Drew Peterson’s old “new” lawyer files motion blaming Brodsky

John Paul Carroll

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that one-time Drew Peterson attorney, John Paul Carrol, has filed a motion to overturn Drew Peterson’s conviction and blaming misrepresentation on the part of lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, as the reason.

According to the motion signed by attorney Michelle Gonzalez:

“Attorney Brodsky had lied to Mr. Peterson on a number of occasions and when Mr. Peterson discovered the lies and talked about possibly discharging attorney Brodsky and retaining other counsel, attorney Brodsky indicated that in the event he was discharged, he would be ethically bound to publicly reveal some things that were discussed between him and Mr. Peterson.”

This accusation was also made by Steve Greenberg in a 15-page letter sent to Peterson and the media. The letter is attached to the motion and part of it.

Michelle Gonzalez

Joel Brodsky states to reporters that Attorney Carroll is in no way authorized to file such a motion and that Peterson himself is baffled as to the turn of events.

In September of 2009, John Paul Carroll, who had been part of the Peterson defense team, stepped down after the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee took under consideration a complaint that the attorney had violated the rules of professional conduct by failing to reveal a plea deal until after two clients were convicted on all charges.

He had a hearing in October of 2011 which resulted in a recommendation that he be suspended for 90 days from practicing law.

UPDATE 10/10 1:50 p.m.:

Attorney Steve Greenberg tells us that he has no involvement with the filing:

“There has been speculation that I am behind the most recent filing. So the record is clear, I have never met John Carroll, and only first spoke to him last week. I had no input on his filing. I stand on my prior comments and anxiously await the opportunity secure Mr Peterson’s release.”

Read the Motion:

UPDATE 10/11 5:44 p.m.:

Joel Brodsky’s motion in response (October 11, 2012)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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>

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “Drew Peterson’s old “new” lawyer files motion blaming Brodsky

  1. …In the documents, Carroll accuses lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky of lying about his courtroom experience, forcing Peterson to engage in pre-trial publicity and ignoring his request for a speedy trial. He also claims that Brodsky threatened to share unspecified information about Peterson if he fired him.

    “Attorney Brodsky had lied to Mr. Peterson on a number of occasions and when Mr. Peterson discovered the lies and talked about possibly discharging attorney Brodsky and retaining other counsel, attorney Brodsky indicated that in the event he was discharged, he would be ethically bound to publicly reveal some things that were discussed between him and Mr. Peterson,” the motion states.

    The allegations seemed to stun lead attorney Brodsky, who denied the accusations and insisted Peterson did not hire Carroll to handle post-trial motions. Brodsky, who said he spoke with Peterson by phone Tuesday, said Carroll was hired solely to represent Peterson as he tries to preserve his police pension in light of his conviction.

    Court records show that Will County Judge Edward Burmila, who oversaw the trial, granted Carroll permission to meet with Peterson at the Will County jail late last month.

    A spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow also declined comment, saying prosecutors had not yet seen the motion.

    Burmila, had warned Brodsky that he could be opening Pandora’s Box by putting Smith on the stand. Despite that caution – and against the rest of the defense team’s advice – Brodsky called Smith anyway.

    “Mr. Peterson did not want, suggest, agree to or authorize attorney Brodsky to call attorney Harry Smith as a witness for the defense,” the motion states.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-authorities-new-attorney-for-drew-peterson-seeks-to-overturn-conviction-20121009,0,7107606.story

  2. Carroll said Peterson did not get adequate legal representation during the trial that led to his conviction for the March 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Carroll said that’s why he, and not lead Peterson defense attorney Joel Brodsky, filed the motion.

    “How can Mr. Peterson advance this theory that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and have Mr. Brodsky present that argument?” Carroll said. “You have to have somebody not involved in the case.”

    Carroll said a member of Peterson’s family left him a message last week asking him to meet with Peterson.

    “I’ve even kept a tape,” Carroll said. “I kept the message on our office voice mail … and the message was, ‘Could you go see him?’”

    Carroll said he asked Judge Edward Burmila to let him have a face-to-face meeting with Peterson, and Burmila agreed.

    Carroll said he met with Peterson for about an hour last week.

    “He brought up a number of issues — one of these was the ineffective assistance of counsel,” Carroll said.

    Carroll, also a former cop, was called in to consult with Peterson about his police pension, Brodsky said. Stephen Peterson, Drew Peterson’s son, has been trying to contact Carroll to reconnect with him since then, but has been ignored, Brodsky said.

    Brodsky said he was aware that Peterson was meeting with Carroll, but that it was only about his pension. Peterson has said in three face-to-face meetings and at least eight phone conversations that Carroll was only brought in as a consultant, Brodsky said.

    “I spoke to Drew today. Drew reiterated to me that this is absolutely unauthorized. (Carroll) has no authority to file it,” Brodsky said. “He is boggled. That’s Drew’s word, ‘boggled’ as to how he did this.”

    Brodsky said he had heard about the motion Carroll filed about 4 p.m., but had not yet seen it. A hearing is scheduled for Friday morning, the attorneys said.

    “The filing should be stricken. It’s absolute insanity,” Brodsky said. “It’s bizarre beyond belief. It’s so unbelievable, I don’t know what to say. I’m speechless.”

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/15664324-418/lawyer-drew-peterson-boggled-by-new-attorneys-move-to-seek-new-trial.html

  3. Attorney Michelle Gonzalez’s signature is on the motion. We heard rumors of Michelle Gonzalez being added to the defense team back in 2011 and she was on Drew’s visitors list from that time:

    Michelle Gonzalez Attorney 2/25/2011

  4. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Brodsky threatened Drew with public disclosure of information if Drew fired him. He’s as much of a sociopath as Drew and attorney/client privilege be damned if he thought he could use it against Drew.

  5. Joel says that Drew fired Greenberg. Greenberg says he is not fired. Joel says that Drew knows nothing about this ineffective counsel motion. Carroll says that Drew asked him to file it.

    I get the feeling that Drew is not only ready to turn on Joel, but that he’s willing to do anything to get a new trial and a chance at freedom. He’s probably fine with saying anything to Joel to placate him until he can no longer deny the truth and can throw Joel under the bus.

    IMO

  6. The fact that Greenberg’s letter is attached to the motion indicates that Greenberg and Carroll are working together.

    I still doubt that anyone will be able to prove that Joel provided ineffective counsel, though. The motion itself says that “deficient perfromance alone is not enough” to prove ineffective counsel and that the counsel’s “unprofessional errors” would have to contributed to his conviction.

    I think Joel made an error in judgement in calling Harry Smith to the stand but it was not an unprofessional error. Professionally, everything he did was on board. He just effed up.

  7. Facs,
    That is exactly what I have been trying to say for days now.
    Drew is playing one attorney against the other ones, and getting all the information he can from each one, to use to his best advantage. All the while sitting back and knowing they can’t say anything, and he can say, and use whatever is best for him, from all the information he has gathered from all of them.
    Seems like Carroll’s Motion, and Brodsky’s remark of,
    “The filing should be stricken. It’s absolute insanity,” Brodsky said. “It’s bizarre beyond belief. It’s so unbelievable, I don’t know what to say. I’m speechless.”
    fits right in, with the rest of the shenanigans, and goings on, of Drew’s, since this all started in 2007, to me. Just shows what a manipulating liar, Drew is. IMO

  8. I see what you’re saying, Jeannie, but I personally I don’t think Drew is the brains behind this move.

    Rather, I think that Steve Greenberg is the one intent on pushing Joel out of the picture one way or another (if the ineffective counsel doesn’t stick, getting Drew to at least fire him).

    Steve had a long talk with Drew last week, both in the courtroom and then in a private setting and I can very well imagine Greenberg telling Drew to play dumb with Joel while this plays out.

