Will Drew Peterson walk because Joel Brodsky stinks? Read the filing

Drew Peterson kisses Joel Brodsky

Drew Peterson kisses Joel Brodsky

In a final pre-sentencing attempt to spring Drew Peterson or to at least get him a new trial, more documents were filed on Thursday claiming that Joel Brodsky did a terrible, awful, downright erroneous job of defending his client, Drew Peterson, against the murder charge for which he was convicted three months ago.

While the memo singles out attorney Brodsky, claiming that he “singlehandedly deprived Drew of his right to effective assistance of and conflict-free counsel”, a finger is also pointed at Judge Edward Burmilla for allowing testimony to be heard from attorney Harry Smith, in an alleged breach of attorney client privilege.

Attorney David Peilet, who stepped in as lead attorney when Joel Brodsky withdrew from Peterson’s defense, filed the memo which was penned by Steven Greenberg.

The state has until January 10, 2013 to respond.

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

The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>


Why no one needs to apologize to Drew Peterson

Stacy Peterson

Recently, Drew Peterson’s lawyer sent out a press release demanding that the Illinois State Police apologize for stating that they think his missing wife, Stacy Peterson, is dead. His attorney cited a recent case in which a woman long thought missing resurfaced after seeing a playing card with her missing person’s profile on it. Eighteen years after having voluntarily left her family, she called authorities to clear the air and solve the mystery of her whereabouts. Apparently, Peterson’s defense believes that this astonishing and rare case provides absolute proof that Stacy Peterson is also alive and safe and all we need to do is wait 14 more years for her to phone home.

Peterson’s defense overlooked the fact that the same deck of Missing Persons playing cards has also led to the identification of suspects in three more missing persons cases. One man has been arrested and charged with murder, while another awaits his trial for rape.

Naturally, Peterson’s attorneys wish that the evidence that points to Drew having murdered Stacy Peterson would be ignored in favor of the idea that miracles do happen and that the wandering Stacy Peterson will simply one day come home. But it’s pretty hard to erase the testimony of a man who says that he was paid to help remove a large tub from the Peterson residence on the night that Stacy disappeared. Hard to put out of our minds that he says Drew Peterson told him he needed to deal with the Stacy “problem” and was driven to a storage facility where he attempted to rent a locker in his name for Peterson’s use. It’s also difficult to makes ourselves forget the many people who were told by Stacy Peterson that she was afraid of her husband and that if she were to disappear that he had killed her and to please look for her. Also pretty hard to push aside the fact that Stacy, shortly before she went missing, confided in three people that her husband had killed his third wife, Kathleen, and returned home to tell her he had committed “the perfect crime”.

Say that you can brush all of that aside and you still believe that Stacy Peterson just took a walk one day and has never come back, leaving behind her small children, family and friends. The case of her disappearance has been in the news now for four years. There is constant media attention brought to the case, not only by its own merits but through the direct and incessant actions of Peterson, his attorney and their press agent. Hardly a week goes by that there isn’t some item planted in the news by them about the case. There is a large reward still in place for the information leading to her whereabouts ($30,000 offered by her family as well as $25,000 offered by Peterson himself). Stacy Peterson is a face and story that has continually been part of public consciousness since October 2007. Should we just suffer from the delusion that she is alive and yet no one in all this time has laid eyes on her or should we believe that no one wants the money? Both are ridiculous ideas.

Drew Peterson’s defense likes to trot out the fact that Stacy Peterson’s own mother went missing as evidence that Stacy Peterson left her family willingly. Christie Cales did leave the house one day and was never seen again. But, where are the facts to show that she abandoned her family and was not a victim of foul play, herself? We’ve never seen a shred of evidence that Cales is on prolonged and voluntary vacation.

Peterson’s attorneys would have us believe that random and strange news stories are a good basis for drawing parallels and making conclusions about the case of Stacy Peterson. Well, OK. I found one and if you follow the logic of Joel Brodky’s argument here is proof that Drew Peterson murdered Stacy Peterson.

