Drew Peterson court date sets next hearing/sentencing for February 19, 20

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.

Source: Will County Sheriff’s Department

UPDATE 1/10/12: The state has filed a response to the defense’s post-verdict motion for a new trial based on, among other things, claims of ineffective assistance by attorney Joel Brodsky. A hearing for motions is set for February 19. A sentencing hearing and the sentencing will come after that (barring the event of an actual new trial).

Peterson’s former attorney, Joel Brodsky, may need to take the stand to defend himself while Steven Greenberg and Joe Lopez may be called as witnesses. Legal experts have stated that they doubt a bid for a new trial will be successful.

Drew Peterson’s former wife, Vicki Connolly, and his eldest son, Eric Peterson have been subpoenaed by the state to testify at the sentencing hearing. The both have previously testified before the grand jury and at a pre-trial hearing.

Kathleen Savio’s sister, Sue Savio, says that she has her victim impact statement ready to be read.

~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.~


119 thoughts on “Drew Peterson court date sets next hearing/sentencing for February 19, 20

  1. For the last few weeks I thought they were going to hear the motions on Thursday. Now, I see that they are only going to schedule a hearing.

    It’s excruciatingly slow.

  2. Oh jeez…now I’m thoroughly confused…I thought Thursday January 10th was to be the State’s response to the defense’s motions for a new trial?…I was SO anticipating that! What happened behind the scenes that brought about this change in plans?…or is it just par for the course?
    I don’t have a good feeling about this at all….

    Excruciatingly slow is right, Facs 😦

  3. I got to thinking….they (defense) can ask Judge Burmila to set a date to argue motions but that doesn’t mean their request will be granted.
    And I wonder…..is it possible the State has already filed their response to defense’s motion and the defense doesn’t like it and this is why they’re going to ask Judge Burmila to set a date to argue motions? I know I might just be reaching here in wondering this but bear with me please while I attempt to explain why I wonder; all along, the Defense has basically tried this case in the public eye, versus the State who has tried the case where it belongs – in the courtroom. We’ve been bombarded with just about every little detail in regards to the Defense, their strategies, public finger pointing, fighting and callin’ the cops, pure attention whores. On the other side of the coin is the State who have conducted themselves with utter and total professionalism, heads up and shoulders squared, focused on the task at hand and above all, behaving as real lawyers should, protecting the integrity and confidentiality of their case.

    Things have been quiet for a bit….and it’s always calm before a storm

  4. I don’t see anything being filed since 12/13-14 when Greenberg was filing his memorandum (about Joel) and certified copies.

    As far as I know, the motions and responses are always going to be heard in open court. Up until yesterday I thought the hearing was going to be on Thursday but now it seems as if it’s being pushed to a later date and they are just getting together on Thursday to set the new date..

  5. Ok, so much for my wishfull thinking :(….

    I won’t be surprised if Judge Burmila grants the Defense’s request to set a date to argue motions (JMO, Burmila bent over backwards for the Defense during the trial and in so doing, ensured that Drew did indeed, receive a fair trial)

    But…what happens next IF the judge denies their request?
    Thanks, Facs!

  6. I know this isn’t exactly on topic, but when I come across a tidbit like this, I just can’t ignore it.

    As for Greenberg stating that he was so against harry Smith taking the stand and it all being a turrible turrible mistake on the part of that inept Joel Brodsky, back in June 2012 Greenberg was already telling the press that the defense might call Harry Smith to the stand, even if the prosecution did not.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys initially argued that Smith should not be allowed to testify because his statements would be hearsay. The latter argued that it would be a violation of the attorney-client privilege.

    Last week, Burmila said that the privilege had been waived but added that he was concerned Smith had not shared information that might help Peterson.

    Then, after meeting privately with Smith, he announced Thursday, according to Brodsky, that Savio had “said something that was inculputory.”

    Fellow defense attorney Steven Greenberg said that he now wonders if prosecutors will even call Smith to testify.

    “If they don’t, we might,” he said.


    And note that Judge Burmila was already cautioning against the defense calling him, even at that early date.

  7. And before I forget, I’ve been trying to find where Chrissy Raines had said in the month before he was arrested that she was sick of all the scheming.

    I finally found it. It was from the blog of Chrissy’s co-worker at TGI Friday’s and the quote was:

    …she talked about how much she hated having people there 24/7 going over possible scenarios with Drew.

