Countdown to sentencing: Hearings for Drew Peterson’s murder and wrongful death cases – then sentencing

S.A. James Glasgow does not want to appear as witness at Drew Peterson hearing

S.A. James Glasgow does not want to appear as witness at Drew Peterson hearing

Next week Drew Peterson is scheduled to be sentenced for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

Although his attorneys have filed a motion asking for an acquittal and a new trial, it’s predicted that the motion will be denied on February 19th and then the sentencing hearing can be held and finally Drew Peterson will be sentenced on February 20.

As the days tick off, last-minute filings continue to trickle in.

State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, filed papers requesting that he not be called as a witness at the hearing for a new trial, claiming that “a prosecutor, judge or news reporter is a ‘special witness'” in his filing, and saying that he should be told what information is needed from him and that Peterson’s defense should attempt to get the information some other way.

Earlier in the month Joel Brodsky had filed a motion to fight a subpoena asking for his financial records but eventually he produced them to Peterson’s defense, which claims that his representation of Peterson was ineffectual and that his desire for publicity created a conflict of interest. Brodsky then filed a law suit for defamation against his former co-counsel, Steve Greenberg, as well as the Tribune company and AOL Patch.

Meanwhile, a status hearing for the wrongful death civil suit being brought against Drew Peterson by Savio’s family was continued to coincide with the date of the next pre-sentence murder hearing. Joel Brodsky has filed papers to withdraw from representing Peterson in that matter as well, but the Judge Michael Powers decided that both Peterson and Brodsky should be present for the hearing and that it would be more convenient to hold proceedings at the Will County court-house.

I also wanted to share this completely charming drawing and account of Wednesday’s civil suit proceedings posted to Twitter by The EQ Alert Guy. Let’s hope that the introduction of cameras to the courtrooms of Illinois never does away with first-hand observer reports like this one:

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


95 thoughts on “Countdown to sentencing: Hearings for Drew Peterson’s murder and wrongful death cases – then sentencing

  1. I am just looking forward to these past 5 or 6 years being over with and he is finally where he belongs, without the current bennies of being in jail vs prison. Shut the door and throw away the key. Forward and on to justice for Stacy

  2. Yes, let’s hope that Stacy gets her day in court.

    As a side note, it’s been interesting to watch Drew age while behind bars. I think that appearances every few months for the next couple of years will prove to be quite telling.

    He doesn’t age well.

  3. Coming soon! Professional conduct!

    Anna, it must be a fond wish, but SG doesn’t say that.

    Promising a professional, ‘compelling’ argument for a new trial for the mommykiller doesn’t prove squat about SG’s concern for the victims and their families nor any realisation of anything at all except his own reputation in peril.


  4. Really Steve? 🙄

    Announcing that you are going to be professional? What an odd thing to say. Does that mean all the other times when you acted like a jackass, is because you didn’t announce that you were going to act like a professional human being?

    Sometimes it is better to just shut up. 🙂

  5. by Will County State’s Attorney on Friday, February 15, 2013 at 9:25am

    ADVISORY: People Vs. Drew Peterson — Post-trial motions and sentencing

    The hearing on post trial motions in People Vs. Drew Peterson (09CF1048) is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 19 in Courtroom 407 in the Will County Courthouse, 14 W. Jefferson Street, in Joliet, Illinois.

    Judge Edward Burmila has stated that if defense motions for a new trial are not granted, the parties should be prepared to move forward immediately with a sentencing hearing. Judge Burmila has set aside two days for the proceedings.

    The Will County Sheriff’s Department’s Security Division is making provisions to accommodate the press. The overflow room with audio will be available across the hall in Courtroom 400 and will function in the same manner it did during the trial.

    • Reporters will be allowed to use lap top computers and cell phones during the hearing in the overflow room only.

    No photographs, video, or audio will be allowed in the courthouse.

    No electronic equipment will be allowed in Courtroom 407.

    • Lockers will be available for reporters to secure their laptops and cell phones if they will be in Courtroom 407.

    • All reporters will be required to have a valid Will County Sheriff’s Office media credential to access the courthouse through the southeast doors and to access the overflow room.

