. And while Brodsky isn’t per se a bad attorney, if you look on his website, aside from criminal law, he talks about his work in commercial litigation, bankruptcy and divorce cases. That’s not the best profile in my opinion for a lawyer to defend a murder charge.


  12. Actually this doesn’t surprise me. Joel Brodsky wasn’t happy with someone on the team, so DP fired them, if you can call it firing since the person was not making any money. And I am sure it was by the advice of Brodsky. Yes, DP you are not as smart as you think. Streetwise, yeah, but not smart

  13. I think you are right Harley, and just was the point I was trying to make. DP has offered himself to JB. What we are seeing is JB’s ego talking and doing the walking. JB is never going to give up this case, and it is going to be his career ending downfall. Would have been better if those two could have met in the garden of Eve, or Adam 😉

  14. Drew Peterson is even stupider than I thought.

    Surely he can see that Brodsky’s big mistake is what likely cost him his freedom? Biggest. Idiot. Ever.

  15. I know, not sure what JB is trying to get out of this. He should walk and dust off his black suit at this point. I mean he is already not looking good as a lawyer to the general public as it is, and now he is putting his entire lawyer career in jeopardy, defending a man who is never going to see life outside of prison again. Makes one wonder, what the pull is.

  16. If Drew thinks that he’s going to be able to win an appeal with Brodsky representing him, GO FOR IT, DREW!

    Two peas in a pod. They are the only two who take themselves seriously.

  17. Too bad Greenberg didn’t resign before he was ‘fired’. Then he could have talked all he wanted to! Oh. Wait. Maybe it’s better this way.
    I just hope Brodsky keeps right on being that captain…the worse he is, the better.

  18. Well I think this whole saga is going to have plenty of fodder to entertain us, if you can call it that, while DP sits in state prison, and JB is ruining his career with his ever evolving errors of stupidity, Can’t feel sorry for him at all.

  19. Best of luck to you, Steve. It might take a while to get the stench off you, but it will be worth it. You tried your best.

  20. Here’s what Joel has to say on his Facebook Page about Steven Greenberg:

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    11 minutes ago


    Steve Greenberg was given a job to for the defense team, which was to bring motions and make objections, as well as cross examine a few witnesses. He failed to bring the most important motions, such as to bar the 2004 “botched investigation” evidence, saying he would object when the state tried to get the evidence in. Then he failed to object when the State started with this evidence, potentially causing the loss of several important appellate issues. He also missed several other important objections which are required to preserve issues to appeal. It was then that Mr. Greenberg was relieved from the job of making objections. Further, even though Mr. Greenberg he did win many of the motions, these were on small issues. Greenberg lost the big ones, such as barring the hearsay previously found to be unreliable, and keeping the “hit man” testimony out. During the trial he was frequently absent from the defense table because he was hanging out in the press room, or by the TruTv television tent. He also failed to attend almost all after court team meetings, and was unprepared for his cross-examination of the few witnesses he had, fumbling for papers while the witnesses were on the stand. Mr. Greenberg was let go because of his failure to accomplish most of the tasks he was brought on board to take care of.

    Also, for the record, Greenberg did not object to Harry Smith being called as a witness by the Defense, and in fact was in favor of him being called as late at the day before Smith was called. Further, Smith was never barred from testifying, nor was his testimony reduced in scope by a motion that Mr. Greenberg made and any statements to that effect are false. Finally, Greenberg never argued with me not to call Smith, and his statement to that effect is not true. Greenberg didn’t change his story on the Harry Smith issue until after Smith testified and he felt that the testimony may have hurt Drew’s case, and only then did he vocally (to others but not to the defense team members), start saying that it was a mistake. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distance himself from the conviction that was not really anyone’s fault, as the jurors public comments show that they were going to convict Drew Peterson no matter how lacking the evidence was.”

  21. I had not seen that juror video. It seems that Harry Smith’s testimony was key for all the jurors who have spoken.

    I don’t understand the bond between Brodsky and Peterson Why Is Drew so taken with Brodsky?

  22. Your guess is as good as anyone elses on that one Noway. If Peterson even had a quarter of his brain function he would be able to see that of the entire legal team he has had on board since Stacy disappeared, Brodders is the one causing him the most harm. It’s simply beyond comprehension. Perhaps Peterson is thinking he can appeal later on the grounds of incompetent council? That guy is SO unprofessional. I wouldn’t hire him to look over the contract I signed when I joined my gym.

  23. OMG! 😆 Once again he would have been better off just to shush!

    What a rambling pile of crap!

    See Steve? You are sooo much better off, being away from this!

    What is that old saying? “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”?


  24. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distance himself from the conviction that was not really anyone’s fault

    Au Contraire! Mr. Brodsky… I’m thinking you did that all by yourself! Congratulations!

    With lots of love,

    The Hens!


  25. Despite Greenberg’s objections, it was Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, who ultimately called attorney Harry Smith to the stand.

    “For some reason, Drew blindly follows Joel Brodsky, which is just shocking because I think it’s Brodsky’s strategy that got him indicted and, frankly, Brodsky’s strategy that got him convicted,” Greenberg said Tuesday afternoon.

    He said he also would have never allowed Peterson to go on a big media blitz back in 2007.


  26. Not every lawyer displayed the same skills at the hearsay hearing…on the defense team. When you present a case and try and represent a defendant on a charge like this, it’s important that you prepare and present absolutely the best case possible and you can’t divide the case up in a manner of fairness. You have to divide it up as to manner of ability…I think that makes sense and there was disagreement with that.

    Guess who said the above. Greenberg? Nope. It was Andrew Abood when he and George Lenard left the team citing “irreconcilable differences” with co-counsel Joel Brodsky.

  27. 😆 You really just cannot make this stuff up! I think it might KARMA!

    Y’all know my thoughts on Greenberg. While I am am still disappointed in him for taking the case… These new developments are so redeeming!

  28. I believe Peterson is so taken with Brodsky because Brodsky is more of a yes man than he is an adviser. It was apparent to me that Peterson’s name was all over the defense strategy. Peterson is delusional and grandiose enough to believe that people are going to believe anything he says because he has the title “sergeant” before his name. That is typical police type thinking – they believe that people will believe anything they say just because they are the police. That’s why he was telling everyone that both Kathleen and Stacy were on drugs, were alcoholics, etc., etc., etc. when none of it was true.

    I believe Peterson wanted to call Harry Smith, and Brodsky went along with it, because Peterson thought people were going to believe what he wanted them to believe from Smith’s testimony rather than the totality of the testimony. He was certain that he could dirty up both women with that testimony, and that was a gross miscalculation that an attorney would not have made. It was Peterson’s idea to call Smith, and Brodsky just rubber stamped it as he has been doing with Peterson’s ideas all along.

    I believe that Peterson would have testified if it wasn’t for the other two advising him against it.

  29. Many of the true crime shows I watch (Snapped, Forensic Files, etc) have interviews with convicts. Will Peterson be doing any jail house interviews in the near future? I would love to see somebody ask him WTF he is thinking keeping Brodsky around.

  30. I wonder why such high-profile, experienced attorneys like Greenberg and Lopez agreed to even work on a case where the lunatics were running the assylum. Why would they agree to let Brodsky be the lead and tell them what to do, when what he was telling them was clearly not in their clients best interest? It’s mind boggling.

  31. Wow! Facs.
    What the heck?

    Ok.. Let’s see…

    Andrew Abood saw problems.
    George Lenard
    Reem Odeh
    Steve Greenberg

    “I’m not going to comment on incompetence,” Greenberg said…

    Is it possible that they are all wrong? And Brodsky is right?



    I’m seeing a pattern….

  32. Brodsky knew if he didn’t go along with what Drew wanted, he would be looking for another client. If Brodsky wasn’t appeasing Peterson desires, he would have told him to keep his mouth shut rather than appearing on Larry King Live with him and allowing him to go on other shows to run his mouth

  33. Drew Peterson juror describes her new normal

    It had been a surreal six weeks, and the exhausted 65-year-old grandmother just wanted something cold to drink before heading back to her secluded Shorewood home after convicting the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant of his third wife’s murder.

    “Well, they got that Peterson guy, huh?” the cashier said.

    “Yes, I was on the jury,” Bond told the man as she reached for her money.