    Greenberg and Joel have never seen eye to eye and Greenberg is not the first attorney he has butted heads with over his insistance that he be lead attorney and call the shots (despite his lack of experience in criminal trials). There was no need to pit the two attorneys against each other since the disagreements were there from the start (Just as they were with George Lenard, Reem Odeh and Andrew Abood).

    Drew was the one who was trying to actually trying to come between Greenberg and Brodsky when they would fight in court (at least that’s what I’ve been told by people who were there).

    I think Drew is smart enough to know when to turn on his BFF and smart enough to lie when he’s told it’s his best shot at getting out of jail. I don’t think he’s smart enough to know how to create an argument for ineffective counsel. But I DO think he’s smart enough to listen to someone who is telling him how.

  9. Video here contains interview with Michelle Gonzalez:

    http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-authorities-new-attorney-for-drew-peterson-seeks-to-overturn-conviction-20121009,0,7245813.story

    According to reporter, Joel was contacted tonight and said that:

    “Drew Peterson specifically instructed these new attorneys, John Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez, not to get involved with the case. Brodsky says since September 30th he has met wtih Peterson three times and has had eight conversations with peterson over the phone–the most recent being this afternoon. Brodsky says all these conversations were about Peterson’s appeal and if he were such an ineffective attorney why then would Peterson continue to have him work on the appeal. Brodsky says unless Drew Peterson is lying to his face he isn’t sure how or why Peterson has decided to seek new counsel.”

  10. Facs,
    I agree that Greenberg is the one behind most of this. His letter was obvious, about his intent to get rid of Brodsky, and stay on with DP. That is why I got upset about the way he went about doing it. I am sure that is the way it will end up, with Brodsky out, and Greenberg in, and calling the shots to Carroll, behind the scenes, and backing up any and all of the lies that Drew tells to help his defense. That is why they need another attorney to file the motion. Greenberg will probably be a witness for DP, in an appeal, about what he and Drew will claim against Brodsky. He gave Drew plenty to think about and say, to Carroll to help his appeal. Just read what is in that motion from Carroll. Some of it is almost word for word what Greenberg put in that letter to Drew. Now where did Drew come up with all of that, if not from the letter? Then the talk they had in Court that day, covered the rest of it. They just didn’t want Brodsky to know what was going on behind his back. I have absolutely no respect for Greenberg…I feel he is willing to lie, or do whatever it takes to help DP get off, because like he said, “he doesn’t like to loose”. He makes me sick. Like I said, not that Brodsky is one bit better. I know he has had trouble with a lot of other attorneys, but I still think some of that is because of Drew. I really believe Drew and Brodsky agreed to call Smith to the stand, and I know Drew was trying to keep the peace between Greenberg and Brodsky in Court. I think Brodsky stood firm on that, because he thought he was doing what DP wanted him to do…I think Drew kept telling Brodsky in private to do it, and wouldn’t tell Greenberg, that he had told him to do it, because Drew is two faced, and knows he can lie and turn everything around to his advantage. After all, he has been doing that all of his life !!! That is just MO.

  11. Well, Duh Joel……………Brodsky says unless Drew Peterson is lying to his face he isn’t sure how or why Peterson has decided to seek new counsel.”

  12. Why does my crystal ball show me Brodsky chained to a desk in a courtroom?? Is that showing me the past or the future?? 😉

  13. These are the comments, that I found interesting from the Shorewood Patch.

    After Peterson was arrested and charged with Savio’s murder in May 2009, Brodsky said Carroll would be joining the former Bolingbrook cop’s defense team, but he never filed an appearance.

    Another of Peterson’s attorneys, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, said that fact alone should have precluded Carroll’s filing of the motion.

    “It looks like the vultures are circling the dead coyotes,” said Lopez, who anticipated a heated hearing on Carroll’s motion in front of Judge Edward Burmila on Friday.

    “It’s going to be so important, the Shark’s going to swim out there—fins up,” Lopez said.

    Another of Peterson’s attorneys, Steve Greenberg, whom Peterson supposedly fired but seems to be back on the case, also may attend Friday’s hearing. When contacted Tuesday night, Greenberg first asked why the hearing had been called. He then failed to respond when told it was for Carroll’s motion.

  14. Drew thru the whole process never thought he would be convicted….”I could kill you and make it look like an accident’…and he did…cocky Drew ….I got away with it once….Staci missing….homicide for KS….talk show …press…other women..trial….the three stoogies..still thought he got away with it …cocky Drew…Smith and Schori….guilty…reality..sits in prison day after day…30 to 60 yrs…not Drew…lawyers fault…greenberg meets with Drew…circus of blame….again the stoogies march to the courtroom…you have heard buyer beware…..prosecution beware…..Drew is going to play this to the end…it’s like Lopez said the vultures are circling the dead coyotes…

  15. According to the Justice Cafe Wayback machine, Joel wrote this at the defunct “Speak Your Mind” forum in May 2008:

    “To end the speculation and comments I have come accross in other blogs and posts, Yes, I am the first chair. Drews team has obviously planned for any contingency, no matter how remote, and in the very unlikely event that there is a trial I will be lead counsel. This has been discussed and agreed to by all.

    Drew got alot of inquires. He interviewed a dozen attorneys. He picked me to be lead counsel and Andrew Abood as second chair, and John Carroll will add his special knowledge if there is a trial (hes a lawyer and former Chicago homicide detective) He picked me because he trusts me and believes in my ability. The attorney client relationship is a special one, especially in criminal cases. You have to be comfortable with and trust each other. Its more than just a legal services relationship, the lawyer is an attorney, advisor, psychiatrist, counselor, coach, etc.”

  16. For ease of reading (with a few annotations):

    ALLEGATIONS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF ATTORNEY BRODSKY

    1. When attorney Brodsky approached Mr. Peterson with an offer to represent him in the eventuality that he were to be arrested for murder, attorney Brodsky assured Mr. Peterson that he had the experience and talent to represent him adequately. This statement, which Mr. Peterson accepted as true and relied upon, was at variance with the truth. Mr. Peterson’s current knowledge and belief is that attorney Brodsky has never represented any defendant at a murder jury trial, or any other felony jury trial, as a lead counsel before this trial.

    Mr. Peterson had ample time to research the background and qualifications of attorneys before hiring one. Also, there were stories in the media about Joel’s background which mentioned his lack of experience when it came to jury trials. We were all aware of this. If Peterson didn’t know it then it’s his own fault.

    2. After accepting the representations of attorney Brodsky, Mr. Peterson was encouraged by his attorney to engage in as much publicity as possible because according to his attorney, the more publicity that Mr. Peterson and his attorney received, the greater was Mr. Peterson’s chances of not being indicted; and if charged, the publicity would increase Mr. Peterson’s chances of an ultimate acquittal. Instead the publicity dramatically increased the possibility of a conviction, as evidenced by attorney Brodsky’s post trial statement to the media that the jury was predisposed to find Mr. Peterson guilty at the start of the trial.

    Brodsky’s “white noise” theory was that media saturation resulted in acquittals for high-profile clients. In this case he was wrong. Mr. Peterson was completely aware that this was Joel’s strategy and he went along with it. As for the jury being predisposed to find Peterson guilty, that’s an opinion that he voiced after the conviction and is only his opinion.

    3. Attorney Brodsky assured Mr. Peterson that they would both make money from the publicity attorney Brodsky had generated about the case and that they were in this business venture together. This was the prime motivation of attorney Brodsky, rather than being motivated to provide the best legal defense for his client.

    Can it be proven that Brodsky’s prime motivation was publicity? No. Next…

    4. When Mr. Peterson was arrested, he told attorney Brodsky that he wanted to immediately demand trial so that the state would have to bring him to trial within 120 days. Attorney Brodsky refused to demand trial and as a result Mr. Peterson was in jail for approximately three years before the case went to trial, during which time attorney Brodsky was continuing his publicity campaign instead of representing the Defendant in a proper and attentive manner. Because of the long delay, certain legislation was enacted which was to the detriment of Mr. Peterson’s defense.