    • Media without proper credentials may access the courthouse through the northeast doors but will not be allowed to have electronics in their possession. The courthouse opens at 8:30 a.m.

    The Will County Sheriff’s Security Division asks media outlets to advise if they will attend so proper seating can be arranged. Please confirm your attendance at: or (815) 727-5681.

    All Will County offices are closed Monday, February 18th, in observance of President’s Day. Sheriff’s Office and State’s Attorney personnel will not be in their offices to handle inquiries that day.

  6. Maybe Greenberg is trying to imply that only in the absence of Joel Brodsky is it possible to exhibit professionalism.

    IMO, there’s such a thing as personal responsibility. Not everyone on that team acted badly. I don’t recall Mezcyk or Goldberg joining in the on-camera “Stacy Who?” antics.

    Not everything can be blamed on Joel Brodsky.

  7. yes he did facs….it really upset me…actually I used another word but I’ll spare you of it….my other pet peeve is…it was an ax e dent….and the sooner they take responsibility and start acting as defense attorneys are suppose too..the better off this team will work together…stop trying to be media whores…and get down to business…DP has already missed enough
    fun days in the penitentiary…..

  8. LOL. I can’t get away with anything.

    But yeah, I remember at the time noticing that it looked like Meczyk tapped Goldberg’s arm or caught his eye and then sidled away.

  9. ” Media without proper credentials may access the courthouse through the northeast doors but will not be allowed to have electronics in their possession.”

    This is why I don’t attend court proceedings.

  10. Sue left a message on her F/B page….they are coming in for the hearings…it makes a body feel good to see all their supporters there for them … be able to say to him what has been mounting over the years….is it closure…I so hope so…

  11. From what I hear there is no such thing as actual closure when a loved one is murdered but it would have to be a relief to know he’s finally in prison where he belongs.

    The sentencing itself will be a wonderful (if difficult) moment for the family. I know Sue has said that she has her statement all ready.

    It’s going to be a good day.

  12. This story is dated two days from now but…

    Last-ditch effort for Drew Peterson attorneys
    Lawyers will argue for new trial days before sentencing in murder case

    By Steve Schmadeke, Chicago Tribune reporter
    February 17, 2013

    …Besides the prospect of former Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky being questioned by his defense team nemesis Steve Greenberg, the hearing is expected to include testimony from a retired judge, Brodsky’s former law partner, a Peterson murder trial observer, a law professor and perhaps even Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

    Brodsky said he isn’t worried about testifying, whether prosecutors or the defense team call him.

    “I’m not concerned at all. Everything I’ve done is aboveboard and the right thing to do,” he said. “I just wish they (the defense team) were focusing more on their client and not on some personal vendetta.”

    Trial court judges rarely grant motions for a new trial, but no one was making predictions for how Judge Edward Burmila will rule.

    “This one I believe has some teeth to it,” Peterson attorney David Peilet said of their motion for a new trial. “This case presents constitutional issues that could change the whole landscape of due process. There are really some monumental issues, primarily the hearsay issue.”

    Jurors and legal experts said the hearsay statements from Savio and Stacy Peterson were crucial at trial, as no physical evidence tied Peterson to Savio’s death. The statements were allowed under common law provisions for hearsay, not through the hearsay law pushed by Glasgow before the trial.

    Peterson’s defense team also will focus on attorney-client privilege, clerical privilege and marital privilege issues in arguing for a new trial.

    Assuming Burmila denies the motion for a new trial, the case will move to sentencing, where prosecutors will point the judge to the record of Peterson’s past of domestic violence while defense attorneys will argue that Peterson was a longtime Bolingbrook police officer with no criminal history.

    His son, Stephen Peterson, who is raising his father’s two children with Stacy, is expected to testify for his father during the hearing.

    Prosecutors may point Burmila to testimony given during a lengthy pretrial hearing in 2010 by Peterson’s oldest son, Eric, who testified that his father once dragged Savio into their home by her hair and arm, and Peterson’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, who testified that Peterson once held her against a garage wall by her throat and said he could kill her.,0,5772866.story

  13. The bathtub where the body of Drew Peterson’s third wife was discovered became an essential piece of evidence in the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s murder trial.

