Steve Greenberg asks Joel Brodsky to retract statements. Brodsky calls the cops. Read the report

Steve Greenberg and Joel Brodsky

Steve Greenberg and Joel Brodsky

On Wednesday, attorney Joel Brodsky called the police and filed a report against former co-counsel Steve Greenberg, claiming that he had been threatened by him.

On Monday, Joel Brodsky had filed his notice to withdraw from Drew Peterson’s defense in a wrongful death suit. The filing also made claims of ineffective assistance against Steve Greenberg and asserted that Greenberg suffered from mental illness, specifically pathological narcissism.

Apparently, Steven Greenberg didn’t take it as a compliment and responded to Brodsky by e-mail that same day. Greenberg told the Chicago Sun-Times:

“In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I would charitably ask him to withdraw slanderous allegations against me and others before moving to have him heavily sanctioned.”

Here is the police report of “IUCR: 2826 – Other Offense – Harassment By Electronic Means”:

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

84 thoughts on “Steve Greenberg asks Joel Brodsky to retract statements. Brodsky calls the cops. Read the report

  1. EVENT#11289 IN SUMMARY R/O RESPONDED TO A CALL AT THE LAW OFFICE OF JOEL BRODSKY (VICTIM AND COMPLAINANT) AT WHICH TIME HE STATED HE RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT HE PERCEIVED AS A THREAT FROM STEVE GREENBERG (OFFENDER) THAT READ “JOEL I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY RETRACT THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS MADE IN YOUR RECENT FILING THE FILING IS NONSENSICAL AND YOUR FAILURE TO RETRACT WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES” JOEL BRODSKY (VICTIM AND COMPLAINANT) BELIEVED THIS EMAIL TO BE A THREAT

  2. Good Lord, both these guys are F*** nuts. Should be the beginning of the end of either one of their careers, I hope. Put them in a playground with noodles for a weapon, and let them have at it. What a couple of whiny morons

  3. Just my opinion, but I think Mr. Brodsky will do anything to get the attention of the courts in hopes of getting a retrial for Drew..He must be off his rocker if he thinks these latest tactics will work…I can’t wait to find out when Drew’s sentencing will be…

  4. Entertainment it is. Wonder how much info DP is getting about all this, and if so, how important he must feel. I will be so glad when sentencing is over and he is locked up for good, then let the silly lawyers do their “mine is bigger then yours” amongst themselves, for our entertainment of course

  5. I think Brodsky is unraveling before our very eyes. Greenberg had every right to ask him to retract false accusations — any one of us would have done the same He wasn’t being nasty. Rather tame, I’d say.

    Brodsy….is…losing…it.

    It’s killing him to be out of the limelight and all he can think of to do is create drama in an effort to stay relevant. It’s not working.

    What it will do, IMHO, is give Greenberg more amunition in the case against him, showing that Brodsky’s a man who is vindictive, unpredictable and quite dangerous to a client’s case.

  6. In what case against him? The motion for a new trial based ineffective assistance? I certainly hope it doesn’t.

    Also, I’m not sure that an Joel’s behavior after he’s left the defense team can be used to prove ineffective assistance while he was defending Drew. Which would be good since I don’t want Drew to get a new trial.

    That said, I’d love to see Joel disciplined by the ARDC for the crap that he pulls.

  7. ROFL so the saying goes……”It’s all fun and games till someone loses an eye” Wow this is hysterical! This is like in highschool when two guys are cat fighting over a woman. Hmm maybe they meant what they said when they both said they loved Drew and Drew loved them lol. Never a dull moment!

  8. Yes, I meant the attempt to get Drew a new trial. I still believe that there were four (or five) competent attorneys on the team who should have blown the whistle on Brodsky long before the trial began. Too many other attorneys took off running, which should have been a strong clue.

    Do not take this wrong — I do NOT want Drew to get another trial. I believe that all the attorneys are culpable to some degree. All of this is strictly my own opinion, but this is how I see it……

    The problem is that the client ultimately has the last word. The bigger problem is that if the client is being manipulated by an attorney who has sequestered the client to the point where he alone (for the most part) has access to him, then the client believes what the attorney is tellling him. So long as that attorney can keep the client pumped up, the attorney’s position at the top of the dog pile is safe.