    Mr. Peterson’s long wait to trial was due to the State appealing Judge White’s decision on hearsay statements. This would have happened regardless of anyone’s desire for a quick trial. What is this legislation what was enacted while Peterson was awaiting trial? If this is in reference to the hearsay statute, it was enacted November 19, 2008, well before Peterson was arrested and charged.

    5. Mr. Peterson told attorney Brodsky that he wanted certain specific attorneys to be defense attorneys for him, but attorney Brodsky refused the request even though the specific attorneys had offered their services.

    If Mr. Peterson wanted specific attorneys to be hired, he should have hired them.

    6. At one point in the trial, Mr. Peterson asked attorney Brodsky if they could waive the jury and allow the judge to decide the facts. Attorney Brodsky stated that it was legally too late for Mr. Peterson to waive a jury now that the trial was underway.

    I don’t know what the law is regarding this.

    7. Attorney Brodsky had lied to Mr. Peterson on a number of occasions and when Mr. Peterson discovered the lies and talked about the possibility of discharging attorney Brodsky and retaining other counsel, attorney Brodsky indicated that in the event he was discharged, he would be ethically bound to reveal some things that were discussed between him and Mr. Peterson.

    If this is true, then Mr. Peterson should have discharged Brodsky. Nothing Joel might disclose could be used against Peterson in a court of law since it’s covered by attorney/client privilege.

    8. Attorney Brodsky made insulting comments to attorney Greenberg during the trial and Mr. Peterson tried to stop this conduct which was adverse to his defense, especially when it occurred repeatedly in front of the jury.

    Attorneys fight in court. Unless the jury indicates that it affected their decision, then it’s meaningless.

    9. Attorney Brodsky’s sarcastic comments to other members of the defense caused attorneys to resign from the defense team, all to the detriment of Mr. Peterson’s defense.

    If Mr. Peterson had wanted to keep those other attorneys then he should have fired Brodsky. Plus, I have to question the mettle of a lawyer who resigns over “sarcastic comments”.

    10. Attorney Brodsky presented Mr. Peterson with an ARDC complaint that attorney Brodsky had created against attorney Steven A. Greenberg. Attorney Brodsky coerced Mr. Peterson to sign the complaint as if he were the author. Mr. Peterson did not want to sign the complaint and, in fact, has no complaint against attorney Greenberg.

    If this even occured it was after Peterson’s conviction. Irrelevant.

    11. Mr. Peterson did not suggest or authorize that attorney Steven A. Greenberg should be discharged as has been suggested by attorney Brodsky.

    Again, how is this relevant to the verdict? Greenberg’s withdrawal occurred after Mr. Peterson’s conviction.

    12. That the defense of Mr. Peterson was second in importance to attorney Brodsky’s control of the other defense attorneys.

    Who says? This one is just silly.

    13. Mr. Peterson did not want, suggest agree to or authorize attorney Brodsky to call attorney Harry Smith as a witness for the defense. The questioning of attorney Smith, a former prosecutor, was done in reckless disregard of the previous filed motions; in in reckless disregard of intelligent reason; and in reckless disregard of the vociferous and well reasoned objections of attorney Greenberg. Even the Court cautioned attorney Brodsky about calling the witness, whose testimony was so devastating to the defense, and caused one juror to remark that it was the reason he and other jurors convicted Mr. Peterson.

    As lead attorney, Mr. Brodsky made a decision which he says was backed up by the opinions of several experienced defense attorneys. It was a bad decision, but it wasn’t in error.

    14. The attached September 24, 2012, letter from attorney Steven A. Greenberg and made part of this motion as further evidence of the ineffective assistance of attorney Brodsky.

    Yes. we know that Greenberg doesn’t like losing or being fired. Hardly grounds for Mr. Peterson to get a new trial.

    For all these reasons, and for any others that my be presented at a hearing, Drew Peterson respectfully requests that he be granted a New Trial.

  17. After rereading the list of allegations (very injoyable hee hee) I’m almost feeling sorry for Drew – he’s been SO mistreated :-). Agree that Greenberg is the brains behind this. IMO he is definitely the pick of the litter on Drews defense team.

  18. I hope Mrs. Brodsky has hidden the shot gun!

    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.
    September 12 at 9:37pm

    I think Joel is probably right about the bolded part…

  19. Just got this statement from Steve Greenberg:

    “There has been speculation that I am behind the most recent filing. So the record is clear, I have never met John Carroll, and only first spoke to him last week. I had no input on his filing. I stand on my prior comments and anxiously await the opportunity secure Mr Peterson’s release.”

    As for his letter being attached to and submitted with the motion, Greenberg says:

    “I can’t control what is attached”

  20. Question? With all this Lawyer eat Lawyer going on, will sentencing still be Nov 26 and he can be locked up in prison?

  21. LA, I think sentencing is undoubtedly going to be delayed. First off, Drew has asked to delay his decision about Greenberg’s withdrawal until November 16th and I think that alone could mean a delay.

    Now attys Carroll and Gonzalez are getting involved (untill and unless the Judge decides that they can’t) and asking for a new trial. Whether or not the Judge grants their motion, it’s going to take time to hash that out.

    And finally, Drew may want to make some big changes to his defense line-up and if that happens I can foresee weeks of delays to come.

    That said, if the Judge flat-out denies the ineffective assistance motion and boots Carroll and Gonzalez out of court, and then it turns out that Joel is telling the truth and that Greenberg was fired by Drew and that Drew really loves Joel and Joel loves Drew, and there are no further motions for a new trial, then sentencing should go on as planned.

    Somehow I don’t see all of that happening, tho.

  22. So its all about the love going around, and who eats who, and the time it all takes to sort that out. Good grief, I wish they could throw away the key already. To hell with all these lawyers

  23. Meanwhile Joel’s comment today is:

    “Drew has told me on several occasions, both before and after Mr. Carroll filed this motion, that he never retained Carroll in the Savio homicide case and he never authorized him to file any motions.”

  24. I for one will be happy when the time comes, that he is locked away for good, and he will have no one to pit against each other to benefit him, Appeals will end or take years. He may as well start getting used to his life in prison right now. As not many will even remember him, and his lovefest of lawyers will have moved on to new cases. Well, maybe all of them except JB, and from the sounds of it, SG, since loosing and dealing with it, is just not in that guys makeup. Hopefully the love for each other is strong. LOL

  25. In response to Stevie boys’ statement above, I would just like to say. IMO it sounds like we got a litlle too close to the Truth, about all of this, for Stevie boys’ comfort. Why on earth does he feel the need to make sure “the record is clear”, on a blog. I would think that he needs to do that in Court, not here. I find that rather amusing. As much as he seems to want to make us believe otherwise, I still hold to my opinion, that it was him who put DP up to contacting another attorney, and filing that motion. He can say whatever he wants to about when he first met Carroll….that has nothing to do with anything. The point is, who put DP up to all of this, Doesn’t matter whether Stevie boy knew the attorney, (that Drew picked to file the motion), before this or not…… They probably agreed to pick one that Stevie boy, didn’t know, to make it look a little better, and would give Stevie a cover….IMO.

    You can whine all you want, Stevie boy, but you cannot change public opinion, any more than Drew can with all of his whining. You just keep sticking up for Poor Little Mistreated Drew, and see when it gets you, in the end….After all…..You said it……Your letter speaks for it self.

    Sounds like a bunch of little girls in grade school to me. Or little boys, in grade school, playing….King of the Mountain….Certainly, not a man among them.

