No decision on Drew Peterson motion for new trial

UPDATE 05:19:

Judge asks prosecutor, “Are you saying Stacy was an accomplice in Savio’s death?” Prosecutor suggests she misunderstood, then “No, I’m not saying that.”
Groans erupt in the overflow courtroom when the judge asks the defense if they want to make another comment.
Judge taking the arguments under advisement. Court adjourns until 1 p.m. Thursday.

UPDATE 03:18:

Sentencing likely not going to happen until Thursday.
Court is back in session, Attorney Peilet is rehashing Rev. Schori’s testimony. Neil Schori is in the courtroom.
Defense going through entire trial point by point, trying to show that state failed to prove case.
Arguments moving on to issue of state suggesting initial investigation of Savio’s death could have been more thorough.
Court in recess. Judge says they will finish today but sentencing tomorrow. (Indicates that he will not grant motion?)
Greenberg says Stacy’s conversation with Harry Smith was privileged, and nobody should have been able to call him as a witness. Brodsky’s decision to call Harry Smith allowed in the “most incriminating”. “that strategy alone should mean Peterson gets a new trial” evidence presented at trial.
Judge Burmila aks, “Do you believe lawyers should have brought mistake to court’s attention once Smith was called?”
Joel Brodsky is in press room listening to Greenberg and loudly sighing, putting his hand over his eyes.
Greenberg says lawyers were bullied by Brodsky during trial. “It was a dictatorship”.
Judge Burmila says if lawyers disagreed with Brodsky calling Harry Smith, they could have told him or asked to quit case.
The state says it’s not surprising that, with six lawyers on a case, there was some dissension. Drew Peterson ultimately chose the strategy. Also that Reem Odeh once argued the media frenzy wasn’t Drew Peterson’s fault, that he needed to “explain the rumors.” (white noise). Also that Drew Peterson knew about the publicity contract so he should have mentioned the conflict of interest to the court if there was one.
Prosecutor Marie Czech says calling Smith was strategic decision by defense, “they needed to do something” because their case was in trouble. Says Peterson had six attorneys, with more than 100 yrs of experience. If there was a disagreement, Peterson chose to go with Brodsky.

UPDATE 01:26:

Court back in session. Attorney Greenberg calls State’s Attorney James Glasgow. Lawyers now argue about whether he can testify. Glasgow objects to being called as well. The judge wants to know why the “Gift from God” statement made by Glasgow outside of the court room is important to this issue. Defense says Glasgow statement undercuts his argument that calling Harry Smith was just trial strategy. Judge still listening. Judge rules that Glasgow doesn’t have to testify. “I don’t see the relevance,” Judge Edward Burmila says. And that’s the end of the defense witnesses and prosecution has no witnesses.
Prosecution now asking judge to strike parts of the defense motion for a new trial before judge hears closing arguments.
Retrial hearing winding up now as defense runs down the unfolding of the trial; alleges lack of evidence, inadequate counsel, etc. Defense says that the Savio case only gained attention when Stacy Peterson missing person case became “national fodder”.
John Heiderscheidt now arguing that state did not prove its case against Drew Peterson – there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
Prosecution now speaks. They say that Drew Peterson made multiple statements about how he could kill Savio and make it look like an accident. The jury heard evidence that Savio’s death was a homicide, that Drew Peterson threatened to kill her and that Stacy provided an alibi.
Defense attorney Greenberg now arguing 2010 hearsay hearing violated Drew Peterson’s fifth amendment rights.
The State counters, saying that Drew Peterson’s rights were “scrupulously represented” at the hearsay hearing.
Lawyers continue to argue over evidence presented in trial. Defense tactic includes saying attorneys at hearsay hearing didn’t know the law.

UPDATE 10:54:

Greenberg calls retired Judge Daniel Locallo to the stand to explain how the Peterson murder case was lost by the defense. He describes his years of experience. Attorneys are arguing over whether Locallo can testify as an expert. Judge Burmila decides that he can testify. Locallo testifies that someone should have told Burmila about Brodsky/Peterson’s publicity contract and that calling Harry Smith to the stand was not a “reasonable” trial strategy. Locallo says that before Brodsky called Harry Smith, the jury had not heard evidence that Drew Peterson killed Kathleen Savio, dooming Peterson. Recess before cross-examination.
Cross-examination of Locallo begins. Prosecutor: Attorney Lopez had said during the closing statements that they did not “hide” Harry Smith from the jury. Locallo says he’s never seen other members of a legal team object on the record to a fellow team member’s strategy. Prosecutor points out that Greenberg objected on the record to Brodsky’s strategy, saying there was “about to be a mutiny”
Court in recess until 1:15 p.m.