    All along Brodsky has portrayed himself as the top dog who has consulted with a ton of brilliant attorneys who have assured him that he’s the most brilliant attorney of them all. (I said portrayed here……I’m not saying it’s the truth…..but it’s what Brodsky wanted Drew to believe.)

    We all saw the shenanigans and saw through Brodsky, but Drew is every bit the narcissist (sociopath?) that Brodsky is. They had a unique position of seeing things through the same distorted lens.

    It wasn’t until a week or two after the trial, when the other attorney (forget his name now) got permission to get in to see Drew. Brodsky, the Gatekeeper, thought the visit was to discuss financial matters, so he gave permission for them to talk with Drew.

    The next thing we know, all hell breaks loose. This attorney stepped in to say that he was filing on behalf of Drew to toss Brodsky off the team. alleging incompetent representation. Brodsky becomes incensed and then Greenberg steps up to the plate to second the motion. I suspect that was when Brodsky sent Drew the letter where he threatened to spill the beans if Drew fired him.

    It was not until someone FINALLY was able to get in between Drew and Brodsky that things started to fall apart.

    Suppose…..just suppose that all along the Dream Team was trying to get Drew to take a different track, but he wasn’t about to hear it. Brodsky had trained him to trust nobody but him. Now, they should have gone before the Board or the judge or someone — but they let it ride, believing that even Brodsky wouldn’t be stupid enough to sabbotage the trial.

    We know the results. We saw Brodsky try to keep Drew sequestered. Suddenly there were several notices of contact visits, but names were never used. The judge gave Drew the stern warning to think strongly about whether to change his attorney.

    I believe what we are seeing are the death throes of a desperate man. Brodsky knows that he’s way over his head. His bluff has been called. Every single outlandish accusation and childish outburst is only going to help the current Dream Team to prove that they had been working alongside a very unstable man, and for the benefit of their client, they stayed on board to help keep the boat from sinking. I think this latest outburst will only reinforce the current team’s allegations and the more outrageous, the better.

    At least that’s how I see it. I still don’t believe it will rise to the level of justifying a new trial. But, it sure is going to make Greenberg’s case look more valid.

  9. I think everyone agrees that Joel was a less than stellar attorney, however he was Drew’s lead attorney (chosen by Drew) and the rest of the co-counsel (those who hadn’t already had enough of Joel and jumped ship) agreed to answer to him as the “Captain”.

    I keep saying this, and I’ll say it again that I don’t believe anything Joel did during that trial qualifies as ineffective assistance We’ll see what the judge thinks after the hearing in January but so far, the legal pundits seem to be of the same opinion.

    As I wrote upthread, I don’t believe that anything Joel does after he withdrew as Drew’s counsel could possibly be brought up in court– at least, not in order to prove ineffective assistance. Because to do that it has to be shown that the attorney in question committed actual legal errors, and that the client suffered as a result of those errors. Not just suffered but was so badly represented that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the attorney not committed those errors.

    The fact that Joel is now slandering his former co-counsel is clearly a separate issue from any legal errors he may have made during the trial. I’m thinking it could be grounds for some kind of discipline but as we were posting and discussing yesterday, only something like 4% of ARDC complaints ever get to the point of actual sanctions.

    My point of view is just that 1.) Brodsky sucks and 2.) Brodsky is a jerk and 3.) despite the fact that Brodsky may continue to demonstrate how much he sucks and what a jerk he is, Greenberg’s ineffective assistance claim won’t be affected by this kind of escalation and is still dead in the water.

    I totally agree that if Joel’s co-counsel questioned any of his choices that they should have confronted him at the time, and if they thought he was guilty of ethical violations they should have reported him to the ARDC when they first became aware. I mean, they are required to do that!

  10. I’m not saying that Greenberg will be successful. What I was trying to say is that this is Greenberg’s strategy.

    I thought that there were a couple of contact visits where everyone was trying to guess who it was. I’m sure the judge has to sign off on every visit, but is the visitor’s name made public?

  11. In an email sent Monday, Greenberg asked Brodsky to withdraw a filing made earlier in the day that questioned Greenberg’s mental health.

    “I think the courtroom is the proper place to enter this out,” Greenberg wrote in the email, a copy of which was provided to the Tribune. “I hope to see you there and that you will withdraw this filing. Please believe me when I tell you this kind of filing can only hurt you, it will have no effect on me or the case.”

    Reached by phone Friday evening, Brodsky confirmed that he reported the email to police Wednesday evening.

