Joel Brodsky withdraws from Drew Peterson defense

After almost five years of representation, Drew Peterson has finally decided to cut loose attorney, Joel Brodsky.

Technically, Brodsky has withdrawn from the case, saying that he wasn’t fired but rather:

It’s in my client’s best interest to step aside and have new, independent counsel step into my shoes and take a new look at this.

Attorney David Peilet, of Clarendon Hills, has taken over as Peterson’s lead attorney and attorney John Heiderscheidt has also joined the team.

John Heiderscheidt & David Peilet

Earlier this month two lawyers associated with Peterson but not representing him at the murder trial, took the step of filing a motion for a new trial based on the ineffective counsel of Brodsky.

At a follow-up court date, Peterson conferenced privately with John Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez, who had filed the motion; as well as with Joel Brodsky and Steven Greenberg. (After Peterson’s conviction for murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, Greenberg and Brodsky publicly traded barbs and Greenberg eventually wrote and disseminated a scathing letter which blamed Brodsky for the loss.) After hearing all of them out, Peterson appeared before Judge Burmila and stated that he did not authorize the motion and that Carroll and Gonzalez did not represent him. The Judge told him to take some time before making a final deliberation on the matter.

Looks as if Peterson took that to heart.

Brodsky and Peterson in 2009

With Joel Brodsky off the defense team, Peterson is now clear to follow up on the motion for ineffective counsel, or to file a new one. If it were to be found that attorney Brodsky’s defense was so bad as to have denied Drew his sixth amendment right to effective counsel, then the guilty verdict would be overturned and a motion for a new trial would be granted.

Joel Brodsky has long demonstrated that he’s not a very good lawyer, but is he so bad that it could get Drew Peterson’s murder conviction overturned?

Stay tuned…

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

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


123 thoughts on “Joel Brodsky withdraws from Drew Peterson defense

  1. I am not a bit surprised at any of this. “Ineffective Counsel” was purposely set in motion by Brodsky and Greenberg when they staged the disagreement in the hallway in front of observers about calling Harry Smith to the stand. They were setting up their appeals.

  2. I couldn’t disagree more with you, Sara.

    No attorney is going to willingly stake his reputation and set himself up for possible disbarment just on the chance that it could get his client a new trial.

    The fact that Joel tried to beg off with a ‘temporary’ withdrawal just shows you how clueless he is. I’ve been following this way too long and seen and heard too much from these attorneys to believe for a second that any of them, last of all, Joel Brodsky would put in thousands of hours of pro bono work for a client and then fall on their sword for him.

    What would Joel possibly gain from it? Nothing. And if there’s nothing to gain from it, Joel is not going to do it.

    The only reason Joel left this case was because he was going to be fired.


  3. I agree…how can one temporary withdrawal…brodsky was behind the the door when the brains were given out..I know he thought they said trains and he went and caught one…we haven’t heard the end of brodsky….he will be on every radio and tv show..he will critique their every move…he wants to go down in history as the most ignorant attorney ..he is well on his way…

  4. Also, I’ve heard some things that lead me to believe that Joel Brodsky absolutely did not want to leave the defense team. I don’t mean to sound secretive or mysterious but I can’t always put everything out here on the blog.

    But you don’t even need insider info to see how badly Joel wanted to stay on the team and be Drew’s main man. Just read back over all that he has said and done since October 9th in order to stay.

    I understand that the past shenanigans of Brodsky/Drew might lead anyone to believe that yet another stunt is at hand, but this time around I just don’t believe it is the case.

  5. Keep in mind that every other time when attorneys have withdrawn from this case, Joel has made sure everyone knows that Drew was about to fire them.

    I have to believe that this was Drew’s choice and that Joel was given the option to withdraw so as not to suffer the embarrassment of being fired.

    Drew realizes that he needs to grab at every chance he can to get a new trial. If it means throwing Joel under the bus, does anyone think he wouldn’t do it? I’m sure it was a difficult decision but ultimately he’s got to do what’s in his own best interest.

    Drew wants to get out of jail and go home.

  6. It is now official that attorney Joel Brodsky is OFF Drew Peterson’s legal team. The former “lead attorney in the case” appeared before Judge Burmila during a status hearing Tuesday morning. As State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow explained, Brodsky tried to step aside temporarily at first, but was then told YOU’RE EITHER “IN” OR “OUT.”

    So now, two-thirds of the original Peterson legal team remains, with two others who have jumped on board.

  7. on brodsky’s f/b..he talks of how intelligent Mancow is…and he will be on his show..that in itself is a circus..brodsky will use that show to get his point across..your right ..drew wants to go home..we have to find Stacy…

  8. Sure does seem like Drew gave him the option to withdraw to help him save face. It will be interesting to see if his new attorney will submit Brodsky’s huge mistake as an ineffective counsel appeal argument. I don’t know how Drew wouldn’t do that to give himself a chance of a new trial. Save Brodsky’s career or possibly get put of prison… Easy choice IMO. Are Lopez and Steve G still on the case?? That would sooooo burn Brodsky!

  9. Looks like Attorney Peilet has a pending complaint against him with the ARDC.


    In the Matter of:

    No. 6198458.

    Commission No. 2012PR00042
    FILED – April 30, 2012

  10. Thoughts and prayers to Stacy’s loved ones as the 5th anniversary has passed. And I am so sorry to hear that SMM has passed and that lack of insurance resulted in her losing medical treatments that could have possible helped her. This world is often not fair but she is now in a place with no pain, only happiness and laughter, and has probably gotten to talk to Kathleen and Stacy to find out what really happened. ❤

  11. Anna, Joel was on Mancow’s show on October 22. I put the photo up in the comments somewhere…

    TAI, remember how Susan used to call Joel Drew’s “Legal Marshmallow Roaster”? She would have loved to see Joel fired today.

  12. Brodsky and Mancow belong together. I lost all respect for Mancow back when he made fun of Michael J Fox’s Parkinson Disease diagnosis. My grandma died of Parkinsons and it sickens me that people like Mancow and Brodsky can attack those who are handed a bad hand in life. Mocking those with terminal diseases, a dead woman, and a missing-but-presumed-dead woman is beyond comprehension.

  13. Brodsky, who first began representing Peterson nearly five years ago, insisted he wasn’t fired by the former Bolingbrook cop and convicted wife killer.