    “My treat,” he replied…

    But it took the pastor of the defendant’s missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, to convince her “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stacy Peterson’s alleged remarks to the Rev. Neil Schori and divorce attorney Harry Smith that she lied to police to protect her husband helped seal his fate, Bond and some other jurors said.

    …”I wrote in my notebook, ‘You really, really did it!'” she said of Drew Peterson after hearing Schori’s testimony. “The realization was chilling.”…


  34. Wow Joel just can’t help himself! He had to take to facebook and start rambling on as usual. The guy just doesn’t know how to keep his mouth shut. No wonder him and Drew get along so well!

  35. Joel is still keeping it up on Facebook. In response to a headline that stated “Prison-bound Drew Peterson fired arguably the most effective attorney on his defense team”:

    Joel A. Brodsky
    What a load – how about “Peterson fired arguably the most obstructionist and unprepared lawyer on the team, Steve Greenberg”. That would be more like it. How does the tune go, “Na Na Naaaa Na, Hey Hey, Goodby”.
    about an hour ago

  36. So nice to see that the karma train has left the station. Wonder if Brodsky still has all those “World Class” Appeal Lawyers waiting in the wings. And how long is it going to take old Lopez to be “terminated”

  37. Guess they don’t plan to appeal Atty. Smith’s testimony since they fired the only lawyer that thought it was a bad idea and they are very loudly saying it was the right choice. In Joel’s words “Na Na Naaaa Na, Hey Hey, Goodby.” Just to let ya know, Joel, there is an “e” on the end of goodbye.

  38. I’m thinking like Aussienat and wondering If this is the start of an ineffective council appeal. Funny thought though is picturing Brodsky being the one to draft and argue it not realizing HE was a key part of that defense.

  39. JB just called wgn radio. Just more whining.lying and denying. He admitted they are being compensated and did not work for free.

  40. I think he is lying, unless the boys have been persuaded to pay for the defense with their mothers life insurance money. Which to me would be the ultimate betrayal to Kathleen

  41. Who is the custodian of the boy’s money? It used to be Drew’s Uncle…..right? Hasn’t that been changed? Isn’t that part of the civil litigation with the Savios?

    I sure hope it’s not in the control of Drew’s son!

  42. Unless the life insurance policy indicated otherwise, LA is right.

    And all this time he has been getting his pension … $6k per month … is the cost of living such that all of that would go to the needs of his family?

  43. Well if it is Greenberg’s “fault” that DP is in prison, then thank you, Steven Greenberg.

    Re ineffective counsel … I think FB is not the place to make that claim LOL but it looks like that might just be Brodsky’s last ditch defense stratedgy.

    It certainly would not surprise me.

  44. It was the jury who were ready to convict Drew no matter what evidence was presented that convicted Drew.

    Brodsky said so himself The deck against Drew was stacked. 🙄

  45. Here’s the definition of “Ineffective Counsel” from Wikipedia:

    Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant that their attorney’s performance was so ineffective as deprive them of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Having the benefit of counsel or assistance of counsel means that the criminal defendant has had a competent attorney representing them. Competence is defined as reasonable professional assistance and is defined in part by prevailing professional norms and standards. In order to prevail on a claim that he received ineffective assistance, a criminal defendant must show two things:

    1.Deficient performance by counsel.
    2.Resulting prejudice, in that but for the deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have differed.
    I would say that it would be impossible for Drew to claim he had inefficient counsel when he had SIX attorneys, several of whom were considered top defenders. The fact that Drew and the lead counsel, Brodsky, chose to ignore the counsel of these experts in their field is not going to help him make that kind of leap.

    He may try, but it would never fly!

  46. Drew’s biggest mistake as far as going to prison (YAY) for a long time, was hiring Brodsky. That completed the clown act for sure. Any reputable defense atty (Lenard, Greenberg, etc) would have long ago said “stfu and keep a low profile”. We all knew that all along. I actually am thrilled that he kept Brodsky! No way can they claim ineffective counsel when the ineffective counsel is rambling about one of the best.

  47. LA my thought is that there must be a fox watching the Hen House , as it relates to money. recall Tom comment about “now they have no money”. Who is paying for the legal battle that Steve is in with the PD that he is suing to regain his job? Who has been managing the kids estate from their Mom. Where is Drew getting the money for his defense . My concern for a long time and I would put nothing past JB or JL

  48. AFAIK, Drew’s $6k/month pension has been going to Steve so that he can pay the bills and raise the kids. If the two older boys are pitching in to pay legal bills from the life insurance money that they are now getting from their mothers, that’s their prerogative.

    For a long time we have been hearing conflicting reports on whether or not Peterson’s defense team was receiving any compensation. Joel has long said that he is not working pro bono, while this week other team members indicated that they were working solely out of interest in the high-profile case and the publicity it affords.

    My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between. I’m not sure it really matters. It’s not going to change the verdict and there are no ethical issues that can be attributed to either being paid or not being paid.

  49. No wonder Tom and Kris have come out strongly in favor of their dad. Steve has been brainwashing them just as much as Drew did.


  50. Remains found along I & M Canal in Channahon

    Not much more info yet
    Every time I hear about something like this, my heart skips a beat. Wouldn’t it be something if Stacy was found now???? This is only 23 miles or so from Bolingbrook?

  51. IMO, I don’t think Stacy’s remains will ever be found.
    But I do hope that someone who knows something might be able to tell what happened to her after she left the house in the blue container.

  52. Brodskys incompetence goes all the way back to petersons very first bail hearing. Where was he? Getting on a plane to do an interview!! Falling asleep at one of the hearings. DP should have fired him from the get go.

  53. I think it would be easier to claim ineffective counsel if you had 1 attorney and less so with 6.

    I do not think JB would be successful although it seems that Greenberg is his target.

  54. “Drew’s loyal to a fault and unfortunately he keeps listening to Joel (Brodsky),” Greenberg said. “It became clear Brodsky wanted to make me the fall guy for his own incompetence.

    “He had no idea what he was doing, how to put the case together, how the evidence should be challenged, how witnesses should be approached, how the judge should be handled, how jury selection should be conducted, and his insecurities permeated everything,” he said.

    Greenberg said he thought they were going to win the case until Savio’s divorce attorney testified in the trial.

    “I thought the case was as close to won as any case I’ve ever been involved in, but as the words came out of Harry Smith’s mouth, you could feel the ‘not guilty’ get sucked out of the room.”


  55. Greenberg says it was Brodsky who was guilty of poor legal work.

    “I spent much of the time trying to keep him from reading blogs and Twitter, and to pay attention,” he said.

    He went on to call Brodsky “completely incompetent when it came to strategy and dealing with people. He was offensive to the judge and jury.

    “Anyone who was in the courtroom knows that he was the weak link in the defense. Anyone who was in the courtroom knows that I was extraordinarily successful at almost everything I did,” Greenberg said. “His attempt to make me the fall guy for his faux pas is shameless.”


  56. I mean this is all kind of funny. Everything we have thought about Brodsky over the last 5 yrs, is being confirmed, by a former member of the Dream team.

  57. Wonder just how many lawyers will be willing to work with Brodsky after watching lawyer after lawyer drop of the team from the beginning. I guess there might be a few out there trying to take a stab of becoming a name out there, but those World Class Appeal lawyers surely don’t want to deal with Mr Egomaniac? Juicy case or not

  58. I’m not going to copy or paste this awful NE story that takes a one line quote from Neil Schori and acts as if they got some sort of exclusive inside scoop. But there is an interesting little throwaway bit at the end of the story:

    And Drew has hinted as much. His close pal Greg Keller told The ENQUIRER he once asked the ex-cop if he had anything to do with 23-year-old Stacy’s disappearance.

    Drew chillingly said if he did kill her: “I know enough bad people after 30 years as a policeman that they’d never find her body.”


    I never heard that before.

  59. I don’t know. But I am asking that we not glut the comments up with copy and pastes of search results for every Greg Keller who ever lived in Bolingbrook. Please. You guys know what I mean, right?

    That said, any actual further quotes from the guy about Drew Peterson, etc. are more than welcome. 🙂

  60. I thought we heard that way back when Stacy first disappeared —- don’t any of you remember the banter about Drew’s nefarious contacts? I think it was pooh-poohed at the time as coming from someone who really didn’t know Drew all that well.