    What trial watchers and Will County taxpayers may not have known was that the county had been paying $75 a month to store the bathtub in a Channahon storage locker after it was removed from the former home of victim Kathleen Savio in 2009.

    The tub was never brought into court, which was the original plan. But the bathtub’s storage rental fee was one tiny piece of the county’s bulging price tag to prosecute Peterson.

    That case, combined with the successful prosecution of convicted family killer Christopher Vaughn, cost taxpayers nearly $600,000, according to a Herald-News analysis of the expenses paid out of the county’s special prosecution fund. Vaughn, of Oswego, was ultimately convicted of killing his wife and three children in Channahon Township in 2007…

    Numerous books were purchased for the trials, too.

    One book, “From Crime Scene to Courtroom,” was bought because its author Cyril Wecht, a defense expert in the Peterson case, included photos of the Savio murder crime scene. Prosecutors wanted to know if the photos were obtained in some way other than normal trial discovery methods.

    The book cost only $27. But other expenditures were much higher. Microtrace LLC in Elgin charged $18,812 to search evidence and analyze fibers in the Peterson case…

    It cost the county $2,396 to fly Scott Rossetto to Chicago from Frankfurt, Germany in August. Rossetto, a friend of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy, was to provide crucial testimony — that Stacy told him she was to provide Peterson an alibi for the night Savio died.

    But Judge Edward Burmila blocked his testimony after defense attorneys convinced him that discrepancies in the date and location of the U.S. Army captain’s conversation with Stacy made his testimony unreliable.

    Some behind-the-scenes people were paid for services, but they never appeared in court. Private investigator Stephanie Finn of New Lenox, for instance, was paid $86,974 for her work on the Peterson case…

  14. 🙂 The above just got completely silly talking about the cost of jurors’ lunches. I don’t think DP’s or Vaughan’s jury ate more than any other, do you?

    Shock 😯 Horror. A case that’s lasted over 6 active or 8 years total depending upon when you start the clock, cost a lot of mawney.

  15. 😆 Greenberg removed his tweet about being professional next week.

    Facs, I find it funny that Mrs. B blocked you, then follows you. Of course I’m sure she reads here! Hi, Mrs. B! 🙂

  16. HJ, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s taken some pretty merciless ribbing over that stupid tweet.
    Poor sport to take it down 😦

  17. HJ, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s taken some pretty merciless ribbing over that stupid tweet.

    😆 Bucket! As he should! It was pretty stupid.

  18. the hearing is expected to include testimony from a retired judge, Brodsky’s former law partner, a Peterson murder trial observer, a law professor…

    So I’m guessing Stephen White and Reem Odeh for the retired Judge and the former law partner. Have to wonder who the trial observer might be. I can think of a few who directly witnessed some of Joel’s bad behavior in court.

  19. Just thinking on paper here, but is it possible that Kris McP is off the Brodsky bus once again and ready to testify for the remaining defense against him?

    She would probably do anything if she thought it would help Drew.

  20. The thing is, if a court room observer is being called as a witness, it couldn’t possibly be to testify about anything that went on in the court room. That’s all on record.

    This observer would had to have seen or experienced something outside the scope of the court proceedings in order to have anything to testify about, no?

  21. WOW! Good memory, Facs. I forgot about that ‘court room observer’ testifying for the new defense dream team! Ya think prosecutors might easily be able to impeach that one?

  22. Just so I understand, is there going to be a one-day “trial” wherein both the Prosecution (Glasgow) and the Defense (Greenburg, et al) present their case as to why there should or should not be a retrial….each side bringing up their own witnesses…with Burmilla ruling by the end of the day?

  23. Sort of, Granny. It’s a hearing of arguments for and against the motion and it sounds like various witnesses (and/or evidence) have been subpoenaed. There’s no telling how long it might take. It could just be a couple hours, or spread out across a few days.

    If Burmila denies the defense motion, then the sentencing hearing commences. And after that, the actual sentencing.

    Brodsky’s motion to withdraw from the civil suit is scheduled to be heard at 11 am on the 19th so that’s another thing to consider.

    It seems to me like it could all take longer than the two days that are scheduled…but what else is new!

  24. I’m sure Burmilla doesn’t want to give any legroom for a retrial based on bias. Better to let them give it their best shot and let the world see how flimsy their case it.