UPDATE 10:43:

Court is session. Attorney Greenberg wants to address his motion to strike the state’s exhibits. Prosecution made allegations about things he and Lopez said in news articles, and it shouldn’t be part of the record. The State argues that Greenberg referred to news articles and broadcasts in his court filings.
Burmila denies the motion to strike.

UPDATE 09:45:

Press Release from the State’s Attorney’s office:

Drew Peterson Sentencing Wednesday, February 20

The hearing on post-trial motions in People V. Peterson is expected to conclude Wednesday, February 20. The case could proceed to sentencing later today. If that is the case:

After Judge Burmila announces a sentence, the press is asked to go to Joliet City Hall for a post-sentencing news conference. We will begin the conference roughly 30-45 minutes after a sentence is announced.
State’s Attorney Glasgow and his trial team will be available to make a statement, discuss the case and answer media questions.

Kathleen Savio’s and Stacy Peterson’s family members will be available for comments as well as possibly other witnesses from the trial.
…………………………………………….

This post will be updated throughout the day but check the comments thread below for the most recent news and tweets.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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.~

Advertisements

139 thoughts on “No decision on Drew Peterson motion for new trial

  1. So what else is new?

    The courts of IL are definitely more lenient than the ones I’ve been in. An attorney who shows up late would be publicly castigated and possibly held in contempt.

  2. Going to try not embedding so many tweets today and just pasting instead. It was really slowing down the page load:

    Michael Tarm @mtarm
    Relatives of #DrewPeterson ‘s murdered 3rd wife at hearing, including brother, sister; 4th wife Stacy’s sister here too. 20+ journalists

  3. Good Lord. I lived in the Chicago area for most of my life. If I needed to be somewhere at a certain time, I would leave at a time to account for traffic. Does Lopez not understand that concept? He is late to everything! What a goof!

  4. The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    Court is back in session on #DrewPeterson’s hearings. Attorney Greenberg wants to address his motion to strike the state’s exhibits. Prosecution made allegations about things he and Lopez said in news articles, and it shouldn’t be part of the record. The State argues that Greenberg referred to news articles and broadcasts in his court filings.

  5. The Herald-News
    @Joliet_HN
    Attorneys are arguing over whether Locallo can testify as an expert.

    I’m confused by this as well. Don’t they already have a judge who knows exactly why the trial went the way it did?

  6. The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    Locallo: someone should have told Burmila about Brodsky’s publicity contract

    Locallo: calling Harry Smith was not a reasonable trial strategy.

  7. why would the judge on stand say that . it not reasonable strategy hmm.. are they just asking for his opinion or did they defense ask him when they were in front of that judge not burmilli… I just don;t get that

  8. The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    Prosecutor: Lopez said in closing that they did not “hide” Harry Smith from the jury #DrewPeterson

    The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    Locallo said he’s never seen other members of a legal team object on the record to a fellow team member’s strategy

  9. IMO The other members of the ‘Dream Defense Team’ AND defendant DP had the opportunity to STOP the ‘captain’ by “objecting” and didn’t! Their ‘inaction’ ‘implies their agreement’ with the ‘captain’ of the titanic.

  10. And yet:

    Ruth Ravve @RuthRavve
    #DrewPeterson hearing is on lunch break. Our intern says DP sat in the courtroom hunched over, head down, eyes closed. Sleeping in court??

  11. Way to get on the right side of Burmilla! Bring in a retired judge to telll Burmilla what he should think.
    They say you can find an expert witness to argue anything at all.

  12. Prosecutor points out that Greenberg objected on the record to Brodsky’s strategy, saying there was “about to be a mutiny” why would the pros say this … I don’t remember them saying the def objected

  13. law student, Emily Koza, tells me “under Strickland v. WA, counsel is ineffective if his trial strategy falls below an obj. standard of reasonableness”

    So that explains the use of “reasonable” with Locallo.