  61. I don’t think it’s news that Drew surrounded himself with street rats and ne’er do wells. He tried to arrange a “hit” on his wife with one. He often seemed to take people with checkered pasts into his confidence.

  62. Maybe some of his ,so called, friends are starting to talk. Ruby should keep dangling that 100,000 dollar reward. Money talks!

  63. Its mind boggeling all the stuff that was not allowed in court, and the jury still convicted him. Shows you just how bad this guy is

  64. And Lopez is tooting his horn on the wonderful (not) closing he did. That guy lives on a different reality then anyone else

  65. I think my sarcastic humor wasn’t clear on m last post. I can picture Brodsky sitting down at a computer typing up an appeal… “Mr. Drew Peterson would like to seak an apeel dew to ineffektiv cownsil by Mr. Joel Brodski” – typos and all. LOL.

  66. I remember that comment Drew supposedly made about knowing enough so a body would never be found.

    Re what was kept out of the trial – didn’t it come out in the GJ hearings that Drew had forged the will of Kathleen’s will that named his uncle as her executor?

    You know, I have been reading in various places that people are giving Greenberg cyber high-fives and “good on you” accolades for falling out with Brodsky, but I don’t think that redeems his disgusting behaviour throughout the trial. Not one bit. I will never forget his sunglass covered smirking face laughing about “Stacy who?”

  67. One of Greenbergs comments stood out to me. I do not know how to format any text here but the fact that he claimed to be ” extraordinarily successful” got to me.

    Anyone who was in the courtroom knows that I was extraordinarily successful at almost everything I did,” Greenberg said.

    Then Lopez tooting his horn about the closing arguments and how he just ordered a 100k or more mercedes.

    I mean, I cannot even breathe due to the egos. and here is little silly old unqualified Brodsky firing them. Guess JB has got to keep wifey in those italian high heeled shoes somehow.

    LOL What a fustercluck

  68. Only good thing that came out of all this mess is that DP is where he belongs. and hopefully stays there for a long long long time

  69. Ver good point Aussid re Greenberg.

    Maybe this is all part of yhe Dense Team’s tsctics. A DT will do whatever it takes to get his client free.


  70. It sure looks like they are up to something to me.. I think they knew they were in trouble when Harry got on the Stand, along with Neil’s testimony about what Stacy told him. Then the doctors saying it wasn’t an accident. I think they started the circus act with Lopez and the slideshow mess up how they couldn’t defend him properly because of the mix up, Joel contacting the jurors, now this with Greenberg. Sure looks like they are up to their dirty old tricks once again. Only this time it isn’t going to work. The judge did a good job making sure to knock the prosecution every chance he got, and didn’t let anything get in that couldn’t be backed up or had something to prove it was fact.

  71. You know what is really comical about it all………if they can’t fool us, or make ordinary people who don’t know much about legal law believe their lies, how do they think they are going to get it past the professionals? I mean seriously, all of us at one time or another have called them out on what they were up to, and we almost always had it right. If they can’t pull the wool over our eyes, how they going to pull a fast one with the judges, and legal system?

  72. Aussie, I’m glad you mentioned that Greenberg’s ire over his being released and the epithets he has launched at Joel Brodsky, don’t make him any kind of a hero or even a nice guy.

    He’s still the man who lied over and over to the press about no one speaking up or going to authorities with their suspicions when Kathleen suddenly died.

    He donned the dark glasses, sneered and mocked the victims shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the team.

    And while it’s nice to see Brodsky called out for his failings as a lawyer and for putting his own ego ahead of his client’s chances at an acquittal, that still doesn’t make me a Greenberg fan.

  73. Personally, I don’t think they are trying to pull anything as far as ineffective counsel. If that were the case, one of them would be taking a fall, and none of them is.

    Both Joel and Steve are claiming to have done a good job representing their client. Their egos and careers are at stake here. No way they’d risk ruining their legal reputations just to save Drew on appeal.

    It’s just the inevitable fireworks with Joel Brodsky. Andrew Abood and George Lenard experienced it, as did his own partner Reem Odeh. Despite Joel’s lack of courtroom skills, he wants to be the Captain of The Ship and it’s the fatal flaw of any defense team he heads.

  74. Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law: We knew what Smith was going to say. He had said it under oath before at the hearsay hearing and during his two (2) grand jury appearances. We also had the police reports of his interviews from 2007, and 2008. The problem was that he changed his testimony at the trial and told a different story then he had given for the prior 5 years (this is why Judge Burmila declared him an adverse witness). We pointed this out to the jury at the trial in our redirect examination, but the jury just ignored this fact That’s my point.

    What part of losing doesn’t Joel Brodsky understand? He called a witness who he knew would be adverse. The witness answered his questions. He had a chance on redirect to impeach the witness. It didn’t work and the jury found Harry Smith to be credible.

    That’s how a jury trial works. I hope he’s not thinking that he can appeal because the jury believed the witness!

  75. C A T F I G H T!


    “But Greenberg said Wednesday that none of Brodsky’s claims are true.

    “I didn’t make my dismissal public. I filed many motions to keep out important evidence and was successful, and I was never printing out documents while questioning witnesses – that would be impossible to do,” Greenberg said.”

    The decision to fire Greenberg comes after jurors said testimony from Harry Smith – the divorce attorney for Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio – ultimately led them to decide on a guilty verdict.

    Greenberg was reportedly heard warning the defense against calling Smith to the stand.

    But Greenberg says Brodsky was warned by Judge Edward Burmila not to call Smith.

    “The judge questioned Brodsky on things and told him, ‘Don’t call Harry Smith,’” he said. “His courtroom persona was laughable.”

    The team is interviewing new attorneys, one of whom will take Greenberg’s place as Peterson begins the appeal of his conviction, Brodsky said.

    But Greenberg said he expects more attorneys will decide they cannot work with Brodsky.

    “Look at the facts of every lawyer he works with who can’t work with him, and watch as the other lawyers drop out,” he said.

    He added that he expects Brodsky will be detrimental to Peterson’s appeal.

    “If (Peterson) wants a shot at freedom, he’ll continue with the others,” Greenberg said. “If he wants to stay in jail, he’ll continue with Brodsky.”

    Meow! Wonder why Lopez is being so quiet. It’s not like him.

  76. Did I read this correctly – that Judge Burmilla said Harry Smith’s courtroom persona was laughable? If so, why??

    I find it quite scary that it was Harry Smith’s testimony that convinced the jurors. To me, that was the icing on the cake. I thought everything the prosecution brought forward showed Drew’s guilt. Maybe I’m just biased?

    But even without Harry Smith’s testimony, how could they ignore everything else?

    In any case, he is guilty, and that’s the main thing.

  77. If you want to QUOTE someone in order to respond to them or QUOTE a portion of a news story you can use HTML tags to do so.

    Write your quote as below (don’t forget the backslash in the end quote tag):

    <blockquote> Quoted text. </blockquote>

    It will end up looking like this:

    Quoted text.

  78. Aussie, I think that ever juror interview I heard or read actually said that they quickly determined that it was a homocide based on the actual evidence — the photos, the bruises, the autopsies and the pathologist’s testimony. It was only after they decided that Kathy definitely died at the hands of another person that they looked at the “who” part of the testimony.

    That’s when they had to think about the witnesses who said they heard Drew say that he’d be better off if Kathy were dead or that Drew had cornered Kathy on the stairs and put a knife to her neck. All of that was considered, but none of it placed Drew in the house that week

    It was the testimony of Pastor Shori that became a pivotal point for most of the jurors as his testimony effectively placed Drew in Kathy’s home in the middle of the night on that fateful weekend. Attorney Smith’s testimony was the nail in the coffin for most of them because he warned Stacey that she could be in trouble for concealing a homicide.

    They had all decided that she didn’t die of a slip and fall in the tub. But that didn’t prove that Drew did it. Circumstantial evidence like the blue towel and the locksmith helped a good deal, but the Pastor and attorney’s statements brought it to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

  79. Brodsky introduced a client whose testimony corroborated with Schori’s testimony. He KNEW that it would yet put him on the stand. That was a totally stupid move for a Defense attorney – no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Even the judge was advising him not to. Dumbest move of the trial without a doubt.