    “It’s in my client’s best interest to step aside and have new, independent counsel step into my shoes and take a new look at this,” said Brodsky, who appeared to have tears in his eyes after leaving a closed door meeting with Peterson before the court hearing.

    In court, Brodsky first told Judge Edward Burmila that he wanted to “temporarily step aside” so new attorneys could review what appeals to pursue following Peterson’s September murder conviction.

    But after Burmila blocked any temporary steps, Brodsky simply said he was withdrawing from the case.

  14. Facs – I do remember. SMM has done so much for others and I am sure she had a front seat (and possibly helped move along) the karma that finally got Drew to drop Brodsky. I still remember the “It’s just one day” kind of comment Brodsky made when he missed Drew’s arraignment and wasn’t there to argue a lower bond on the spot because he was on vacation and making media appearances. Everyone knows that once an official order is made it is much harder to overturn than fighting before the formality. Brodsky was probably crying because they kept Steve G. Even if the new guy only keeps Steve G for a day it is priceless to see Brodsky the first casualty of Drew’s 3-headed monster.

  15. And if you buy this I’ve got a dry basement apartment in Atlantic City to sell you.

    In the weeks after he was convicted of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, it was clear that Peterson was wavering and had serious doubts about Joel Brodsky and his prowess.

    Nevertheless Brodsky insisted he was not being fired. The man who will be replacing Brodsky as lead counsel agrees. Attorney Dave Peilet told reporters today that Brodsky is stepping down in the best interest of his client.

    “He did so in light of his belief that him doing so was in the best interest of Mr. Peterson, in light of all the facts that have transpired in the last couple weeks,” Peilet said. “He was not discharged. He stepped down on his own. I applaud him for that.”,0,6040846.story

  16. …two other lawyers joined up. New attorney John Heiderscheidt declined to comment on the case after the hearing. The other Peterson lawyer to come on board, David Peilet, said he is “going to explore every possible remedy available to Mr. Peterson” in hopes of getting the convicted murderer a new trial…

    …”There’s going to be no more public fingerpointing,” the new lawyer said.

    Greenberg and three other attorneys from Peterson’s murder trial are still on the case. But one of the surviving lawyers, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, said they might have to go too.

    “Maybe in the future we may have to withdraw,” he said.

    Allegations that Brodsky managed to lose Peterson’s murder trial made his exit necessary, according to lawyers still on the case. It will be up to Peilet to determine whether the allegations have merit.

    “By removing Mr. Brodsky there’s no obstacles we have to go through,” Lopez said.

  17. this saga of hindsight of what should have been done…how DP sleeps at night…hindsight Kathleen and Stacy should be alive and with their children….please facs…tell me how he can get a new trial..other than attorneys fighting …their is no new evidence..and isn’t that what they would need….

  18. If they could prove that there was ineffective assistance of counsel, then Drew could get a new trial. The constitution guarantees effective counsel so it’s a sixth amendment right.

    Drew (his lawyers) would have to prove two things:

    Deficient performance by Joel Brodsky.


    Resulting prejudice, in that but for the deficient performance of Joel Brodsky, the result of the proceeding would have differed.

  19. The motion is filed and the judge either grants or dismisses the motion.

    To the best of my knowledge, if the court grants the motion for ineffective assistance then the guilty verdict will be reversed and a motion for a new trial will be granted.

    Of course they could also appeal on that basis, after sentencing.

  20. 🙂 Facs, your take on whether Brodsky would willingly step aside is so correct IMO. And I agree Brodsky couldn’t possibly have been foolish enough to stage the fight between he and Greenberg, trying to give Drew a reason to claim ineffective counsel. That fight was real IMO. But I do think Greenberg’s accusations against Brodsky started the ball rolling, and the other lawyers have picked it up. I have a hard time thinking we’ve seen the last of Brodsky – can’t imagine there won’t be more craziness of some kind. 😦

  21. he is already started…he’s planning a news many people get to do that..I wish Kathleen and Stacy could have called one and let the world know about DP…..


    Darn. I was really hoping the two narcissistic sociopaths would have continued in their misogynystic fairy-tale world until there was no more hope of a retrial. They were so meant for each other.

    As soon as Greenberg’s letter made it’s way to the public eye, you can bet some of those closest to Drew were able to use it as a billy-club to wake Drew up to the reality of the trial. Drew’s ONLY hope of getting out of jail is to portray Joel as a manipulative slash-and-burn solicitor who terrified even his own cohorts, preventing them from representing Drew in the fair way to which he was entitled. Surely now that Drew has been shown the light, it will become clear to everyone just how Joel controlled the entire team and, more importantly, Drew.

    Shucks. I will miss Joel. Really I will.

  23. ROFL laughing! The circus never ends……better stock up on your popcorn, and munchies and get ready for yet another show that never ends! I see clearly what is going on here, and what has been going on since the beginning with him and Brodsky. I think right now Joel had no choice because it is the ONLY way Drew has a chance in H@ll of getting a new trial. The two amigos would of never parted otherwise! This is yet another one of their “stunts” to try and get him out of jail. They had no choice in the matter. …….I wouldn’t let Drew out on bail if he does get another trial……he just might take off this time not wanting to chance get convicted again and no way ever to get out.

  24. Double darn, Atlgran, I think we were all hoping for the same thing! I guess it’s too much to hope that the new lawyers will be of the same high caliber as Brodsky 😉 But we can hope they will be just as “ineffective”.

  25. Well, IMO, it looks like Greenberg finally got, just what he set out to get with that letter he wrote and sent to the media. I was furious at him about that, and still am. He knew exactly what that letter would do for Drew, and save himself from getting fired. He could turn the table on Joel, and get him fired instead, and The letter was everything Drew needed to file, with that motion, and effectively make wittnesses out of the whole defense team. Excluding Brodsky, of course.
    They all knew that was going to happen, when Greenberg sent that letter to the media. I could see the handwritting on the wall, when he did that. I was upset, because he was supposed to have been fired, from the case, when he did that. That seems unethical to me. But it certainly has worked out, just as he planned for it to.
    I just hope to God, the Judge denies the motion for a new trial, but I really have my doubts, now. Makes me sick to think that they can talk to the Jury After a Trial, and then use that information to get a new trial.
    Just shows me that the Jury should not go public after a trial. Not that it is the Jury’s fault, I think there needs to be somekind of a law against that, if there isn’t one. That information gave Greenberg the ammo he needed to write that letter, and get everything turned around, for Drew. How can those guys, want to be wittnesses, and defend Drew so much, when they All KNOW he is GUILTY of murdering 2 women, the mothers of 4 children. To get him off, by a technicality is beyond anything I can imagine.