  14. Ah! Lawyers can argue all day and all night what constituttes “reasonable” in any situation. You may have heard the expression “The man on the Clapham omnibus” (though probably not, lol). That was a set standard of “reasonable” in law here. It was reasonable if the man on the Clapham omnibus (bus) would find it reasonable, and the man on the Clapham omnibus signifies the ordinary everyman.

  15. Yeah, Bucket. It isn’t saying much that they found one retired judge who is wiling to say that Brodsky’s decision was not “reasonable”.

    I may think that Joel was stupid to call Smith (and I do) but I still accept that he had a reason when he did so, and that he thought the outcome would be different.

    He wanted to try to impeach Schori’s (Stacy’s) testimony. Perfectly good reason to call Smith, albeit risky. It didn’t work. The jury made their decision. Drew is guilty.Let Burmila sentence him!

    Of course everyone is going to stay it was a bad decision now.

  16. So apparently, Locallo was trying to suggest that Joel made the poor decision on purpose, to insure that Drew would be convicted? Hoo boy.

    Brodsky Cared More For Fame Than Winning Drew Peterson Case: Judge

    Attorney Joel Brodsky may have even lost the Drew Peterson murder trial on purpose in hopes of augmenting his public image, a retired judge testified.

    Drew Peterson’s lead attorney may have taken a dive during the convicted wife-killer’s murder trial in hopes of boosting his fame, a retired judge testified Wednesday morning.

    If attorney Joel Brodsky had somehow managed to win Peterson’s murder trial, “The spigot could be turned off. The interest could probably wane,” retired Cook County Judge Daniel Locallo testified.

    Peterson attorney Steve Greenberg referenced the Casey Anthony case and pointed out that no one is very interested in her attorney, Jose Baez, since he beat the murder case brought against the Florida mother.

    Locallo also said Brodsky was “prejudiced” against Peterson because of a contract the two of them signed with a Florida publicist. He also said Brodsky’s decision to call his slain wife’s divorce attorney as a witness was a huge mistake.

    “So far I haven’t heard any explanation for why he made this renegade, obviously ineffective move,” Greenberg said of Brodsky calling Smith to the stand.

    Peterson was found guilty in September of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Brodsky, who Greenberg said insisted his co-counsel call “coach,” is no longer part of the defense team. Peterson’s remaining lawyers have since blamed Brodsky for losing the case and are trial to get Judge Edward Burmila to grant a new trial.

    Greenberg and attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez said they may call one more witness Wednesday afternoon. They would not identify the witness or disclose whether Peterson will testify.

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/brodsky-cared-more-for-fame-than-winning-drew-peterson-case-judge

  17. So was Locallo a close friend of Joel’s or something, and did he attend ever day of the trial?

    How would he be in any position to guess at Joel’s motivation?

    This is ridiculous.

  18. “I can’t conceive of the benefit to Mr. Peterson by calling Mr. Smith and putting in what I would think was damning evidence,” said Locallo, who served as a Cook County judge for more than 23 years.

    Until Smith testified, Locallo noted, “there had not been any direct evidence with respect to Mr. Peterson causing the demise of Ms. Savio.”

    Locallo also said Brodsky made an ethical mistake by signing a contract with a publicist on Peterson’s behalf for media, book and TV deals.

    “The conflict that is raised is who does Mr. Brodsky owe his loyalty to, his pocketbook or Mr. Peterson?” Locallo said.

    http://www.suntimes.com/18355767-418/former-judge-says-a-drew-peterson-attorney-allowed-damning-evidence.html

  19. New video up at the top of the post (you might need to refresh).

    Atty David Peilet (does that guy ever shave?) says that Joel must have been taking his meds yesterday.

  20. Dan Rozek @DanRozek1
    #DrewPeterson’s attys. want to all State’s Atty. James Glasgow to testify about his comment that Harry Smith testimony was “gift from God.”

    Glasgow, who won #DrewPeterson conviction, is objecting to being called as witness

    judge wants to know why Glasgow’s “gift from God” statement outside court was important.

  21. Yes. Prosecution says they aren’t going to call anyone. But I guess they get to do a closing argument?

    I haven’t heard if Brodsky is lurking about today or not.

  22. I am beginning to believe these jokers have no clue as to what they are doing. Drew was convicted, found guilty, what part of that do they not understand. What a baseless argument.

  23. It must be just in order to make a record for later appeals. There’s no WAY they thought this was going to result in an acquittal or a new trial at this stage.

    Right?

