Attorney Steve Greenberg strikes back

Today former Drew Peterson defense attorney, Steven Greenberg, sent a letter to Joel Brodsky taking him to task for speaking out to the press and in social media in an attempt to blame Greenberg for Peterson’s murder conviction.

Steven Greenberg‘s 15-page letter accused Mr. Brodsky of making false allegations against him in an effort to take attention off his own ineffectual representation of their client.

Joel Brodsky called Attorney Harry Smith to the stand to testify to some hearsay statements Stacy Peterson had made. But rather than questioning him effectively to elicit testimony to impeach Stacy Peterson, Brodsky’s examination resulted in Smith testifying that he had warned Stacy that she could end up concealing a homicide. The jury, which on September 6th convicted Drew Peterson of murder, cited this testimony as being among the most convincing arguments for Peterson’s guilt.

Several reports described Greenberg and Brodsky arguing prior to Smith being called to testify, with Greenberg set against the idea.

Joel Brodsky has replied to Greenberg’s demand for an apology by stating, “I am focused on Mr. Peterson’s appeal and getting the verdict reversed, and that is all that’s important.

When Mr. Greenberg was asked if he would like to reply to Brodsky’s statement he emailed this response:

“I too am focused on what’s best for my clients, and my former clients, including Mr. Peterson. I am also focused on preserving the integrity of my profession, which I consider to be a noble profession, and in defending myself against baseless false accusations, designed solely to deflect accountability from Mr. Brodsky. This could have been handled professionally. Instead he chose to try to “throw me under the bus”, rather than accepting responsibility for his own actions. I will not allow him to make me his fall guy! This is not about Harry Smith, or Joel’s other failed strategies. It is about my skill and integrity vs. his.”

Steven Greenberg’s letter to Joel Brodsky

~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.~

The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

149 thoughts on “Attorney Steve Greenberg strikes back

  1. The “lead” attorney on Drew Peterson’s defense team is an “obnoxious,” “mumbling, fumbling and bumbling,” “childish” liar who “blew the case” through “ignorance, obduracy and ineptitude,” says Peterson co-counsel Steve Greenberg.

    Greenberg not only blamed lead attorney Joel Brodsky for losing the Peterson case, he accused Brodsky of attacking his “family with vile and disgusting comments.”

    And now Greenberg wants an apology.

    “I will allow you 24 hours from the time this letter is transmitted to make a full public retraction and to provide a full public apology,” Greenberg wrote in a 15-page, footnoted letter sent today.

    In the letter, Greenberg said Brodsky tried to make him the “fall guy” after Peterson was convicted of murder. The guilty verdict was essentially based on evidence presented by a witness Brodsky chose to call and question himself, according to the letter…

    …”Not only is it evident that calling Harry Smith to the stand was suicidal to the defense, but also your horrific questioning made it worse,” Greenberg wrote. “Take credit, for you single handedly may have put Drew away for the rest of his life.”…

    …The night Greenberg received the letter, Brodsky lashed out at him on Facebook in a rambling 404-word screed.

    In his letter, Greenberg accused Brodsky of repeatedly lying about him in the Facebook post. Greenberg said he confronted Brodsky about the post and Brodsky sent him and “Drew’s other attorneys the most outrageous email I have ever seen.”

    Greenberg said the email “attacked (his) family with vile and disgusting comments” and “followed your advising reporters, in front of my son, that his mother wanted to be the first one to sleep with Drew (you used the F word) when he got out. Utterly reprehensible.”

    Greenberg also criticized Brodsky for the damage done by his “pre-indictment media blitz” and his relationship with Sun-Times columnist and reported Peterson pal Michele “Michael” Sneed.

    “Perhaps after reviewing this letter Ms. Sneed will post a retraction of her regurgitation of your comments about me, which are contradicted by her own paper’s coverage and were irresponsibly published,” Greenberg wrote in a footnote to his letter.

    Sneed has failed to return calls for comment about her relationship with Peterson.

    If Greenberg doesn’t get his apology, he says he’s sending the letter on to his own lawyer “for appropriate action.”

    “I do not know why you have chosen to make me the fall guy when it was apparent to everyone and anyone who witnessed the proceedings that you were not in the same league as the other attorneys,” Greenberg wrote. “Perhaps Drew has a burning desire to spend the rest of his life in the penitentiary. I am certain, having spent time with you, you can help him to fulfill that goal.”

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/lawyer-fight-drew-peterson-attorney-draws-line-in-sand

  2. For reference, here is the facebook update that Joel wrote about Greenberg:

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    September 11

    REGARDING STEVE GREENBERGS TERMINATION AS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR DREW PETERSON:

    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.”

  3. Curious if any of you have seen this type of circus play out in any previous cases. LOL, at least it provides a little entertainment. Poor JB, I really think the most telling remark in his tirade was SG spending time in the TruTV tent! Obviously he was green with envy and felt he wasn’t getting his due adoration. He did constantly remind all of us that he was the LEADER of the team, the most important, and called all the shots… Whoops doesn’t that mean he’s the one responsible for losing the case?

  4. Lopez, the self-described “Shark” is mysteriously quiet. I suspect he’s already moved on to more profitable feeding grounds.

  5. Joe did have a few short comments which I assume are related to this situation:

    @josharrk
    What a mess
    7:51 PM – 24 Sep 12

    @josharrk
    they are both my friends for a long time I hate to see this
    8:05 PM – 24 Sep 12 ·

  6. I do feel that Joel Brodsky is unfairly trying to pin the team’s loss on Steve Greenberg, but as far as his complaints that the guy is a jerk, unprofessional, crass, opportunistic, self-serving, inexperienced, blathering and insecure, he surely can’t be suggesting that he has just discovered any of that.

    That’s been common knowledge for the last four years or so and written about often on this blog and elsewhere. Hell, who hasn’t been insulted, abused or threatened by Joel Brodsky?

    Greenberg signed on after Abood, Lenard and Odeh had all bailed so he knew full well that joining the Brodsky/Peterson team meant he was going to have to work under the “coaching” of a hideous man with whom others found it impossible to work.

    I can’t feel sorry for him on that count. It was the price he paid for the opportunity to work with a high-profile client in a much publicized case.

    As far as the disparaging comments about Greenberg’s skills, I think we all know who the better lawyer is and defamation is grounds for a law suit.

  7. Another Peterson attorney quits

    Already divided, the Drew Peterson defense team has become even more fractured, as one attorney has quit the case and another has accused leader Joel Brodsky of sending wildly inappropriate emails, including one that suggested the lawyer should shoot himself.

    The infighting has spun so far out of control since the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant’s conviction this month that even defense team member Joseph Lopez — who is known for wearing hot pink socks to court and famously proclaiming that the framers of the U.S. Constitution “would barf” on the evidence against Peterson — called the situation over-the-top.

    “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Lopez said. “Obviously there’s a lovers’ quarrel going on. I don’t want any part of it.”

    Lopez and attorney Ralph Meczyk confirmed Monday that Darryl Goldberg, who handled much of the scientific and medical-related testimony, quit the case. Goldberg rarely participated in the Peterson team’s twice-daily trial media conferences and often seemed unamused by his co-counsels’ behavior outside the courtroom.

    Goldberg could not be reached for comment and has not yet filed the paperwork to officially withdraw from the case. He will be the fifth attorney to leave the defense team since Peterson’s 2009 arrest.

    Brodsky, who has overseen Peterson’s legal strategy for nearly five years, denied any knowledge of the resignation. However, he alluded to “quitters” in a vague comment on his Facebook page last week.