    At the time, those in the know said that she was almost certainly referring to reality show and publicity schemes. This would make sense since it was about this time that Drew was challenging people to public fights and auditioning for reality shows.

    It certainly sounds as if Drew, and not Brodsky, was driving the publicity machine.

    The co-worker even said that Chrissy’s ex-boyfriend scheduled his interview on a radio show at a time when he knew that Chrissy would be listening and would be sure to alert Drew who would then certainly get involved, which he did. Drew took every opportunity to get media attention for himself with or without Joel as his sidekick.

  8. There’s no doubt that Drew was a media whore….Brodsky called him after his interview on the Today Show….drew was crying out for an attorney….just shows you ….he got what he asked for….another idiot like him….

  9. What is with those two…do they really think the public will ever forget this trial and her idiot husband…she can smile and move on…but your so right its whining cuz she can’t move on…

  10. It seems that the response has been sealed — is that what “impounded” means? Why is it dated the 9th?

    Will we be able to know what the Prosecution’s response is to the Defense Team’s allegation that Drew deserves a new trial before they actually go to court next month?

  11. Right. Impounded means we aren’t going to get to see it.

    It was filed yesterday, on the 9th.

    We’ll have to wait until the 19th to hear it all argued in court, but based on a little insight I’ve gotten…I have a strong hunch that the arguments against the ineffective assistance claims are going to be in agreement with much of what we’ve been discussing here.

  12. Drew Peterson will be sentenced over 2 days in February

    Posted: Jan 10, 2013 12:25 PM CST
    Updated: Jan 10, 2013 12:25 PM CST

    CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) – Drew Peterson, an ex-cop from Bolingbrook convicted of murdering his third wife, will be sentenced on Feb. 19 and 20 of this year.

    The judge said he feels the court will need two days to hear all the witnesses.

    A jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder in September, in his ex-wife Kathleen Savio’s death.

    Peterson’s attorneys want his murder conviction overturned. They said his former lead attorney Joel Brodsky made “ethical violations” during his first trial.


  13. Hmmmm, so it seems that the judge must believe that the Defense’s case for a retrial is moot or at least a slam-dunk.

    He’s going ahead and scheduling the sentencing hearing for the same day.

    Is that what this all means?

  14. Drew Peterson Gets Date to Fight For New Murder Trial

    A two-day hearing was set to determine whether wife-killer Drew Peterson will get another murder trial.
    By Joseph Hosey

    Drew Peterson’s murder trial lasted 24 days. Now the wife-killer’s looking forward to a two-day hearing to see if he gets to do the whole thing over again.

    Judge Edward Burmila scheduled the hearing for Feb. 19 and 20. If the judge decides after those two days not give Peterson a new hearing after all, Burmila said on Thursday he will head straight to sentencing.

    Peterson, 59, faces up to 60 years in prison for the March 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Prosecutors have subpoenaed Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, and one of his five sons, Eric Peterson, to testify against him at the sentencing hearing.

    Connolly has said Peterson threatened to kill her and make her death look like an accident. She also told of Drew Peterson holding a gun to her head and breaking into her locked house while she slept. Eric Peterson, who is one of two sons born to Peterson’s first wife, Carol Hamilton, testified during a pretrial hearing that he witnessed his father viciously attack Savio.

    Prosecutor Marie Czech argued during Thursday’s hearing that Peterson’s attorneys should not be allowed to call witnesses when they make their case that a new trial is needed.

    “They should be required to substantiate their allegations more than they have,” Czech said. She also questioned how attorneys Steve Greenberg and Joseph “Shark” Lopez, who defended Peterson at the murder trial, can serve as both his lawyers and as witnesses to the claim he received ineffective counsel.

    “We’re allowed to act as advocates and witnesses,” Lopez said after the hearing, adding, “Obviously Steve can’t question himself and I can’t ask myself questions.”

    Attorney David Peilet, who was not working for Peterson during the trial but represents him now, said the key issue in the bid for a new trial was the decision to call Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, to the witness stand. After returning their guilty verdict, several jurors said Smith’s testimony convinced them to convict Peterson.

    “That probably is the issue that is first and foremost in the public eye,” Peilet said. “We saw what verdict it led to.”

    In what turned out to be a disastrous move, attorney Joel Brodsky called Smith to testify. Brodsky no longer represents Peterson. Greenberg has blamed Brodsky for blowing the case. The allegations of ineffective counsel have all been leveled against Brodsky, who is expected to testify at the February hearing.