    Looks like Glasgow is the only Real Man involved in the whole case….IMO

  26. C’mon now. We’ve been wondering if Drew would try to get a future conviction overturned for ineffective counsel since the days of “Wing-gate”.

    Wouldn’t you be shocked if he didn’t try it?

    I did a search for the earliest suggestion of “ineffective counsel” on the blog and Thinkaboutit wins with a comment from April 2009.

    I will confess that I personally called the Illinois Bar Association to inquire about ethics rules regarding Brodsky using Drew to panhandle the Chicken Hole repeatedly on air.

    I expressed my concern that if Drew is ever tried and convicted of harming either of his wives that he could argue in an appeal that he had ineffective counsel and would likely get a new trial (as many, many lawyers have expressed disbelief with the way that Joel has had his client out in the media from day one when most would say the best course is to remain silent).

  27. Jeannie, in fairness to Greenberg I asked him if he had an official statement for us after Stacy St. Clair tweeted that he had issued a statement, but I couldn’t find said statement anywhere.

    I don’t vouch for what any of the attorneys say, but I do like to know what they have to say.

  28. Facs,
    That is o.k. I like to hear what they have to say, also. I thought it sounded like he just contacted you with that statement. Didn’t know that you had contacted him first, and asked for a statement. Still doesn’t change my mind about him any, tho’. Yes, of course, we all expected Drew to appeal a guilty verdict, and I hope hell freezes over, before he ever wins it.
    I am like Stevie, he sticks by his letter…..And I stick by my last sentence in above response. “Looks like Glasgow is the Only Real Man, in the whole case”.

  29. From Greenberg’s Statement.

    As for his letter being attached to and submitted with the motion, Greenberg says:

    “I can’t control what is attached”

    How conveinent for him, he didn’t have any thing to do with it…. and I am assuming that a top notch attorney like Stevie Boy, would have had NO idea they would attach his letter to the motion, (effectively making himself a witness for Drew, and getting his letter submitted to the Court) when he wrote it and sent it to Drew….. Please…..Get Real.

    This is why my opinion of Stevie, has Not changed.

  30. Joel,
    You sound like you could use a good attorney. After reading your statement from above,

    Meanwhile Joel’s comment today is:

    “Drew has told me on several occasions, both before and after Mr. Carroll filed this motion, that he never retained Carroll in the Savio homicide case and he never authorized him to file any motion”.

    I have one question for you.

    Did you get that in writing?

  31. Attorney John Paul Carroll doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him, or his work in court.

    “When I go into court, nobody laughs. The greatest compliment I ever got was from a state’s attorney who said, ‘When Carroll’s involved, you have to pay attention.’”

    Carroll, of Naperville, was called in to consult with Drew Peterson on issues with his pension.

    But Tuesday Carroll and his partner Michelle Gonzalez filed a motion for a new trial for Peterson based on Peterson’s claims that his lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, provided ineffective assistance.

    The motion was written up after Peterson asked to meet with Carroll and Gonzalez, Carroll said, and Judge Edward Burmila approved a face-to-face meeting at the county jail.

    “I think Mr. Brodsky fooled pretty much himself” when he thought he could handle the murder trial, Carroll said.

    Asked about the motion Tuesday night, Brodsky said it was “absolute insanity,” and “bizarre beyond belief.”

    Brodsky restated those beliefs Wednesday.

    “For example, it says I never tried a felony jury. I tried my first felony jury trial 18 years ago,” Brodsky said. “He puts in there that I’ve never tried one. That just goes to show you how absolutely and positively, without any basis at all, his motion is.”

    Brodsky said he talked on Wednesday to Peterson, who told him he did not want Carroll to file the motion, which Carroll disputed.

    “You can believe whatever Brodsky says, I frankly don’t care,” Carroll said. “I’m doing whatever I think I should do for my client.”

    Carroll knows what it’s like to be accused of providing ineffective assistance. He once ratted himself out for the same thing.

    In 2008, Carroll represented two brothers from Aurora in a Kane County murder trial. Jaime and Edgar Castro were convicted of the 2007 murder of Julio Gurrola in May 2008. A month later, Carroll admitted he did not tell the brothers about a plea deal from prosecutors until after they were convicted and facing sentences of 45 and 35 years in prison.

    A judge allowed the brothers to consider the plea deal instead of going through a new trial.

    They took the deal — pleading guilty to armed violence with a 15-year sentence — and their convictions were reversed.

    A complaint was filed with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission over the case. After a hearing on the complaint in October 2011, a panel recommended Carroll be suspended for three months, according to commission records.

    Carroll appealed the panel’s findings, and a hearing on the appeal was held in September, commission spokesman Jim Grogan said. It could take two to four months for a decision on the appeal, Grogan said. Then the suspension would be ultimately decided by the state supreme court.

    Until the issue is decided, Carroll is authorized to practice law as usual.

    “I was helping my clients too much,” Carroll said. “It’s a little different than I stole some of their money (or) had sex with their mother.”

    At the time Peterson was charged with Savio’s murder in 2009, Brodsky said Carroll was expected to join the team.

    Carroll said he didn’t because Brodsky wanted complete control of the case.

    “I told Mr. Brodsky, ‘You can take all the publicity, I can go out the side door.’ I thought that would endear me to him,” Carroll said.

    Brodsky said Wednesday he didn’t let Carroll in on the Peterson case because of his disciplinary problems.

    “Carroll has been trying to get into this case for years now,” Brodsky said. “He’s just obsessed.”

    The motion Carroll filed has created uncertainty about what happens next in Peterson’s case.

    Carroll “has created a situation where all the attorneys become witnesses, and quite possibly will be all off the case,” said Joseph “Shark” Lopez, a member of Peterson’s trial team.

    He added that he believes none of Peterson’s defense team can proceed with post-trial motions now that the allegation of ineffective assistance exists.

    “The court definitely has to intercede in the case and make a determination as to who the attorneys are going to be,” Lopez said. That could include the judge asking Peterson directly who he wants to have as his lawyers, he said, which could happen as soon as a scheduled court hearing Friday.

    “It’s awkward, and at this point it’s more harmful than good,” Lopez said. “We have to focus on the sentencing issues, not on what happened at trial.”

    http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/15680886-418/story.html

  32. self implosions. We knew it was going to happen, just a matter of time to see how DP tries to work this to his advantage, as he probably instigated it all. What a friggen mess and what an evil excuse for a human being

  33. Okay, maybe I’m the nutcase here, but when reading the motion from Carroll, I see Drew all over it. So many of the accusations and phrasing sound exactly like Drew.

    Has anyone given thought to the possibility that Drew was so pissed when he read Greenberg’s letter that he penned his own motion and found out he needed to have it presented by an attorney not involved in the case?

    It just reeks of Drew. (And, FWIW, I don’t see Greenburg as being behind this. He may benefit from it, but I suspect that Drew has been stewing and Greenburg’s letter was the ammunition he could use to get Brodsky off the case.)

  34. For some reason I keep flashing back to the old nightline story about Drew (the one that made Chrissy Raines walk out on him):

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

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

    Not that I think he’s having any fun at this point in his life, but I do think that he will lie to anyone if he thinks it could save his skin.

  35. what else does Drew have to do all day…it’s not like he gets up and goes to work….he is focused on getting out of jail….as he was focused on keeping all the money and his kids….he can’t kill his attorneys like he killed his wives….but he is playing the game of putting one against the other….it makes me laugh when we see the full picture…and these so called educated people are still playing his game…I hope the judge gets disgusted with the circus and Glasgow sticks it to Drew…he deserve nothing better….

  36. Why am I not surprised, by the article in the Southtownstar? Making witnesses out of all the attorney’s !!! Not just Greenberg.