    “NO WINNERS OR LOSERS ONLY FIGHTERS AND QUITTERS,” the post read. “I am a fighter and we are going to get this verdict reversed on appeal.”

    Brodsky’s Facebook page also prompted another round of squabbling with former Peterson attorney Steve Greenberg, who was fired shortly after a Will County jury convicted Peterson of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Greenberg had loudly opposed Brodsky’s decision to call Savio’s divorce attorney as a witness, a move that jurors said tipped the scales in the prosecution’s favor and led to their guilty finding.

    On the day of Greenberg’s termination, Brodsky took to his Facebook page and posted a 415-word statement, blaming Greenberg for failing to make timely objections and preventing key prosecution witnesses from testifying.

    Hours after the Sept. 11 posting, Greenberg emailed Brodsky and asked him to take down the “false and defamatory” comments, according to correspondence obtained by the Tribune. Brodsky responded by threatening a media blitz against the fired attorney and by mocking a personal matter involving Greenberg’s family.

    “What a looser (sic) you are,” Brodsky wrote. “If I was you I would shoot myself. Better go run to your therapist and figure out how you are going to deal with this.”

    On Monday, Greenberg formally asked Brodsky to retract his comments and threatened unspecified legal action in a 15-page letter that offers a glimpse into the media-obsessed and bizarrely run defense team.

    In addition to rehashing various witnesses, Greenberg writes that Brodsky resented any media attention his co-counsel received, required the other attorneys to call him “Coach” and ordered them to make repeated objections so Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow would “lose it” in front of the jury.

    Greenberg also criticized Brodsky’s decision to call Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith against the entire defense team’s advice, calling it “the worst mistake by a trial lawyer since Christopher Darden asked O.J. (Simpson) to try on the glove.”

    “You are the rare attorney whose lack of skills should be explored, since they are obviously below the minimum level required for any member of the bar,” the letter states. “Personally and professionally you are so obnoxious, hateful and inappropriate that you are likewise unfit.”

    Brodsky declined to discuss the specific allegations in the letter.

    “I am working and fighting for all of my clients, including Drew Peterson,” Brodsky said in a statement. “I am focused on Mr. Peterson’s appeal and getting the verdict reversed, and that is all that’s important. The client’s best interest must come first.”

    With Greenberg and Goldberg gone, only four attorneys remain on the case, including Lopez, Meczyk and Lisa Lopez. Meczyk, who is Goldberg’s father-in-law and shared his disdain for some of the out-of-court antics, said he will stay until the sentencing, scheduled for Nov. 26. He would not comment on the current in-fighting, saying he had an obligation to his client to stay.

    It’s not unusual for trial teams to splinter after high-profile cases, but it’s rare for the attorneys to attack each other publicly, experts said. In the Rod Blagojevich case, for example, differing legal strategies ended a decades-old friendship between legendary attorneys Sam Adam Sr. and Ed Genson, but neither has publicly talked about the rift in detail.

    The Peterson lawyers, however, have turned their brawling courtroom style into a public relations shootout.

    “Lawyers are always fighting with each other, but they usually keep it behind closed doors,” said DePaul University law professor Leonard Cavise. “There’s a public perception that it was a lawyer’s mistake that contributed to the conviction. I should think that all of the lawyers would want to distance themselves as much as possible from that.”

    Tensions, however, had long been building between Brodsky and Greenberg. They clashed earlier this year when Greenberg publicly suggested that Peterson’s and Brodsky’s sophomoric television and radio appearances in the weeks after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared were far more damaging to his client’s case than a made-for-TV movie about Peterson.

    Still, Greenberg and Brodsky presented a united front before the TV cameras during their frequent news conferences.

    Peterson’s lawyers agreed to represent him for free, lured by the case’s challenges and the acclaim that would come from an acquittal. In the end, they lost more than five weeks’ worth of billable hours and gained one of Chicago’s most infamous courthouse spats.

    The loss has not appeared to dampen Brodsky’s confidence. He recently posted on his Facebook page a photo of the Dos Equis pitchman, who, commercials suggest, is “the most interesting man in the world.”

    “I don’t always get arrested for murder,” the caption reads. “But when I do, I hire Joel Brodsky as my lawyer.

    Source http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-defense-team-in-fighting-20120925,0,7992995.story

  8. Darryl Goldberg, who handled much of the scientific and medical-related testimony, quit the case.

    It’s not all that surprising that some of the attorneys might not stick around for the appellate phase, but after three have already left over “irreconcilable differences” with Joel Brodsky, two had legal issues of their own and one was fired, I’m curious to know what reasons Goldberg will cite.

  9. WOW unbelievable but not surprised! Some of the things I read in that letter shows what kind of a low down pig he is! Everybody already knew he was dirty when it came to being professional, and civilized but WOW there is a comment in there I am still analyzing and wondering what Greenberg meant by it, but I will save it for another time. All I can say is I hope Joel gets EVERYTHING that is coming his way! He has trashed everyone around him, and did some pretty unethical things that I will not post right now but I seriously believe everything Greenberg is saying he has said and done! Joel has proven on blogs, on tv, and the radio what a bully he is, and how just blurts stuff out without no facts to back it up. I think we can say here most of us that ran blogs, or people involved in the case have all been attacked by this man, his client, and that Sea hag they had hanging around with them. IMO they need to take all this to the bar association and get this guys license to practice law taken away. He has definitely went over the line and I think Greenberg can easily show proof of it. I am not saying what Greenberg said and did on some of those interviews were right either, they were low down and very disrespectful to the families of the victims! However Joel definitely has some issues it seems, and is doing things against the law, very unprofessional, unethical!

  10. It’s occurring to me tonight as I watch some video clips of Joel Brodsky, that his continual harping on the dangers of hearsay is another thing that makes him look inexperienced.

    More experienced trial lawyers will surely have encountered a lot of admissible hearsay testimony and are not going to be driven to wave the constitution and sound like they are addressing the supreme court every time it is introduced at trial because more seasoned lawyers know the law and can accept that sometimes hearsay is admissible, and certainly not some sudden frightening trend.

  11. Now Drew is piping up:

    In a letter shown to the Chicago Sun-Times, Peterson contends Greenberg mishandled his part of the defense and then rips him for attending a post-trial event for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow…

    …In his letter, Peterson accused Greenberg of criticizing the decision to call Smith simply as an excuse to get more publicity for himself.

    He chastised Greenberg, an attorney since 1986, for attending a Sept. 19 event for Glasgow, who is running for re-election as the county’s top prosecutor. Glasgow personally led the team that prosecuted Peterson.

    That appearance, Peterson wrote, “can only project to the public that Mr. Greenberg is in favor of my conviction and approving of everything the state’s attorney has done to convict me.”

    In his letter to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Peterson asks the agency to investigate Greenberg’s actions.

    An attorney for the commission wouldn’t comment on whether Peterson had asked for an investigation.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15362583-418/drew-petersons-lawyers-battle-one-another.html

  12. While I sympathize with Greenberg, I feel he has let his emotion drive his current actions.

    His rational response to Brodsky’s behavior was to
    1) privately share his concerns about Joel with the Illinois Bar .
    2) privately request a public retraction from Joel .

    Instead. by sending his 15 page letter to the media, I suspect he will neither obtain satisfaction from Joel, nor escape further damage to his own reputation.

  13. “You have threatened the client with revelation to keep control and he, likely recognizing that you know no ethical bounds, thus understands he is trapped.”

    and

    “It is a wonder to me how your relationship with Drew began, which according to every account I have read was by you placing a phone call directly soliciting Mr. Peterson as a client, in violation of the rules, has not been examined. I also wonder why Drew continues to listen to you. Could it be that you are threatening him?”