    And I agree that Greenberg’s current open arguments with Brodsky do not dismiss the callous treatment of two women who are victims. I had thought that it was really odd that Steve seemed pretty no-nonsense in the beginning but as soon as the actual trial started he somehow went with the bad flow of Brodsky (the man who brought the “Win a Date with Drew” contest, chicken wing sales, and oh so many media appearances/interviews that hurt Drew’s public image).

  80. It’s pathetic that at this point Joel still doesn’t seem to get (or won’t acknowledge) that he lost because the evidence was too persuasive that Drew was guilty.

    If he wants to go to the public and try to state some grounds for appeal, that’s one thing, but to try blame the jury for believing a witness that HE called to the stand is beyond ridiculous.

  81. There are some people that just never get it. They live in some kind of alternate reality where they think people believe the unbelievable and their strange tactics are normal. I think that is where Brodsky and Drew are soul mates.

  82. It was so funny watching Brodsky on Judge Jeanine’s show. He kept denying it was a dumb move to put Harry Smith on the stand, saying Harry Smith lied. Everyone else was telling him it was stupid but he kept protesting. That was good TV 🙂

  83. Brodsky and Lopez were the clowns with the laughable courtroom personas.

    I think Brodsky’s jealousy of Greenberg is pretty obvious. He got too much attention and was beating poor Joel at his own game. Diluting the Peterson-Brodsky brand.

    Peterson and Brodsky have shown contempt for the court in many ways, imo, so all we can expect is more of the same. Peterson and Brodsky are motivated to keep this going for years more, and Brodsky has no morals, so helmets on for more disrespectful bullshit incoming, I’m afraid.

  84. Unbelievable.

    Joel A. Brodsky: Ha. Greenberg and Glasgow had so much in common, both cried and kevetched like whiny little girls when they didn’t get their way, and both were lousy lawyers. Drew is no fool, and he doesnt want to spend the rest of his life in jail. He sat right next to Greenberg for the entire trial and he saw how unprepared and inefectual he was – the right lawyer got fired, that was the incompetent one, Greenberg.

  85. Dear Joel, Not one time in the middle of court did Greensburg object to his own team’s questioning, nor did he object for no reason at all. Try to stay awake and pay attention.

  86. Funny, Charmed. One of those lousy lawyers won his case, and the other one tried to prevent Brodsky from losing his. The irony is rich.

  87. Facs, thanks for posting the Jeannine Pirro clip. Wasn’t able to catch the original airing, but it was SO worth watching the judge and her panel make Brodsky’s left shoulder twitch.

  88. Apparently Brodsky’s definition of effectual is as right as his spelling of the word. Is it effectual to miss your client’s arraignment resulting in the inability to fight the high bail immediately? Is it effectual to fail to get bond lowered on appeals even while his client is stuck behind bars during a prosecutorial appeal? Is it effectual to call into a radio station and recommend a Win a Date with Drew contest and then to whine when the radio DJ won’t follow through with it? Is it effectual to object to your own teams’ questioning of a witness? Is it effectual to call a prosecution witness who you know will corroborate with another proscution witness’ testimony? Is it effectual to go on FB and trash the team member you hand-picked as the BOSS of the defense “in your dreams” team? Look in the mirror Brodsky. You are the problem for your client’s current position right alongside the man himself. Wondering if Brodsky has chained himself to his desk as he whines like a girl on FB. And somehow it almost seems like his rants are written by his wife or similar in nature. Get defensive much Brodsky???

  89. According to Joel, Drew was satisfied and happy with the team, and with their service. They should hold their heads up … they had done very good work. There was no mention from Drew of anyone being inefectual. They made the decision (to call Harry Smith) as a team.

    The video answered the question I had planned to ask if I got online regarding how much time Drew could serve. I’d seen many times that he could get as much as 60 years, and I had wondered what the lower end of that sentence would be. In the video, Jeffrey Gold (criminal defense attorney) says he is going to get at least 40 years in prison.

    Did I catch that right? Joel says the basis for appeal will be that Harry Smith perjured himself by changing his story regarding what he warned Stacy about. Joel says he changed his story from “extortion” to “failure to report a homicide.”

  90. The other thing Joel likes to bring up is that Stacy was not currently going through a divorce with Drew and so her testimony shouldn’t have been admitted under a hearsay exception that allows for the testimony of someone who has been made unavailable to testify because they were going to testify at trial. In the clip he’s asserting that there was no divorce and hence no pending trial. But then he also says that they called Smith to address her testimony according to Neil Schori – because it would show that she wanted to get more money out of Drew in a divorce.

    He can’t have it both ways. Either there was a pending divorce or there wasn’t, and if he wants to prove that there was no divorce pending then Stacy had no reason to lie when she told people about Drew killing Kathleen. If he wants to prove that there was a divorce pending then her testimony was rightfully admitted under forfeiture by wrongdoing.

    Either way, he still loses.

  91. ENOUGH!

    Anyone listening to Joel on Judge Janine would think that the DP case was the first one to ever allow hearsay.

    I am sick of hearing the dream team repeat this lie.

    The Federal Rules of Evidence which were codified in 1975 include 24 explicit exceptions to the bar on the hearsay. It includes additional exceptions when the witness is unavailable. It also outlines so-called standards of reliability to safeguard the veracity of the evidence.

    Aside from the Federal rules, common law has also allowed many exceptions to the ban on hearsay for hundreds of years.

    So the simple FACT is:

    The use of hearsay is not some grand government conspiracy to convict Drew Peterson.

    It is an oft-used, legal means of allowing juries to find guilt. And in this specific case, all the safeguards of reliability were met in earlier hearings in front of another judge.

    So Joel stop lying and making yourself seem even more pathetic. Your “hearsay” dog ain’t going to hunt in any appellate court.

  92. I don’t know if all posts are awaiting moderation but I keep getting a message that mine are. No problem on my part, but FYI. 🙂

  93. I’m seeing your comments, Noway, and there’s nothing in pending so you’re good.

    I might delete your link to the posts editing, however. That link explains how to use the editor to add blog content. That means the main post at the beginning of each thread – not the comments – and not everything is allowed in comments that you can do in posts. For instance, lists won’t work in comments, and you can’t post images or imbed PDFs.

    Also, this is a WordPress.com blog versus a WordPress.org blog – which means “The Free Version” and more limited as far as what is allowed. (For instance, no i-frames, no javascript, and no ads). But that’s not really the issue.

    At the end of every post I used to list all the HTML tags that are allowed in comments, but most people didn’t use them. I’ll start again if you think it would be helpful.

  94. Stating the obvious:The whining and lying by the defense would NOT be happening had they won the case. Everyone would have been the smartest lawyer on the planet-and neither would this bickering have been done by the prosecution.
    Thank you all for your comments and all the facts. Keep ’em coming.
    I, too, wondered who wrote the F/B rant by Brodsky. Somebody who can spell! Be still my English major background!

  95. New tidbit from the 8 page juror statement.

    Many people had speculated that the juror who independently asked the judge about the word Unanimous must have been the Hold-out juror.

    Judy states it was the jury foreman…and that when she discovered that he had asked the question she was so surprised you could have “knocked her down with a feather.”

    I was also amused by her comments about “pacing” while the hold-out made up his mind by reading his own notes.

    If i had been forced to sit there while a fellow juror sat there reading through his notes, I doubt i would have been able to limit myself to merely pacing. It would have driven me nuts!

  96. I know this is snarky to say, but you would think that the guy with “two years of law school” would have understood that for hearsay evidence to be heard by the jury, it would have already been examined, challenged, and ultimately deemed to be reliable/admissible.

    He was there to serve as a juror, not in the capacity of a Supreme Court Justice.

  97. @ Fac…agree with your snark!

    In fairness to the hold-out juror he did specifically say in an interview that is was when he realized he wasn’t supposed to be acting as the Supreme Court that he finally voted to convict.

    Of course, that begs the question what possessed this man to believe for even a nanosecond that he was supposed to act like the Supreme Court? Another example why “a little knowledge’, i.e two years at law school, can be very dangerous.

  98. .Hurry Up & Wait: Sneed is told that Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who successfully convicted wife murderer Drew Peterson, is “more inclined to delay moving forward on reopening the case of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy, until after the appeal being filed on Peterson’s behalf by his attorneys for murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, is over with,” said a top source


    The appeal will be over around 18 months from now, (my guestimate) by which time Stacy will have been missing close to 7 years…maybe getting close to a judicial declaration of death.