    Good job, Stevie boy !!! Guess that would be one way to get Drew off, and give all of you guys another chance to Win !
    Only problem with that, that I can see. I don’t think you will find 12 jurors that will believe that many defense lawyers…. Like I said before, Good Luck, Stevie Boy, you are going to need it. You just think you know Drew Peterson….You are in for one hell of a ride, with him, so hang on. He doesn’t give a damn, about anyone, but himself. Never has, and never will.

  37. ATTN: 180 degree opinion change below!

    ATL, from something I heard (not his own statement) I now agree that Greenberg was not behind the motion. I now think that Carroll and Gonzalez talked to Drew and filed the motion at Stephen Peterson’s request.

    And I imagine that in his mind Drew can justify lying to Joel because It’s For the Kids.

    Stephen is pretty screwed because of what he did for his father in the days following Stacy’s disappearance and he’s been put into the position of adoptive dad for Anthony and Lacy. Drew owes him big time.

    If Carroll was really working on retaining Drew’s pension, then he and Stephen Peterson would definitely be in contact since Stephen has been receiving Drew’s pension and using it to raise the kids. And If Stephen truly asked Carroll to talk to Drew about a motion for ineffective counsel against Joel, I think Drew would work with Carroll and take any steps that might help Stephen and the kids, even if it meant turning on Joel and lying to him. If the motion isn’t granted, Drew can just go on as before…as long as the truth never gets out.

  38. Facs,
    Didn’t Steve Peterson admit that he called Carroll? But think about it. He only called Carroll AFTER Greenberg wrote that letter, and sent it to the media, and to Drew, didn’t he? I am sure Steve Peterson could have read it in the media, and believed Drew had a case against Brodsky. What did Greenberg expect him to think?? That is exactly what everyone else was thinking. I am not so ready to let Greenberg off the hook, just yet.
    Of course, if things don’t look too good for Greenberg, he will try to distance himself from it. Which may be just another ploy, in their game. I don’t trust any of them.

  39. Hmmm, I agree with Facs here regarding how this motion got hatched. Also think ATL, you have it right about Greenberg’s letter starting the ball rolling. Didn’t we all wonder why Steve went so public with that letter when most attorneys usually keep their wrangling more private? And remember Steve is the one that brought up the “threat” Joel was holding over Drew’s head so the letter is perfect for using in this motion. Bottom line is, as we all know, Drew will do anything to anyone for his own benefit .

  40. Stephen Peterson hasn’t made any statements to the press that I’ve seen.

    Carroll has stated that Stephen called him and left a message and asked “could you go see him?”

    Joel has said to the press that Stephen talked to Carroll once about pension matters and that since then Stephen has tried to contact Carroll but that Carroll has ignored his calls.

    As most things the lawyers have said to the press since September 6th, we can only guess what the truth is!

  41. Jeannie, also agree with you that we can’t let Steve off the hook 🙂 – whether he intended for his letter to lead to the motion being made or not. Looking forward to what takes place in court on Fri though!

  42. Stephen is an adult and a cop….he can’t play the ignorant act…drew knew what he was doing…he was hired to enforce such rules….whether his superior had it in for him or not….he put his career on the line ……was his dad worth it…if the pension is taken away…will Staci’s family be there??? Casandra gave the impression that she wants to be with the kids….what a mess…send him to the big house….he’s a dirt bag…

    Mod Edit/ For the record their names are Stacy and Cassandra 🙂

  43. I still think Greenberg knew exactly the chain of events, that his letter was going to set off.
    I believe he isn’t going to show up in Court Friday, because that is all part of the Plan. He can’t look too interested in all of this, if he is going to be a witness for Drew against Brodsky. Has to distance himself from all of it, for a while. Anyway, out in the public. Other wise, he may look too prejudice, against Brodsky, and not make a very good witness. Why not go to Court? He is the one who wrote that letter, and made all of the accusations against Brodsky, that letter is what this motion is based on. What a coward…
    I knew he would distance himself from the fray. Maybe if the motion gets denied, he can still defend Drew on other grounds for an appeal. Personally, I don’t know how many times Drew has to fire him, before he “gets it”. Seems to me, by Drew hiring Carroll, he is telling Greenberg, to “hit the road, Jack”. Maybe Greenberg just doesn’t have any Pride in himself, as an attorney, or a man. If he sticks around after all of this, I would say he doesn’t.

  44. all these so called attorneys will be remembered for the drew peterson trial…found guilty….no matter what they do with the rest of their lives…they are marked….oh, yea didn’t he work on that drew peterson trial…what a loser…the public saw them as clowns…and when they had a chance to prove they could be human….they decided to fight among themselves….so I guess the public was right….

  45. Sad news. Drew’s mom has died:

    Drew Peterson’s mother died a month and two days after her son was convicted of murder.

    Betty Morphey, 84, never attended a single day of her son’s five-week murder trial. She also never visited Peterson in the three and a half years he has been locked up in the Will County jail.

    Morphey suffered from severe dementia, according to a source close to the family.

    Morphey was married to Peterson’s father, Donald Peterson for 38 years. When her husband died she married Albert Morphey, Donald Peterson’s boss at Northern Illinois Gas Company.

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-s-mother-dies

  46. As more comes out about this motion it sounds more and more likely that it won’t pass muster in court:

    The filing was submitted by Chicago-area attorney John Paul Carroll, who wasn’t involved at Peterson’s trial. Carroll conceded Wednesday that Peterson sounded hesitant about the filing.

    “I asked if he wanted me to go ahead,” Carroll said. “He sat there looking at his shoes, then said, `Yeah, go ahead.'” Carroll said he technically didn’t need Peterson’s permission and, if he had to, might have filed the motion even without Peterson’s OK.

    A hearing is scheduled Friday to address the matter, Carroll said. He said Peterson’s intentions should become clear then, but added: “If he abandons it, I think he’d be silly.”

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IL_DREW_PETERSON_ILOL-?SITE=ILBLO

  47. Anna,
    You are sooooo right. IMO ..No matter what they do now, or where they go, isn’t going to matter. They got the Guilty Verdict. They can try to twist it and turn it, and blame each other, etc., but they were all in on it. They are nothing but clowns, and the circus will start again on Friday, and the Ringmaster is none other than Drew Peterson, himself, sitting there watching them all run in circles, chasing their tails, while he cracks the whip. And we are all left to wonder….Is this just another Con of Drew’s, like so many other con’s in his past? I believe it is. I just hope and pray, the Judge will be able to see the Con Man, behind the Ringmaster’s mask…..

  48. BETTY L. MORPHEY

    Betty L. Morphey, loving wife of the late Donald Peterson for 38 years and the late Albert Morphey for 16 years; beloved mother of Drew Peterson, Laura (Brian) Cook, and Paul (Norma) Peterson; cherished grandmother and great grandmother of many; dear sister of the late Laura Jean (Uncle Jim) Carroll, Walter (Betty) Wilson, Robert (Gale) Wilson, Marcia (the late Frank) Murphy, Kathy (Peter) Bono, and the late Elaine (Tom) Trayes. Sister-in-law to the late Ray and Louisa Gaskill and the late Christian (Mary) Peterson and the late Wayne (Patti) Mays; caring aunt and cousin to many.

    Funeral Friday, 9:15 a.m. from Modell Funeral Home, 7710 S. Cass Ave., Darien to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church Mass 10 a.m. Interment Clarendon Hills Cemetery. Visitation Thursday, 2 to 8 p.m. For funeral info. 630-852-3595 or http://www.modelldarien.com

    http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=betty-l-morphey&pid=160344713&fhid=2059#fbLoggedOut

  49. I am sorry for your loss drew….but you didn’t care…your thoughts were strickley for you.if you cared about anyone but yourself…you wouldn’t have killed the mothers of your children…

  50. Good listen from Roe and Roeper this morning. Interview with Michelle Gonzalez and Stacy St. Clair. I transcribed the first part because I thought it was interesting how Atty Gonzalez seemed to really only have the one thing to say (or that she wanted to say) but Stacy St. Clair after and the discussion between Roe and Roeper is all worth a listen:

    CONN: Is Drew Peterson trying to fire Joel Brodsky?