    You have to wonder what it is that Joel has threatened to reveal in order to keep control (according to Steve). That is a hefty accusation.

  14. I just hope to God, all of this doesn’t somehow end up in Drew’s favor, and results in a reversal of the Guilty verdict !!

  15. This whole thing makes me laugh. I live in small county and around here it is not unusua to see the attorney, both prosecution and defense, having lunch together during a trial. It is not unusual for them to attend fundraisers or award ceremonies held by the other. Very little press is given to a defendant complaining about anything and trust me they complain about the judge, jury, people in the galary, and their attorney. Even pro bono clients think they deserve more or better, but the press never gives them a platform. Two lawyers fighting seems childish to me. Is this for real or is it an act to keep the interest in the media??

  16. Facs – The main page says

    Steven Goldberg’s letter to Joel Brodsky

    Thought you may want to fix that. ;)

    I’m also wondering how long it will be before the dictator Brodsky makes Lopez pick a side. Lopez calling this a “Lover’s quarrel” can’t be sitting well with him! :)

  17. Jon Seidel‏@SeidelContent

    #DrewPeterson is in the Will County Courthouse for a hearing today.

    Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson hearing over some post-trial issues. Nothing major expected to happen, but you never know with this case.

  18. Jon Seidel‏@SeidelContent

    #DrewPeterson ‘s lawyer says he needs more time to file post-trial motions before sentencing, which is currently set for Nov. 26.

  19. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson atty Joel Brodsky asks for more time to file post-trial appeals, alludes to in-fighting among co-counsel as reason
    :roll:

  20. Stacy St. Clair‏@StacyStClair

    #drewpeterson atty Brodsky says recent events are “pointing us away from what’s important.”

    Which is it? He can’t apologize to Greenberg, because he is too busy with his clients. He can’t do his post trial appeals, because he is too busy with bickering. :roll:

  21. Greenberg replied via Twitter:

    Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
    #drewpeterson atty Joel Brodsky asks for more time to file post-trial appeals, alludes to in-fighting among co-counsel as reason

    Steve Greenberg ‏@SGcrimlaw
    @StacyStClair given that I have nothing to do w post trial motions I can’t fathom why more time

    and this one:

    Stacy St. Clair ‏@StacyStClair
    #drewpeterson judge gives prosecutors approval to refuse foia requests involving emails exchanged between judge, defense and prosecutors.

  22. No prob Facs! ;)

    Perhaps Brodsky was busy writing a “sorry card” to Greenberg. That must be why he wasn’t prepared this morning. :)

  23. What I struggle to comprehend is that the porcine Brodsky has gotten away with so much. The blatant disrespect for the court is breathtaking to me, and I can’t imagine such goings-on being tolerated here (thank goodness).It makes me gag to think the defense attorneys were chasing acclaim for an acquittal for DP, we know that would be such a huge accomplishment because he’s guilty!

    More like a sporting competition than serious, grown-up truth-seeking. :(

    I’m not surprised to read that Greenberg seems to know something ‘special’ about the JB-DP relationship, but
    is anyone else wondering what DP must have on JB? I’m sure they’ve got a mutually assured destruction kinda love.

  24. I totally want to smack him, and I’m not even the judge! What an insult to the court! If he would do his job, and quit with the showboating, maybe he could make time for his client. Isn’t that what he keeps claiming? His client(s) are the most important? Then goes into court and blames infighting?
    :roll:

    He really is a piece of work.

  25. “You have threatened the client with revelation to keep control and he, likely recognizing that you know no ethical bounds, thus understands he is trapped.”

    This is so strange to me. Anything that Drew told Joel would be under attorney/client privilege so is Greenberg suggesting that Joel has threatened to break it…or to leak it?

  26. This is so strange to me. Anything that Drew told Joel would be under attorney/client privilege so is Greenberg suggesting that Joel has threatened to break it…or to leak it?

    I thought that was strange too. My first thought was that JB knows where Stacy is, and holds it over Drew’s head. But, that would be attorney/client privilege. So, since Greenberg says he “knows no ethical bounds” and Drew knows he is “trapped”. What else could it be?

  27. My vote is for no apology.

    Seeing as how Drew and Joel are so tight, I guess it’s not surprising that Peterson has written a letter to the ARDC complaining about Greenberg.

    He sees Greenberg’s attendance at a Glasgow fundraiser as some kind of betrayal, saying it…

    “…can only project to the public that Mr. Greenberg is in favor of my conviction and approving of everything the state’s attorney has done to convict me.”

    Greenberg was already fired when he went to the fundraiser and it was almost two weeks since Drew’s conviction. He said that he had promised Glasgow that if they lost the case he would attend a fundraiser for him and that he went to show he was a man of his word.

    Within minutes after the verdict Joe Lopez tweeted, “Call the next case. I need a new car” and he doesn’t seem to be out of favor with Peterson.

  28. I’m sorry, but if Greenberg knows for a fact — or has a suspicion strong enough to warrant investigation — that Brodsky is holding something over the head of Peterson, then his law license would almost certainly hold him to the standard of reporting it to the proper authorities in the licensing board. (I am a licensed professional and my license would insist that this is what I should do.)

    Laying it out as a taunting tidbit of gossip for public fodder is just flat-out unethical. (IMHO, of course.)

  29. More spin?

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law:

    Darryl Goldberg didn’t quit, he is still with us. He came on the team just to do the medical cross-examinations and he did a great job. He never signed on to do any appeals, so he is withdrawing his appearandce during that process only, even though he will be helping with any medical issues that arrive on appeal. He will be back for any re-trial.

  30. @ HJ…well presumably Greenberg is suggesting that as Joel knows no ethical bounds if DP crossed Joel, then Joel could “unethically” leak information damaging to Peterson. Assuming such info was indeed about the location of a body, it would be the easy for Joel to leak that info. to the media and/or police anonymously.

    TBH, I suspect that Greenberg was simply casting aspersions on Joel. Its clear to me from the childish nature of Greenberg’s response that we should not take everything he says literally.

    I was particularly surprised to see the allegation about JB soliciting DP as a client. IIRC, DP went on TV and specifically requested an attorney to come forward and help him. Surely any response from JB could not be construed as an unsolicited attempt to get business.

    I don’t want to come across as unsympathetic to Greenberg who was clearly goaded into his rambling 15 page counter-attack by a man whose lies know no bounds. But OTOH, by going public about his concerns, Greenberg has joined Brodsky in the gutter, and done himself, and his profession a great disservice.

    Even worse, he may have slightly helped DP in the court of public opinion… even evoking a fleeting moment of sympathy for DP from a blogger not known for her concern over Mr Peterson’s well-being over the past 5 years!

  31. Brodsky requested that he be given until Nov. 30 to file a motion for a new trial. That would mean pushing sentencing back to mid-December or early January, he said…

    …The judge told Brodsky that he had already given the defense a generous extension to complete the motion. However, he will consider a request for a delay next month…

    …Brodsky — who has never been known for being camera shy — dodged reporters after this morning’s hearing and snuck out of the courthouse through a back stairwell…

    …Lopez and attorney Ralph Meczyk confirmed Monday that Darryl Goldberg, who handled much of the scientific and medical-related testimony, quit the case. Goldberg rarely participated in the Peterson team’s twice-daily trial media conferences and often seemed unamused by his co-counsels’ behavior outside the courtroom.