    “I received a threat from Mr. Greenberg and I informed the police that I was threatened by him,” Brodsky said.

    Greenberg said he has not been contacted by police, and he said Brodsky’s action left him speechless.

    “How could anyone be threatened by an email that says, ‘please withdraw your filing?’ ” Greenberg said. “I just don’t get it.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-police-alerted-after-email-between-peterson-attorneys-20121221,0,7020533.story

  12. if Brodsky would have been a team player and allowed the lawyers that he put together for the trial become a team….the verdict could have been different…but then maybe not…the jury talked of other evidence …her position in the tub…no water…Kitty’s cry for help etc..Smith put him in the house….whatever is between Brodsky and Greenberg is dislike for each other power and control…for Peterson to get a new trial …it will take Stacy to walk in the courtroom and swear under oath ..he was with her..and we all know that’s not going to happen….this is Brodsky way to stay in the media…It’s all about him and he will go to any extreme…Greenberg so far is defending himself against a very sick man…

  13. WOW!

    “JOEL I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY RETRACT THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS MADE IN YOUR RECENT FILING THE FILING IS NONSENSICAL AND YOUR FAILURE TO RETRACT WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES”

    Joel is losing it big time! He called this police about this? Unreal. I really think he is the one that needs some professional help. This whole thing has him in quite the tizzy.

    I don’t blame Greeenberg for asking him for a retraction! I don’t see that as a threat,

    Too bad the police couldn’t charge Brodksy with filing a false report!

  14. Lest we allow Greenberg to appear like a victim here, remember he was the guy who wrote a 15 page letter completely gutting Brodsky and then released it to the media.

    And as much as I hate to say it, Joel actually had a point in that he wanted to file a substitution of attorneys for the civil suit, but was forced to file a withdrawal instead when Peterson refused to sign it.

    At every step of the way during this mess, there were actions that could have been taken quietly, privately and with some class, but neither of these asshats will be content until they have the last public word.

    Meanwhile, none of it is helping their client whose sentencing has been delayed by all the bickering, and it certainly doesn’t help the families of Drew’s victims.

  15. That day I wanted to climb thru my TV set and strangle them…the rude and disrespect behavior was off the charts…I thought I had heard everything but then I thought that sounds just like drew…like attracts like….I don’t believe Greenberg is a victim….I’m just glad he’s going after Brodsky…he’s a pathetic sick man….who thinks he can say and do whatever and not answer for it….who only wants to say it to the media….

  16. That clip, ugh!

    But good example of the hypocrisy that’s rife with these filings, letters, complaints, etc.

    Greenberg was the first to pipe up “Who?” when a reporter mentioned Stacy but pretends to be appalled that Brodsky subpoenaed her as a witness in his Monday memo:

    Perhaps his most audacious step calculated to get a rise out of the media was the listing of Stacy Peterson as a potential defense witness. In fact he never spoke to Stacy regarding Kathy, never interviewed her, and did not know where to serve her with a subpoena.

  17. I’m quietly enjoying this; they are now doing to each other what they have been doing to the victims and their families all along.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys ………

  18. “And as much as I hate to say it, Joel actually had a point in that he wanted to file a substitution of attorneys for the civil suit, but was forced to file a withdrawal instead when Peterson refused to sign it.”

    Absolutely, Joels anger should be aimed at the puppeteer instead.

    Peterson is the one double crossing everyone:

    Joels in/Joels out/Joel is back in/Joel is out again/Greenberg is in/Greenberg is out/Greenberg is back in again.

  19. LMAO!!!…..I gotta wonder where Attorney David Peilet is in all this, seeing as how he publicly stated when he joined the Devil’s Den that “there will be no more public finger pointing”….:))

  20. Forgot to mention – in between all this there was the motion filed by John Paul Carroll/Michelle Gonzales – Sept/Oct 2012:

    They were in and no sooner were out again.

    Peterson requested them to file and then claimed he didn’t authorize it (!!)

  21. As I finish up my holiday baking and wrap a few last presents, I can’t help but think of Drew Peterson’s words after being convicted of killing Kathleen Savio:

    “I guess that ruins my Christmas.”

    Guess so.