    GONZALEZ: I’m not sure about that. I just know he hired us to do that motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance by Joel Brodsky.

    CONN: Have you ever heard of a case where a defendant hired a lawyer to argue this ineffective assistance of counsel and retained that said ineffective counsel?

    GONZALEZ: They can release that person and have the other attorney but the issue here is that Brodsky was the attorney at the trial so he could raise the issues of what went wrong at trial and I guess the other attorneys that were also present could raise those issues, but we weren’t present for the trial so we can’t raise those issues.

    CONN: Do you know if Mr. Brodsky was aware of this filing before it was filed?

    GONZALEZ: I do not know. I know we were hired by Mr. Peterson to do this. We were told not to tell Mr. Brodsky so I don’t know if he told him or who else may have told him.

    CONN: It seems like an odd thing if Joel Brodsky wanted to stay on the case and was still representing him. It seems like an odd concept but maybe that’s his Hail Mary attempt and what he does is he goes out and gets a guy to say that he did a bad job and then that’s another way to get his client off. Could I reasonably assume that Mr. Brodsky could be behind this?

    GONZALEZ: Mr. Brodsky could be behind what?

    CONN: Behind having Mr. Carroll make this claim in Will County court?

    GONZALEZ: Well, this is the client raising these issues and he wants to preserve them for appeal just in case the trial court doesn’t grant him the new trial.

    CONN: So, it does not sound like Mr. Brodsky is behind this.

    GONZALEZ: No. I don’t know what Mr. Brodsky will do now that he knows of this but that’s the situation.

    CONN: Mr Carroll must have had contact with Mr. Peterson at some point. Is he still representing him on these other business matters?

    GONZALEZ: No. We were hired to do this motion in the criminal court and there’s the issue of the pension but that’s still yet to be an issue yet.

    CONN: And that’s a separate issue.

    GONZALEZ: Right and first we need to resolve the criminal case and see what happens there. If the motion for a new trial is granted in the criminal case then there’s no pension issue.

    CONN: Will Mr. Carroll represent him in the appeal moving forward?

    GONZALEZ: No. We’ve been hired to do the motion for a new trial. There are other attorneys who can do the appeal.

    CONN: We don’t know who those people might be.

    GONZALEZ: Right. Not at this time…

    http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2550129&spid=16521

  51. Tweet: Joseph R. Lopez ‏@josharrk
    New twist Jeff Ruby and Drew have court this Friday with Judge Burmilla the “Lopi” will be there for the Drew motion 9:30am

  52. Hi Judgin, Jeff tweeted a little later that he won’t be in court on Friday after all.

    Jeff Ruby ‏@TheRealJeffRuby
    Hearing in Joliet on contempt charges has been continued.

  53. I just read the story by Joe Hosey, telling us that Drew’s mother had died. I was going to bring it over, but saw where Facs (as always) was already on top of things.
    My thoughts and prayers, too, go out to this family. They have been through so much grief and stress in the last few weeks.
    But to me, there was this startling statement at the end:

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, failed to return calls for comment.

    How did Brodsky miss this chance for a comment?

  54. thanks facs….again is all this lawyer work for free…how can drew continue to hire all these attorneys….there are innocent people out there who can’t afford an attorney but drew has them coming out of the woodwork….are they so hungary for the public eye…that they want to defend a guilty murderer….I realize it’s new and the media prints it….but this case has become a circus of really stupid people…I love it when they say he deserves a fair trial…isn’t that what he got….maybe it was the verdict that he was upset about…

  55. Something stinks here. Drew hired Carroll and Gonzales to do this motion for ineffective counsel but isn’t firing the person he claims is ineffective?? Sounds to me like a throw-everything-at-the-wall defense and see what sticks.

    As for Drew’s mom, I am very sorry to hear of her passing. Losing your mother can be very hard, but I’m sure Drew’s children can give him some ideas on how to cope.

  56. it’s sad when your mother passes…but when it’s your father doing it….that is some serious therapy….the kids are young ….he had his mother for 58 yrs…died of natural causes…the way their mothers passed was violent….I don’t believe he should be able to attend….he gave up that right….why is it even on the table….

  57. Carroll refers to himself and Gonzalez as two of Drew’s pro bono attorneys, which means they are not being paid. As far as I know, none of his legal team is receiving payment but took the case out of interest in working on a high profile case with lots of media exposure.

    At times in the past, Joel has denied that he is working pro bono, but it’s almost certain that he was not being entirely truthful. It’s long been alleged that he was arranging and taking payment for interviews with Peterson. No doubt he felt that this monetary arrangement was different from working pro bono.

    My guess as to why Drew agreed to the filing of a motion for a new trial due to ineffective assistance and yet did not fire Joel, is that Drew is trying to cover all bases. Joel may stink but it’s true that no one knows this case as well as he does. If the judge denies the motion (which he probably will) Drew will still have Joel on board to go after appeals.

    It’s only a feeling, but I think that Drew really does love Joel, who rode motorcycles with him, schemed with him and played cards with him behind bars when most of Drew’s friends and family abandoned him. I’m thinking he would only turn on Joel as a last resort and because it’s what his son, Stephen, thought he should try.

    These last few weeks have been so filled with drama and lies that the best any of us can do is to guess what the truth is in these matters.

    I hate when that’s the case. This kind of stuff is just as bad as when we had nothing to talk about but Drew’s love life and media stunts.

    I can’t wait to see him sentenced and taken off to Stateville.

  58. Meanwhile, Joel strikes back:

    Drew Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky planned Thursday morning to file a motion seeking to strike a post-trial motion filed by two outside attorneys.

    http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/15690814-418/drew-peterson-lawyer-seeks-to-throw-out-post-trial-motion-by-new-attorneys.html

    Drew Peterson’s original attorney wants his purported successor tossed off the case and held in contempt for filing a “totally and completely unauthorized” motion seeking to overturn the former cop’s murder conviction.

    In a new filing Thursday, Joel Brodsky blasted Naperville attorney John Paul Carroll, contending he is trying to improperly push his way into Peterson’s notorious case by claiming Peterson’s legal team bungled his defense.

    Peterson has said in three face-to-face meetings and at least eight telephone calls that he never asked Carroll or co-counsel Michelle Gonzalez to represent him in his murder case, Brodsky contended in his filing.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15691583-418/battle-between-drew-peterson-attorneys-flares-up-again.html

    Drew Peterson’s lead lawyer has filed a motion to strike down what he calls an unauthorized motion by another attorney.

    Joel Brodsky also is asking for a criminal contempt of court citation against Naperville lawyer John Paul Carroll and for a special prosecutor to investigate what Brodsky says are leaks of impounded documents.

    Brodsky wants Carroll thrown in jail on criminal contempt and fined.

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/peterson-lawyer-moves-to-halt-motion-by-other-attorney/

  59. Brodsky’s motion also seeks a special prosecutor to look into alleged leaks of sealed court filings regarding the case to media outlets.

    I did notice that Tuesday’s filing was “impounded”. Although that is not the same as being sealed it still means that the filing should not be made available to the public. Of course, plenty of impounded and even sealed information has made its way into the media during this case. Unless Joel can prove that Carroll leaked the motion, then it’s just more Brodsky bluster.

  60. Hmmm… Someone is clearly lying. I really hope the judge gets tough with whoever it is. It seems to be a waste of the court’s time, to have to deal with these shenanigans.

  61. Yeah, my head is spinning. If Drew is the one lying (and I believe that’s the case) I’m not sure the judge can do much about it, though.