  25. Thanks for the explanation Facs (and the question Granny) on the hearing procedure. I was also wondering. Sure would love to be in the courtroom to see and hear it all – should be very interesting!

  26. I guess Greenberg can forget about any kind of career on In Session. Apparently they are cutting back to 2 hrs. per day starting March 4th.

  27. He may well be too busy anyway, if he’s still working for the man who made his own children bereft of their mothers.

    Go on, Steve, you have the opportunity to play an absolute blinder by persuading DP to let Stacy’s family bring her home. That would be good. Your mom would like it, too.

  28. Silly Housewives of Chicago, for sure.
    Isn’t it extraordinary that EB involves herself in JB’s professional business with the twittering and all?

    When I was married to The Judge, unbelievably, people used to ask me for legal opinions. We joked that they must believe a legal qualification can be had by injection. Maybe EB thinks so, too.

  29. Go on, Steve, you have the opportunity to play an absolute blinder by persuading DP to let Stacy’s family bring her home. That would be good. Your mom would like it, too.

    Now that would be something!

    In my mind, a defense attorney’s job is to protect their client’s rights, and defend them to the best of their ability. I think Steve is more than capable of doing that. I also believe they have a moral and ethical responsibility to not only their client, but to the justice system in general.

    If he were to get DP to finally bring Stacy home, I think that would make him a very respectable human being, and attorney. 🙂

    I know, I’m probably just dreaming. 😉

  30. Seeing as Drew is going to end up spending the rest of his life in prison anyway, it would be kind of him to put an end to the lying about Stacy.

    But the decision to confess is up to Drew. I don’t think an attorney can or should pressure a client to come clean about anything. They are working for the client. As far as defending Drew, I respect his lawyers’ obligation to do that.

    However, I don’t think Drew will ever confess to what he did with Stacy. It would mean admitting to her children that he killed their mother and I don’t think he wants to be anything other than a hero to them – even though he is not.

  31. I was thinking today about the motion for a new trial and how besides the issues related to Joel Brodsky, it also claims that Burmila made an error in admitting hearsay to the trial, and even wrong in allowing Joel to call Harry Smith to the stand.

    Considering that Burmila is the one who is going to decide whether to grant or deny the motion, isn’t that just a bit silly?

    I suppose it’s possible that they are just laying a groundwork for the eventual post-sentence appeals. But still…

  32. Well, it can’t hurt to hope :-)! Maybe if there was some kind of fantastic plea deal on the table to avoid being prosecuted for Stacy’s murder. But IMO we can’t expect a miracle like that until Drew’s absolutely sure he’s out of appeals and won’t be able to weasel out of 60 years for Kathleen’s murder. How many years might it be, before he exhausts every appeal possible? 😡

  33. But the decision to confess is up to Drew. I don’t think an attorney can or should pressure a client to come clean about anything. They are working for the client. As far as defending Drew, I respect his lawyers’ obligation to do that.

    I agree!

    Bucket, I didn’t know you had been married to a judge!

    I didn’t either! Do you have any legal advice? 😆

    Well, it can’t hurt to hope 🙂

    Nope, it sure can’t. Like Facs said, he will never confess. Because that is an admission to his children. HE will NEVER do it. But sometimes, it doesn’t hurt to have hope. Heck, I still have hope that someone knows something, and after he is sentenced (if they haven’t already) come forward!

  34. Drew Peterson’s bid to overturn murder conviction could spark fireworks in court

    BY DAN ROZEK AND JON SEIDEL Staff Reporters February 17, 2013 6:02PM
    Updated: February 17, 2013 6:11PM

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow could be called to testify on Drew Peterson’s behalf as the former Bolingbrook cop fights to overturn the murder conviction Glasgow won against him last September.

    And Peterson’s former defense attorney, Joel Brodsky, could be called as a witness by prosecutors trying to block that effort.

    Even Peterson, 59, might finally take the stand as part of his last-ditch attempt to throw out his murder conviction for the 2004 bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Those courtroom fireworks all could erupt Tuesday when Peterson seeks a new trial, arguing that Brodsky single-handedly botched his defense during his five-week trial last summer.