  24. It was up to the jury to decide if there was enough evidence – a jury of his peers. If the lawyers believe there wasn’t, then they should have had a bench trial. Trying to convince a judge now is a little late! IMO

  25. Michael Tarm @mtarm
    #DrewPeterson attny complains:”(Savio murder case) doesn’t rearise until missing persons case ( Stacy Peterson) becomes national fodder”

    That’s a reason for a new trial? Because a formerly screwed-up investigation was finally given a better look?

  26. Heeeeeere’s, Brodsky!

    Michael Tarm @mtarm
    Joel Brodsky just walked into #DrewPeterson overflow courtroom to listen for a min ex-colleagues talk about how allegedly botched trial .

    Michael Tarm @mtarm
    #DrewPeterson attorney: “My heart breaks for the Savio family … but the law doesn’t exit to mend broken hearts.”

  27. Have them tell Drew that. If he hadn’t offed his fourth wife, he may have gotten away with the murder of his third wife. Laughable they are

  28. The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    Brodsky was in press room talking to reporters, left when told he was talking too loud

    Michael Tarm @mtarm
    State tells judge a person DID talk bout Savio murder B4 she even died.”Who was tht person?Tht person was the defendant, #DrewPeterson”

    Sarah Schulte @SchulteABC7
    One light just went out in #DrewPeterson courtroom. It happens to be the light above the defense table. Is it a sign???

  29. In a final twist to their unorthodox legal strategy, the defense attempted this afternoon to call Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow to the witness stand.

    They wanted to ask about a comment made by Glasgow outside court during Peterson’s murder trial where Glasgow said the defense team’s decision to call divorce attorney Harry Smith was a “gift from God.”

    Some jurors have said Smith’s testimony convinced them Peterson was guilty, and Peterson’s defense team has said the decision to call Smith to testify was Brodsky’s.

    Defense attorneys said Glasgow’s comment shows that he understood that Brodsky’s decision to call Smith was terrible, and that the state’s attorney should not be able to now say that the defense attorney’s strategy was a good one.

    But Burmila barred the defense from asking about that statement, and he said that if that’s all the defense wanted to ask him about, he will not make Glasgow testify after all.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-retired-judge-critical-of-drew-peterson-defense-20130220,0,5290449.story

  30. I’m still waiting for Mrs. Brodsky to enter the courtroom and insist that she be allowed to take the stand.
    * * * * *
    LOL! Wearing a picture hat and veil and clutching a hankie…..and a pistol in her garter.

  31. Craig Wall FOX 32 @craigrwall
    Prosecution & defense lawyers tell me the sentencing phase will not happen until tomorrow in #DrewPeterson case. Too much still to do today

  32. Question one: What about this contract? Should Peterson’s lawyers call a Truman Capote scholar to the stand? As the New York Times’s David Carr put it in a 2005 essay, while researching the Kansas murders that became the basis of his best seller In Cold Blood, Capote developed an “emotional attachment” to the killers, “but that relationship did not prevent him from developing a rooting interest in their deaths, without which he would have no end for his most important work.”

    Did Brodsky have a rooting interest in Peterson’s conviction? Doesn’t Peterson collapse as a commercial property if he lives happily ever after?

    Then again, during the trial, not just Brodsky but Greenberg and everyone else on the defense team were represented by a PR agency. And that leads me to . . .

    Question two: What about Joseph “the Shark” Lopez? He was a big part of that team, and during the trial his angle was to write columns for the Sun-Times while presumably giving Peterson his all as a defense counsel. We need his inside view now more than ever, giving us the what’s-what on Brodsky and Greenberg and dispelling—if that’s possible—the impression I’m surely not alone in having that Peterson’s defense team would have tried a lot harder to act like grown-ups if they’d believed for a second their client was actually innocent.

    http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2013/02/20/a-couple-of-questions-about-drew-petersons-post-trial-hearing

  33. “Nothing the state has done, ignoring all the other glaring privilege issues, the record as a whole does nothing more than raise suspicion about what happened in the [Kathleen] Savio home,” Peterson attorney John Heiderscheidt said this afternoon in court. “My heart breaks for the Savio family and the (Stacy) Cales family. I don’t know what it’s like to lose a loved one and I hope I never have to. But the courts don’t exist to mend broken hearts alone.”