  22. I guess the lawyers got tired of news articles talking about DREW PETERSON GUILTY and decided to give reporters something else to report on? 🙄

  23. I was digging around a little because I was intrigued by this assertion made in Joel Brodsky’s filing:

    It is public record that a copy of Judge White’s 2010 hearsay hearing decision in the Savi murder case, which he sealed by court order, was leaked to Stacy St. Clair of the Chicago Tribune (and no other reporter), very shortly after Attorney Greenberg joined the Peterson defense team.
    A reading of her published articles clearly show a promotion of Attorney Greenberg. The leak of the hearsay hearing decision was clearly prejudicial to Drew Peterson.

    And yet, if you look at this ABC story from the time, it states that the decision was also leaked to a reporter at the Daily Herald.

    The judge sealed his ruling on hearsay evidence back in May. However, ABC7’s news partner, the Daily Herald, obtained a copy of that written ruling…

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=7566968

    At the time Joel was pointing fingers at the State’s Attorney’s office for leaking the ruling:

    “My understanding is Birkett had a copy and the timing is suspicious, because all the leaks started after he started consulting with Glasgow.“

    What a mess o’ lies.

    And for the record, the Tribune story was written by Steve Schmadeke and the Daily Herald story was Christy Gutowski. Makes you wonder why Joel is so adamant that the ruling was leaked to Stacy St Clair “and no other reporter”.

  24. Not to mention that back when Andrew Abood left the Peterson defense, he told us in an email that Joel Brodsky was not only leaking trial strategy to the press (something Joel now accuses Greenberg of doing) but that he was giving out erroneous information (to cast aspersions on the departing co-counsel).

    This is what Gutowski had stated in her story:

    The attorneys sparred over key trial issues, sources close to the case said, such as whether Kathleen Savio’s 2004 bathtub drowning in her Bolingbrook home was a suicide. Brodsky opposes the suicide defense and plans to argue Savio slipped in the bathtub, consistent with the original autopsy findings suggesting an accidental drowning, the sources said.

    http://prev.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=373145

    and Andrew Abood wrote to us:

    I just had a chance to read this story today. One of Christine Gutowski’s sources is Joel Brodsky. She also published the article about when the Hearsay decision would be issued — predicting based on “sources” that it would be issued that week — her source according to her for that statement about when the Hearsay decision would be published according to her was Joel Brodsky. She was inaccurate then and this story is inaccurate as well.

  25. Look, I realize it’s no big revelation that these guys are hypocritical liars. We all know that. But it is kind of fun to backtrack and dredge of the depths of their deceit.

  26. That it is, Facs.

    IMO Joel points his finger at whoever he sees as the enemy and that was Glasgow but currently is Greenberg. Maybe more than one of them was leaking information or Brodski ponted the finger at Stacy St. Clair knowing full well it was someone else to whom he had leaked info

  27. i think after drew is sentenced and in his new home….the leaking information will come together….and a lot of mouths will be permanently closed…brodsky is going to play this until the final act..and greenberg is on a mission..

  28. From Facebook:

    Sue Savio
    As the New Year comes shortly again. I promised my sister kathleen that her voice will be heard the day she died. And have done that ! I spoken to a lot of women in shelters and at seminars. And will continue her word in the next year.I will be speaken again in april in kankakee ill. Will update as it nears. If any one has lost someone due to Domestic Violence please always support that person.Or just even if there going thru it. Support them in any way you can ! And educate seek help for them. God is watching all of us !

  29. And a Merry Christmas to every one here — but also to all of Kathleen’s and Stacey’s family. The light burns brightly for them because people still care. Take hope that their lives will never be forgotten and that total strangers will learn new ways to cope with domestic violence in their own families because of the memories of your precious lost ones.

    God bless you one and all.

  30. Beautifulkat1, I think you read Fac’s post with too much seriousness. Without voice inflection you only have icons to help you understand the posters motives, and since she gave her a wink at the end of that comment, I would take that as a little bit of a joke. Fac’s goes on to give her own belief, but I thought she was just doing that to show that there are people of all beliefs out there, but that she does enjoy a good celebration of Peace.

    As for Joel & Steve, I’d like to use their own words…Joel & Steve who?

  31. I know this sentiment has been stated before but IMO Drew hired attorneys that best reflected his own personality and beliefs. Their is a certain honor among thieves…at least until the bounty is being decided or the blame/jail sentence is being decided. The type personalities Drew wanted to represent him are just as despicable as he is. Is it any wonder we are seeing great depths of unprofessional behavior from a bunch of egotistical baboons who also happen to have law degrees (however they were achieved)?