    Peterson has spent nearly four years in the Will County jail waiting for his case to play out. Cassandra Cales, the sister of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, attended Thursday’s hearing and said life behind bars has not been kind to her brother-in-law.

    “Today he was really old looking,” Cales said. “I like to see Drew and the effect jail is having on him.


  15. Can’t wait for Vicki Connolly and Eric Peterson to finally have their say in court.

    Also looking forward to seeing Joel try to blather his way through questioning.

  16. “Today he was really old looking,” Cales said. “I like to see Drew and the effect jail is having on him.

    Love it! 🙂

    Do we know if Brodsky was there today? Somehow, I feel like he just couldn’t stay away!

  17. Peterson judge sets hearings for new trial motion, sentencing

    By Steve Schmadeke
    3:21 p.m. CST, January 10, 2013

    A Will County judge is scheduled to hear Drew Peterson’s motion for a new trial on Feb. 19 and the next day has been set aside for a sentencing hearing at which prosecutors will put on evidence that he also murdered his fourth wife, Stacy.

    The judge set the dates this morning during a hearing in Joliet.

    Peterson was convicted last fall of drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in her Bolingbrook home in 2004, and he faces up to 60 years in prison. He is the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance but has never been charged.

    In the months after Peterson’s conviction, his defense team turned on itself, with former lead attorney Joel Brodsky forced to depart.

    Peterson’s attorneys now say Brodsky may be subpoenaed to testify at the February motion hearing as Peterson argues that Brodsky’s ineffective assistance of counsel should result in a new trial.


  18. I don’t know about Joel being in the courtroom. Of course, he couldn’t be there in any official capacity but I s’pose he could have showed up just to watch. I kind of doubt that he would, though.

    I’ll ask around and see if anyone saw him.

  19. Also glad to hear Drew is enjoying his time in jail so much he’s looking older – maybe the truth is finally sinking in – you can’t just eliminate your wives when you get tired of them! Prison should be even more fun for him.

  20. Happy new year to all, Just wanted to put in my two cents about all that has happened since Peterson was convicted. I was lucky enough or crazy enough to sit thru most of this trial. When the State started their case, they were dogged by the defense’s constant objections, most denied,demands of mistrial,denied or withdrawn. That was what the media was talking about. But in my humble and non laywerly opinion, the State won the case when they showed the picture of the VICTIM stuffed in her bathtub. There were several jurors that looked at Drew Peterson with loathing at that point. When the State called the female doctor(her name ascapes me) Several more jurors seemed more relaxed as if they now had proof for what their eyes had already processed. All of the defenses news conferences could not change the outcome of this trial, because they were two totally different venues and the what happened in the courtroom was proof that Drew Peterson committed the acts he was charged with. All of the post trial drama is just that, drama. the judge bent over backwards to make sure
    this was a fair trial.

  21. Thanks Facs. I was thinking he would go, not in any official capacity – But just to observe. Just because, well, he’s Joel. 🙂

  22. Facs, I meant “slam dunk” in that I believe that it will be non-issue. The limping defense team will try their darndest to present a coherent case, but they have nothing to go on. I expect Burmilla will almost immediately tell them they have no case.

    Refresh my memory: Why were Vickie and Eric not able to testify at the trial?

  23. Updated story:

    Dates set for Drew Peterson court hearings
    Convicted murderer to ask for new trial while prosecutors hoping for maximum prison term will present evidence that fourth wife was slain

    By Steve Schmadeke, Chicago Tribune reporter
    January 11, 2013

    What may be Drew Peterson’s final two court hearings have been scheduled for February during which his bid for a new murder trial will be heard and prosecutors will present evidence he killed his missing fourth wife as they seek the maximum 60-year prison sentence.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant, who appeared in court Thursday with a new buzz cut and the beginnings of a beard, was convicted last fall of drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. He is the sole suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Prosecutors plan to present evidence that Peterson murdered his fourth wife, a factor Judge Edward Burmila could take into account when he sentences Peterson. The Will County judge on Thursday scheduled a hearing for Peterson’s motion for a new trial for Feb. 19 with the sentencing hearing to follow a day later.

    In their effort to win Peterson a new trial, his lawyers will try to prove his former lead attorney Joel Brodsky’s alleged ineffective assistance, financial conflicts and outright threats prevented Peterson from receiving a fair trial.