  99. Interview with Ron Supalo – the holdout juror


    He says that although he lived in Bolingbrook he did not know Drew Peterson. Also mentions asking for the phone records from the night that Kathleen died to corroborate Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him she tried to call Drew. If he had been paying attention when the Nextel guy testified he would have remembered that the “direct connect” chirps don’t show up on the phone bill and aren’t tracked separately on the records. They are only tracked as total minutes used.

    He also says that when the foreman sent out his note asking what “unanimous” meant and the answer from the judge came back, some of the other jurors were a bit miffed because and said they could have told him what it meant if he had just asked the room. 🙂

  100. Is the deadline for filing the appeal his sentencing date? Sooner?

    Do you think they will speed up the appeals process in this case?

    Do you think he will have another attorney?

  101. Is he NUTS?

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law: I’ll agree that she lied when she gave an alibi if you agree that she lied when she told that story to Schori. Is that acceptable?

  102. I tell you, Greenberg, whom I do not like any more then the rest of the defense team, went public with his venting on being “fired”, his ego was bruised and I am sure he was frustrated, but has quieted down, I am sure. moving on. Lopez has been staying quiet through all of this, we all know his motive, to get that new mercedes, He just doesn’t give a S*** . But Brodsky? This is eating him up alive, and if he is not careful, they might come for him with a straight jacket before its all said and done, because I believe he is NEVER going to walk away from Drew Peterson, and he IS going to lose his career over this

  103. But his behavior is understandable when looked at through the lens of someone who is madly in love. I’m reliably informed that love makes one behave in the most irrational manner.

    OTOH, unless Joel chooses to NOT to follow his heart…and walks out on Drew…he actually has to keep on this crazy pretense of Drew being the innocent victim. Why? While his comments will have zero impact on a judge-driven appellate process, he is aware that even if DP was to win his appeal, it would likely do no more than win him another trial. Therefore JB recognizes no doubt that he needs to communicate with the next possible group of jurors.

    Likewise, even if DP by some miracle was to be acquitted of the Savio murder, he would likely be immediately be charged for Stacy’s murder. Again, JB would want to convince the jury pool that Drew is the two-time victim of a government conspiracy.

    So unless JB can overcome his unhealthy and personal infatuation with the convicted murderer, he will likely need to keep up the pretense of DP’s actual innocence for the rest of his career. How he makes any money out of this lunacy is anyone’s guess.

  104. Oxy, I do not think its about money for poor old Brodsky anymore in this case. May have been at the beginning, but its way beyond that. Its now a Love story

  105. LA…yep but even people in love need money…wonder if he’s planning to use his wife to keep him and Drew? We know back in 2002 he must have been a little short of liquid assets…(recall he accidentally misplaced client money in his own safe according to Illinois Bar Disciplinary documents). Given he was banned from practicing for three months in 2004, its hardly likely to have been a lucrative period for his practice…until he won the lottery in 2007 and came up “Snake Eyes” when DP walked into his life.

    As for future clients…I read somewhere he is currently defending the get-away driver in a four person conviction for Murder 1… and is next due in court mid October. That case has “public defender” written all over it…hardly likely to over-stretch the counting abilities of the tellers at JB’s local bank.

  106. Just to back up my earlier comments on JB’s financial status here’s what JB presented to the above mentioned Disciplinary Hearing …(here he is trying to present his financial status in the most favorable light to imply he had no need to commit larceny from his former client.

    “Evidence was submitted concerning Respondent’s financial situation during the time period prior to November, 2000. Respondent testified that his 1997 divorce strained his financial situation and approximately one year after the divorce he filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Although his debts were discharged in bankruptcy, Respondent has paid some of those debts and intends to pay the remainder as well. He stated that his financial status has improved, he has a good credit rating and his checking account was never overdrawn during the time period involved in this matter. He pays all of his bills on time, including the mortgage on his home and child support for his two children. During the summer and fall of 2000, his investment account had a balance of between $10,000 and $14,000. Respondent stated that his law practice was in good financial condition throughout 2000 and there were no shortfalls or overdrafts in his client trust account. He estimated that his gross revenue for fiscal 2000 was $175,000. (Resp. Ex. 6-11; Tr. 107-21).”

    Brodsky was found guilty of the charges which had they been in criminal court would have been the equivalent of larceny. As he was able to shelter behind his status as a lawyer, he received a wrap on the knuckles and a 3 month ban. He appealed, but lost.

    The case is classic JB…an improbable excuse for everything, combined with a holier than thou attitude.

    Its fitting that an anagram of Joel A Brodsky is


  107. @ LA —agreed

    What astonishes me about the disciplinary hearing is that the Bar acknowledges

    “The testimony that does trouble us is Respondent’s admission that he purposely attempted to sign Tomita’s name so as to replicate Tomita’s actual signature. If Respondent sincerely believed he had authority to sign Tomita’s name, there would be no reason for such a subterfuge.”

    Lawyers CPA’s and other professionals sometimes, with permission, sign documents on behalf of their clients. But I cant think of a professional in the United States who does not know that one does not “attempt to replicate the clients signature.”

    Having recognized Brodsky did indeed attempt to forge/copy his clients signature, the Bar then went onto rule that the

    “the evidence did not indicate that Respondent’s actions resulted from any dishonest or pecuniary motive.”

    It was on this basis that the Bar limited his “sanction” to a mere 3 month suspension,,,and still JB had the chutzpa to appeal.

    Based on his life experience, it would indeed seem the Joel and DP are a match made in the Illinois Legal System

  108. As for Joel’s financial situation, I always thought that we may have gotten some insight from a series of Tweets sent by Tamara Holder:

    January 31, 2010
    So I sat at the table next to Joel Brodsky last night at dinner. He & wife fighting the whole time. She was crying, they were outta control!

    @myrarubin: NO not poor wifey. She was terrible. A raging bitch

    She was telling him she made him. Which in my opinion isn’t a good thing! He kept telling her to “shut the f**k up.”

  109. I wonder if Drew first met Joel when he was serving as part of SWAT Team

    {Brodsky’s personal} police reports over the years, include three domestic calls, one involving a SWAT team responding to Brodsky’s Wilmette home.

    According to a report of the Sept. 2, 2002, incident involving a “suicidal person,” Brodsky’s wife, Elizabeth Brodsky, told police “Joel Brodsky was in the house armed with a shotgun.”

    He had gone to his car to get a shotgun, police said. Elizabeth Brodsky “screamed at [her daughters] to get their shoes and leave now,” the report said. “Mr. Brodsky exclaimed, ‘That’s right. You leave, get out of here, now I’m going to do it right and blow my head off with this shotgun.’”

    No one was arrested.

    The Brodskys admit they were arguing but say the matter was the result of miscommunication and that police portrayed it inaccurately.

    Joel Brodsky said he never planned to harm himself.

    “I’m in my living room watching TV. Next thing I know, I’m getting a call from a hostage negotiator,” Brodsky said.

    “Most of this stuff is blown out of proportion,” Elizabeth Brodsky said…


  110. Holder is a criminal defense attorney and FOX contributor who was interested in the case. At one point she organized a bit of an intervention with Chrissy Raines which resulted in Cgrissy leaving Drew Peterson for a while (although she did eventually return to him).

  111. Holder got fairly involved with the case for a while. She uploaded a youtube video about her conversation with Chrissy Raines but made it private shortly afterwards (It was on HLN).

    Holder also accompanied Charles Doman to the Grand Jury.

    Many people have been asking me about my involvement in the Drew Peterson case since it was reported that I accompanied Kathleen Savio’s nephew, Charlie Doman, into the Grand Jury. Article here and below. Charlie Doman – nephew to Kathleen Savio Of course, I cannot and will not discuss any part of the Grand Jury proceeding. What I can say, however, is that being a part of the GJ was the most memorable experience of my career. Charlie previously spoke with Greta Van Susteren here and shared his feelings about how he and the Savio family felt that IL State Police ignored investigating the posibility that Kathleen was murdered. Remember, her death was orginally ruled an accidental death. It was not re-classified until AFTER Stacy disappeared and Kitty’s body was exhumed by Dr. Michael Baden who then ruled her death a homicide.