    Goldberg could not be reached for comment. He will be the fifth attorney to leave the defense team since Peterson’s 2009 arrest.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-defense-team-in-fighting-20120925,0,7992995.story

  32. Maybe Joel avoided reporters because he is in a hurry to get back to his office in order to draft his apology to Greenberg.

    Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series in 2012.

  33. …Brodsky — who has never been known for being camera shy — dodged reporters after this morning’s hearing and snuck out of the courthouse through a back stairwell

    Well, there is a shocker. :shock:

    I guess I think differently about Greenberg’s letter Oxy. I’m kind of glad he did it. It is about time that someone finally called out Brodsky for his behavior and antics. Joel has been bashing Greenberg publicly since the trial. Most of what he has been saying is all lies.

    I don’t think it was unprofessional – Rather it was to defend himself against a bully. He used facts instead of making crap up. I loved the part where he quoted something of Joel’s and noted that the mis-spellings were Joel’s. :)

    I do think that one day, we will be reading that “Sneed hears where Stacy Peterson is”.

  34. Peterson did ask for lawyers to contact him when he appeared on the Today Show November, 11, 2007 and IIRC that is when Joel Brodsky contacted him.

    LAUER: What are you most frightened about?

    Mr. PETERSON: Basically, my legal defense. Talking to lawyers Monday night, it could cost as much as a quarter million dollars to defend one of these cases. So, basically, I’m reaching out to attorneys of America for help. If anybody would like to take my case and help me out here, please call. Let me know what you can do for me. Help me out.

    Even if Drew did ask for lawyers to call him, for a lawyer to then do so still might seem a little sketchy given the rules against direct solicitation of a client, however, those rules state that a lawyer can’t solicit a client if the motive is “pecuniary gain”.

    So even if Joel did make initial direct contact with Drew, if it was to offer him pro bono representation, then it might still be on the level.

    But even that is a mushy areas since for years Brodsky claimed in public that his work for Peterson was not pro bono. He’s never come out and said exactly what his compensation is, but we also know that he was asking for money for interviews and appearances and it’s been assumed that he was relying on that in lieu of payment.

    So…IMO, it would probably be hard to nail Joel for solicitation, even though the facts still paint their arrangement in a less than good light. It looks like a fuzzy area in general.

  35. What a surprise!

    According to a 2007 survey of Illinois based attorneys lack of professionalism and lack of civility is common in the State’s legal profession
    http://www.ilsccp.org/pdfs/surveyonprofessionalism_final.pdf

    One surprising finding come on page 37, where the survey reports that 11% of lawyers interviewed mentioned that a major cause of the problem was:
    “Lawyer’s Egos/ Arrogance/Some People are Jerks/Poor Upbringing”

    ONLY 11%!

  36. The former Bolingbrook cop, who looked dapper in a suit and tie during his summer murder trial, instead wore blue scrubs from the Will County Jail Tuesday. And while onlookers fought over seats during Peterson’s trial, his judge has returned to the normal 20-seat courtroom he left behind to preside over the case, and there was plenty of open seating this time.

    Peterson watched from the defense table as attorney Joel Brodsky asked for more time to file motions ahead of Peterson’s sentencing for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Brodsky told the judge “new issues have come up” and among them are “issues with appellate counsel.”

    “We want to make sure we do a sufficient job on it,” Brodsky said.

    The judge told Brodsky to make his request in writing and scheduled another hearing for Oct. 18. Brodsky, who spoke in front of TV cameras several times a day during Peterson’s six-week trial, apparently used the courthouse’s back hallway to slip away from reporters when Tuesday’s hearing ended.

    Though Brodsky used Tuesday’s hearing to make his request for more time, the court appearance was apparently prompted by public record requests received by the Will County state’s attorney’s office. The requests from multiple media organizations, including Sun-Times Media, seek copies of email correspondence between the judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers involved in Peterson’s trial.

    Prosecutors wanted to clarify whether the emails had been sealed. Burmila said he never issued an order to seal them, but he pointed out they contain conversations about sealed motions and mentions of the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, who has been missing for nearly five years.

    Burmila didn’t issue an ultimate ruling about the emails, but a prosecutor said the judge’s comments were “helpful in itself.” The state’s attorney’s office has yet to issue a formal response to the requests to release the emails…

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15373919-418/drew-peterson-back-in-court-amid-lawyers-feud.html

  37. Tweet from Joseph R. Lopez @josharrk

    41m Mandy McGlothlin ‏@MandyMcGlothlin
    Demanding all of us to object simply & solely to cause State’s Attorney Glasgow to “lose it” Is this true & will u be staying on? @josharrk

    17m Joseph R. Lopez ‏@josharrk
    @MandyMcGlothlin no comment in letter but we will be staying

  38. Fred Morelli
    Gary Johnson
    Joel A. Brodsky
    Reem Odeh
    Andrew Abood
    John Carrol
    Walter Maksym
    George Lenard
    Steven A. Greenberg
    Joseph R. Lopez
    Lisa Lopez
    Ralph Meczyk
    Darryl Goldberg

  39. Well, that is odd. Why would Goldberg’s be sealed? He simply was never signed on to do any appeals – According to JB. Why would that be a secret? Unless, Joel Brodsky is lying again?

  40. Updated ST story adds this tidbit:

    Reached later Tuesday, Brodsky denied his feud with Greenberg is the reason he needs more time to file motions on Peterson’s behalf. He pointed instead to delays in getting trial transcripts together, among other issues. He said Goldberg withdrew from the case because he was hired only to litigate the medical and forensic issues at trial. That work, Brodsky said, is done.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15373919-418/drew-peterson-back-in-court-amid-lawyers-feud.html

  41. Despite the passage of time and the decomposed state of Savio’s body, Blum was able to determine that Savio’s injuries were consistent with murder. He pointed to injuries to both the front and back of her head and body.

    “[A] fall to the back in the tub would produce injuries to the back, not to the front,” he said.

    Those weren’t the only injuries that Blum said weren’t consistent with a slip and fall.

    “The hemorrhage in the chest muscles, which indicated a forceful drowning over the sink, over the toilet, [or] over the bathtub,” she said.

    However, during the first autopsy, the original pathologist in the case determined the injury pattern could have been caused by an accidental fall.

    Blum said such a statement was unusual, because that doctor wasn’t asked to rule on the manner of death. Blum said the original pathologist likely was pressured into ruling Savio’s death was an accident.

    “I don’t believe he put it in there on his own. I think he was asked to make a statement,” Blum said.

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/doctor-who-ruled-savios-death-a-homicide-speaks-out-about-peterson-trial/

  42. I have a few observations.

    Firstly, I am convinced Joel Brodsky has a personality disorder. I really am.

    Secondly, if indeed he knows where Stacy is and is holding over Drew’s head, I seriously doubt attorney/client privelege will stop him threatening Drew. We know Joel has absolutely no moral or ethical standards.

    What a circus. I have never seen anything like it.

  43. Two peas in a pod…Client and Attorney were made for each other. I honestly believe he does know something! I also think that the two of them had business dealings they were going to do should he had been acquitted I have NEVER heard, or seen, two people who supposedly never knew each other before a case carry on and be buddy, buddy the way these two have. All this stuff that has come out should make people believe all the more what Lenny has said all along about him asking Lenny to sabotage the garden, and the Stacy Ann among other things that were said on those tapes. I can only imagine what they have asked people to do, and say for them. It is a scary thought and some of us on these blogs were terrorized, and harassed for a very long time by his followers. Makes you wonder who was behind it, and at what they were promised, or received for doing those things. Imagine what Stacy, Kathleen, and their families had to endure living it on a daily basis! My heart just aches at the thought of the fear, they went through.IMO Listening to everything everybody is coming out and saying about Drew’s attorney, makes me see how Drew really was,. Cocky, arrogant, lying, bullying, intimidating, and harassing people to get his way. Scary isn’t it?