    If Judge Edward Burmila rejects Peterson’s request, his ruling would clear the way for the former police officer to be sentenced immediately to a hefty prison term for killing Savio nearly nine years ago.

    That’s what legal experts say is likely to happen, though many acknowledge nothing has been clear or easy during Peterson’s long-running legal saga.

    Still, convictions are rarely overturned because of allegations of ineffective counsel during trial — particularly when there are multiple attorneys involved, said legal experts not connected with the case.

    During his trial, Peterson was represented by Brodsky and five other lawyers.

    “It’s a tough sell with one lawyer. It’s a tough sell especially in this case because there’s six lawyers involved,” said Richard Kling, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

    In their formal request to toss Peterson’s murder conviction, his reconfigured legal team placed the blame solely on Brodsky — an allegation Brodsky has bitterly disputed and one that spurred him to file a defamation lawsuit against former co-counsel Steve Greenberg and several media outlets.

    Peterson’s filing contends that Brodsky alone called as a witness divorce attorney Harry Smith, who offered bombshell testimony that Peterson’s now-missing fourth wife, Stacy, told him that Peterson had killed Savio. Several jurors said after their guilty verdict that Smith’s testimony clinched their decision.

    Peterson’s conviction should be overturned because Smith’s dramatic testimony potentially changed the outcome of the trial — a requirement for winning a new trial, Peterson’s attorneys argued.

    “I think the facts and the law are on our side,” said Greenberg, contending that the number of lawyers on Peterson’s legal team doesn’t change what happened during the trial.

    “If a decision was bad, it was bad,” said Greenberg, one of Peterson’s attorneys. During the trial, he publicly defended the decision to call Smith.

    Other experts said it’s not so clear-cut.

    Tactical trial decisions — including which witnesses to call — typically don’t result in verdicts being overturned, some experts noted.

    “I don’t think it’s enough,” said Brian Telander, a former prosecutor and DuPage County judge now in private practice. “It was trial strategy, and even bad trial strategy doesn’t mean his counsel was ineffective.”

    “Attorneys make decisions like that all the time. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t,” agreed attorney Kathleen Zellner, whothinks Peterson doesn’t have “even a slight chance” of winning a new trial.

    Arguments over that issue could see defense attorneys trying to call Glasgow — who led the prosecution against Peterson — as a witness on his behalf.

    Glasgow has been notified by Peterson’s attorneys that they may call him to testify, although Peterson’s attorneys won’t say why.

    Last week, Glasgow sought to bar Peterson’s attorneys from making him testify. That issue hasn’t been settled.

    “Our position is they want to go fishing — and that’s not appropriate,” said Charles Pelkie, a spokesman for the Will County state’s attorney’s office.

    Glasgow couldn’t be required to testify about the investigation or prosecution tactics, so the only possible reason would be to question him about events that occurred outside the courtroom, experts said. Glasgow exulted outside the courtroom that Smith’s testimony was “a gift from God,” but his statement had no bearing on the verdict and likely wouldn’t lead to a new trial.

    “It’s not an issue,” Kling said.

    Brodsky, who left Peterson’s legal team in October, after the trial, also could be called as a witness on that issue — but by prosecutors.

    He confirmed that he had been subpoenaed by prosecutors for the hearing, but would say little else, except to contend that he has emails showing that Greenberg and defense counsel Joe Lopez supported the decision to call Smith as a witness.

    Greenberg would say only that “I expect that Mr. Brodsky will be testifying.”

    But he was evasive when asked whether Peterson — who didn’t testify during his trial — might take the stand to detail whether he had a say in putting Smith on the stand.

    “You’ll have to see,” Greenberg said of Peterson.

    Calling Peterson to testify poses risks because the sometimes cocky, sometimes abrasive former cop probably could offer little that would help convince Burmila to toss his conviction, but he might say something that could irritate the judge just before he rules. With authorities still investigating his Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, the impulsive Drew Peterson also might blurt out something that could become evidence if he’s ever charged in that case.

    “They should keep this guy quiet,” said Paul DeLuca, a former Cook and DuPage County prosecutor now in private practice.

    If Burmila rejects the request for a new trial, Peterson faces an immediate sentencing hearing that will end with him receiving a 20- to 60-year prison term.