  112. Anyone curious why Joel kept a shotgun in his car? (see my 8pm post above)

    You really cant make this stuff up…seems like everyone remotely associated with the case (even the bit players like Tamara Holder, mentioned above,) has a back-story which would be rejected as unbelievable by any self-respecting Hollywood studio!

  113. Awww, c’mon guys. We really need to stop picking on Brodsky. He may get an inferiority comlex and decide not to represent Drew on the appeal. None of us would want that, now….would we?

    I can’t think of anyone I’d want more than Brodsky to represent Drew from here on out. Not only for the appeal, but for the inevitable trial of Stacy.

    We’re really in your corner Joel…..honest. Drew is where he is today because of you. You deserve all the credit. Drew needs a visionary like you to take him all the way to the finish line.

    Right guys? 🙂

  114. You are so right, ATL. Who would want to break up the beautiful bromance of Joel and Drew?

    Loyalty like that doesn’t come along very often in a man’s life.

    Heck, why should a little thing like a murder conviction come between friends? Anyway, Joel is going to appeal the conviction and Straighten Everything Out and he is a Good Lawyer.

    Aye, aye Captain Brodsky! Full speed ahead!

  115. Absolutely AtlGranny! I apologize won’t make fun of him anymore.

    Honest engine Joel. We all gigglerespect your bromance, and love for Drew. We hope you can muster a grand appeal that will make the entire world belly laugh you out of court be in awe of your talent.

  116. Oxy, shhhhhh….. I think it’s perfectly normal and sane for a father of four kids to keep a shotgun in his car. What’s wrong with that??

    (Seriously, why are you looking for logic behind anything Brodsky does. Have you learned nothing from this trial?)

  117. @ fac…oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzz

    What a coincidence, JB shaves off his facial hair before visiting a freezing country.

    Can you honestly say the pic looks like the JB altgran has to come to admire? I didn’t think so.

    I would not put it past him to claim the kill maybe to impress his Gun Rights clients in Chicago and more important his best bud Drew.


  118. JB writes, “I got a 500 pound wild boar (Kaban in Russian). “`
    Anyway we cut up and ate the boar within a few hours and it was very tastey.”

    So, three guys ate a ‘500’ pound wild boar within a few hours?????

    How’d they do that?

  119. Oh I see him now…he must be the one, second left, bleeding, with his nose in the snow…stunning likeness. For a moment I thought that was the boar.

    BTW, seeing as I’m being totally frivolous, did you notice the stunning likeness between Joel’s “fashionably elegant wife”, and Mrs Lisa Shark, Runners-up in the 2011 Illinois Spelling Bee?

  120. Brodsky’s Facebook reveals an interesting attitude shift in Joel’s view of the Peterson jury

    July 30th 2012 – Post-Jury Selection Pre-Victory Cigar

    Brodsky declared himself delighted with the jury of seven men and five women.

    “Just a really good mix of people, and that’s what you want for a jury,” he said.

    A few minutes later, Brodsky poked a “Reserva No. 464 Torpedo” cigar into his mouth and — declaring it “a pre-victory cigar” — he closed his eyes and sucked in the smoke.


    41 days later on September 9 2012 – 3 days after Conviction

    “This case could not be won with this jury. The State should not be full of praise for themselves, a group of interns could have won this case. They couldn’t lose. “



  121. OK, you guys are bringing out the worst in me. I will refrain from further comment (visual or otherwise) until I can think of something classier to contribute.

    And for the record, Tamara Holder has been a supporter of the blog for a long time, and I have nothing but good things to say about her.

  122. @ Fac…are you sure that’s the same person in the pic? ..Could it be wife #1 circa mid ninetieson the left?….JB looks a heck of a lot younger in the pic on the left..and the two women look, to say the least, dissimilar.

  123. Re: DP and JB (sittin’ in a tree…). Isn’t it just amazing to watch a pair of narcissists whirling ’round and ’round, powered by mutual flattery? If we could just render them nontoxic somehow we may have ourselves a new energy source.

    Heh heh heh…*recalls mental image of Bratsky riding a hawg…probably w/ stars and stripes bandana* Sleazy Rider.

  124. Hey, new bill signed into law:

    Evidence in domestic violence cases.

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




  125. In one of his post trial pressors, James Glasgow said he is on his way to Springfield to work on a new law that does away with the ‘Marital Privilege’ in domestic violence murder cases.

  126. Brodsky has always been jealous of Greenberg from Day 1 of the trial. Of all Peterson’s attorneys, Brodsky delusionally thought he was the most “likable” and “media savvy” – but, then Greenberg and Beth Karas, who should have their own show on TruTV because their sparring was interesting and entertaining, stole Brodsky’s limelight. Oh, and then there’s that pesky “I told you not to call Savio’s divorce attorney” thing too…. It’s pathetic that Brodsky literally does not “get it” that no one on this planet can stand the sight of him except for Drew.

  127. Regarding “Marital Privilege,” I always thought the spouse had the RIGHT to testify or not testify. They could not be FORCED to testify under the “Marital Privilege” provision, but it was never meant to prevent a spouse who wanted to testify against a spouse from doing so.

    Can someone please clarify this?

    In the case of Stacy, going to outside “counselors” (be it a clergyman or an attorney) and tellling them that her husband killed a former wife would be a concrete sign that Stacy was willing to testify against her husband.


    I think that,once again, Brodsky has his own spin on the law, so it’s interesting that Glasgow would be trying to have a new law written.

  128. @ AtlGran…you are right that “the spouse had the RIGHT to testify or not testify. They could not be FORCED to testify under the “Marital Privilege” provision, but it was never meant to prevent a spouse who wanted to testify against a spouse from doing so”

    However there is also a second form of marital privilege. This relates to discussions taking place between spouses. This privilege holds that as the words were spoken in the context of a marriage that the words were spoken with the reasonable expectation of privacy, and is therefore not admissible.

    As the second privilege is a real pain in the neck in prosecuting spousal abuse most states also have a statute stating that if one spouse is the victim of abuse by the other spouse, the victim’s testimony can be compelled and spousal privilege cannot be asserted.

  129. http://law.justia.com/codes/illinois/2005/chapter56/62149.html

    (735 ILCS 5/8‑801)(from Ch. 110, par. 8‑801) Sec. 8‑801. Husband and wife. In all actions, husband and wife may testify for or against each other, provided that neither may testify as to any communication or admission made by either of them to the other or as to any conversation between them during marriage, except in actions between such husband and wife, and in actions where the custody, support, health or welfare of their children or children in either spouse’s care, custody or control is directly in issue, and as to matters in which either has acted as agent for the other. (Source: P.A. 83‑408.)

  130. Wow, you could blow me away with a feather. That is not how I’ve ever heard it and maybe Illinois is different.

    That law effectively says that a spouse can taunt his or her spouse with information that lays out sordid details of previous cimes and the spouse IS NOT ALLOWED to testify?

    That’s NUTS!

  131. You know….I’m not real comfortable with the thought that Glasgow is going before the Legislature again, asking for a stiffer law than what is already on the books. It sure made him look bad in Kathy’s case, EVEN THOUGH that law ended up not being used in the trial.

    If he attempts to have the Legislature address the shortcomings in Illinois law because it specifically limits his ability to try a specific case, then I say he’s far better off to play the hand that’s he’s been dealt with rather than use this opportunity to fix a bad loophole.

    My crystal ball says that this will be used against him and could severely hurt any chances of winning a conviction against Drew for the death of Stacy — EVEN THOUGH we know that he took her life. Media backlash could be severe.

    Just sayin’

  132. @ Alt Gran …while I understand why you’re concerned about a media backlash..I don’t think it will have any bearing on obtaining a conviction against Drew for Stacy,

    The bigger issue will likely be the lack of a body. However with the passage of time, it becomes more likely that a court will declare her dead and a prosecution will surely follow.

    Even absent a body, the case against Drew, for Stacy’s death is substantially stronger than the Savio case. JB is going to be reduced to repeating that there has been no conviction in Illinois without a body in the past 150 years (as Lopez asserted) and scum-bagging the lengthy list of neighbors and ne’er do wells that Drew surrounded himself with.