  26. IMO. Greenberg, and Lopez will be the next 2 attorney’s to withdraw, because they are the only 2 left on the defense team. The others have already withdrawn. Not talking about Brodsky. I think Drew gave him a choice to withdraw, or be fired.
    I think as soon as the new attorney announces he is filing for a new trial, for ineffective assistance of counsel, Greenberg and Lopez will announce they Have to withdraw from the case, because they will be called as wittnesses against Brodsky, in the New Trial.
    Just like Greenberg, and all of them, Except Joel, planned. I don’t think Joel thought Drew would ever fire him, his tactics had worked against all the other attorney’s, except for Greenberg. Just didn’t work out like Joel thought it would. Not that I feel a bit sorry for Joel, I have just never seen a bunch of attorney’s turn on another one, the way they all have Joel. I still think Drew was playing his cards, and told Joel to put Smith on the Stand. I don’t think Joel would have gone against what Drew wanted him to do.

    Another thing that gets to me now, is the fact that by Joel putting Drew on TV, etc. that is what made this such a high profile case, other wise after him sitting in the clink for 3 years, people would have forgotten all about him, and That is WHY all these other attorney’s want in on this case now. Don’t they all feel important. Now they can turn on Joel and use all of that against him, to help Drew. Not a single one of them would be interested in this case, if it wasn’t high profile.
    That is disgusting to me. Not a real man among them, IMO

  27. Jeannie, I know you keep seeing some kind of premeditated plan by Greenberg, but I just don’t see it. Yes, I do believe that Greenberg was determined to throw enough damaging evidence out into the atmosphere that it would have been difficult for Peterson to keep Brodsky on board.

    But, I see it more as something borne out of complete frustration for the jerk (Brodsky) and how he was guilty of pushing Drew again and again into seeing everything the way Brodsky wanted him to see it. I strongly suspect that any attempt by another member of the defense team to try and steer Drew in another direction was met with fierce — and I do mean fierce — objection by Brodsky, who would manipulate Drew into believing he alone had Drew’s best interests at heart. There is no doubt in my mind that the entire team was bullied and cajoled into following Brodsky’s lead, even when it was outright detrimental to Drew’s case.

    Now…that being said, they are all grownups. A man of character would stand up to Brodsky and boisterously quit rather than succumb to doing the wrong thing for his client. Others walked away from the team — Greenberg could have done the same. Instead, he and Shark joined Brodsky in the childish shenanigans.

    They owed it to Drew to paint a very clear picture of what was going to happen if he agreed to Brodsky’s pick of witnesses. I suspect they did, and therein lies the entire “problem” in a nutshell.

    Drew is an adult. He made a bad choice just like Brodsky made a bad choice. That doesn’t mean Drew was not represented fairly — far from it. He had six attorneys representing him. The fact that he would only listen to the counsel of Brodsky only reflects poorly on him — it doesn’t mean that he had ineffective counsel.

  28. I agree, ATL. Drew had a surplus of seasoned trial attorneys at his disposal and he chose Joel to take the lead. He explained long ago that he had an affinity for Joel. How many defendants have the luxury of a team of six attorneys? If he didn’t want to take Joel’s advice he didn’t have to.

    That said, I can completely imagine him turning on Joel and lying in court, just like he lied about authorizing Carroll and Gonzalez to file the motion.

  29. Altgranny, I respect your opinion, but I still think Greenberg knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote that letter, and sent it to the media. He knew Steven Peterson would see it, and others would talk to him about it, and what Steven would do with it. I would have done the same thing if that was my Dad in jail. I think anyone would have. That was my first thought after reading that letter. And if I thought that, and Steven Peterson thought that, Why wouldn’t Greenberg think that? I believe he would have thought that.
    Your Quote of,

    Now…that being said, they are all grownups. A man of character would stand up to Brodsky and boisterously quit rather than succumb to doing the wrong thing for his client. Others walked away from the team — Greenberg could have done the same. Instead, he and Shark joined Brodsky in the childish shenanigans.

    That pretty much says it all to me.

  30. Also, how could Joel initially only want to “temporarily” withdraw – does that mean he was considered to be only temporarily ineffective (like only when you lose a case but become effective again upon submitting an appeal)

  31. I do agree with you, Facs and Alt, on a lot of this stuff, about Drew and Joel. Of course, Drew’s defense team, had to defend him with everything they could. And Drew had the right to listen or not to listen to them. It was his call, all the way. That is what makes me furious thinking that Greenberg, gave Drew all the ammo Drew needed, in that letter, to do just what he did. He knew Drew had enough time to read it and think about it, and get someone to do what Greenberg IMO told him to do, that day in Court, when he didn’t fire him. And that day in Court when Drew was allowed to go into a private room with Greenberg, just what do you think they talked about? He also talked to Lopez that day. Wonder what they talked about? Wouldn’t be the same thing would it? Don’t suppose he was checking with Lopez to see if all of that would work, and if Lopez would go along with Greenberg, and withdraw from case, and become a witness for him do you? I don’t think Drew is smart enough, or knows that much about the law, to plan all of that out. Getting Carroll, to file, etc. and to keep lying about it. Drew knew Carroll would do that for him, remember the will? I’m sure Carroll told him the same thing. Someone had to tell him HOW to do all of that, so they could get it all on Record in Court That Day, because they couldn’t file it later, if he didn’t. I know Greenberg Knew another attorney would attach that letter to his motion. He isn’t dumb enough to Not know that, he certainly knew enough to say he didn’t have any control over what was attached to the motion, didn’t he? I just don’t think Drew knows that much, to figure out he can keep lying about Not giving Carroll and Gonzalez permission to file that motion, and attach Greenberg’s letter to it. And keep Brodsky on at the same time. He could always fire Brodsky later. No, I don’t think Drew is that smart, he had to have help, figuring all of that out, and some reasurrance that he wouldn’t get into trouble for doing that. How many other people do you know, that would do that, without some advice from attorney’s?
    It all fits in with Drew’s personality, Do Anything you want to, and then just keep lying about it all later, it’s just kinda sick when an attorney encourages it and helps you do it. IMO

    Just like Facs said,

    “That said, I can completely imagine him turning on Joel and lying in court, just like he lied about authorizing Carroll and Gonzalez to file the motion.”