    They may call Brodsky to testify and subpoena his client financial records. Brodsky declined to comment in a text message, saying, “I have nothing to add to” a recently filed motion in which he called one of Peterson’s attorneys “mentally ill.”

    Peterson attorney David Peilet said they would “spare any unnecessary roughness so to speak” as they try to build their case against Brodsky. And he told reporters he wasn’t sure how Brodsky would react to any possible subpoenas.

    “I would anticipate that he will respond in a way as to defend himself,” Peilet said. “How that plays out, really the judge has the final call.”

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said he isn’t worried about Peterson winning a new trial or the verdict being overturned. “The record is rock solid,” he said.

    But he said the defense-team implosion was unique. “I’ve never seen lawyers go at each other like this before in the history of Will County,” Glasgow said.

    Prosecutors plan to call Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, who testified at a pretrial hearing of how he pulled a gun on her, broke into her house and threatened to kill her. Also expected to testify is son Eric Peterson, who testified previously about a night Savio and Peterson fought at their home.

    “What ex-wife doesn’t want to say bad things about her husband?” defense attorney Joseph Lopez said of Connolly.

    Stacy’s sister Cassandra Cales said outside court Thursday that she expects Peterson will eventually be charged with murdering his fourth wife. Prosecutors have said Stacy’s case is being reviewed again.

    “There’s no rush because he’s obviously going to be going to prison,” Cales said. “Justice will be served for Stacy.”


  24. Refresh my memory: Why were Vickie and Eric not able to testify at the trial?

    Both of their statements were barred by Stephen White as being too remote in time to be relevant to Kathleen’s death investigation.That decision held up under appeal:

    On June 18, 2010, the circuit court held a hearing on the State’s motion. In an oral ruling issued during the hearing, the court excluded the State’s other-crimes evidence under section 115-7.4 of the Code and the common law because it considered the evidence too remote. In this regard, the court focused on the timing of the incidents and indicated that the State’s inability to show a continuing course of domestic violence rendered the evidence inadmissible.

    I’m very glad they are going to be heard now!

  25. According to Joe Lopez, Joel Brodsky was not at the courthouse today but he had his “spies” watching.


    I’m also glad that Eric and Vicki will be able to speak.

  26. Just a refresher, in case anyone needs it:

    Peterson’s adult son Eric also testified Thursday, seeing his father for the first time since moving out of Peterson’s Bolingbrook home in 2003, in part out of anger that his father was dating Stacy, a much younger woman.

    Eric Drew Peterson testified that while spending the weekend at his father’s home in 1993, Peterson dragged Savio — who was screaming and pleading for someone to call police — through the front door by her hair and arm.

    Asked whether he still loved his father and whether he thought he had been a good dad, Eric Peterson paused for a long time before twice answering, “no”.

    January 21, 2010 Tribune story

    Drew’s son speaks

    Morphey was followed to the stand by Peterson’s estranged son Eric Peterson. The older of two children born to Peterson’s first wife, Carol Brown, who is neither missing nor murdered, Eric Peterson, 31, recounted a savage tale of domestic abuse he says Drew Peterson perpetrated on Savio in 1993.

    Eric Peterson and his younger brother, Stephen Peterson, were visiting their father and Savio for the weekend when Drew hauled his wife through the front door by her hair. “She was being dragged and fighting to stop being dragged,” Eric Peterson said, adding that Savio was shouting obscenities at her husband, begging the children to call the police and “screaming for help.”

    Eric Peterson said his father ordered his sons upstairs and pulled Savio down to the basement. He said the commotion downstairs sounded like a train ran through the house. One of Savio’s sisters and the police later showed up.

    The next morning, Eric Peterson said, there was no sign of Savio, but the house was strewn with broken glass and overturned furniture. Eric Peterson said it was apparent that Savio was drunk the night Drew Peterson dragged her around. Eric Peterson said he has not spoken to his father since January 2003. “I don’t love him or hate him,” Eric Peterson said of his father. “It’s separate of emotion. It’s indifference.”

    From a Sun-Times story of the same date.

  27. I so relate to Eric…pretty much the same m o….I never saw my father again after my 21st birthday….he lived to be 90….you don’t love or hate….it’s indifference and you live without even knowing they exist…he left a very sad impression for a child to have….but necessary to live out one’s life…I worry about Stacy’s children…it’s sad enough to have your father in prison…but because he killed their mother…doublely sad…

  28. CHICAGO (CBS) – A DePaul University Legal Analyst is giving Drew Peterson only a slim chance for reversal of his murder conviction.