    The defense will presumably consist of Drew’s kids who will likely forget about earlier statements about mom and dad fighting on the morning of October 28 and provide Drew with alibis. Stacy’s mother will also likely be dragged thru the mud.

    It wont be pretty…but nor do i think it will as dramatic or lengthy as the Savio trial. Trials for felons that are already convicted effectively to life without parole, are usually relatively straight-forward. The tax-payers don’t want to pay for a long trial, and there is usually nothing but the public defender’s pittance to pay for the Defense.

  133. BTW AtlGran…I apologize for calling you “Alt” Gran in my previous past. I must be suffering from either Adult Onset Dyslexia or Lisa Lopez Disease.

  134. Just plain old granny works. When I signed up for WordPress they took the ATLgranny and made it all small letters. It’s easy to confuse the atl for alt. (Granny was taken, obviously. So, ATL helped to show where I’m living.)

  135. Oxy, I agree that the case for Stacy is much stronger than Kathy’s. For that reason I think they should go with what they’ve got, even if it means “marital privilege” would mean Glasgow couldn’t use Schori or Smith.

    I believe that, as with “Drew’s Law,” another attempt to create a law custom-tailored to the case will backfire on them. Once, okay…but twice? That would certainly come across as trying to twist the laws to fit a specific case. Whether a jury will be tainted by it would remain to be seen.

    But why risk it?

  136. I absolutely believe that there is no way defense could introduce the fact that Stacy’s mother went missing to a trial for Drew’s murder of Stacy.

    It’s completely irrelevant to anything and I can’t imagine a judge allowing it.

    If Joel’s past statements to the media (and Internet saturation) are any indication, my guess would be that Drew’s defense would mostly be vigorous character assassination of the prosecution witnesses. It will be more accusations of people coming forward for $ and fame.

    They don’t really need to come up with witnesses of their own, unless they could find some to impeach what the prosecution witnesses have to say. There’s no body, so no need for pathologists. My guess is that their efforts will be keeping out hearsay statements from Stacy’s family, and friends and just hammering the heck out of Thomas Morphey.

  137. I would think that Smith would be able to testify that Stacy called him a couple of days before she “disappeared” and asked him about representing her for a divorce. Also, he could testify that he heard Drew calling out to her — twice — and the second time she had to hang up.

  138. OK atl gran…let me try and clarify.

    I am saying that Glasgow’s new proposed change appears to have absolutely nothing to do with any future trial of Stacy.

    Currently, many battered spouses after making the initial police report and triggering the State to prosecute, refuse to testify as witnesses in court resulting in the DA being able to obtain a conviction. Therefore

    Glasgow said he plans to lobby for a change in state law, restricting the marital privilege that prevents spouses from being forced to testify against each other.

    As Stacy is “dead” this change in law will obviously too late to save her and totally irrelevant at the murder trial.

    FYI, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already ruled that trial judges MUST compel battered spouses to testify.
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020925.html. I don’t know if any State’s have passed legislation to this effect.

  139. @ Fac…I hate to take the defense side but…

    The Federal rules of evidence, now essentially adopted by Illinois, allow “an accused to introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim,”

    In the absence of a body or trace evidence, JB will obviously claim that Stacy had the mindset to run away, leading her to abandon both Drew and her children.

    To support this,JB will present pertinent life history. Presumably he will find a professional ‘whore,”, aka an expert witness, to present a study about the impact of “child abandonment” on the victim, to help the jury establish whether Stacy did in fact run away.

    I don’t see how a Court could rule such a traumatic event in Tracy’s life is not pertinent to her character. I don’t like it one bit…but its likely one of the best defenses DP has available to him.

    In any case, even after JB finishes trashing everybody in Stacy’s family and half of Bollinbroke, i’m sure the jury will convict!

  140. @ atlgranny 7.45 pm post

    Smith was allowed to testify about discussions with Stacy in the Savio trial, because the judge ruled DP had killed Stacy to stop her testifying…(the Forfeiture rule kicked in)

    However it is far from clear that the Court will allow Smith to testify in a trial for the murder of Stacy.

    Courts are divided whether forfeiture can apply “reflexively”— that is, when the wrongdoing alleged to support the forfeiture is the very act for which the defendant is on trial.

    For background read

  141. The paper that the law student sent me the link to deals with the reflexive aspects of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception as well:

    The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing typically applies in the witness tampering context: When a defendant on trial for some crime (e.g., robbery) intends to and does procure the unavailability of a prospective witness against him at that trial, the prosecution can admit the witness’s hearsay statements at that same trial (the robbery trial).


  142. I was just thinking today that I’m not sure Neil Schori nor Harry Smith’s hearsay testimony would be useful at a trial for Stacy’s murder.

    The statements that she made to them were about what Drew had done with regards to Kathleen. Smith even testified that Stacy was not afraid of Drew because she felt she had so much S.H.I.T on him that he couldn’t touch her.

    OTOH, I think they could testify to a motive for Drew. They could present evidence that Stacy had begun to speak out about a murder he had committed and that he knew she was doing so.

    Stacy’s phone conversation with Harry Smith took place just outside their shared home and Smith heard Drew calling her to come inside, Schori saw a squad car circling the block during their conversation and when he came back to the church there was a message from Drew on his answering machine.

    Same goes for Scott Rossetto. We know that Drew was aware of Stacy’s friendship with her because he showed up at the Denny’s when they were together and gave Scott a hard time about spending time with Stacy. We’ve also got Morphey saying that Drew wanted him to plant Stacy’s car keys in Rossetto’s car ash tray in order to frame him. And we know that Drew kept track of Stacy via the GPS on her phone. He must have known that she was in Rossetto’s home a few nights before she disappeared (the night that they kissed and she told him that Drew had killed Kathleen).

    None of that is even hearsay. It’s firsthand testimony from the three men.

  143. @ Fac, who wrote:

    “No way that mention of Stacy’s mom going missing will make it to trial. I’d take bets on it.

    Show me some case law! (demands Judge Facsmiley)”

    Hang on, I’ve given you the Rule of Evidence
    “an accused to introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim,”

    …if you want to exclude this pertinent evidence, then the burden is on you to prove to Judge Moran, why it should be excluded.

  144. Stacy’s mother’s character is not her character. They are two separate entities. No character witness could testify to Stacy’s proclivity for abandoning her family and wandering, because it never happened. Her mother’s character is irrelevant.

    The only statements I’ve ever heard in relation to Stacy and her mother’s disappearance are from her sister Cassandra, who has said that in the light of what the family went through due to Christie’s disappearance, Stacy would never want to inflict that kind of pain on her own family. On the contrary, Stacy was known as the family member who organized get-togethers, visited and called everyone, bought groceries for family members. etc. Cass’ statement completely flies in the face of any silly theory trying to extrapolate that a wandering mother = a wandering daughter.

    Plus, Christie Cales has never been found and could very well be the victim of a violent crime. There’s absolutely no evidence that she is alive and well and dancing in a tropical paradise any more than there is that Stacy is doing so.

    Thirdly, you can’t just slap an “expert” witness up on the stand. They need to testify about some piece of evidence that has been introduced. What evidence would that be? What testimony, what document, what videotape could be introduced into evidence that the expert in “like mom like daughter” would then comment upon? Nothing that I know of.

    Plus, who is going to “open the door” to any kind of testimony about Stacy’s mom? Certainly not the prosecution. It would be easy to avoid since it has no relevance to anything in the case.

    If you want to talk about rumor, gossip and innuendo…that’s what the defense is doing when they bring up Stacy’s mother.

    Motion denied!

  145. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Joel-A-Brodsky-Attorney-at-Law/177746215592405
    “Dan Budenz Joel – it is still not too late to pull the defense (now appeal as well) team together I thought we agreed to early on to help the Drew Peterson FAMILY. I am not interested in contributing the services I provided in the past for reasons shared in “Analyzing Monsters – The Drew Peterson Saga” -The team needs to focus on what happened to Stacy if indeed Drew is innocent. In any event the underground economy including human slavery and human sex trade remains alive and well with all monies ‘made’ completely tax free. I was hoping something positive could come out of this saga and my team is on top of that for those interested. One fact not open to toxic hearsay and redressed memories is that the Peterson children are fantastic and deserving of all our help. Mom’s Carol, Victoria, Kathleen and Stacy did a great job! God Bless.
    13 hours ago”

  146. Your honor, the State has failed to produce a body or even a drop of blood to suggest the victim is dead. Therefore the Defense plans to present evidence to show there is considerable doubt as to whether there was in fact a murder or whether as seems more likely the overwhelmed ill-equipped 23 years old mother of 4 simply bolted.