DNA confirms body in freezer is that of woman missing for 28 years
The Associated Press

LEWISTON – Human remains that were found in a freezer in a storage unit this fall were those of a former girlfriend of the man who rented the unit for nearly 20 years, law enforcement officials said Friday.

Because of decomposition, tissue samples from the body had to be sent to a Pennsylvania laboratory, which used DNA from the remains and a relative’s DNA sample to confirm the identity of Kitty Wardwell, said Steve McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety.

The state Medical Examiner’s Office determined that Wardwell’s death was a homicide, but the cause of her death was being withheld Friday.

“We’re in the initial stages of this investigation. At this point, withholding the cause of death is appropriate as we try to get further answers,” McCausland said.

The storage unit was rented by Wardwell’s former boyfriend Frank Julian, who died Oct. 1 at the age of 80. Wardwell had been missing for 28 years.

Dwight Collins, Wardwell’s older brother, said the family believed from the beginning that Julian had something to do with her disappearance.

“We’re relieved that we finally have closure on it,” Collins said from his home in Bucksport. “We know it’s her. We can put her to rest now.”

I demand an apology!

~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.~

I selected this post to be featured on Crime Blogs. Please visit the site and vote for my blog!

Drew Peterson back in court today on weapons charges

In classic Drew Peterson PR style, another letter from Drew was distributed to the media outlets coinciding with a court date. The letter was yet another invitation to a Pity Party for Drew Peterson, this time claiming that law enforcement and the media were targeting his children in order to harm Peterson.

Last month Drew’s son Stephen Peterson was suspended from his job as a police officer in Oak Brook, after testifying that he accepted the illegal weapon from his father shortly after Stacy Peterson went missing. He explained that the gun was among “his favorites, and he didn’t want anything to happen to them.”

After arriving late in court today, Drew Peterson’s attorneys attempted to argue constitutional issues as they relate to the charges that Peterson possessed an illegally modified firearm.  According to reporter Joe Hosey who was tweeting from the courthouse, at least one member of the team expressed he was “thoroughly confused” during proceedings. Judge Richard Schoenstedt set the date of October 1st for handing down his decision.

We’ll update as we learn more throughout the day. Make sure to check the comments thread for the latest news.

We’re following Joe Hosey as he tweets from the courthouse.

~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.~
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed:
<a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Drew Peterson defense team starts blog


(Click to see full size)

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 28: That was fast. The blog that is the subject of this post is no longer there.
I just noticed that a site which formerly contained links to Drew Peterson’s defense documents (and is still entitled: Drew Peterson Documents) has now morphed into a blog with updates about the Peterson case.

Members of the Peterson’s defense team already send out frequent press releases, update the Abood Law and Brodsky & Odeh web sites with news and legal briefs, and Joel Brodsky continues to grant radio interviews even though Judge Stephen White has asked to preapprove all media appearances by all attorneys involved in the case.

The judge issued specific guidelines to Peterson’s attorneys on pre-trial publicity and media interviews, asking that the lawyers inform the judge of any pre-arranged media interviews and supply him with copies of any press releases sent out on the case.

defend-drew-cap Why does the defense continue to court the public even after filing a motion for a change of venue which complains that “media overexposure” has made it impossible for their client to obtain a fair trial of his peers?

Should we be expecting a return of the Drew Peterson Defense Fund website, where “For the cost of a few cups of your morning coffee, you (could) help to ensure that Drew can afford to support his ongoing legal defense” and “find his missing wife”?
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Maybe Drew Peterson’s defense team should go “buy” the book.

The weapons charges against Drew Peterson were dismissed in November, 2008. However the State has appealed that decision and would like to pursue the charges again. Last Monday, August 3rd, Drew Peterson’s defense filed a new response to the prosecution’s decision to appeal a court’s dismissal of gun charges.

While one could question why attorney, Andrew Abood is filing a 30-page brief about the appeal of a dismissed weapons charge when his client is already in jail indicted on two counts of murder, it’s a little more concerning that some of the information given in the response is blatantly un-factual.