    Jurors convicted the former Bolingbrook police sergeant of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    But Peterson now argues that only happened because of mistakes by his attorney Joel Brodsky which let in hearsay testimony which encouraged jurors to convict.

    Professor Leonard Cavise at DePaul says Brodsky made a mistake, but doubts that will help Peterson much.

    “I think it is going to be very, very hard to prove that the mistakes that he made would have changed the outcome to the satisfaction of the trial judge,” said Cavise.

    Cavise says Peterson would have a better chance in appellate court but isn’t likely to get a new trial from his judge in Will County.


  29. It is obviously over for Peterson. As it should be. Just grasping at straws now, they are. He needs to get used to the “Non Romantic” Valentines days in Prison. Pretty much the rest of his days are going to be that way.

  30. that is music to a lot of ears lost…..to know the spark is dying and his life in the public eye is over…his rain of terror has come to an end…you can’t kill and get away with it ….

  31. I just thought of something — Drew will be sentenced by the judge; not the jury? It would be good for the jury to hear from those who weren’t allowed to give testimony at the trial. I hope some of them will make the effort to be there.

  32. I’m sure some of them are happy to get on with their lives after doing their public service. Maybe some others will want to be there for the hearing and sentencing to see the final step of the process (of course there will be appeals, but at this point I mean).

    My hope is that they are all happy with their decision and have moved on..

  33. Jury duty in a murder trial is pretty gruesome. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if several still have nightmares about the photos they’ve seen. You don’t get over that very easily or very quickly.

    For most of them, I would expect that they need the closure of seeing that Drew spends a good number of years in jail. They are personally responsible for casting a vote which put him behind bars and it would be normal for them to want to see the judge take their decision seriously with a stiff prison sentence.

    With the added testimony of others they were blocked from hearing, I would think that any juror who may have been second-guessing their vote would be greatly relieved to know they made the right decision.

    These people’s lives have all been changed because of this trial. Not one of them will ever forget the role they voluntarily took on which ended up putting a man behind bars — quite possibly for the rest of his life.

  34. “What ex-wife doesn’t want to say bad things about her husband?” defense attorney Joseph Lopez said of Connolly.

    Yes, Mr. Lopez, every divorced woman I know loves to tell stories about her ex- husband breaking into the house and threatening her with a gun. Another ridiculous and inconsiderate statement by the defense. IMO

  35. Greetings all, happy new year.

    Excellent job, Facs, for hunting back over stuff to find Greenberg’s verbatim about calling Harry Smith, and everything else!

    Thank you, Claudine Franzese, for your observations. I wasn’t there, of course, but it was my distinct impression that DP was a goner without Smith’s testimony. Smith provided the cherry/tin hat on top. The final nail. The last hurrah. The slide – kerchunk of the guillotine. The feather in the cap.

    I, too, am delighted to learn that Vicki and Eric will be heard. Hallelujah and amen. Happy New Year!

    BTW, a little bird tells me that JB could not attend because he an’ the missus had an audition for RHOC, armed with their own showreels and pre-publicity.

  36. Anything that came out of Joe Lopez’s mouth was defensive…crude…rude…and obnoxious….going back to all their media interviews and even Nancy Grace…who cut him off….other than his mother….his daughter…and the candy on his arm…all other women get no respect…now that’s a man to look up too…lol….being fat…short…with no neck…and that funny personality he’d be a great catch…his line of Stacy who….and it was an accident ….maybe 100 times ….won him the mouth award….

  37. I rewatched the Dateline Updated version on Drew Peterson and I was struck by the fact that Drew Peterson’s defense remained that this was an accident, however in the interview when Drew is asked if he killed Kathleen, he states “no.” But he’s caught off guard by the follow-up question, “then who?” Drew replies he doesn’t know. If Drew Peterson, himself, believed she was not murdered, wouldn’t his response have been, “I still have to believe this was an accident.” ??? Drew admits in those interviews that he enjoys the media attention and filming the interviews because he gets to travel and meet famous people. How does one “enjoy” anything connected to the death of another human being? I don’t care for Joel Brodsky, or any of that bunch, but Drew Peterson was on his own ego trip.

  38. Eric Peterson’s testimony spoils the “perfect parent” image for Drew Peterson. I hope we do finally officially hear from him. I admire him for standing up to his father and saying enough is enough. Good dads always drag their wives by the hair and have affairs with teenagers.