  44. Remember the unprofessional behavior from BOTH Mr. & Mrs. Brodsky when Reem tried to leave? Joel had Drew issue the “you’re fired” statement to her, as well. We all know Drew Peterson would not have fired Reem under normal circumstances. I would never hire an attorney who showed such a lack of respect for colleagues. There would be no trust. How could such an individual ever truly have your best interest? Unstable behavior. IMO

  45. I truly don’t understand why Drew would keep Brodsky on as counsel. While I question whether or not Drew is a smart man, surely he is not so stupid that he thinks Joel is doing a good job. After reading Steve Greenberg’s letter to Joel, I’m simply stunned at many things here.

    Firstly, that the other attorneys on the dream team put up with Joel calling the shots. What were they thinking?

    Secondly, I’m stunned that Joel Brodsky is still allowed to practice law.

    Facs said it up above – she could almost feel sorry for Drew, but she can’t LOL.

    I feel the same about Greenberg. He might be a very competent and skilled attorney and probably doesn’t deserve to have his legal reputation sullied by Joel’s BS, but I find it hard to feel sorry for somebody who behaved the way he did during the trial. I just can’t. Two women are dead and his and his teams trashing of them goes way above and beyond his duty as a defence attorney. JMO.

  46. I forgot to add, I strongly suspect now that Joel knows exactly what happened to Stacy and where her remains are.

    Just as Joel’s calling Harry Smith is supposedly what caused the guilty verdict, I bet Joel somehow, whether inadvertantly or deliberately, causes Drew to go down for Stacy as well.

    I am SO SO SO happy Joel is Drews attorney. I really am :-)

  47. Ah, the good old days …
    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/medical-examiner-says-petersons-defense-stiffed-him/

    facsmiley April 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Abood Law Firm: working on filing another complaint against co counsel for making misrepresentations. Do you think that a lawyer should be able to lie to the press with immunity or should such conduct be a violation of the rules of professional responsibility?

    facsmiley May 1, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Abood Law Firm: Under the model rules, lawyers are required to report the misdeeds of another lawyer when the other lawyers conduct amounts to fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or dishonesty.

    facsmiley May 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Abood Law Firm:
    Just finished. A sad day when you have to report another lawyer for his misdeeds. This is the second one that I have filed against this lawyer. Not sure what will happen, hopefully, at a minimum, the lawyer will at least look at 8.3 and 8.4 of the model rules. As a courtesy I sent the lawyer a draft to allow him to respond first. But I did this before and no response. I think he blocks my emails. Pretty childish on his part.

    cheryljones May 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Info for some, refresher for others:

    Model Rules of Professional Conduct
    Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession

    Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

    (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

    (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

    (c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.

    Rule 8.4 Misconduct

    It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

    (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

    (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

    (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

    (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

    (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

    (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

    http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

    cheryljones May 1, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Wondering which subsection he filed under.

    facsmiley May 1, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    cheryljones :

    If I knew, I must have forgotten what happened w/the first time he filed against ‘this lawyer’. Would someone fill in the blank?

    Today is the first I heard of it. Thanks for the model rules!

    facsmiley May 2, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Abood Law Firm: researching a defamation claim. What do you think about defamation? Do you think a party should be able to recover when another publishes a false statement that goes to the party’s business acumen?

  48. Drew Peterson LOVES his money and possessions. He murdered two women over the thought of being required to divide his “wealth”
    The Brodskys are also in love with money and social status. Seems like a match made in prison. Drew you get what you paid for.

  49. Drew put it out there when he was on the today show…he got Brodsky…with no experience as a criminal attorney..Brodsky did bring in experienced attorneys..but didn’t listen to them….he called himself the captain..he should have never been on the ship…I hope he continues to defend Drew…they deserve each other…

  50. Story out on RadarOnline.com saying the National Enquirer has story about a guy Drew met at martial arts class had been interviewed by police about following Stacy per Drew’s request, possibly helping bury the blue container, leaving questioning wanting a lawyer, and leaving the state after Drew was arrested. Hope they find her and that if this is true this person cooperates. http://m.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/09/drew-peterson-murdered-fourth-wife-says-secret-witness

  51. “Why leave your hometown? He just bailed. Guilty people act like that,” revealed the insider, explaining that States Attorney James Glasgow is drawing up a case for a murder indictment and may offer the witness immunity to testify against the convicted killer.”

  52. “I will allow you 24 hours from the time this letter is transmitted to make a full public retraction and to provide a full public apology,” Greenberg wrote in a 15-page, footnoted letter sent today.

    Well, 24 hours has come and gone. Your move Mr. Greenberg.

    While I really hope there is some substance to the Radar Online story, It is Radar Online. I don’t put much into them. :???:

  53. “For the full story, the new issue of the National Enquirer is on newsstands Thursday.”
    ~~~~~~
    We’ll soon find out. I’m wating for SA James Glasgow to act.

  54. That’s some interesting stuff from Radar online re: the Enquirer story. Damn, I wish it was from more credible sources (but then who would leak that kind of thing. Oh yeah…Sneed).

    Also, Joel Brodsky’s new hobby must be visiting his Facebook page and deleting all the comments he doesn’t like. Did you guys see all of Steve’s comments there last night? All gone today.

  55. Rev. Neil Schori, key prosecution witness in the Drew Peterson trial, will be the keynote speaker at the “Walk With Therese” event at 10 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 29 at Dominican University, 7900 W. Division St., River Forest.

    The event supports the prevention of domestic violence.

    “Walk With Therese” is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to educate Chicago area communities on prevention, and awareness of, domestic violence.

    “Walk With Therese” was founded in 2007 by Samantha Satterthwaite, niece of Therese Acheson Pender. According to the March With Therese facebook page, Acheson Pender was murdered in March, 2005 by her husband.

    http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/romeoville/newsnow/x833736739/Key-prosecution-witness-in-Drew-Peterson-trial-to-speak-at-domestic-violence-event

  56. Facs, No I didn’t see Greenberg’s comments there. Darn you! You saw and didn’t save them? What the heck?
    :) Just joshin ya!

  57. I’ve asked Chuck Pelkie if SA Glasgow has any comment on the Radar/Enquirer story about the “Secret Witness” but he says that they will most likely not be commenting on it.

  58. Ah heck, I guess we might as well have it here in comments, since we’re all talking about it, but let’s remember to consider the source!

    Drew Peterson was found guilty of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, earlier this month, and now new groundbreaking evidence could convict him in the unsolved disappearance of missing wife number four.

    According to the new issue of the National Enquirer, police have a secret witness who claims the former Chicago cop asked him to help stalk Stacy Peterson and may even have lured him into helping bury the body.

    Police brought (the witness) in for questioning, said a source. He arrogantly went in and told investigators he didnt have any problem talking.”

    The wannabe cop and police academy dropout told investigators that he met Peterson in martial arts class and soon began trailing Stacy because “Drew was suspicious that Stacy was cheating on him and wanted her followed, said an insider.

    The chatty witness reportedly became uncomfortable when police asked about a blue barrel that they say Drew carried from his home in Bolingbrook, Illinois, the day Stacy went missing in October, 2007, and which his step-brother believes her body was hidden inside.

    Once they started questioning the witness about the blue barrel he flipped out, the source said. He immediately insisted that he needed a lawyer.