    “There will come a time when we all turn to ashes and dust, and all that will be left here is the court record,” Heiderscheidt said. “And I’m certain that when we remove ourselves from the passions and prejudices aroused by various people throughout this trial, we will see that this verdict is unsupported by the facts. No rational trier of the facts could believe it.”

    “So you’re asking me to enter a judgment of acquittal, not withstanding the jury verdict?” Burmila asked.

    Heiderscheidt said yes, and said that the court has the authority to overrule a verdict that is so unsupported by the evidence.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-retired-judge-critical-of-drew-peterson-defense-20130220,0,5290449.story

  34. Craig Wall FOX 32 @craigrwall
    Brodsky in overflow courtroom listening 2 Greenberg criticize him “I don’t know how it could be found to be effective assistance of counsel”

  35. Dan Rozek ‏@DanRozek1
    #DrewPeterson atty. Steve Greenberg said lawyers were bullied by Brodsky during trial. “It was a dictatorship,” Greenberg said.

    The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN
    Judge: No one advised the court of this turmoil before the witness got on the stand. #DrewPeterson Court taking a recess.

  36. Dan Rozek ‏@DanRozek1
    #DrewPeterson Judge Burmila says if lawyers disagreed with Brodsky calling Harry Smith, they could have told him or asked to quit case.

  37. Andy Grimm ‏@agrimm34
    #DrewPeterson’s fmr atty Joel Brodsky chats with #StacyPeterson’s sister; ruling on new trial likely will be Thurs.

  38. During a courtroom break this afternoon, Drew Peterson’s former lead attorney Joel Brodsky chatted in the hallway with the sister of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy.

    Stacy’s sister Cassandra Cales wouldn’t discuss the content of the roughly five-minute conversation, but Brodsky said, “We were just discussing how to make sure that her sister Stacy isn’t forgotten after Drew goes away.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-retired-judge-critical-of-drew-peterson-defense-20130220,0,5290449.story

  39. Oh for cryin’ out loud. They all knew from the start that JB was driving the bus. How were they being paid? Just a license to use Kitty’s murder to pump up their profiles? Future book deals? pot-kettle-etc

  40. Brodsky said, “We were just discussing how to make sure that her sister Stacy isn’t forgotten after Drew goes away.”

    And yesterday Brodsky said that he was looking forward to taking the stand. Five minutes later he was refusing to enter the court room.

  41. He better not be offering his diseased hand in assistance to Ms Cales. What on Earth could he possibly say to her? How has he got the nerve?

  42. Michael Tarm @mtarm
    At #DrewPeterson: Brodsky tells me at break that Greenberg’s description of him as “dictator” during trial was “bald-faced lie” & “fiction”

  43. “He better not be offering his diseased hand in assistance to Ms Cales. What on Earth could he possibly say to her? How has he got the nerve?”

    Bucket those were my thoughts too, but you put it so well! 😉 Not to worry, I’m sure Ms Cales knows the score.

  44. The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    State: Reem Odeh once argued the media frenzy wasn’t #DrewPeterson’s fault, that DP needed to “explain the rumors.”

    “White Noise”!

    The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
    State: #DrewPeterson knew about the publicity contract, he should have mentioned the conflict of interest to the court.

  45. Everybody knew about the publicity contract. It was public knowledge and discussed ad nauseum. Brodsky defended it at the time in the newspapers as being akin to the defense tactics used in the O.J. Simpson case.

    Why is any of this relevant?

    This is the most bizarre case of whiners trying to turn back the clock, saying they want to erase their bad judgment calls.

    A jury of Drew’s peers found him guilty based upon a preponderance of evidence. Now let’s get on with the sentencing already!

  46. Drew knew about the publicity contract….he knew about everything that has gone on since day 1….these are a bunch of sick people….Drew is going to play the system to the end…big house or not …he will not go down quietly….he wants his ego stroked….

  47. gosh if they are not starting tomorrow until 1pm, 2 pm where I am, how long do they expect the sentencing stuff to take? Is there a chance this could spill into Friday?

  48. What totally bizarre and eclectic issues are being raised here; is the Defense team teaching Judge Burmilla how to handle a trial ?

    Where does Judge Locallo fit in – Is this a trial after a trial with the Defense team having appointed their own Judge ?

    Good God, this is so “out there” it nearly makes Joel Brodsky look sensible …….