    Just like he murdered two of his wives, and has lied, and lied about it ever since.

  32. Give Joel some time to sleep on this and to-morrow he’ll say something entirely different from what he said to-day.

    To-day he said he wasn’t pushed, in fact Drew did not want him to go (!) and he will still lend his expertise to help file several motions etc.

  33. Yay, I can comment again.

    Now that Brodders is out, I wonder if he is going to turn on Drew and reveal Stacy’s whereabouts?

  34. I believe you are giving way too much credit to Greenberg for staging this incredibly convoluted ruse and don’t think it’s anything near that compllicated.

    I suspect that Stephen “hired” Carroll because he trusted him and knew Drew trusted him, too. Yes, Greenberg’s letter set the wheel turning — but it seemed to be more out of frustration at Joel than anything. (Something like saying “If anyone knew what this jerk was like”….and he just blasted away.)

    Once Stephen read Greenberg’s letter, he knew that his dad had been taken in by Joel and wasn’t going to listen to him badmouth Joel. Carroll was a trusted friend (isn’t he Drew’s uncle?). Carroll was able to persuade Drew that Joel had sabbotaged his trial and he stood a good chance of getting a retrial based on incompetent representation. I suspect that Carroll laid out a convincing argument and Drew agreed.

    Enter Joel. Once Joel found out about the new plan, he just lost it. He raged about the betrayal, attacking Drew for being a party to this betrayal. Drew folded under the pressure, believing fully that Joel would make good on his threat to betray confidences.

    The only way that Drew would have dumped Joel is if someone was able to get him away from Joel long enough to have it sink in — Joel was the main reason why he remained in jail. The judge himself cautioned Drew about keeping Joel as his lead attorney. That had to make a real impression on Drew — judges don’t typically do things like that.

    Yes, Greenberg’s letter started the ball rolling, but I don’t believe for a minute that he was trying to lay out a complicated chain of events. I think he was merely furious with Joel putting Kathy’s attorney on the stand and lashed out to “show everyone” what a total jerk Joel is.

    The snowball just kept rolling down the hill after that.

    These two new attorneys are going to have their hands full, that’s for sure. I doubt Joel will slink silently into the sunset…

    Mod Edit/ John Carroll is an attorney. James Carroll was Drew’s Uncle. There is no relation between John Carroll and Drew Peterson.

  35. 🙂

    But Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said he was confident that Peterson’s conviction will be upheld on appeal.

    “I’m not the least bit concerned about any motion filed relative to ineffective assistance of counsel,” he said.

    When asked if he would miss Brodsky, Glasgow, who often seemed unhappy with the former lead attorney’s numerous media appearances, held back a smile.

    “Well, ironically, I have to say no,” Glasgow said.,0,4185024.story

  36. I’m kind of bummed that Brodsky got fired withdrew. He was doing such a great job!

    Facs, I saw your post about Stacy being gone 5 years, and it made you sad that nobody seemed to care. Well, I care. I’ve been busy lately but am never far from here. I will be here and continue to support this site, and justice for Stacy and her family!

  37. Thanks Harley, I heard from a few other people as well and it’s good to know that people still care.

    It was really more the media coverage that I was upset about. I was bummed that there was just the one story that I saw in the Tribune. I know it’s not news per se, but Stacy is still a missing person and with Drew’s conviction and the boosted reward via Jeff Ruby, it seemed like a good time to remind people and maybe motivate someone who knows something to speak up. I’ll just blame Hurricane Sandy for the silence! 🙂

    Anna, I didn’t see anything further about a press conference. Apparently he was on WGN news this morning.

    Honestly, I know he’s just going to blather BS about “stepping down” as to allow Drew to take whatever steps he needs to take. This seems to be the official line, although I think it’s a safe guess that he was going to be fired if he didn’t do it. Only my opinion, of course.

  38. Hey, Nat! Glad to see you were able to get back on the site.

    AFAIK Brodsky can’t reveal anything that Drew has told him as it would violate their attorney/client privilege.

    Even if he did say something, it couldn’t be used as evidence in a trial against Drew.

  39. thanks facs…this man will go to his grave lying to himself…he is a pitiful excuse for a man…attorney…or just a human being…he says the newpapers and media never get it right…again whose feeding them with the information…does he ever look in a mirror…I have yet to hear from anyone that he (brodsky) has done anything right..

  40. “Drew wanted me to stay. The reason why I resigned was so that the case could move forward. It was stalled with personality conflicts from within the defense team… In Drew’s best interest, I decided to step aside so they could get a proper motion on file, and its due in less than two weeks,” said Brodsky.

    “Yesterday, (the judge) asked (Peterson) if he wanted to adopt any of those allegations that were made against me, and he, in open court, said no.. So those false allegations have been put aside,” said Brodsky.

    Brodsky says hearsay evidence led the defense to call divorce attorney Harry Smith as a witness. Several jurors said Smith’s testimony helped lead to a conviction.

    “Drew was pleased after he was called. He felt it pointed out that the (Peterson’s missing 4th wife) Stacey hearsay was motivated solely by an attempt to extort money from him.. but the jury didn’t see it that way,” said Brodsky. “it wasn’t an error. It was strategy that the jury didn’t accept.”

  41. He’s such a terrible liar, too.

    Q: “What did Drew Peterson say to you?”

    A: “Nothing. He wanted me to stay.”

    Well, then did he say nothing, or did he say he wanted you to stay? 🙄

  42. it was strategy…says brodsky….I remember the in session team saying out loud almost together …..he’s put him in the house…so it was brodsky’s strategy that put drew behind bars…let’s hear it for strategy…

  43. I don’t think they can get a new trial for Drew based on the decision to call Harry Smith to the stand.

    Not after Joel has stated that it was a strategy that simply didn’t work and that he had consulted beforehand with numerous attorneys who said it was a good idea.

    I don’t think they could even prove that Joel went rogue with the decision when you have Joe Lopez posting things like this on his Facebook wall:

    Joseph Lopez
    September 1
    People have really criticized Joel Brodsky for calling Harry Smith to the stand. He knows more about this case than any member of the defense or prosecution. He did it for reason not because he is an idiot. It was a tactical decision for which we hope the public will understand, if we loose its not because of Harry Smith.

