Reports of search for Stacy Peterson today

FBI searches Hammel Woods (November 5, 2012)

FBI searches Hammel Woods (November 5, 2012)

I’m seeing some Tweets about a search for Stacy Peterson being conducted today in the same area where a search was conducted in November.

Search dogs and police units are reported to be out on Black Road in Shorewood. This is the Hammel Woods area so it’s likely that investigators are continuing with the search efforts that occurred there a month ago.

At the time of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, her friend Scott Rossetto was residing in Shorewood. Drew Peterson’s step-brother, Thomas Morphey, has testified that the day before Stacy was last heard from, Peterson indicated that he wanted to take care of the Stacy “problem” and intended to direct suspicions to Rossetto.

Rossetto was set to testify at Peterson’s murder trial that Stacy had told him that Drew had killed Kathleen Savio, but his testimony was ultimately barred. He now resides in Germany where he is an army nurse.

Calls from Stacy Peterson’s cell phone to Drew Peterson’s phone were placed from the Shorewood area on the night of Stacy’s disappearance. According to Morphey, he was standing in a park in Bolingbrook, holding a cell phone that had been given to him by Peterson, when several calls were received showing “Stacy” as the caller. One could theorize that Peterson placed the calls himself from Stacy’s phone in order to draw attention to Rossetto.

I’ll update if and when I learn more.

Best of luck to the searchers!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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

23 thoughts on “Reports of search for Stacy Peterson today

  1. Hi M. The sentencing date got pushed back due to the lawyer scuffles which were finally ended when Joel Brodsky agreed to withdraw from Peterson’s defense.

    The pre-sentencing defense motions should be filed by this Friday and the State has until January 10 of next year to respond. Sentencing will happen after that, so not for a while yet.

  2. Stephen Peterson has re-filed his case against Oak Brook, Sheahan, etc. this time in State Court.

    Wife-Killer’s Son Sues Police Again
    By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN

    WHEATON, Ill. (CN) – After a federal court dismissed his constitutional claims, the son of wife-killing cop Drew Peterson re-filed in state court, claiming that the former Oak Brook police chief spread a rumor that he had rehearsed an alibi for his father.

    Stephen Peterson sued the Village of Oak Brook, its former Police Chief Thomas Sheahan, and the chairman of its police board, Fredrick Cappetta, in DuPage County Court.

    Three years after Stephen Peterson became an Oak Brook police officer, his father Drew Peterson came under investigation when his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, went missing.

    Drew Peterson was convicted in September 2012 of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is in jail, awaiting sentencing.

    Stephen Peterson claimed in his federal complaint that he was wrongly fired from the police force in February 2011, but U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan dismissed the case.

    Peterson seeks damages for violation of due process, tortious interference, breach of contract, defamation and slander and emotional distress.

    He is represented by John DeRose, of Hinsdale.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/12/53053.htm

  3. http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-s-bid-for-new-trial-says-lying-joel-brodsky-blew-case

    Drew Peterson’s Bid For New Trial Says Lying Joel Brodsky Blew Case

    The lawyers still representing wife-killer Drew Peterson say former defense counsel Joel Brodsky “single-handedly deprived Drew of his right to effective assistance.”

    By Joseph Hosey Email the author6:08 pm

    A devastating 32-page court filing not only blames defense attorney Joel Brodsky for single-handedly blowing Drew Peterson’s murder trial, but paints the lawyer as a delusional, petty, fame-hungry liar.

    “Attorney Brodsky expected that Drew Peterson would be his ticket to the legal elite,” says the memorandum filed late Thursday. “Regrettably, he was poorly equipped to try a case of this magnitude, resulting in hornbook errors and a smorgasbord of ethical violations.”

    The memorandum says “Brodsky single-handedly deprived Drew of his right to effective assistance” and claims Brodsky “lied to Peterson, misrepresenting his qualifications, going so far as to tell Peterson that he, Brodsky had successfully tried murder cases and other serious felonies.”

    Brodsky’s motivation for lying was to “elevate his own profile,” says the filing, which was penned by defense attorney Steve Greenberg.

    “Brodsky hired a publicity agent for the two of them,” the filing says. “He paraded Drew across the airwaves as if Drew were a sideshow, suggesting carnival-like pranks to heighten public recognition of himself and his client, as exemplified by the infamous ‘Win a Date With Drew’ and a Bunny Ranch Reality Show. In the process Brodsky accumulated large bills for hotel stays, meals, and spa treatments for he and his wife, all paid for by the respective media outlets.”