  39. I also have to commend Vicki Connolly for coming forward during this trial process. Not only did Drew threaten her, but Vicki had a “mysterious car accident” after leaving the bar they owned, which nearly killed her. (Cut brake line) Despite the guilty verdict, there still remains a slight possibility that Drew will somehow eventually get out of prison through a new trial. These people, who have come forward, continue to risk their safety. IMO

  40. Color me whatever, but I believe that the two older boys have already been brainwashed, and god knows how they choose to live their lives when fully on their own. Or what reactions they may have in the future to normal things. The wee ones, worry me. Drew was a master at manipulation, and when it did not work in his favor, he killed. So sad for anyone involved with this thing

  41. I too worry about the little ones..I have 2 boys…I adopted at birth ….different birth mothers…their are several books out on environment verses heredity…85% heredity …15% environment…some differ….but heredity is the larger percentage….Dr. Phil was correct in major therapy ….it’s at the middle school age…thanks facs….I too missed the show …very interesting….

  42. News story from the pre-trial hearing days:

    …Peterson has been married four times. The former Bolingbrook cop is a suspect in his fourth wife’s disappearance and is charged with killing his third wife. According to Peterson’s second wife, Connolly, Drew had threatened to kill her.

    Connolly took the stand Tuesday in Peterson’s pre-trial hearsay hearing. Connolly testified that during their rocky nine-and-a-half year marriage, Peterson pulled a gun on her at least three times. During an argument, Connolly said, “He put me up against the wall in the garage and grabbed me by the throat.”

    In another violent incident, Connolly testified, “He told me he would kill me and make it look like an accident.” Previous witnesses have testified that is exactly what Peterson told his fourth wife Stacy and third wife Kathleen Savio….


  43. In my house, Joe Lopez is known as “Lil Joey Pork Chop Lopez” ever since he made that disgusting comment that “maybe they’ll find a pork chop” when the ISP and FBI were using special dogs during the search for Stacy’s remains and/or evidence in Hammel Woods last November. All three of my adult children (two sons & a daughter) share my disgust of “Pork Chop” Lopez. And, they think he’s an even bigger idiot than JB due in part to that asinine closing arguement he gave at the trial – I still guffaw when I recall their looks of disbelief as they looked at me and said “…and this guy is a defense lawyer for mobsters and drug dealers????” LOL
    But I REALLY busted a gut when they started parodies of Pork Chop…..”he was an AXE Z DENT just waiting to happen and bloody hell if it didn’t, with his closing arguement that finished what JB started – dude, you TOLD the mini me’s to THINK of Harry Smith during their deliberations and THEY DID…..just NOT in the way you wanted them to!!! ” LOL

  44. “Lopez ends closing with pic of a Cheshire cat and telling jury to think of Harry Smith’s laughing face as they look at guilty verdict.
    Defense done.”

    Yikes, you are right. I had forgotten that.

  45. Gosh thanks for the reminder about Lopez closing! It was the most unbelievable thing I’ve ever heard in a court of law. I kept wondering if he could possibly be serious and think he was swaying the jury in any way – yes, I guess maybe he did 😉

  46. bucket…were you serious about brodsky and his wife….will the hits ever quit…they are to the point of been stupid..he showed he didn’t have talent in the courtroom…and her remarks to greenberg and schori were a woman’s scorn….they both need to disappear ……

  47. I was jesting, Anna, but you never know….I think it sounds plausible….and you needed to ask…ha ha ha ha ha ha

  48. http://lemont.patch.com/articles/locked-up-mobster-s-wife-sues-for-divorce-in-will-county-court

    Locked-Up Mobster’s Wife Sues For Divorce in Will County Court
    The ABC story said investigators “believe Calabrese was paranoid that authorities would connect him to the parking lot murder of Chiaramonti two months earlier,” and that he was so paranoid that he and associate Robert Cooper viciously beat a suspected rat.

    “The government has alleged he was the shooter in the Anthony Chiaramonti hit, who was my former client, and the getaway vehicle was driven by another former client, Cooper,” Lopez said.

    Anthony Calabrese has never been charged with Chiaramonti’s murder, but Lopez has a feeling he some day might.

    “There’s no statute of limitations on it,” he said, “and the feds are like wine—they don’t do anything before it’s time.”