  44. Anna, I had to laugh at the end of that clip when Joel talked himself into a corner with defending that decision as a strategy. So it was the jurors’ fault that his strategy didn’t work because…they just didn’t appreciate the mastery of it? They didn’t “accept” the strategy?

    Or maybe, it was just a terrible risk to take and it backfired in your face.

    Yeah, I think that’s it.

  45. he repeats himself constantly…all his interviews are the same..drew said…drew’s happy with the decision….drew thought we did a great job…drew’s idea to put smith on the stand….someone could make a you-tube tape from all his interviews and it would be an hour of drew said….my question is why drew needed any attorneys…if drew said…lol….

  46. I find it amazing that Joel says that putting Harry Smith on the stand was a “joint decision. Nobody objected to it before he was called.”

    Really, Joel? I thought there were several witnesses to the shouting match in the hallway between you and Greenberg about keeping Smith off the stand.

    Selective memory.

  47. Yeah, there’s been too much finger pointing!

    Brodsky Says Greenberg was not Prepared

    Former Drew Peterson legal team leader Joel Brodsky says his decision to remove himself from the Peterson case was simply HIS CHOICE; FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS CLIENT. But Broksky also told 1340 WJOL’s Scott Slocum that despite all the bickering among Peterson’s lawyers since his conviction, HE STILL BELIEVES that the case can be successfully appealed. For one thing, there was the issue of THE JURY POOL sitting there forever until the trial happened.

    Brodsky DID, however, mention one of his former fellow attorneys on the legal team: Steven Greenburg…..when he was talking about having FEW REGRETS about the Peterson Defense Team’s approach. Brodsky says he believes the defense teams’ game plan was the right one, but also believes Greenberg was not properly prepared for some witnesses.

    Drew Peterson is scheduled to be sentenced January 10th, with another session for the Peterson Defense Team’s “appeal efforts” set for January 19th.

  48. this all goes back to drew said…greenberg wasn’t properly prepared…what does it mean…it’s a man who doesn’t know criminal law….who allowed his client to parade around like a clown at a make jokes of 2 dead mothers…then stands in front of microphones and says Stacy who….this is a man who shouldn’t be able to practice law…he should never be able to talk in a microphone….he hurts people with his words…he needs to fade in the woodwork…

  49. Can we get clarification? In the Trib article mentioned by Facs above (11:54 a.m.) the written article by Stacy St. Clair says (in part):

    “Veteran criminal defense attorneys Joseph Lopez and Steve Greenberg, who had publicly feuded with Brodsky, will remain on the defense team. Also joining Peterson’s legal team is John Heiderscheidt, who began practicing law less than a year ago.”

    Yet, at the very end of the accompanying video, where the two reporters are talking amongst themselves, the woman says something to the effect that Greenberg and Lopez will be stepping aside. Earlier in the video you could see the new lead attorney, David Peilet, with Greenberg standing behind him.

    So, which is it? Are they on the team or off??

  50. According to Joel he left because he doesn’t like finger pointing.

    He only blames the Jury, the hearsay evidence, the other lawyers, the States Attorney, Drew wanting to talk all the time and most of all having an unwinnable case in the first place.

    On Drews sentencing he says it doesn’t matter what sentence Drew gets as at his age any sentence is a life sentence anyway ………..

  51. Thinking over the sequence of events, I find myself wondering what effect Brodsky’s attempt to get Greenberg dismissed resulted in Brodsky’s own dismissal. Assuming that Brodsky was responsible for attempting to get Greenberg fired immediately after the verdict, this effort escalated into the public feud which resulted in Greenberg’s letter, which in turn provided the basis for the IAC claim by Carroll. That claim ultimately forced the judge to advise Drew to consider getting new counsel, and he did just that. Had Brodsky never attempted to remove Greenberg, doesn’t it seem likely Brodsky would still be lead counsel today?

  52. Joel did an interview on 560 Wind today as well:

    Joel Brodsky on AM 560 WIND October 31, 2012

    AMY JACOBSON: When did you come to this decision that maybe it’s in the best interest of your client to step down?

    JOEL BRODSKY: Over the last week. It’s been something I’ve been thinking about. Yesterday, this whole Ineffective Assistance stuff was rested yesterday when Drew in open court disavowed, refused to adopt any of the allegations that were made against me and he told the court he disavowed them and he wasn’t going to adopt not one of them, not even one of the allegations and at that point we’re still at loggerheads. There’s a real division in personalities in the defense team and it was just not moving forward and we have some very good issues on appeal, some really great issues and it wasn’t in Drew’s best interest that the lawyers be involved in pointing fingers at each other when they really needed to look at what was in Drew’s best interest and move those issues forward into post-trial and appeal and it just wasn’t getting done so I decided, that in Drew’s best interest, so that his–he’s looking at sixty years in prison, dying in prison–that in his best interest, I’m the one that said, “I’m lead counsel” so it’s my responsibility and that I be the one that blinks and steps aside so that the case can move forward.

    JACOBSON: I could tell this was a hard decision for you. I could see the tears in your eyes…

    BRODSKY: I don’t know about that…

    JACOBSON: …when you left the courtroom and. Oh, so those weren’t? Were those fake tears or were you genuinely…?

    BRDOSKY: No, there weren’t any tears. I don’t know where that came from. I mean…

    JACOBSON: Well, maybe the wind got you. It looked like you were crying if you want to come look at the video.

    BRODSKY: Not at all. I don’t know. It’s funny. Someone from another news channel talked about my body language the time before. I don’t know where some of this stuff comes from.

    JACOBSON: Well was Drew Peterson sad you’re not going to be his lead counsel anymore, ’cause you two have become close. You’ve worked together for five years.

    BRODSKY: Oh yeah! He did not want me to withdraw. But, we sat and we talked that morning and talked for some times and I explained to him that somebody had to blink. This fight among the defense team had to stop. It wasn’t in his interest that it keep going and that everybody else was just being overly stubborn and not really looking at his best interest. I had to do what’s best for him and he understood that.

    JACOBSON: We spoke with David Pielet who’s going to be replacing you and he said he won’t rule out an appeal based on ineffective counsel. How does that sit with you?