    Greenberg does not identify any of the media outlets who supposedly paid the way for Brodsky and his wife. But his filing does take aim at Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michelle “Michael” Sneed, alleging that she had been “repeatedly endowed” by Brodsky.

    Brodsky “would construct the story, write the letter or provide the leak” for Sneed, Greenberg’s filing said. “In doing so, he routinely breached attorney-client privilege.”

    Brodsky and Sneed both failed to return calls for comment regarding Greenberg’s memorandum.

    Brodsky’s supposed obsession on staying in the spotlight made Peterson’s defense of secondary interest, according to the filing.

    “Once trial began Brodsky insisted on obtaining as much media hysteria for himself as possible,” Greenberg’s memorandum says. “Like a petulant child, he could not mask his discontent when others on the defense team received attention, and he had not. Throughout the trial Brodsky’s tactics were focused on his own self-glorification, rather than legal acumen of the best interests of his client.”

    Greenberg and Brodsky have publicly feuded since Peterson was convicted in September of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The squabble came to an end when Brodsky left Peterson’s defense team to be replaced by attorneys David Peilet and John Heiderscheidt.

    At the time, a tearful Brodsky claimed he was voluntarily quitting Peterson’s defense team while also insisting he had not been crying. Greenberg’s filing says Brodsky was “discharged.”

    While a significant portion of the memorandum is devoted to Brodsky’s supposed missteps prior to Peterson’s murder trial, it goes on to claim that Brodsky’s decision to call Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, to the witness stand was tantamount to “torpedoing” the case.

    “Nobody who watched or participated in the trial, except Brodsky, thought that the idea of calling Smith was anything less than delusional,” the filing says.

    The memorandum accuses a “stumbling,” “dithering” Brodsky of hammering home to the jury that Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, allegedly asked Smith if she “could get more money out of Drew if we tell the police how (Drew Peterson) killed Kathy.”

    Stacy Peterson mysteriously vanished, never to be seen again, soon after this supposed conversation.

    The filing also says prosecutors took full advantage of the Smith situation.

    Brodsky’s “direct (examination) was the iceberg,” the memorandum says, “the cross (examination) the rushing water, and the result was the Captain had sunk the ship.”

    Following the trial, jurors said Smith’s testified clinched the guilty verdict they returned after a day and a half of deliberation.

    Arguments over Brodsky’s alleged ineffective counsel have been set for Jan. 10. According to the memorandum, Drew Peterson faces threats from Brodsky now that the lawyer is off the case.

    “Brodsky repeatedly threatened to reveal privileged information if Peterson were to discharge him or otherwise reduce his role. Those threats have continued notwithstanding the fact that Brodsky has now been discharged,” the filing says.

    The memorandum even includes what it puts forth to be an excerpt from a Nov. 24 letter Brodsky sent to the jailed Peterson.

    The letter “threatens to reveal confidential information,” the memorandum says, and claims Brodsky told Peterson “this is of course the last thing you or I would want, but this could happen as an unintended consequence of (an) unfounded ineffective assistance accusation, which is not fully thought through.”

  4. 12/10/2012 Copies & Cert. Copies
    12/13/2012 Notice of Filing FILED BY STEPHEN A. GREENBERG
    12/13/2012 Memorandum IN SUPPORT FILED BYSTEVEN A. GREENBERG
    12/13/2012 Affidavit FILED BY STEPHEN A. GREENBERG

  5. Essentially the same story here:

    …Thursday evening, Brodsky once again denied he was ineffective in representing Peterson during the two-month trial this summer.

    “Drew is desperate,” Brodsky said. “He’s facing the rest of his life in jail. He’ll say anything, and he has an unethical lawyer in Greenberg who will let him do that.”

    But Greenberg’s memo says Brodsky threatened to reveal privileged information if Peterson fired him or let other attorneys take the lead.

    “That’s a bald-faced lie,” Brodsky responded Thursday evening.