    Prosecutors could push for a sentence on the higher end of that range by offering evidence linking him to the still-unsolved, 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson. He’s has been named a suspect by investigators but has never been charged.

    But experts generally agree Glasgow has little to gain by disclosing whatever evidence authorities have tying Peterson to Stacy’s disappearance.

    That could give Peterson’s attorneys another issue to raise when he appeals his murder conviction and could complicate matters if Peterson is later charged with Stacy’s disappearance and presumed death.

    And at Peterson’s age, any prison term he receives — and most experts predict he’ll be sentenced to at least 40 years — means that without a successful appeal, he’ll die behind bars.

    “They don’t need it,” Kling said. “Why jeopardize the case on appeal? I don’t think they need to bring it up.”

    Peterson also will have a final chance to speak before Burmila imposes his sentence.

    Despite his previous silence, he might take the opportunity to speak simply to maintain that he didn’t kill Savio — and because prosecutors won’t have a chance to cross-examine him.

    “I think, because he’s claiming his innocence, that he probably will want to say something,” Zellner said.

  35. Again, it has to be shown that Brodsky actually made a “legal error” and that the error resulted in conviction for Drew to get a new trial because of it.

    A legal error, not bad strategy, not a bad decision.

    Not a chance in hell.

  36. 6mos to a year in prison and it’s amazing what he’ll remember…he has a face his comrades in prison can’t forget…but then Glasgow said he didn’t need a body to prosecute….

  37. Even Peterson, 59, might finally take the stand as part of his last-ditch attempt to throw out his murder conviction for the 2004 bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot, if Drew was the “court room observer” described above? 😆

  38. Nine years after murder, sister misses Kathleen Savio every day: ‘It still hurts a lot’
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter February 17, 2013 6:44PM

    Anna Doman thought she’d feel a lot better after Drew Peterson was convicted of killing her youngest sister.

    But neither the guilty verdict returned against Peterson last September nor the nine years that have passed since Kathleen Savio was slain have really eased Doman’s loss.

    “It still hurts a lot. I thought it would be better by now, but it’s not, “ Doman said. “I just miss her so much.”

    Savio, 40, was found drowned in her bathtub on March 1, 2004, while she was still locked in a nasty court fight with Peterson, her ex-husband, over their finances.

    Her death staggered Doman, who recalled how she and her sister — whom family members called “Kitty” — had been so close each sometimes knew what the other was thinking.

    “We could finish each other’s sentences,” Doman recalled, laughing for a moment.

    She had worried about Kathy’s safety, particularly after her sister confided only six weeks before her death that Peterson had threatened to kill her.

    Doman’s testimony during Peterson’s trial about those threats, along with similar statements Savio made to their sister, Susan, helped persuade jurors to convict the former Bolingbrook cop of murder.

    But Doman, 57, doesn’t like to dwell on Kathy’s death or Peterson’s trial.

    Instead, she liked to remember Kathy was the fun, favorite aunt of her children and Susan’s children.

    Now some of those children are parents themselves — and Kathy would dote on her great-nieces and nephews, Doman said.

    Doman is teaching Italian to her four young grandchildren — and she says the kids, even her 3-year-old grandson — are starting to use some of those phrases when they talk to her.

    “She would go crazy for my grandson,” Doman said of Savio.

    Doman is trying to write a statement to read at Peterson’s sentencing to express how much her sister’s death still pains her.

    But she’s having trouble putting her hurt into words — and she’s isn’t sure she’ll be able to write something in time for Peterson’s scheduled sentencing this week.

    “I still miss her,” Doman said simply. “Even after all these years, it’s hard. I’ll think of something every day I want to tell her.”

    What she wishes now is that Peterson would tell investigators what he knows about the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Peterson is the only suspect in Stacy Peterson’s still-unsolved disappearance, but he has never been charged. Will County authorities have said they are continuing to investigate.

    Doman is relieved that she at least has the slight comfort of knowing what happened to her sister — and who is responsible.

    “I’m still very concerned for Stacy’s family,” Doman said. “To not know what happened would drive me crazy.”