    BRODSKY: Well he can, against any lawyer. He’s going to look at the whole record so maybe it’s going to be against Greenberg for not being prepared or not preserving some of the errors on appeal. Who knows what’s going to happen so he’s going to look at the whole record against everybody. That’s why a fresh, outside person was brought in. So he could take a really good fresh look at everything. But, Drew, in court yesterday said he was not adopting and he was disavowing any of those allegations that were made against me. So those are put to rest. Those are done. Those are gone. If Pielet sees something else new, against anybody, against Lopez, Greenberg, Ralph Mecyzk, Goldberg, anybody, he’ll assert it. That’s his job.

    JACOBSON: Now, besides hiring David Pielet, he also, Drew Peterson hired an attorney named John Heiderscheidt? He’s two years out of law school. Who is this guy?

    BRODSKY: Well, I don’t think he, he didn’t really hire him. John volunteered to help and his record on appeal in these cases is immense so I think that he accepted his help, so to speak or Dave Pielet accepted his help, ’cause there is a lot to learn, especially for somebody coming in fresh. There’s a lot to learn and i told Dave if he has any questions I know the record pretty well, that I’d be more than happy to help in any way shape or form I can.

    JACOBSON: Is there any possibility you can still go and visit Drew Peterson in prison like you used to or talk to him on the phone?

    BRODSKY: Yeah, he called me on the phone yesterday afternoon so I’m sure we’ll talk. He said he was going to call me probably today or tomorrow, end of the week for sure, so there’s nothing new about that. I’m still representing him on the civil case, the wrongful death case, that’s been put by the Savios, so there’s that. Yeah. Sure. Drew still appreciates everything I did for him. This was done, as I said, it had nothing to do with me. It’s not about Joel Brodsky. It’s not about any of the lawyers. It’s all about Drew Peterson–the guy who’s looking at spending the rest of his life in prison and that’s what the focus has got to be on and not finger pointing among lawyers.

    JACOBSON: If you could turn back the clock would you have taken him to the Today Show so many times, had the Win a Date with Drew Peterson, would you erase that or do anything differently?

    BRODSKY: Well, the Today Show, no. The thing with Steve Dahl certainly wasn’t planned. It just happened. We were both fans so I don’t know if that would have turned out different. That thing just happened. As far as the Today Show, certainly. I would have. There’s no problem with that at all.

    JACOBSON: All right. Before we let you go, how is Drew Peterson doing? Is he upbeat? Does he seem positive about this appeal?

    BRODSKY: He’s obviously very concerned. He certainly doesn’t have as much swagger. That’s for certain. The conviction and the trial certainly took some of his swagger out of him. He’s like anyone who doesn’t want to spend the rest of their life in prison. That’s why I did what I did. So we could focus on the appeal. I mean we’ve got, when I last put together the list, we’ve got well over twenty-eight really solid issues on appeal that have nothing to do with ineffective assistance by anybody. Those are the issues that need to be concentrated on. Any lawyer will tell you that ineffective assistance is the weakest argument one could make. That’s probably the rarest one. That’s the last one you make. But we’ve got some really great issues with hearsay and clergy privilege and marital privilege. Those are the ones that need to be focused on, and it wasn’t happening. Somebody had to do what’s best for Drew and that’s why I decided to do it.

  53. Hey Facs 🙂

    I know Brodsky would be violating attorney/client privelege but since when has unethical behaviour stopped him doing anything in the past?

    Too bad it couldn’t be used against Drew, however.

    This is of course pure speculation on my part. He may know nothing, but I personally think he knows a lot. IMO.

  54. Not a bad theory, @Daniel Scott.

    Even before the verdict was in there were accusations and blame being tossed around. It seems to me that it got to the level at which Drew had to choose a side, and he sided with the stronger, more experienced attorney.

  55. I’d say – give Joel some time and he’ll do what he thinks he needs to do and that is throw anyone under the bus, including his infamous client, if that makes him look better.

    He’s already started by saying Drew was the one wanting to talk to the Media all the time and that he (Brodsky) did not approve but couldn’t stop him, so his strategy there was “if you can’t beat him, join him” (his words, not mine).

    So Joel is now suddenly in denial about his “white noise” policy that seemed to work so well for him and his client – LOL !

  56. JAH, I noticed that little lapse in Brodsky’s devotion to Drew also, and it struck me as the first tiny crack in their relationship. Of course it’s just part of Brodsky’s CYA program, but I say keep talking Brodsky… we might hear something useful one of these days!

  57. In all fairness, Joel has been saying for years that he had advised Drew to be quiet, but he wouldn’t and so Joel decided to just go with the flow (which is BS since he hired a PR firm and booked him on everything he could find). He’s also been saying that it’s all part of his ‘white Noise’ technique.

    Seriously, Joel just seems to say whatever might paint him in the best light at any given moment.

  58. Oh Facs, you burst my bubble 🙂 It’s hard to believe Joel could have been consistent in anything he’s said over the years LOL. I’m still going to hope for the big meltdown and getting some useful info out of him.

  59. I agree with Daniel..I also think that drew was so caught up in the trial and attention that it didn’t hit him until later…sitting in his cell and saying I was found guilty…how could that happen….there will be more chapters…my hope is it includes Stacy…

  60. Personally, I’m a little disheartened that Brodsky lost his job. Brodsky was doing excellent work in keeping Drew in jail, and I can’t imagine Brodsky winning any appeal. The other attorneys are much sharper pencils. If Drew ever goes to trial on Stacy, I sure wish Brodsky would be his main guy.

  61. again I agree with you about brodsky..but I also feel when they find Stacy..they have a lot more evidence to prosecute drew than they had with Kathleen….not as much hearsay…more facts..they probably have some that we don’t know about…either way..I don’t see drew out of jail..

  62. After watching Drew’s April Fool joke with Mancow again, I’m a believer! Joel and Drew have BOTH been consistent over the years… consistently disgusting, arrogant liars 😉 IMO, of course

  63. he had 7 attorneys and how many helpers….the captain may have been an attorney..and a idiot…he had 6 others….most cases are tried with one or two..he had his day in court….

  64. Geeze oh pete……Did anyone else notice Lopez scratching the daylights out of his arm in the beginning of that video? Poor guy must have had hives from his day in court!

    Other than the typical blowhard comments from Brodsky, the team has been mum. Looks like Peilet has been a positive influence, even if he doesn’t concede to the leadership role. The more Brodsky sqawks, the more ammunition they’ll have.