    Remember Jamie Katro? The woman who said Bindy Rock is like an Uncle to her and was questioned by the ISP when a Christmas card from him hinted that he might be involved with Stacy’s disappearance? (This is apropos of nothing, but I was just poking around looking at people who could have anything to do with Stacy’s case.) Woo, doggies. Her life has not gotten better since we last heard about her involvement in a knife-wielding lover’s spat.She’s got at least 8 open court cases and was just indicted last week on a felony charge of trying to foil a drug screening.

    Back in 2009 she said that she told reporters that didn’t tell the ISP anything since she figures it’s their job to ferret out the facts and she wasn’t going to do their job for them. She also said she heard Drew had Stacy cremated at a funeral home.

    I guess if she actually had known something she would have leveraged it by now to help with her many civil and criminal charges.

    One has to imagine that the State/ISP has a spreadsheet of all these sad characters who were in orbit around the lives of Drew and Stacy Peterson. I have to hope that some day one of these ‘degrees of separation’ will lead them to Stacy.

  62. thanks facs for all the information…..I think brodsky going to write a book…..to make it interesting ….he has this circus around him…because he likes seeing his picture and hearing his voice in the media…when drew goes to jail and all the appeals will be over….he not going to bury himself under a rock…like he should…he’s going to play this all the way home…

  63. Update to Rozek’s story:

    Carroll insisted Peterson wants him on the murder case.

    “It’s strange he didn’t tell us we weren’t representing him,” Caroll said.

    “He gave me the go-ahead to represent him,” he said, adding Peterson also approved filing the motion that contends his murder conviction should be overturned because his defense team — led by Brodsky — botched the case.

    “He said, ‘go ahead,’” Carroll contended.

    He also said he, along with co-counsel Gonzalez, met with Peterson earlier Thursday morning.

    Carroll acknowledged urging Peterson to dump Brodsky as his attorney.

    “I said to him, ‘you’re drowning and you’re holding a stone.’ I said, ‘let go of the stone and I’ll save you.’” Carroll recounted.

    Carroll believes Judge Edward Burmila on Friday could rule that he and Gonzalez are Peterson’s new attorneys.

    “I think there’s a possibility the judge will tell Mr. Brodsky he’s out,” Carroll said.

    Carroll also denied leaking any sealed filings to media outlets.

    http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/15690814-418/drew-peterson-lawyer-seeks-to-throw-out-post-trial-motion-by-new-attorneys.html

  64. drew is a pompous…arrogant…ass….I can’t believe he is manipulating stupid educated people….is the limelight so important …..he is making a fool out of them all…let the games begin…

  65. This is going to be interesting. He is so stupid. Playing these lawyers the way he is. Does he think they won’t find out?

    He continues to be a coward. Why not just tell them who he wants and doesn’t want?

    I hope all of these lawyers open their eyes and see what is going on. Oh, to be a fly on the wall tomorrow!

    It is really pathetic how Brodsky is still professing his love for Drew. If Brodsky does in fact get the boot, he will meltdown big time!

    If it is determined that the lawyers are lying, I hope they get punished. I do think Drew is behind this mess, but if he isn’t – This is just a load a crap.

    😕

  66. Drew Peterson Feels Like Traitor For Dumping Joel Brodsky, Says New Lawyer
    The Naperville lawyer trying to take over Drew Peterson’s defense says the convicted wife-killer is feeling a “little bad” about cutting out his old lawyer.
    By Joseph Hosey
    3:38 pm

    Naperville attorney John Paul Carroll said he sat face-to-face with convicted wife-killer Drew Peterson in jail and tried to soothe the guilt he feels for dumping his old lawyer, Joel Brodsky.

    Carroll said Peterson told him, “I feel a little bad. I feel kind of like a traitor to Mr. Brodsky because he represented me for five years.”

    Peterson also admitted he was “kind of concerned about (Brodsky’s) future as an attorney,” Carroll said.

    “I said, ‘Don’t be concerned,'” Carroll recalled.

    “I want to get you out of jail,” he said he told Peterson. “That’s all I want to do. Get you out of jail. If that’s not all right with you, let me know now.”

    It looks like Peterson is going to have to let Carroll know one way or another during a Friday morning hearing to determine who is actually his lawyer and who is not.

    On Wednesday, Carroll filed a motion insisting Peterson wants him as his new lead attorney. The motions also blames Brodsky for blowing Peterson’s murder defense. Brodsky’s performance was so bad, Carroll’s motion said, that Peterson should get a whole new trial.

    On Thursday, Brodsky shot back with a motion of his own attacking Carrol and Carroll’s law partner, Michelle Gonzalez. Brodsky’s motion called for Carroll and Gonzalez to be jailed for six months and fined $1,000 for contempt of court.

    Carroll laughed at Brodsky’s motion.

    “They should put us in jail,” he said. “I’ll pass my card out like a madman.”

    Brodsky’s motion had been distributed but not filed with the Will County Circuit Clerk by late Thursday.

    In the unfiled motion, Brodsky said he not only wants Carroll and Gonzalez locked up and fined, but also for a special prosecutor and special grand jury to “investigate leaks of impounded documents.”

    Carroll said he has leaked nothing to the press and that if he had, he would have expected payment for the secret papers.

    Brodsky failed to return calls for comment. Another Peterson attorney, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, said he was troubled by the motions traded back and forth by Brodsky and Carroll.

    “Reading these motions is very troubling,” Lopez said. “You’ve got to think about Drew and Drew’s constitutional rights.

    “It appears Mr. Brodsky is (Peterson’s) counsel of choice and no one should interfere with that,” Lopez said. “Right or wrong, it’s his choice.”

    Brodsky said as much in his motion and claimed Carroll is lying about Peterson wanting him as his new lawyer.

    When told of Brodsky’s allegations, Carroll said, “I’m embarrassed for him.”

    Carroll said he is unconcerned by the prospect of Peterson, whose mother died Monday, going into court Friday and choosing Brodsky. And given the pair’s long relationship and the loyalty shown by Peterson to Brodsky, he acknowledged that very well may happen—even if Peterson realizes the decision would not be to his benefit.

    “It kind of reminds me of a person who’s a Jehovah Witness and the child needs a blood transfer,” Carroll said. “And they’re like, ‘No, we’re going to pray.'”

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-feels-like-traitor-for-dumping-brodsky-says-new-lawyer

  67. remember this play “TO BE OR NOT TO BE ….THAT IS THE QUESTION….SHAKESPEARE”…..to be drew’s attorney or not to be …that is the question…Mr. Carroll ….leave brodsky as his attorney….drew needs to go to the big house and disappear…

  68. I would almost bet Drew gets by with his little con game, on the Court.
    Carroll to file against Brodsky, to get it on the record, with the letter from Greenberg, before the sentencing, and as long as he gets it on record, he can then tell the Judge he wants to keep Brodsky, and get all of the motions on record that Brodsky is filing at the same time. Then use up all of Brodsky’s appeals, from the trial, and as a last resort, fire Brodsky, and go with the ineffective counsel, with Carroll. That way he has pulled one over on the Courts, and covered all his bases. Just the kind of Con, we should expect from Drew, and his attorney’s.
    I still think this was a planned out deal, someone with a lot of knowledge about the law, had to let Drew know, how to do all of this, and get by with it.
    Someone with a personal vendetta, perhaps?
    I hope that Judge throws them all out of Court, not that it will happen, but that is what they all deserve.