  49. With Joel Brodsky you’ll just never know.

    After five years of being thick as thieves with Drew, he may just have a trumpcard or two up his sleeve and perhaps has an inkling regarding Stacy’s whereabouts or fate…….

  50. “It was a dictatorship.”

    That is how Steve Greenberg has described working on the Peterson case with Joel Brodsky.

    Judge Burmila had asked Greenberg why neither he nor any of the other members of the defense team expressed their concern about the calling of Harry Smith to the stand or express the turmoil that had been plaguing the defense team. “Why didn’t you come to me and tell me that this conundrum had arrived?” Burmila said.

    Greenberg explained to Burmila that when he attempted to discuss issues with Brodsky sometimes he would get a bump or a shove. Brodsky clearly unhappy with that statement made an audible “ah” and shook his head in disbelief in the overflow room.

    http://wgntv.com/2013/02/20/working-with-brodsky-like-a-dictatorship/

    A “bump or a shove”. Why didn’t he make a police report and walk away like Reem Odeh did?

    Because that would have meant walking away from a high-profile case that they all thought they were going to win. When that turned out not to be the case…whoah daddy!

  51. Perhaps very telling that in the photograph outside the Court, two of the three lawyers standing in front of the microphone discussing “ineffective counsel” were on that “ineffective counsel” team themselves – LOL

  52. This can’t be an accomplished attorney talking. Seriously…..

    “Your honor….I didn’t come to you because he was so mean and I was sooooo scared of him.”

    For cryin’ out loud! Can it get any more pathetic?

    Burmilla was there. He saw the courtroom antics — from ALL of the “Dream Team.” If there was such behind-the-scenes threats, they would have kept their distance from Brodsky in the courtroom (and out in front of the cameras).

    Pathetic!

  53. I didn’t mean to insinuate that Brodsky didn’t push or shove. I’m sure there was plenty of that to go around on all sides. It’s just that these are supposed to be MEN and not crybabies.

  54. “Greenberg explained to Burmila that when he attempted to discuss issues with Brodsky sometimes he would get a bump or a shove.”

    So if this is what happened when Greenberg attempted to speak to Brodsky, presumably in private, why on earth did Greenberg not address the issue in court in front of Burmila. I sincerely doubt that Brodsky would have bumped or shoved Greenberg while standing in front of Burmila. It certainly would not have been necessary for Greenberg to ask Brodsky’s permission to speak to Burmila; all he would have to do is request a sidebar.

    All of these arguments sound incredibly hollow when you dissect them. Greenberg, et al. sound like a bunch of whiny middle-schoolers who are protesting their after school detention and asking for another chance.

  55. It sounds to me that the defense team realized that the “ineffective counsel” wasn’t going to fly, so they decided to pick apart the prosecution’s case in hopes of proving that the prosecution’s case wasn’t based in the factual evidence needed to prove that Kathleen’s death was a murder instead of an accidental death.

  56. justanotherhen…………………….if Joel Brodsky knows or has a good idea where Stacy is, he better let the authorities know. It’s a good bet that his former client isn’t going to ever leave the state prison, and it would be a far better thing for him to do to ease a family’s pain, to tell what he knows. Stacy’s family deserves to know the truth and to be able to bring Stacy home for a proper burial and have that closure.

    I know there’s attorney-client privilege, but he can simply say, “If I were you, I’d be looking for Stacy……………….and then give a specific area to be searched.

  57. I’m surprised they aren’t bringing up Brodsky doing all his online answering questions to all kinds of people about drew, and the case on that Mike’s site. That was some crazy stuff too! I never seen an attorney answer questions about a case, or a client to a bunch of strangers before there was even an arrest, or without the client present.
    Sentence Drew already he is guilty no matter how stupid his attorneys may be. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see he is the only suspect, and the only one with motive to want his wife dead. Do they seriously want a new trial? That will just give Glasgow more power to get some of the other good stuff that he couldn’t get in before or got thrown out because of error. It’s over he is guilty lock his butt up for life where he belongs!

  58. My Prayers and thoughts as always with the Savio’s and Cales family, and friends. Justice is finally almost here!! Just another day or so and he will be sentenced behind bars for life where he belongs. Praying for peace, love, and comfort, for you all. God Bless!

    As for you Joel, Stacy will never be forgotten regardless of the outcome, or any time passing no matter how long it takes Stacy’s time too shall come! As for your conscious, and any ounce of decency if you know anything find a way to make it known. As I’m sure you already know there is plenty of ways to do it and remain anonymous.