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/16998940-417/lawyer-drew-petersons-chance-for-a-fair-trial-ruined-by-carnival-like-pranks.html

  6. Zowie! Greenberg has really made some GREAT accusations – verrrry entertaining, but I don’t think it will work. Drew was not the meek little lamb taken advantage of by mean old Brodsky – he participated in the escapades willingly and certainly had ample time to find out what a sleaze Brodsky was. None of it would have made a difference in the outcome of the trial IMO. Looking forward to the next episode though… I think things are going to get lively pretty quick now 😀

  7. The Tribune’s take on it:

    The document alleges Brodsky had a financial interest in drawing as much publicity as possible to Peterson’s case. Brodsky’s desire to earn appearance fees prompted him to parade Peterson around the country and have him participate in “carnival-like” pranks such as a much-maligned “Win a Date with Drew” contest, the court filing alleges.

    He also was paid for Peterson’s participation in an ill-received book about the case and courted constant media attention that harmed his client’s reputation, according to the memorandum.

    “In the process, Brodsky accumulated large bills for hotel stays, meals, and spa treatments for he and his wife, all paid for by the respective media outlets,” the memorandum states.

    To win an ineffective counsel claim, Peterson must show that Brodsky’s representation fell below acceptable standards and that the outcome might have been different because of it. It will be an uphill battle, however, given that he had five other attorneys on the trial team, and that courts rarely overturn motions based on legal strategies.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-exattorney-had-smorgasbord-of-ethical-violations-20121213,0,2789103.story

    Interesting that Joel has always maintained that neither he nor Drew got any money from “Drew Peterson Exposed”.

    How would he have been paid for “participation” in the book? I mean, he’s the guy who was soliciting authors to write it and Derek Armstrong wrote it, then self-published it and purportedly receives all the royalties from it.

  8. I don’t think it will work either. If they are going with the ineffective assistance claim, they must not have much.

    They’ve had three months to come up with some reason why Drew Peterson should have a new trial and they are still stuck on “because Brodsky stinks” which is something everyone has known since he and Drew hooked up. Peterson knew exactly what he was getting and was happy to go along with it, even while three good attorneys walked away from the case rather than work with the boob.

    The state has until January 10 to respond.

  9. The memo claims that Joel Brodsky thought Peterson was his ticket to the legal elite, and accused him of calling the Today Show green room to solicit Peterson for the job.

    Brodsky is also accused of signing a publicity agreement that would allow him to profit from the case and criticizes him for calling Kathleen Savio’s former attorney to testify, a witness some jurors later agreed was a major factor in reaching their guilty verdict.

    Brodsky calls the accusations “ridiculous” and says he has witnesses who can confirm attorney Steve Greenberg — who is still on Peterson’s legal team — agreed to using that witness.

    Brodsky also denies there was an agreement to share money with Peterson for a potential book deal.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Peterson-Lawyers-Attack-Brodsky-Seek-New-Trial-183436771.html183436771.html

  10. Interesting.

    1. Has any mention been made of that search for Stacey?

    2. It would not surprise me if Brodsky wasn’t dropping huge hints about where “he” might dispose of a body if he were Drew or some other idiotic statement like that to get Drew’s hair to stand on end and to still dodge the attorney/client privilege issue. That man is not about to lose this skirmish without landing some good blows at Drew for dumping him.

    3. Michael Sneed is really Michelle Sneed? All this time I felt sorry for her, thinking her parents obviously wanted a boy. In reality did she change her name so that she could play with the big boys by pretending to be one?

  11. Hey ATL. I haven’t heard any more about the search or if the dogs and cars were related to evidence search for Stacy, but I can’t imagine why else they would be in that area once more.

    I don’t know the story behind Michael Sneed’s name. I know of another female Michael, actress Michael Learned, so it’s not unheard of. The only place I’ve seen her called Michelle was on Peterson’s visitor list at the detention center. It may have been a typo but I don’t know.

  12. Regarding Michael/Michelle, I was referring to the Bolingbrook Patch article that Judgin posted above, which said “But his filing does take aim at Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michelle ‘Michael’ Sneed, alleging that she had been ‘repeatedly endowed’ by Brodsky.”

    It seemed the Patch was quoting from Greenburg’s filing. It looks like Michael is a nickname, not her legal name.

  13. The interesting thing to me is that, long before Brodsky even entered the fray, Drew Peterson was parading around for local media, being the ‘jokester’ that he claims to be, and he booked his own appearance on the Today Show, because that is where Brodski first latched on to him. Those two were birds of a feather, and all that, for the three years before the trial. DP used to go to local bars and pick up girls and women, and I don’t think that was Brodski’s idea.
    Yeah, Brodski made some mistakes(some huge ones at that), but DP liked all the ‘game-playing’ himself, and found a comrade in Brodski.

Comments are closed.