    The questioning session ended, but sources say police believe that the witness helped Drew get rid of the barrel.

    Apparently spooked, the witness suddenly moved more than a thousand miles away in 2009, soon after Drew was arrested for the murder of his third wife Kathleen, whose naked body was found in the bathtub of her home on March 1, 2004. The witness’ wife then sold their Chicago home and joined him.

    “Why leave your hometown? He just bailed. Guilty people act like that,” revealed the insider, explaining that States Attorney James Glasgow is drawing up a case for a murder indictment and may offer the witness immunity to testify against the convicted killer.

    For the full story, the new issue of the National Enquirer is on newsstands Thursday.

  59. The NE “broke” the story about Stacy being in Peoria way back when…. Here is the link for refresher:
    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/cops-still-seek-body-drew-peterson-missing-wife-stacy

    At the time, Sgt. Tom Burek was quoted and confirmed that there was a search. Nothing came from it. :(

    I tend to think there may be a little bit of truth in these stories, yet still take them with a grain of salt. Until an “Official” statement is made by the ISP or other authority, to me it’s just a “Story”. IMO of course.

  60. I agree Harley. These days TMZ and the NE are sometimes first to break legit stories, but so often the rumors are padded out with a lot of speculation and you just can’t trust any of it until you hear more.

    In this case, you’ve got an unnamed person who knew the witness (also unnamed) coming forward with their story. Kind of hard to verify that.

    OTOH, when the Jeffrey Pachter “hit man” story first came out, I was uber-cautious because it was his estranged wife who went to the press and he wasn’t speaking out at all. But, it eventually turned out to all be true.

    At least we have these little tidbits to help us keep the faith. If it were true, could the guy get immunity and the $100k Jeff Ruby has put up? Would Jeff be obliged to pay out to a guy who confessed to burying Stacy’s body? Yikes.

  61. Meh, we don’t even know if the guy helped move the container. Let’s reduce the story down to what the one person says that the other person did.

    “Secret Witness”

    • Attended martial arts classes with Drew
    • Dropped out of police academy
    • Followed Stacy for Drew
    • Was questioned by police
    • Asked for a lawyer when questioned about blue container
    • Moved out of state in 2009

    And who knows if any of that is even true…

  62. facebook:

    Joseph Lopez
    2 hours ago
    too much negativity from this breakup from too many lawyers and judges. Feedback is not good after the letter was sent to media. I want to be able to appear in court without answering questions about the letter and its allegations.

  63. Of course I doubt a letter would have been sent to the media had Joel just allowed Greenberg to withdraw from counsel, and had he not gone to Facebook and elsewhere with the smear campaign against Steve after sending him a letter telling him that he was not to comment on the situation, IMO.

    Joel made it personal and he got it back in his face.

    Come to think of it, the first public sniping I observed from either side was when Mrs. Brodsky started taking jabs at Steve’s court room performance in mid-August via Twitter. :roll:

  64. As I said yesterday, I’m just waiting for Mr. Lopez to be commanded to pick a side!

    He can say he is staying out of it all he wants, but we all know that the “Captain of the ship” won’t tolerate anyone who isn’t on the bashing bandwagon with him!
    ;)

  65. Yup – the RadarOnline thing is a story about a story. No clue if it is true or these people even exist. Just keep hoping that somehow there is some tidbit of

  66. I bet Lopez is thinking about abandoning the ship. He sounds like he is getting tired of the Captain, and his antics.

  67. It sounds to me like Lopez is waiting in the wings for the lead attorney JB to implode/drop off and Lopez will step in to rescue the Appeal.

  68. NATIONAL ENQUIRER STORY

    EXCLUSIVE: SECRET WITNESS TO CONDEMN BLUEBEARD DREW IN 2ND MURDER

    Published on: September 27, 2012
    by LIZ CROKIN & DON GENTILE, NATIONAL ENQUIRER

    POLICE have a secret wit­ness who may prove that disgraced ex-cop DREW PETERSON murdered his missing 4th wife STACY.

    The witness, a wannabe cop who washed out of the police academy in Chicago, claims he stalked Stacy at Drew’s request – and cops be­lieve he helped to dispose of her body.

    The ENQUIRER is keep­ing the witness’ name secret but learned au­thorities found him through Drew’s phone records from the weeks be­fore Stacy’s disappearance on Oct. 28, 2007. They also found records of a gun transfer between them.

    “Police brought (the witness) in for question­ing,” said a source. “He arrogantly went in and told investigators he didn’t have any problem talking.”

    He said that he’d known Drew, a black belt in karate, for years after first meeting him in a martial arts class.

    The witness also admitted he’d been fol­lowing Stacy, Drew’s fourth wife, who was telling her husband she wanted a divorce.

    “He said Drew was suspicious that Stacy was cheating on him and wanted her followed,” said an insider.

    But the wit­ness’ face turned red when cops asked him about a blue barrel that they say Drew carried from his home in Boling­brook, Ill., the day Stacy went miss­ing. Drew’s stepbrother Thomas Morphey had told authorities he helped Drew carry the heavy barrel from the house and put it in his SUV. Morphey believes Stacy’s body was inside.

    “Once they started ques­tioning the witness about the blue barrel he flipped out,” the source said. “He immediately insisted that he needed a lawyer.”

    The questioning ses­sion ended, but sources say police believe that the witness helped Drew get rid of the barrel.

    Apparently spooked, the witness suddenly moved more than a thousand miles away in 2009, soon after Drew was arrested for the murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio, whose naked body was found in the bathtub of her home on March 1, 2004. The witness’ wife then sold their Chicago home and joined him.

    “He moved on a whim,” the source said. “Why leave your home­town? He just bailed. Guilty people act like that.”

    Drew, a former police sergeant in Bolingbrook whose boorish be­havior made for national headlines, was convicted of Savio’s murder on Sept. 6. He faces up to 60 years in prison.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow now wants justice for Stacy.

    The ENQUIRER learned that he’ll be presenting a case for a murder indictment against Drew to a grand jury – and the secret witness is on the list of those who’ll testify.

    “Glasgow may have to offer him immunity,” said the insider. “He thinks the witness has the proof that will nail Drew for Stacy’s murder.”

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/exclusive-secret-witness-condemn-bluebeard-drew-2nd-murder

  69. Updated “Secret Witness” info (unverified)

    • Attended martial arts classes with Drew
    • Dropped out of police academy
    • Followed Stacy for Drew
    • Married and a home owner
    • Found through Drew’s phone records before Stacy went missing
    • Record of gun transfer between witness and Drew
    • Was questioned by police
    • Asked for a lawyer when questioned about blue container
    • Moved out of state in 2009

  70. Someone just reminded me of this conversation between Ric Mims and Greta Van Susteren:

    MIMS: Other than his immediate family I don’t think so. No, that Mike Robinson, he might be still talking to him.
    GRETA: Who’s Mike Robinson? Is that the, is he a police officer?
    MIMS: I believe Mike Robinson was a police officer for a short time.
    GRETA: And now does what?
    MIMS: Heating and air I believe, heating and air conditioning.
    GRETA: Is he the guy who helped him out, was it last week?
    MIMS: Yeah.
    GRETA: What’d he do, I forgot.
    MIMS: Got him a cell phone.
    GRETA: That was it?
    MIMS: And I heard rumors that he got him a rental car but that’s not confirmed.
    GRETA: How does he know Robinson, from the police force?
    MIMS: Well Mike Robinson graduated in 1992 and is probably in his early thirties so I’m guessing around town or at the police department in his little short stint there.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_20071113greta_eavesdrop.htm

  71. Mims reported back in 2007 that Peterson and Robinson exchanged written notes in silence the day after Stacy went missing and then fed the notes into a paper shredder. And Mike R. freaked out and refused to take a polygraph during questioning by the ISP. He did testify twice before the Grand Jury:

  72. nothing would make the public happier than knowing that DP will spend the rest of his life in jail..never smell coffee brewing….never being able to join the guys for a beer..just lay around in a small cell thinking of what he did..eating garbage for food..and trying to keep his cell mate from harming him…..that’s justice…

  73. http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/county-board-member-calls-out-drew-peterson-prosecutor
    “County Board Member Calls Out Drew Peterson Prosecutor
    Lame duck Will County Board member Kathleen Konicki took a shot at top prosecutor James Glasgow for supposedly praising a Cincinnati tycoon jailed for muttering an obscenity at wife-killer Drew Peterson
    Konicki attended every day of Peterson’s five-week trial. She often advocated for Peterson, arguing with others in the hallway about his innocence.”