    As permitted by the Illinois Rules of Evidence which allow “an accused to introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim”, we will present evidence about :

    Stacy’s state of mind in the weeks before her disappearance
    (acquaintances of Drew will testify to depression)

    Flirting with other men in the weeks before her disappearance…Stacy’s male friends will be called

    Evidence to show her poor mothering skills

    Registrar of Marriage to explain why the Wedding certificate between Drew Peterson and Stacy lists her mother as “missing”…

    Stacy’s brother to talk about Stacy’s long term pattern of moodiness, depression, withdrawal, childhood traumas,growing up in the Cales household

    Expert testimony to show how Stacy’s pattern of behavior is consistent with child abandonment syndrome http://www.outerchild.net/book/export/html/5

    Expert testimony from Prof. Sigmund Freud to explain the link between fear of abandonment and pre-emptive abandonment

    Detective Plod to talk about the number of hours spent searching for Stacy without results.

    Equus Searchers to attest to hours spent searching for Stacy without results

    I believe the State can rebut many of these
    assertions but i’m not sure how the Judge can stop the Defense from trying to create doubt.

  147. Oxy, most of what you are pulling up is random and not admissible.

    A defense can’t just toss an expert witness on the stand to talk about random stuff that they think might apply to the victim. It has to correspond in some way to the case that the prosecution has presented and be in response to evidence submitted. And NO judge is going to admit something that says Stacy’s mother is missing because, once more, it’s completely irrelevant.

    Flirting with other men in the weeks before her disappearance? Certainly speaks to a motive for her husband to kill her. And if these men she was flirting with are available to testify and will be called, as you state, then who is it that she ran off with? As far as we know, the only guy she was flirting with is Scott Rossetto and he is accounted for. Does the defense want us to believe the she ran off with someone and yet there is no record to indicate that she ever texted, emailed or phoned this person and no one ever heard of him or saw him? That’s one heck of a mystery date.

    Stacy’s brother testifying to her moods? For one thing, the guy is incarcerated, and for another he would never testify against his sister. Why even suggest that? He’d be an adverse witness from the get-go (and you know what happened the last time Joe called an adverse witness). Depression and withdrawal? Now you’re just making things up. Yelton has never testified to such a thing.

    Are you seriously suggesting that Sigmund Freud will be exhumed and take the stand? For that you are being fired from the defense team.

    Lastly, not finding a missing person in no way proves that a person is alive. In fact…I’d posit the opposite conclusion, given the electronic footprint each human being tends to leave these days. If a person suddenly disappears from the face of the earth, and can not be traced by any means – either bodily or via any kind of electronic or paper communication for five years then any normal jury would be way more likely to conclude that they are dead rather than alive.

    Are you even trying to give a good defense here? I’m going to appeal this conviction on ineffective counsel, Your Honor.

    Of course, the defense is allowed to attempt to create doubt where they can, but I’m under the impression that the defense would need to show relevance just as would the prosecution when calling witnesses or submitting evidence. As far as I know, they can’t just throw the kitchen sink at the victim. But I’m just looking at this at a lay person and using common sense to determine that. Do you know differently?

  148. @ Chief Justice Fac..

    Your para 1)
    Repeatedly suggesting that our experts have been selected to talk about “random stuff” does not in fact make them random.

    Defense experts are being called to rebut the States claim of murder. Our experts are needed to help the jury understand the psychological state of the victim and why she may well have bolted.

    The information about Stacy’s mother will be presented via the marriage certificate which shows her status as missing. We will present the certificate to show that Drew and Stacy had been married only four years. Her mother’s status as missing is a FACT…not innuendo.

    Para 2) Yelton is no quick witted divorce attorney like Harry Smith…he will simply testify to life in the Cales household, in so far as concerns Stacy. If he wants to turn hostile, so be it.

    When Yelton turns hostile, it will be even easier to lead him to confirm the challenges he and Stacy faced growing up

    Be assured that the fact that he is in jail will it be lost on the jury. !In fact that’s why we called him…(typical underhand JB tactic)

    Para 3) Sigmund Freud’s grandson, also called Sigmund Freud, is a friend of Joel the Shark, No exhuming needed thank you.

    Para 4) …not finding a missing person or any evidence of a digital footprint when looked at in the context of a person who removed $25,000 in cash from Drew’s safe, suggest that Stacy has bought herself a new identity, new credit cards etc…and is now “where she wants to be” with whoever she wants to be with.

    Para 5) The Defense rests …its getting late…and I don;t want to make JB’s job too easy.

  149. @ Fac…you edited your 1.13 am post to add a para 6…to which I will now respond

    The State has chosen to bring the case without a body which sadly eaves the defense no alternative but to go after the victim’s “mind.

    In cases involving battery its perfectly ok to present evidence to suggest, based on a short-fuse, the victim started it

    In cases involving rape its allowable to bring up evidence suggesting the victim’s propensity to enter into consensual encounters

    By extension, in the VERY RARE cases involving neither body nor blood and not a single sign of a struggle ….its surely OK tor the Defense to present every bit of evidence which goes to support the possibility that the victim simply ran away.

    Stacy was only 23…Evidence relating to family of origin would clearly be relevant to any psychological profile.

  150. As a former United States Treasury Agent, Cook County Prosecutor and Criminal Defense Attorney for more than 36 years, I have had the privilege of observing Steve Greenberg defend his client’s in knowlegeable and outstanding fashion. Neither I nor any of my colleagues, however, ever heard of Joel Brodsky, prior to his totally misguided and moronic TV appearances. His decision to call the divorce attorney against the advice of co-counsel, “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.” It was the most horrific blunder I have ever seen; and that includes the “glove fiasco” in the OJ trial. If I were Drew Peterson, I would strongly consider Brodsky’s inexcusable stupidity on appeal as innefective assistantce of counsel. Steve Pernick, Attorney at Law.

  151. Just reading at http://www.acandyrose.com and saw this about the cars being in driveway.

    RIC MIMS: Right. When I asked him when the last time he saw Stacy, he said, Well, when he got up at 11:00 AM, she was already gone. But from 11:00 AM to 1:30 PM, both cars were still in the driveway. – BROOKS: How do you know this? – MIMS: Sharon, the neighbor, plus all the neighbors reports from (INAUDIBLE) all created a timeline.

    FWIW did Joel not deny that there was $25k taken? Because his client, although a smart businessman who had investd wisely, would not have $25k just sitting in his safe.

  152. Of course, if someone takes up Jeff Ruby on his offer of $100,000 and tells where Stacy’s remains are and how Drew was involved, a defense argument based on “Stacy Ran off” will go poof.

    Peterson hasn’t been charged with doing anything to Stacy at this point so i wouldn’t be overly concerned over an argument that may never happen. Besides, there’s plenty to rebut any speculative and irrelevant evidence about Stacy’s mom (that is if it ever makes it to the courtroom, and I don’t believe it will).

    That said, I would never worry about our discussions helping the defense. We’re just lay people here and anything we may have to say about what’s admissible or not is just speculation on our part. We’re pretty much talking out of our asses. If that’s the kind of help Peterson’s defense needs, God help them!

  153. Please read this story in the Tribune today about Neil schori, Susan Murphy-Milano and their work fighting domestic abuse:

    For the 37-year-old pastor, the conversation has become a calling. In the nearly five years since Stacy vanished, he has dedicated himself to helping women in violent relationships and making sure they document abuse so hearsay issues don’t potentially hobble prosecutions.

    A week after Drew Peterson’s conviction in the Savio case, the prosecution’s star witness sat in his office at Naperville Christian Church, the nerve center for his domestic violence prevention programs. It’s here that he plans shelter visits, organizes outreach programs and urges local ministers to better advocate for women who — like Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio once did — say they live in fear of their husbands.

    “Stacy is 100 percent the reason why I am doing this,” Schori said. “I think she would be thrilled to know that her struggles have been redeemed and that others are being helped.”


Comments are closed.