  32. ditto Pearl……they are all loud mouthed….arrogant…media whores….I was searching the web one day and saw Joe Lopez doing a very poor car commercial..LOL and I literally did…scum attracts scum….

  33. Sorry kids, but guess that proves why it’s always best to leave religious and political beliefs on the forums and blogs meant just for that.

    Removed a few posts and hope everyone feels better. 🙂

  34. I’d like to say I’m surprised by Joel’s whiny police report, however I’m not. Nothing that media whore does surprises me.

    I think he must definitely be afflicted with some kind of personality disorder. I really do!

    I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas. It’s summer here but we had a very rainy wintery day for ours 🙂

  35. The reports of this makes me wonder why all of these lawyers are not hit with some kind of disciplinary action against them. Unbelievable that we taxpayers are having to pay for these whiny lawyers – and aren’t they the ones who say there is nothing worse than a woman scorned?? Whiny and unprofessional lawyers are worse for us taxpayers for sure!

    Hope everyone had a nice Christmas and/or holiday. It is still a shame that another holiday season has gone by and no sign of Stacy or her remains. :/

  36. Oh, yeccch.

    Thanks for the link though! The comments after it show what a fairy tale Huebl has dreamed up this time. That guy will say/do anything to get a mention in a story.

  37. Brodsky says in his withdrawal:

    Attorney Greenberg, because of his pathological narcissism, also developed a hatred and resentment of Joel Brodsky which is causing him to ignore the best interest of his client and to become irrationally fixated and obsessed with Joel Brodsky because, among other things, Mr. Brodsky, (A) prevented Mr. Greenberg from appearing on a daily cable TV segment during the trial known as “Greenberg v. Karas” on TruTv’s In Session program because it was…giving away defense strategy, (which also interfered with Greenberg’s personal intimate relationship with Beth Karas, the TruTv reporter in this segment which he developed during the trial to get more attention for himself)…”

    Here’s a video containing four of those segments. Judge for yourself. Was he giving away defense strategy or was Joel just jealous of the popularity of the segment and the chemistry between Ms. Karas and attorney Greenberg?

  38. exactly what defense strategy did he give away….other than being a pompous ass…on the side of arrogant…and very mouthy….hello…Brodsky was jealous because he wasn’t ask..in all the press coverage Brodsky’s eyes shifted constantly….never looking at anyone…

  39. Still unclear how one can serve on a defense team andthen be part of the motion to say that the head of the defense team caused a guilty verdict to be reached by jurors. Maybe they all should just admit that their client IS GUILTY and call it a day. You win some, you lose some, Illinois taxpayers don’t need to see more funds being spent on this man. Take your autographed press pictures and go home, boys.

  40. I for one loved the Greenberg vs Karas segments. Very telling about how defense attorneys think and use the court system trying get a guilty man off the hook! I echo Facs… Stilllearning, “You said it!!!” 😀

  41. Thanks for the link, Judgin.

    I’ve strongly disagreed with Terry Sullivan’s opinions about this case since he started commenting on it. IMO he’s either biased in Drew’s favor or he has just never taken the time to really educate himself about the facts.

    “Pure hearsay” indeed. The bulk of the evidence in this case was forensic and circumstantial. Admittedly, the final nail in the coffin may well have been the testimony of Stacy Peterson as told by Harry Smith, but then maybe the defense shouldn’t have called him to the stand (as the judge cautioned them).

    The few shreds of hearsay admitted to that trial were introduced after being examined by two trial judges and three appellate justices. Each one was challenged by the defense and whittled down to the bits and pieces which were ultimately deemed to be reliable and admissible under the common law exceptions to the hearsay rule.

    If Sullivan has a beef with the jury’s verdict, he should be challenging the long-established exceptions of forfeiture by wrongdoing, rather than spin some fictional version of what went down in that courtroom.