    Still doesn’t rise to the level of incompetent counsel, IMO. Not with that many attorneys. I would guess that they have to try, though.

  65. I have watched so many interviews of brodsky…in these last few interviews you can see in his eyes and mannerisms that he is lying…facs brought my attention to it..brodsky had been crying..he can’t look anyone in the eye…his alter ego has been crushed…I’m afraid we haven’t heard the last of brodsky..if drew isn’t given a new trial…brodsky will be smiling from ear to ear…

  66. It’s interesting that the Will County Court site has still not added Greenberg back to the list of attorneys on this case. Maybe since he officially withdrew, he still needs to officially withdraw his withdrawal. Also Golderg is still listed, which seems weird.

    Anyway, despite Brodsky’s assertion that Heiderscheidt is just “helping out” he appears to be officially representing Drew.

    Defendant: PETERSON DREW W.

    Attorney: LOPEZ JOSEPH R.
    Attorney: LOPEZ LISA
    Attorney: PEILET DAVID JAY

    Another order for a contact visit was filed yesterday.

  67. I still find it hard to believe Joel would just get up and leave, let alone leave quietly and even more so as the result of an act of extreme altruism on his part (having the best interest of his client at heart).

    Perhaps there is a clue in the last sentence of this bit of reporting:

    “In the documents, Carroll accuses lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky of lying about his courtroom experience, forcing Peterson to engage in pretrial 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”.

  68. Except if that were true it would have been a reason for Brodsky to stay, not to leave. Anyway, as I keep saying, no matter what information Joel has about Drew, it’s totally protected by attorney/client privilege so any threat would be an empty. Unless Drew was a complete moron, there’s no way he’d be intimidated by what Joel may know. If Joel were to spill the beans on anything it would be a total backfire as it would result in him being disbarred.

    If it does get to the point that Joel is faced with an ineffective assistance claim, then the attorney/client privilege will be waived, but only so far as it takes him to address those claims. He will not be allowed to just give up everything he knows about Drew.

    I don’t think anyone believes, no matter how much Joel says it, that he’s leaving out of some kind of self-sacrificing concern for Drew. Drew almost fired him two weeks ago, was talked out of it, and then the judge told him to think it over. To me it simply looks as if he had a good think about it (plus a contact visit or two from other attorneys) and decided he had to give Joel the boot. As has been done before, Joel was given the option to withdraw rather than being fired outright, so as to not be completely humiliated.

    This is what I’m guessing, and at this point is only my opinion, but to me it makes sense.

  69. Thanks Facs, for trying to make it all sensible. I really get a knot in my stomach thinking about the ineffective assistance claim and possibility of another trial etc. It will be such a relief when Drew is finally sentenced and goes to prison!

  70. Advancing the theory that Brodsky does “know a little secret” and made Drew believe he would have to tell all, if he was fired and ineffective assistance was claimed – could that have been Drew’s delima in giving Brodsky the boot the first time around? But when a new lawyer was consulted, Drew became satisfied, as Facs explained, “If Joel were to spill the beans on anything it would be a total backfire as it would result in him being disbarred.” Voila, here we are, IMO.

    Forgive me if it doesn’t make sense:-) Maybe I have a weird way of thinking!

  71. Looks more like Drew has been double crossing everyone, including Joel Brodsky:

    “This morning he appears in court to address before Judge Stephen Burmilla two motions which address his
    legal representation. Attorneys John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez have filed a motion for a new trial based on ineffective counsel by Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky. Gonzalez says that Peterson hired them to do this, and Carroll states that Drew told him “Go ahead” with the motion.

    Yesterday, Joel Brodsky distributed his own motion alleging that Drew Peterson never gave Carroll and Gonzalez legal authority to challenge his effectiveness. His motion also asked that they be charged with contempt and that a grand jury and special prosecutor be called to investigate leaks of impounded documents.”

  72. It’s funny, but I somehow believe Joel Brodsky when he said Drew told him he did a good job representing him and didn’t want him to leave, whilst (as we now know) Drew was already assembling another team of lawyers……….

  73. Can someone jog my memory about Brodsky’s motion wanting Carroll and Gonzalez charged with contempt – was it actually filed, and do we know what the “leaks of impounded documents” referred to?

  74. brodsky wears many hats….husband …attorney…captain…with those hats comes a different personality…he doesn’t do any of them well…which is why they crumble…he has this need never to fail…and failing can be a learning experience….drew killed 2 women for greed…we are dealing with a cold blooded killer and all brodsky wants to hear is how great he is…

  75. Looking back to Oct 12 post, answered my own question about Brodsky’s Notice of Motion, and the referenced Impounded Documents (supposedly leaked to news media). Again I have to say this blog is the best, Facs – thanks for putting all the info out there for us!

  76. Every once in a while I like to update and post this:

    Drew Peterson’s legal team

    Fred Morelli
    Gary Johnson
    Joel A. Brodsky
    Reem Odeh
    Andrew Abood
    John Carrol
    Walter Maksym
    George Lenard
    Steven A. Greenberg (for now)
    Joseph R. Lopez (for now)
    Lisa Lopez (for now)
    Ralph Meczyk (for now)
    Darryl Goldberg
    David J. Peilet
    John W. Heiderscheidt

  77. thanks facs….I honestly can’t believe one of them thinks he’s innocent….I can believe they are doing it for the media attention…the rush they get in the courtroom….maybe even a notch on their desk…but definitely not because he’s innocent…

  78. Anna
    You are soooooo right.

    Facs, that is an awsome list of attorney’s for a man who was convicted of murder one. I can’t imagine just how many people would have loved to have had, just half that many Pro Bono attorneys. Even one or two.
    Thanks for posting that. Puts it all into perspective, and certainly goes with Anna’s above post. IMO

  79. They are sure a bunch of Sleezy attorney’s. To work that hard for Free, for a creep, that is a Known convicted killer. They all know he killed Kathleen and Stacy, and all they care about is getting the media attention, Drew’s case generates.
    The thing that really shows me, how low life they are, is that they still seem to be willing to say or do anything to get him off. Even after he had his day in Court, and was found guilty.
    Even to the point of becoming witnesses for him, that way, they can take the stand for Drew, and testify for everything, and Drew wouldn’t have to take the stand in a new trial, he could sit back and let them do the talking, and accusing for him. What a great deal for Drew. Seems they all learned from the first trial. People would probably believe an attorney over, Drew just saying it. And they would have more than one attorney saying it. Clever little plot, huh? No wonder Drew fired Joel, and went with them.
    Doesn’t have anything to do with guilty or not guilty, at this point. That has already been proven in Court, that he is guilty. It is all about winning. Remember Greenberg told us all that he didn’t like to lose, and that he was fighting for himself and for Drew. It’s a win – win situation for Greenberg. He got Brodsky fired, Win 1….and He thinks he can get Drew off…..Win 2.