  59. Greenberg came to this circus late, after a few had already seen the writing on the wall and took leave, he jumped in and took an active part. If the tent is falling down, he is kicking out the poles. What they are doing now is a disgrace to the judicial system. No I do not think Joel is without blame, but I’m pretty sure Greenberg knew which way the winds blew when he decided to come on board.

    I also don’t think much of a former judge who would get on the stand and tell the presiding judge basically that he had been taken a fool. Sounds to me like one more clown looking for his 15 minutes.

    So Drew, go directly to jail do not pass go. Bye-bye!

  60. I pray that Judge B will make the right decision and that Drew Peterson will be sent to prison as the jury found him GUILTY of MURDERING Kathleen Savio. The jury did just what they were asked to do. They were asked to listen to the evidence presented to them and follow the law that they were given to find him GUILTY AS CHARGED or FIND HIM NOT GUILTY. The JURY SPOKE… Now because Joel does not like Steve and Steve does not like Joel and no one on the defense team could play nice in the sand box, DREW SHOULD GET A NEW TRIAL???? I don’t think so….
    How many years before the family and friends of Kathleen Savio can finally begin to get closure. This is so sad. If Joel was so bad…… and maybe he was as he DID LOSE ALL ATTORNEYS from the Hearsay trial and I believe they all withdrew for the same reason… that reason being JOEL BRODSKY, then it should have been brought up LONG BEFORE Drew is found GUILTY . It has been said that DREW was VERY much IN CONTROL of decisions that were being made… Do you really think that DREW PETERSON allowed the defense team to just do what they wanted to do and him not to be IN CONTROL??? REALLY
    TOO MUCH DRAMA!!!!!!!!!!

  61. I am so thoroughly disgusted by the shenanigans of the Defense’s desperate antics to win a new trial for DP and am especially surprised – and angered at Greenberg. It’s a dark day in America when an attorney of his caliber resorts to a new low by engaging in character assasination and what to me is clearly a personal vendetta against former co-counsel Joel Brodsky!

    For the record, I am not taking any one attorney’s side here, just telling it as I see it. If you’re going to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, then you damn well better have legal proof to support said claim in court!! Instead, all we saw was character assasination, prior bad acts and what have you, all aimed at Brodsky and all of which, as Glasgow said was “irrelevant”.

    Now today, gawd help us, they’re throwing everything plus the kitchen sink in the hopes something, ANYTHING will stick and oh gosh, oh gee! The piece de’ resistance – “a bump and a shove”….WTF?!?

    Steve Greenberg you’re so fulla crap I’m actually embarrassed for you, sorry to say. You’ve lost your objectivity, allowed your personal feelings to get in the way! Even Judge Burmila had his concerns before this hearing got underway, In fact, I’m surprised he’s given you enough leeway to run hog assed wild as you have. There’s a saying…”give someone enough rope and they’ll hang themselves”….or, in Greenberg-speak ” he who doesn’t talk, walks”.

    Betchya on DP’s next appeal from prison, he’ll claim “ineffective assistance of counsel” against YOU.

    Anticipating Burmila pulling the plug tomorrow!!!!

  62. Beautifulkat1 So right! Although with Joel being captain of their ship I guess it is true what they say “loose lips sink ships.” He had to follow the rule of thumb I guess lol Big smile 🙂 I hope he doesn’t stop now! Any information, or tips would be useful!

  63. I’m not totally convinced JB has the information he hints at, but just in case, I’m all for staking him out on a red anthill til he squeals. It’s beyond the repulsiveness of anything else he’s done, imo, to taunt in this way. Sneaky little evil piggy. Saving it for your book, you greasy little ass wipe?

  64. I so agree with bucket….this trial and it’s attorneys have brought nothing but sleeze….evil…and cruelty…greenberg…brodsky…and lopez used this tragic killing as a media event….peterson thought he could use the media and get away with murder…let this be a lesson for each one of them…I hope the Savio family and Lacy’s Stacy’s family get every cent he ever made….that he dies in stripes…and someone in the big house has a vendetta against him …..may he live the rest of his life in fear…as they did…may brodsky lose his license..may greenberg receive a reprimand for his actions…they should be held responsible for their bad choices…..

Comments are closed.