  39. Of course I know it’s not SG’s job to persuade DP to cough up the only thing he’s any good for, but sometimes people may need reminding what it’s really all about. You know, the truth. And avoiding harming the victims any further.

    I think I have mentioned The Judge before, but it will have been years ago now!

  40. I see in Drew an anger that has been years in the making…he is a serial spousal abuser…as Glasgow said..he’s a bully and used his shield to harm people..that said …giving Stacy’s whereabouts will mean having to give up what he feels was his power and control…his remark of Kathleen ..I should have had her cremated…60 yrs…isn’t enough…

  41. I didn’t hear all of the conversation but in general this is what Greenberg had to say.

    Greenberg said that he’s not against all hearsay but thinks it’s wrong when a defendant is presumed guilty before the trial and hearsay is admitted on that basis.

    When Joel called Harry Smith to the stand, “I wanted to crawl under the table that day and hide. It’s absurd.”

    PINKUS: Why did Joel do that?

    GREENBERG: “Clueless. I’m clueless. I have no idea.”

    “I’ve done close to 100 juries, well over 1000 bench trials. watched at least a 1000 more. This is the worst moment I’ve ever seen in a a courtroom. Only moment worse was on an old Perry Mason rerun when someone takes the stand and says I committed the crime.”

    PINKUS: Is there a rivalry?

    GREENBERG:”Not between he and I. In his perspective it might be. He’s done some things that are laughable and accusations that are beyond belief.”

    PINKUS: Was Joel Brodsky in over his head?

    GREENBERG: “A fair statement. You got a traffic ticket once? He could handle that. Maybe he could get you convicted….Maybe he’ll add this to the defamation suit.”

    PINKUS: How did you join the defense team?

    GREENBERG: Brodsky asked another lawyer who was unavailable and that lawyer passed my name on. I joined the team three weeks before original trial date. Not enough motions were filed against the hearsay at the time. I must have filed 50 motions since then.

    PINKUS: Drew Peterson should have shut up!

    GREENBERG: “I don’t disagree. It’s not the strategy I would have followed. Peterson and Blago had the same PR agent. I have never hired a PR agent for a case. The old saying is ‘he who does not talk, walks'”

  42. WHOA….everyday of that trial they stood in front of those cameras and laughed it up…he who does not talk..walks…how many times was he on in session with Beth…his voice was heard everyday …answering questions from the media…is their hindsight ….no way…he along with JB and JL made asses of themselves..and after the verdict …was annoyed with the signs and support…

  43. Yikes, What is Greenberg trying to do? … prove that once again, DP has hired another ineffective counsel moron to represent him?

  44. I was somewhat surprised by the interview with Greenberg seeing as Joel was (still is?) a regular on Geoff’s show.

    There was talk after Greenberg’s segment of trying to get Joel on for his side of things, but I lost interest and stopped listening.

  45. GREENBERG: “I don’t disagree. It’s not the strategy I would have followed. Peterson and Blago had the same PR agent. I have never hired a PR agent for a case. The old saying is ‘he who does not talk, walks’”

    Isn’t it interesting he mentions Blago as having the same PR (we all know who it is) as Drew and Brodders. Blago is an uncontrollable loudmouth, too.

    Just by the by, the PR is someone I suspect as having another of JB’s quid pro quo arrangements.

    Yes what was SG thinking? He couldn’t control himself for a few minutes without saying something actually defamatory about JB on air and continuing to bring their profession into disrepute? (What’s that you say? That boat sailed a long time ago?)

    To be fair, he didn’t promise professional conduct until tomorrow….

  46. As for PR for accused murderers, when Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were arrested for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, the first thing Knox’ father did was to hire a big PR firm. Before hiring a lawyer. Stuart Higgins, former editor of the UK’s sleaziest tabloid The Sun (Murdoch), was immediately summoned to South Africa to represent Oscar Pristorius.

  47. I can’t imagine that Glenn Selig was working for free. But then, that’s his business so why would he? I don’t like the guy so much but I don’t fault a PR guy for making money doing PR.

    The odd thing is that a criminal defendant (or two) would be looking for publicity at a time when the accepted norm is to remain quiet.

    Even odder that an attorney would seek out and embrace such an arrangement.