  49. Oh, that “Porkchop Lopez” is such a kidder!
    A knee slapper! The humor and satire in Lopez’s interviews never ceases to amaze me.
    There was a time when defense attornies said very little in the media.
    (The good old days)

    Thanks for sharing, Judgin!

  50. “There’s no statute of limitations on it,” he said, “and the feds are like wine—they don’t do anything before it’s time.”

    Joe Lopez didn’t even get that right – the saying is “wine gets better with age”, so he is in fact saying
    the feds are like wine – they get better with age – LOL

  51. Case Summary Details
    Case Number 2011MR000291
    Next Court Date: 03-18-2013
    File Date 03-04-2011
    Next Court Location: COURTROOM 2005
    Next Court Time: 09:30 AM


    The status of this case is “closed” so I’m not sure what the deal is here. I know it was reported that after the case was tossed out of federal court that Stephen was taking it back to the state. I thought it would be supreme court, not another circuit court case but I don’t really know what is going on with this.

  52. JAH- I “thiuk” Lopez was trying to play off of the old Gallo Wine commercials with Orson Wells. “We’ll sell no wine before it’s time.”
    But aging the wine meant that it was of the highest quality and aged to perfection, so I’m not sure where Lopez was going with the statement, because I look at that to mean the Feds would have a really good case. Wouldn’t that be a compliment?

  53. Somehow I missed some of the earlier posts on this thread. Ellie Brodsky’s Twitter responses are classic. Joel getting accused of botching the trial, certainly doesn’t play well in the social circles.
    When the wife of the lead defense attorney thinks her husband’s client is guilty from the very beginning, it should come as no surprize that the jury found Drew Peterson guilty.

  54. Same age as my daughter, although a few months apart. I am hoping he will get the ultimate, once sentencing happens. Wish we could find Stacy and he could be charged with her. As far as the lawyers go? May they all rot in their own hell. Brodsky takes it way to personal. Greenberg has balls bigger then he can carry, and Lopez? He does not give shit, unless he can buy his merzedes

  55. “After Peterson agreed to retain Brodsky, counsel exploited Peterson to elevate his own profile. Brodsky hired a publicity agent for the two of them. 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.”

    From the memo filed by Steve Greenberg.

  56. Actually I think the Brodsky’s might have what it takes for a Reality/RHOB type show! Seems like the perfect venue for their egotistical “talents”, and I’m sure there would be some goof balls that would consider it great entertainment!! 😀

  57. You have a point. They are probably better suited to that than being a lawyer or bar owner.

    And since I don’t watch that reality crap I’d be spared having to see or hear them!

  58. there you go guys…they are right up there with baby boo boo….rednecks…..etc…I don’t watch it either…so I’m unfamiliar with the titles…bucket was right….and now it’s not a rumor….brodsky and his wife are sick puppies….

  59. congrats…bucket…between you and facs….Ellie doesn’t have a snowballs chance…what an airhead…isn’t that like calling the kettle black…and your right bucket.. they were real housewives of Will Co….to bad DP didn’t appreciate what he had…

  60. Ooooh, wonder if this lastest development is going to turn out to be what I’ve been suspecting and hoping for since the State’s response filed on January 9th was impounded ;)..

  61. Just a moment, beautifulkat, while I put on my turban…..

    1. As the final attempt to delay the limousine to Statesville, DP dangles the last crumb of the “duck’s information”…Stacy’s location?

    2. DP served with a Federal Grand Jury warrant. Pork Chop himself alluded to how a Fed case only improves with time, like a fine wine? Ah! but maybe not quite yet. lol.

    3. DP fires all his lawyers to represent himself? He might get another extension that way….his new counsel will need time to come up to speed…..

    4. DP comes to Jesus?

  62. Anna Hultin
    January 24, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    congrats…bucket…between you and facs….Ellie doesn’t have a snowballs chance…what an airhead…isn’t that like calling the kettle black…and your right bucket.. they were real housewives of Will Co….to bad DP didn’t appreciate what he had…

    LOL. Thanks, Anna, but I wouldn’t presume to have affected anything at all. I don’t think those shows are cast according to worthiness or even taste.

  63. So now we have to wonder who was being subpoenaed?

    Does this have to do with the fact that Stacy was subpoenaed but unable to be located?

    I hope later we get some more details.

  64. If a subpoena is returned, doesn’t it mean that it was not able to be served? I don’t know why return of subpoena requires a court date.

    Of course, it could just be Joe being subpoenaed to testify against Joel Brodsky. Bah. No clue.

Comments are closed.