  80. It’s disgusting! As stated, all that work for free! Why don’t these lawyers go and work that hard for free for somebody who really deserves it?

  81. If Joel does get hit with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim then the rest of the team would be the ones who would know the most about his performance so it makes sense to me that they would be witnesses.

    Part of me actually would like to see it brought because I’d love to see Joel try to defend himself against the allegations that have been made, especially those by Steve Greenberg. I’d like to see him finally taken to task and try to stammer and double-talk his way out of it. On a purely emotional level I would get a lot of pleasure out of that.

    But the ONLY reason I admit to that is because I so firmly believe that an ineffective assistance claim would never stick. It’s been pointed out before that with a six-man team, it would be ridiculous to try to pin the loss on the bad decisions made by one lawyer, and anyway a bad decision would not be enough to get Drew a new trial. It would have to be proven that Joel actually did something wrong (not just ill-advised) and that if he had not done it, Drew would not have been convicted, which again, I just don’t think can be proven.

    On the other hand, I’d also be happy if any motion for a new trial was flat-out denied so we could just get the murderer sentenced and transported to his new home.

  82. I just watched an older date line show…it was the killing of a mother and son….the father of the child didn’t want to be tested…it was kind of a friends with benefits relationship…when he was found guilty and being sentence….the grandmother showed the judge the picture of her daughter and grandson(8mos old)…in the casket together and asked that the picture be put in his cell…the judge allowed it…he got life with no parole and a picture to look at for the rest of his life…I wish the same for drew….a picture of Kathleen and Stacy smiling with their children….a reminder for the rest of his life….

  83. Facs, I too would really enjoy seeing Brodsky flounder around trying to defend himself against the ineffective assistance charges :-D. IMO it would very entertaining, and maybe even informative since Brodsky’s known to put his foot in his mouth pretty often. But have to hope you’re right, and it will never come to that… that the claim won’t hold up in court!

  84. Brodsky is the one who has kept Drew in the spotlight for four (five?) L O N G years. There’s a short lull and then he shoots off something that gets the attention he’s addicted to.

    Now that he’s off the job, I suspect that things will become extremely quiet. Boring, by comparison to the antics we’ve become accustomed to.

    What is the next step and when should it come about? (i.e., is a hearing on the grounds for an appeal going to be first? If so, when?)

  85. Update on Jeff Ruby’s situation:

    Monday morning, Chief Judge Gerald Kinney met with Ruby’s lawyer, Stephen White, and special prosecutor Dave Neal behind closed doors. Ruby was not present.

    After the meeting, Neal said he suggested putting off Ruby’s prosecution to see if Ruby complies with the orders of the court.

    He is still deciding what those orders would be, Neal said.

    Basically, if Ruby doesn’t return to the Joliet courthouse and disrupt another courtroom, he’s likely in the clear.

    “Mr. Ruby has publicly apologized to the court and the people” for his actions, Neal said, which is important.

    If Ruby agrees to the deferred prosecution and obeys the court’s orders, Neal could decide to drop the charge.

    Ruby’s next court date is Nov. 29, to see if Ruby agrees with Neal’s suggestion.

  86. ATL, on 10/30 Joel said that the defense had only two weeks left in which to file a motion for a new trial, so that puts the deadline at mid-November. Remember, Drew has stated that he didn’t authorize Carroll/Gonzalez’s motion, so that one is moot.

    If there’s no motion for a new trial, it’s probably straight on to sentencing in January and after that, he can file a motion within 10 days of sentencing. He could ask for acquittal, a new trial, a change in sentencing, etc. If none of those are successful he can still file motions for appeal if there is new evidence that would clear him.

    Also, if an issue was raised during the trial, it is deemed preserved for appeal after sentencing. I guess that’s why Joel was tossing out those accusations about Greenberg not preserving errors.

  87. Atlgran, I agree things are a little boring without Brodsky’s antics. To cheer myself up, I go back and read Greenberg’s “scathing letter” – that puts a smile on my face every time!

  88. As for the errors that can be grounds for appealing a conviction, I just grabbed this off some Illinois lawyer’s site, but it gives you an idea of what is possible.:

    Errors, which may be grounds for an appeal, can occur when:

    • The trial judge erroneously admitted or excluded certain evidence
    • The jury received improper instructions from the court
    • The trial judge made improper rulings on objections, motions or other matters
    • The police did not follow proper procedure
    • Prosecutorial misconduct occurred
    • Your constitutional rights were violated
    • The sentence you received was unjust

    In an interview last week Joel said that they had identified 28 issues that could be grounds for appeal. We shall see…

  89. I am still in two minds about Joels sudden departure.

    Judging by Joels demeanor, I get the feeling he is somehow still part of this whole charade …

    On the other hand his departure may have been “sugarcoated” to him and he’s quietly being shafted.

    Only time will tell which one it is …

  90. As usual, I see a tweet like this and my heart beats a little faster. Most likely not related to the Stacy Peterson case, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t share it, right?

    marcella raymond ‏@MarcellaWGN
    Anybody know what the FBI & State Police r doing in Shorewood?

    giuliano di nardo ‏@The_Names_Guge
    Anyone know what’s going on in Shorewood to make 3 news helicopters hover around here?

  91. Apparently the search is related to Stacy Peterson:

    Federal agents and state cops searched through Hammel Woods forest preserve in Shorewood Monday looking for signs of missing mom Stacy Peterson.

    A state police source confirmed that the operation—which included at least one helicopter and police dogs—was part of the search effort for the Bolingbrook mother, who disappeared in October 2007…

    …Joan Hyde, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s Chicago office, confirmed that agents were in Hammel Woods “working with ISP as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”

    The state police source said the operation was not prompted by a recent tip or breakthrough in the investigation, but was merely one of a number of periodic searches. These searches are conducted in areas that investigators believe Stacy’s body may have been left, and Shorewood contains a number of them.

Comments are closed.