  74. It’s madness! What is her agenda? Apparently she has been trying to bend the ears of anyone that will listen about how she believes drew to be innocent. Give it up lady, the jury has spoken!

  75. Anna Hultin, that’s why I disagree with the death penalty. It’s far more of a punishment, in my opinion, to spend years and years and years sitting in a prison cell.

    I honestly can’t think of anything worse. I personally would rather be dead than spend life in prison.

    Of course, I would never do anything to warrant that in the first place.

    Drew did the crime, now he has to do the time.

  76. aussienat….this is a very sick animal…he was so sure of himself…but he didn’t dot the i’s or cross the T’s…the moment that Staci caught him in the laundry room…it was over…he had her followed everywhere…from 2004 till her death ….she was a prisoner..now its time for karma…

  77. if Lopez leaves so will his wife…whatever she was doing..not being in the courtroom…it looked to the public listening ….that she was Lopez’s eye candy….she has only been licensed 2 years …and on a high profile case…I don’t think so..but of course this was Brodsky’s first case…look what you get when you don’t pay for it….

  78. Atty Ralph Meczyk is now using the Peterson case to market himself. Doesn’t that only work when you actually win?

    For example, Meczyk’s cross-examination revealed that an earlier autopsy by a respected pathologist led to a finding that Savio died from accidental drowning and several other pathologists agreed. In addition, he demonstrated that no DNA exists to link Drew Peterson to a struggle with Savio before her death.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/902739

  79. The jurors and gallery seemed to find Meczyk’s cross-examination of Dr. Blum to be abrasive and disrespectful.

    IIRC, there were audible gasps when he mocked Dr. Blum and said something about his “lame excuse” for not running a particular test on some tissue.

    Also,

    “We first talked about what the doctors had to say and we pretty much all agreed it was a homicide,” said jury foreman Eduardo Saldana of Bolingbrook.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/14998179-418/drew-peterson-jurors-hearsay-evidence-was-key-to-verdict.html

    So, maybe not one of the cases he should really be tooting his horn about. Just my opinion, but it would probably be wiser to leverage those cases that have actually resulted in acquittal.

  80. According to people who were in the courtroom throughout the trial, Will County Board member Kathleen Konicki spent the five weeks grimacing and muttering to herself and then arguing Drew’s case to anyone who would listen. It’s strange that her email was taken so seriously by the court.

  81. If this woman is that kooky, maybe the Court filed it to avoid any stupid actions on her part, toward the Court, or this case. Like filing something against the Court, for not taking her serious. She sounds like a total fruit cake.
    Since she isn’t going to have a job soon, she will have plenty of time to go see Drew in prison, and she can write her stupid letters to him while he is there. I am sure he will want some totally ignorant woman to manipulate, he will need to entertain himself, while he is in prison….What is with these ignorant women????? He is a Convicted Wife Killer !!! Do they want to be the Next one he murders???

  82. Speaking of Drew’s ignorant women, has any reporters interviewed Christina Raines, since Drew’s conviction? Wonder if she still thinks he is so wonderful now?

  83. She must not be interested in interviews at this point. She’s been with her boyfriend now over three years.
    I saw that she visited Drew in July but I’m guessing that it probably had to do with pre-trial something or other.

  84. Facs,
    So glad to hear that Christina has a boyfriend and seems like a good relationship, since it has lasted three years. Drew getting locked up, was the best thing that ever happened to her. At least she is still alive and her and her boys, have a chance in life now.

  85. It seems these women that DP is interested in have a self-esteem problem….it has turned into a pattern…he saves them…it feeds his ego…there will always be women who feel the need to nurture….what has happened with his son….did he get his job back with the police force..

  86. thanks facs….it amazes me how many people DP used…and I mean used..to his advantage…how all this deception and hatred went on..and none of it came out in court..hopefully it will when its Staci’s turn…

  87. With the deadline having passed, it seems that Greenberg’s own legal counsel may have told him to let it go?

    It all seems childish that JB started it and that Greenberg bothered to take it seriously enough to even respond. Especially so publicly … but even bad PR is better than no PR, I guess.

  88. I know this has been brought here before, but it still is interesting to see what Steve Greenberg said about the case and the way Joel was handling it back before he joined the team:

    Aired May 8, 2009 – 07:00 ET

    Joining us now from Chicago is criminal defense attorney Steve Greenberg.

    Steve, thanks for being with us this morning.

    STEVE GREENBERG, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.

    CHETRY: So right now we have Will County state’s attorney, James Glasgow, saying that Peterson drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and that the state’s evidence is strong. They, as we said, exhumed the body, did another autopsy, and determined that she did die from drowning and that they called it a homicide even though it was at first ruled accidental. Do you think there is a strong physical case against Drew Peterson in Kathleen Savio’s death?

    GREENBERG: First of all, I don’t expect any prosecutor when they bring a murder prosecution to say anything other than we have a strong case. Let’s look at the case that they’ve got though, and sort of try and assess it.

    They’ve got two separate opinions from their own medical examiners, one saying it’s an accident, one saying it’s a homicide. Homicide means death at the hands of another.

    Those two opinions are going to conflict. It will be treated by a jury no different as if there was a defense expert and a prosecution expert…

    CHETRY: Right.

    GREENBERG: … who gave differing opinions. So the first thing the jury has to decide is which of those two people they’re going to want to believe. What they’ve also supposedly have in this case, though, is statements made by Stacy Peterson that Drew admitted committing this crime.

    CHETRY: Right, and let me get to that real quick just to give people a background on that.

    GREENBERG: All right.

    CHETRY: Apparently in the reporting – the “Chicago Sun-Times” has done a lot of reporting on this. But they’re citing apparently a meeting with her pastor where she told her pastor that her husband told her he killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio. And he, of course, said that she did not want him to go to the police about it and she didn’t go to the police about it. How is that going to factor in given that Stacy Peterson is missing?

    GREENBERG: Right. And they’ve got his just absurd – you know, we all want our clients to keep their mouths shut obviously in this case. His attorney hasn’t advised him of that. His absurd explanation that she had a crush on the pastor and she was sexing herself up when she was telling him these stories.

    Here’s how it’s going to play in. There’s something called forfeiture by wrongdoing. If they can show that he killed Stacy Peterson or had a hand in her disappearance in order to keep her from telling that story, then a jury will hear that she made that statement if a judge believed that this statement is reliable. And it was made to a priest.

    CHETRY: Right.

    GREENBERG: And a priest is testifying about it. So the judge is probably going to find that it’s reliable. And the jury is going to hear that he had a hand in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. They’re going to be told, well, you’re not supposed to consider whether he’s guilty of that murder.