  42. Facs, You’re right on! Is that article an old re-run? His opinion is years behind and needs to be updated. Maybe he should read the newspaper or watch tv news, or retire.;D

  43. FYI, here’s a list of all the witnesses who testified at trial (except Scott Rossetto. I omit him because what little testimony he was allowed to give was struck) and the kind of testimony they gave. The hearsay evidence is in bold:

    Day 1: July 31, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Mary Pontarelli: Firsthand testimony

    Day 2: August 1, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Thomas Pontarelli: Firsthand testimony

    Day 3: August 2, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Louis Oleszkiewicz: Firsthand testimony
    Robert Akin: Firsthand testimony
    Michael Newton: Firsthand testimony
    Michael Johnson: Firsthand testimony
    Timothy Berkeley: Firsthand testimony

    Day 4: August 3, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Anna Doman: Firsthand testimony and statements by Kathleen

    Day 5: August 7, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Michael VanOver: Firsthand testimony
    Robert Deel: Firsthand testimony
    James Coughlin: Firsthand testimony

    Day 6: August 8, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Patrick Collins: Firsthand testimony
    Kristin Anderson: Firsthand testimony and statements by Kathleen Savio

    Day 7: August 9, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Mary Parks: Firsthand testimony and statements by Kathleen Savio

    Day 8: August 10, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Steve Maniaci: Firsthand testimony
    Susan Doman: Firsthand testimony and statements by Kathleen Savio
    Susan McCauley: Firsthand testimony
    Dominick DeFrancesco: Firsthand testimony

    Day 9: August 14, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Christopher Long: Expert testimony
    Teresa Kernc: Firsthand testimony

    Day 10: August 15, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Teresa Kernc: Firsthand testimony
    Larry Blum: Expert testimony

    Day 11: August 16, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Larry Blum: Expert testimony

    Day 12: August 17, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Dr. Gene Neri: Firsthand testimony
    Joseph Steadman: Firsthand testimony
    Jennifer Schoon: Firsthand testimony

    Day 13: August 21, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Dr. Mary Case: Expert testimony

    Day 14: August 22, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Jeffrey Pachter: Firsthand testimony
    Bryan Falat: Firsthand testimony
    Dr. Vinod Motiani: Firsthand testimony
    Nick Pontarelli: Firsthand testimony

    Day 15: August 23, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Neil Schori: Firsthand testimony and statements by Stacy Peterson

    Day 16: August 24, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Ray Clark:Expert testimony
    Brian Hafner: Firsthand testimony

    Day 17: August 27, 2012
    Defense called:
    Mary Pontarelli: Firsthand testimony
    Robert Sud: Firsthand testimony
    Joseph Basile: Firsthand testimony
    Joseph Steadman: Firsthand testimony
    Bryan Falat: Firsthand testimony
    Darrin Devine: Firsthand testimony

    Day 18: August 28, 2012
    Defense called:
    Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen: Expert testimony
    Dr. Vincent DiMaio: Expert testimony
    Robin Queen: Firsthand testimony
    Bridget Bertrand: Firsthand testimony

    Day 19: August 29, 2012
    Defense called:
    Patrick Collins: Firsthand testimony
    Eileen Payonk: Firsthand testimony
    Harry Smith: Firsthand testimony and statements by Stacy Peterson
    Thomas Peterson: Firsthand testimony

    Day 20: August 30, 2012
    Prosecution called:
    Michael Baden: Expert testimony
    Dr. Mary Case: Expert testimony

    A heavily redacted letter from Kathleen Savio was also read to the jurors, so that would count as hearsay as well since she couldn’t be confronted.

  44. Doing a little rough math, that’s just under 15% of the witnesses heard at trial whose testimony contained an element of hearsay.

    So in reality, the amount of hearsay is even less since I don’t think there was one witness whose testified to only hearsay. For instance Mary Parks testified that Kathleen told her she was afraid Drew would kill her, but she also testified that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck, which is not hearsay.

    Feel free to throw that number out there when someone tries to assert that Peterson was convicted on “pure hearsay”. 🙂

  45. U nailed it Facs….we can print that…and facs it over to the stoogies…I looked at the picture u have at the top of the page…when I read anything on Greenberg ….that wide open mouth appears…remembering the interviews and all the mouthy …rude..and arrogant remarks…I vote for admit he’s guilty and call it a day…

  46. BTW: Is this the same Steve Greenberg that used to give interviews claiming Drew was GUILTY until he joined the Defense team and now has the arrogance to beat Beth Karas around the head with 1001 reasons that Drew is not guilty ???

  47. BTW, BTW: I did not see any “chemistry” or “attraction” between these two (Greenberg/Karas) as Joel is claiming.

    What I did see instead, that Steve Greenberg acts like he knows it all and is belittling Beth Karas’s knowledge of the case –

    It’s hard to believe anyone would find that “attractive”

  48. In fairness, I don’t recall Greenberg every saying that he thought Drew was guilty. What I do recall is that he criticized the fact that Brodsky wasn’t counseling Peterson to shut up and he scoffed at the idea that Stacy had been seeing Schori while “all sexed up”.