  69. Hey locals! (sorry I’m late. Hurry up and you might still make it)

    Guardian Angel Community Services:
    Don’t forget to go to Northern Will County Take Back the Night tonight in Bolingbrook. It starts at 5:00pm at 251 Canterbury Lane. Hope to see you all there! If you haven’t been to one you are really missing out. It is a powerful and moving experience! TAKE BACK THE NIGHT!

    https://www.facebook.com/GuardianAngelCommunityService

  70. in the newspaper comment section …it said drew went to his mother’s wake for 1/2 hour….please tell me that it’s not true….is this a little much or not …does this mean he goes to graduations and weddings too…

  71. Apparently he was allowed to go.

    Drew Peterson let out of jail briefly to see mother in funeral home
    BY DAN ROZEK Sun-Times Media October 11, 2012 6:38PM

    JOLIET — Drew Peterson was taken from the Will County Jail to a Darien funeral home Thursday afternoon to say goodbye to his mother, Betty Morphey, who died earlier this week, according to attorney Joel Brodsky.

    Brodsky said Peterson’s visit lasted for about a half hour. It was Peterson’s first time outside the jail — aside from court hearings — since his arrest in 2009.

    http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/15690814-418/drew-peterson-lawyer-seeks-to-throw-out-post-trial-motion-by-new-attorneys.html

  72. MOTION TO STRIKE UNAUTHORIZED POST-TRIAL MOTION FILED BY ATTORNEYS JOHN PAUL CARROLL AND MICHELLE GONZALEZ, TO HOLD JOHN PAUL CARROLL AND MICHELLE GONZALEZ IN DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TO APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

    Now comes the Defendant Drew Peterson, by and through his attorney, Joel A. Brodsky and moves this Court to enter an order striking the Post-Trial Motion filed on behalf of Defendant Drew Peterson by attorney John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez, to hold John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez in direct criminal contempt of court, and to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate leaks of impounded documents. In support of this motion the Defendant states:

    1. On October 9, the Defendant’s Attorney Joel A. Brodsky was advised that attorneys John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez has filed a post-trial motion in the above entitled case on behalf of the Defendant Drew Peterson.

    2. That prior to this date, the Defendant’s attorney Joel Brodsky had been advised by the Defendant that the Defendant had met with John Paul Carroll and his associate Michelle Gonzalez to discuss issues regarding his pension only and that John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez had not been hired or authorized to appear or represent him in this case.

    3. That on several occasions between September 30, 2012 and October 9, 2012, in three (3) face to face meetings, and at least eight (8) telephone conversations, Defendant has informed Joel A. Brodsky that he has never hired Attorney John Paul Carroll or Michelle Gonzalez to represent him in the case of People v. Drew Peterson 09 CF 1048, and that John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez have never been authorized by Defendant Drew Peterson to appear for him or file any motion or pleading on his behalf in this case.

    4. That based on the information from the Defendant Drew Peterson, the motion filed by John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez in this case is totally and completely unauthorized, and is, and should be held to be, null and void.

    5. That to the knowledge of Defendant and his attorney Joel Brodsky this Court has not granted Attorney John Paul Carroll or Attorney Michelle Gonzalez leave to appear for the Defendant. An attorney who has not been granted leave to appear cannot, and should not, file any motions in a case.

    6. The aforesaid wrongful and illegal actions of Attorney John Paul Carroll and Attorney Michelle Gonzalez are criminally contemptuous of the majesty and authority of this Court in that they attempt to prejudice the appeal rights Defendant who has been convicted of 1st degree murder in a jury trial before this Court, attempt to wrongfully deprive the Defendant of his 6th Amendment right to counsel of his choice for post-trial motions before this Court, and wrongfully endanger the work done in a five (5) week jury trial held before this Court without cause or authority. These actions were done by filings with the Clerk of the Court and thereby constitute direct criminal contempt of the authority and majesty of this Court.

    7. That even though he is counsel of record, Joel Brodsky has not been served with a copy of the motion filed by John Paul Carroll. Having only seen the allegations on the version of the motion posted by the Chicago Tribune, Defendant and his attorney Joel A. Brodsky state that the unauthorized motion filed by John Paul Carroll is based entirely on allegations that are untrue, are blatant lies, and have no basis in fact whatsoever, and which do great prejudice to the Defendant. That filing such a motion, without legal authority, and without first being granted leave of court to appear for the Defendant is a direct attack on the authority and majesty of this Court and constitute further direct criminal contempt of this Court.

    8. that even though the clerks records show that the motion wrongfully filed by Attorney John Paul Carroll and Attorney Michelle Gonzalez was impounded by order of this Court, a file stamped copy of the motion was leaked in violation of the impoundment order of this Court, a file stamped copy of the motion was leaked in violation of the impoundment order to Stacy St. Clair, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune newspaper, who posted a link to a full copy of the motion on the Chicago Tribune website, to the Defendant’s great prejudice. Stacy St. Clair has been the recipient of several other leaked documents in this case, the most notable was a copy of Judge White’s sealed ruling on the issue of hearsay which was issued on May 18, 2010, and was soon thereafter leaked to Stacy St. Clair to the Defendant’s great prejudice.

    9. Defendant asks that a special prosecutor be appointed to convene a special grand jury to investigate these multiple leaks to Chicago Tribune Reporter Stacy St. Clair.

    WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays that this Court enter an order striking any and all pleadings and post-trial motions filed by Attorney John Paul Carroll and Attorney Michelle Gonzalez from appearing or filing any other motion or pleading in this case, that the said Attorney john Paul Carroll and Attorney Michelle Gonzalez be held in direct criminal contempt of this Court and imprisoned for a period not to exceed 180 days and/or fined $1000 or both, and that a special prosecutor be appointed to convene a special grand jury to investigate these multiple leaks to Chicago Tribune Reporter Stacy St. Clair, and for such other relief as the Court deems fit.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Joel A. Brodsky

  73. You are welcome Facs!

    I am not sure what I think about him being allowed to go. On one hand, I think it was his mother. On the other hand, I think he is in jail for a reason – PUNISHMENT!

    😕

  74. I am wondering if they push Brodsky out tomorrow, and Carroll fails on his motion for new trial. Can Greenberg step back in and do Drew’s trial appeals, after that?

  75. Shackled Drew Peterson Taken to See Dead Mother at Funeral Home

    Drew Peterson got a half hour with his mother’s body.

    By Joseph Hosey Email the author7:28 pm

    Will County Sheriff’s deputies escorted a shackled Drew Peterson to a Darien funeral home to see his mother’s body for a last time, a source said.

    Peterson had a brief visit with his deceased mother Thursday afternoon before he was returned to the Will County jail, where he has been locked up for the last three and a half years, the source said.

    Peterson was at Modell Funeral Home in Darien for about 15 minutes, the source said.

    Another source said Peterson was in tears while at the funeral home and under guard by several sheriff’s deputies.

    Peterson saw his mother before the public viewing. [snipped]

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/shackled-drew-peterson-taken-to-see-dead-mother-at-funeral-home

  76. Anna, I don’t think it could ever be said that Drew Peterson specifically hates women. I think he regards them the same as everyone else, as someone who can do something for him and provide him with the feelings that he likes to have. When they can no longer give him what he wants he is quick to move on. If they threaten his well-being he makes sure they are stopped.

    He likes everyone fine as long as they don’t interfere with his happiness.

    It’s been reported that Drew was doted on by his mother and that he compared all of his wives to her. She was the perfect house-keeper and in that sense none of his wives were on par.

    I think he totally would have attended his mother’s funeral had he been a free man. He never said anything but loving things about her.

    Should he have been allowed to do it in light of his conviction for murder? A lot of people think he should have been given that privilege.

  77. IMO Drew tells each lawyer what they want to hear. Who cares about the truth? He will do whatever he thinks might help him get out of jail.

    It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

  78. How I wish we could have a camera in the courtroom tomorrow. Cannot imagine how Drew is going to have his cake and eat it too, somehow placating Brodsky while using Caroll to push the motion for a new trial. Hope Judge Burmila brings a big gavel with him.

Comments are closed.