    CHETRY: Right.

    GREENBERG: But they’re going to have to decide if he was involved in her disappearance. So you’ve got this strange…

    CHETRY: OK. I want to get to one other thing though real quick – I just want to get one other thing…

    GREENBERG: Sure.

    CHETRY: … because then apparently according to “Chicago Sun- Times” their two long-time friends of Drew Peterson who claimed they cooperated with the police wearing wiretaps and recording for seven months intimate conversations with Drew Peterson. Now, if they do have these recorded conversations as well, how significant could his own words on tape be?

    GREENBERG: Well, I think Drew Peterson, if he is guilty of these offenses is one of the smartest and most cunning criminals we’ve ever seen. And I sincerely doubt if he admitted to these friends after he was – there was this firestorm, he admitted to anybody doing anything wrong. My guess is there’s nothing on those tapes. They probably just want their free trip to New York to talk on the shows.

    CHETRY: All right. And then, of course, the last thing is his stepbrother Tom Morphy, who apparently is going to be testifying or made some sort of deal with prosecutors. This is also the reporting from the “Sun-Times” that he says he helped move a barrel that he described as feeling warm and weighing about 120 pounds.

    GREENBERG: Right.

    CHETRY: So if he goes there and gets that type of evidence regarding Stacy’s disappearance, is that also going to factor in to Kathleen Savio’s case?

    GREENBERG: Well, that’s part of the testimony that will be heard by a judge beforehand when he determines whether Drew Peterson had a hand in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and whether her statement should be used in the murder prosecution for Kathleen Savio. It’s got a lot of interesting twists and turns. His attorneys definitely have their work cut out for them at this point.

    CHETRY: Certainly sounds like it. Steve Greenburg, Chicago criminal defense attorney, good to talk to you this morning. Thanks.

    GREENBERG: Thank you.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/08/ltm.02.html

  89. Greenberg can speculate about him winning the case but he is fooling himself… There was a trial and the truth blasted out through several sources for the jury to consider… and they did a great job!

  90. Of course, anything is possible. But….it didn’t happen. I don’t see how it could be anything but speculation now, about what ..might have been…IF….Doesn’t matter what the jurors say now.
    Since Brodsky was the one who put Smith on the stand, and questioned him, and Brodsky is the one filing the appeal, I can’t see him using that for an appeal. Doesn’t seem logical to me. Wouldn’t Drew have to fire him, and get another attorney to file against Brodsky?

  91. Could that be why Greenberg wrote that letter and sent to media? Doing a little fishing??? Dangeling that in front of Drew, so Drew would fire Brodsky and hire him to do just that?

  92. greenberg told Beth K…that he would work for DP anytime…he said he’s an excellent client…I thought at the time it was an off the collar remark..if brodsky keeps putting his foot in his mouth…you might be right…..

  93. I don’t think Drew will fire Brodsky, cause he likes to be in Control. He can get Brodsky to do whatever he wants him to do, and I don’t think Brodsky will ever quit on him, as long as he is the Captain of the Ship, and Drew knows this. I don’t think he could control Greenberg, the same way, and I think Drew is not about to let anyone else have that Control, he will make the final decision, about everything, cause after all, he is smarter than everyone else. Remember, Joel said it was Drew’s decision to put Smith on the stand. And Joel says that he will maybe use Smith’s testimony, about “concealing a homicide” for his appeal, which I don’t think will work, but that is the way Drew and Joel think.

  94. Jeannie, I agree that Drew and Joel will never split up – it’s a very mysterious union and I just hope someday we will learn what the secret attraction is. IMO it will be something pretty shady and disgusting.

  95. At the rate Joel’s going he is lucky to even have a license to practice law after all is said and done. If I were him I wouldn’t waste precious time filing an appeal that is a lost cause. If anything he better clean his own slate before everything goes before the bar and is suspended yet once again, or not allowed to practice at all! He has a lot of people wanting to come forward and some that already has. It is a matter of time before they make him answer for it all. I can’t deny that I will be ecstatic to see it happen :)

  96. From Sue Savio’s FB

    Sue Savio‎
    I will be guest speaker at the united Methodist church on oct 17 in Madera,CA. I am committed to raising awareness of domestic Violence in honor of my sister Kathleen Savio. I will also be at the domestic violence awarness luminary walk in Ottawa and speaking at the FirstCongregation church on oct 25,2012 And on the winnebego board.I truely am blessed to be able to do this for my sister and all the other victims.

  97. Sisters in Peterson case to speak in Ottawa
    10/02/2012, 7:02 pm

    Two women connected to the Drew Peterson case in Will County will speak against domestic violence later this month in Ottawa.

    The Zonta Clubs of Ottawa, Streator and La Salle-Peru are hosting an event Thursday, Oct. 25, at Washington Square to mark October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. At 6:30 p.m., participants will carry lit candles and walk from the park to First Congregational United Church of Christ, a short distance away at the northeast corner of Jackson and Columbus streets.

    At the church, beginning at 6:45 p.m., Sue Doman, sister of Kathleen Savio, and Cassandra Cales, sister of Stacy Peterson, will speak. Drew Peterson, of Bolingbrook, recently was convicted of murdering Savio — his third wife — in 2004; Doman testified against Peterson at his trial. Stacy, Drew’s fourth wife, vanished in October 2007.

    Local police officers will be honored for their work against domestic violence, and Circuit Judge Cynthia Raccuglia also will speak. After the ceremony, a reception with refreshments will take place. The public is invited.

    For more information, contact Susan Bursztynsky at susan.zonta@mediacombb.net.

    http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=463339

  98. I tweeted this but don’t think I linked to it here. Interview with Sharon B by the fabulous Mandy McGlothlin at Chathouse news:

    …MM: What else did Stacy want to show you in the house?

    SB: She told me she wanted to show me something that was really creepy in the wood grain in the door going to the basement where Drew would take her. Stacy said can you see the face in the door? The eyes and face in the grain, it looks like the face of Satan! Do you see it? Stacy pointed it out to me and I said yes I see it. Stacy said she wanted it removed and felt like it held bad karma and Drew would laugh at her and said no.

    MM: What all did Drew do for Stacy?

    SB: Oh lots of things. He liked to buy her things but he never really gave it to her. Like for instance, he put her in an apartment that was actually free because of the job he held and bought her black furniture and it’s now in his basement. Gave her a Pontiac Grand Prix and that actually was still his and eventually became his car. Drew never gives anything away. He gives it but he doesn’t give it away. He would give stuff but it had a string on it so he could pull it back anytime…

    …SB: Lacy asked my granddaughter if she knew where her mommy was. My granddaughter said no, but your mommy loves you very much. That was two years ago. Lacy hasn’t asked anything since. I will continue to tell Stacy’s story as Mark Fuhrman asked and made me promise to not give up. He said some stories take ten years to come out but this one will come out. Stacy was a very unique and wonderful person. She loved her children more than anything. I have my favorite picture of Stacy sitting here. It’s of Stacy in Lacy’s playpen holding Lacy. It says it all. Stacy was so loving and loved being a mother. Lacy will turn the picture over face down when she comes over. It would make Lacy sad to see it. Stacy leaves behind a beautiful legacy in Anthony and Lacy Ann and now in Kathleen as well…

    http://www.chathousenews.com/2012/10/exclusive-thats-what-friends-are-for.html

  99. facs….what a great interview with Sharon…thank you….the picture brought tears…so sad..he will be convicted for Stacy…but where can her body be…

Comments are closed.