    …The motion includes a contract Peterson and Brodsky signed with Glenn Selig, a publicist who also worked for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

    The contract calls for Selig to earn a 15 percent commission for securing any paid appearances or a book deal for Peterson or Brodsky…

  48. And while we’re hitting people with the “jerk” stick, let’s not allow “Dr.” Dan Budenz to get off without a good whack.

    He’s the jerk who, though ten years out of Drew Peterson’s life, decided to re-insert himself when he heard about Stacy’s disappearance, invited Drew and Joel to his place in Florida and introduced them to Glenn Selig.

    Then, not satisfied with the level of meddling, he went on to write his own, crappy, erroneous book about the Peterson case (while simultaneously marketing his own “online rehab” scam).

    There is just no end of people who have hoped to profit from the death of these two women.

  49. All the weird misspellings and punctuation are his:

    The plan was simple; if Drew was innocent he was already viewed as an O.J. Simpson type double murderer whose image would only improve with increased exposure. The plan was to expect and debunk all the misinformation and accusations that would be flooding in. Get in front of the cameras to assertively defend yourself and professional career as needed. Get the truth out and be as bold and accessible as the media and opinion journalists. Drew is a natural easygoing conversationalist who would be difficult to restrain anyway. Humor was to defuse the aggressive and false information flooding by some of the ethically challenged opinion media. Guilt making antics from those ‘close to the sources’ would escalate. All members of the team were clear to me except the financial adviser/accountant and agent. I provided a limited field of professionals for Joel to select as publicist and agents but many of the best I knew would not take this case and I did not even offer them up as a possibility because of that.

    I had the privilege to introduce Joel Brodsky’s eventual recommendation Glen Selig to Drew when Drew and his four youngest children stayed at my Florida home with us in December 2007. Glenn was owner of the ‘Publicity Store” of Tampa, Florida. Glen got to see one of the homes we used as a safe house. Glenn was a very good choice by Joel.

  50. Disagreements among legal teams during trials aren’t uncommon, but those spats spilling into public are, said Gal Pissetzky, a Chicago-area defense attorney who isn’t connected to the Peterson case.

    “A new team of lawyers might accuse an old team of lawyers of making mistakes at the trial — but lawyers on the same trial team blaming each other? I’ve never heard of anything like this,” he said.

  51. I take your point about PRs doing a job. I guess I have a problem with it because it’s …ahem..more often than not
    twisted, omissive or naked lies.

  52. I don’t even know where to begin after reading the latest from SG on the Pinkus Show. Ouch! Guess Joel isn’t one of the cigar club boys anymore.
    I will look forward to reading all of the posts late tomorrow night. I can’t access anything at work.
    I, too, wish Steven would come forward for the sake of Stacy’s family. How do you look at those two little ones every morning and not say anything? What an amazing gesture of moral character that would be. (I think everyone assumes he knows more.) Facs,I agree, Drew will never admit anything to the younger children.
    Can’t wait to see tomorrow’s updates from my favorite group!

  53. I am sure Drew is wondering why he has been convicted. It can’t possibly be his fault, he is way to smart, everyone else is too stupid. When he was doing his media runs I kept hoping he would slip up and give some clue as to where Stacy is. Hoping today is a banner day that leads to sentencing.

    Time to close up the circus!

  54. ode to Joe Lopez….thanks for not saying it was an ax e dent…but I have to disagree…the evidence was there and it was very compelling…you just chose not to hear it….

  55. Ex-attorney an issue as Drew Peterson seeks new trial

    By Steve SchmadekeTribune reporter
    7:23 a.m. CST, February 19, 2013

    Drew Peterson’s longtime lead attorney could find himself on the witness stand today defending his decision-making and legal skills as the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys argue that their client deserves a new trial.

    Peterson, convicted last fall of first-degree murder in the 2004 bathtub drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, is taking one more chance at winning a new trial before his scheduled sentencing Wednesday. The 59-year-old faces 20 to 60 years in prison.

    He remains the sole suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy. Prosecutors believe Peterson killed her and have said they will ask the judge to weigh that when sentencing him. They may also bring charges against Peterson, who they’ve labeled a “thug,” in her presumed death.,0,1250332.story

Comments are closed.