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

    Although he did present a hypothetical situation in which Drew might have been guilty:

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

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

    Both of these quotes are from 2009, before he joined the defense team.

    I’m glad you reminded me of those interviews, JAH, because it proves that prior to joining the defense team Greenberg was already highly critical of the way the Joel was representing Drew, and yet he got on the bus and agreed to allow Joel to be the Driver or the Captain or whatever Joel wanted to be called. Only after their loss in the court room did he return to his earlier criticisms. As long as he was part of what he thought might be a winning team he was happy to go along with the strategy and the media pandering.

  49. An interesting read. Psychopaths aren’t technically insane…but are they evil? After the Norway massacre I downloaded Anders Breivik’s “manifesto” and read most of it and afterwards had to conclude that he was not insane – but merely a psychopath- an individual who operates outside of the typical moral compass, and is able to lie, steal and kill to get what they desire and feel that it is justified.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elad-nehorai/eric-harris-adam-lanza-and-evil_b_2362930.html

  50. WordPress year end stats tell us:

    About 55,000 tourists visit Liechtenstein every year. This blog was viewed about 530,000 times in 2012. If it were Liechtenstein, it would take about 10 years for that many people to see it!

    and here are the top 5 most active commenters:

    1 harleyjoey 665 COMMENTS
    2 lostacres 426 COMMENTS
    3 rescueapet 424 COMMENTS
    4 oxymoran 327 COMMENTS Follow
    5 charmed4sr 146 COMMENTS

    Thanks for being a part of the blog and caring about Justice for Stacy and Kathleen!

    See you all in 2013!

  51. Interesting read on the ABA journal about lawyer civility and the consequences of being an ass:

    The South Carolina court may just be warming up. “We take this opportunity to address what we see as a growing problem among the bar, namely the manner in which attorneys treat one another in oral and written communication,” it said in a 2011 opinion. “We are concerned with the increasing complaints of incivility in the bar.”

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dealing_with_the_costs_of_incivility_in_the_legal_profession/

    In South Carolina, attorneys swear an oath saying that they will act with “fairness, integrity and civility, not only in court, but also in all written and oral communications.” I wonder if that’s the case in Illinois as well.

  52. A lot of filings by the Savios’ attorney related to the civil suit. I’m sorry, I don’t know more about them than what you see here:

    12/31/2012	Notice of Motion FILED BY THE LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Notice of Filing FILED BY LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Response TO MOTION FILED BY MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Exhibit(s)
    12/31/2012	Response TO MOTION FILED BY MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Exhibit(s)
    12/31/2012	Motion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Supporting Document(s)/Exhibit(s)
    12/31/2012	Motion TO STRIKE FILED BY MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Supporting Document(s)/Exhibit(s)
    12/31/2012	Motion TO STRIKE FILED BY MARTIN L GLINK
    12/31/2012	Exhibit(s)
    12/31/2012	Notice inaccurate per AO/Court Order/Local Rules-MOTION TIMES ARE AT
  53. In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law) is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial.

    A motion to strike is a legal motion given by one party in a trial requesting the presiding judge order the removal of all or part of the opposing party’s pleading to the court.

  54. Wow! I didn’t even make the top five for comments. I truly must have been holding back in 2012. LOL I’m going to add this to my list of goals for 2013.

  55. Congratulations Harleyjoe! You are a great contributor to this site!
    Facs, as always, we once again thank you for another year of your dedication to keeping this site updated, but most of all keeping the record straight on the issues.
    Happy 2013!

  56. You guys are the greatest! Thanks again for your dedication to the cases, your help, your humor and your voice.

    May 2013 see justice for Stacy as well. 🙂

  57. Press release from the Will County Sheriff’s Dept:

    DREW PETERSON COURT DATE – JANUARY 10, 2013

    Attorneys in the Drew Peterson case are scheduled to be in court at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 10, 2013 before Judge Edward Burmila in Courtroom 403. The attorneys will ask Judge Burmila to schedule a date for a hearing to argue post-trial motions. Beyond setting that court date, no other legal issues are scheduled to be argued on Thursday.

Comments are closed.