In particular, this quote from pages 29-30:

No one can deny the Chicago Tribune and the Naperville Sun have reported on this case regularly. The Naperville Sun has even published a book about Mr. Peterson, featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

For the record, there have been only two books published about the Peterson case. Neither of them was published by the Naperville Sun.

fatal-vows1Joseph Hosey, who reports for the Herald-News in Joliet, authored “Fatal Vows: The tragic wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson“. It was published by Phoenix Books.

The other book written about the Peterson case is by Derek Armstrong. It’s called “Drew Peterson Exposed” and it was written after Peterson’s publicist, Glenn Selig, went looking for an author to tell “Drew’s side” of the story. It’s published by Kunati Books.

exposed-book-coverPlease note that the book cover showing Drew attached to the “lie detector machine” is that of Armstrong’s book–the book  written after Drew voluntarily provided “hundreds of hours” of interviews and personal photos to the author. It should also be pointed out that the polygraph of Peterson took place at the offices of his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, and at Brodsky’s request. In fact the photo credit in the book reads, “Photo courtesy of Brodsky & Odeh”.

So, to be clear (since Abood is not), the photo in question was one that Drew Peterson actually posed for, taken by and provided to the author by Joel Brodsky…and yet the defense team is now using it as an example of how the jury pool has been tainted.

If Peterson’s defense team can’t get details like this straight, can we trust the accuracy of any of the information in those 37 pages?

When Joel Brodsky was asked to comment on such an embarrassing gaffe, this was his response:

I think it’s a very slight mistake. I took the picture for Drew and he gave it to author Derek Armstrong to prove Drew took the lie detector test, which was a prerequisite for Armstrong to do his book. The picture (part of the book cover) was later re-published in the Naperville newspaper and I also believe in the Joliet Herald and the Sun Times when Armstrong’s book came out. The Naperville Sun did not publish the book, but they did publish the picture of Drew on the lie detector. However, Joe Hosey, who works for the Sun Times Group, of which the Naperville Sun is a part, did in fact author a book about Peterson. The line in the brief should have read “The Naperville Sun published a story about Mr. Peterson, featuring him on the cover of a book connected to a lie detector machine.” This is not a big deal, and these things happen, (like when the New York Times has its daily “clarification and corrections” section every day on page 2 of its newspaper). Its not significant to the legal argument, and we will clarify the issue in the rebuttal brief.

UPDATE AUGUST 14: Two days ago, Abood filed a correction which reads:

The Naperville Sun even published a story about Mr. Peterson about a book featuring him on the cover connected to a lie detector machine.

Now, the information has gone from false to nonsensical.

The original brief:

The letter of correction submitted August 12

Drew Peterson’s next hearing is on August 10.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

The Selling of Drew Peterson, continued

Steph Watts, formerly of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren and now a freelancer, described on Fox News Chicago tonight how Joel Brodsky approached him with an offer: $200,000 for a story about Drew Peterson and Chrissy Raines, complete with the opportunity to videotape the two of them at home.

The figure of $200,000 was arrived at by their belief that is what the family of Casey Anthony was offered for a story.

Watts stated that were Peterson to be acquitted he imagines Drew and Joel Brodsky would simply “Rejoin the media circus” and the two of them would continue to “pimp themselves out for interviews.”

Rumor has it that NBC paid six figures for the collect-call interview granted to Matt Lauer earlier this week.

Fox News Chicago

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

The Selling of Drew Peterson

Drew is expecting a nicer headline this time around?

Drew is expecting a nicer headline this time around?

Today, Drew Peterson’s PR agency announced that Drew Peterson and the Idiot Woman-child, Christina Raines, will be featured in Friday’s upcoming issue of People Magazine.

Drew’s publicity agent, Glenn Selig, states, “For Mr. Peterson, this was an opportunity for People readers to see him in a new light.”

Ridiculous PR spin aside, it was also yet another opportunity for Drew to cash in on the notoriety that has surrounded him since he became the only suspect in his fourth wife’s, disappearance (and possibly the homicide of his third wife).

Last week we heard from Randy Miller of WGN radio that Joel Brodsky charges for interviews with his client, or as Joel so elegantly puts it, “Yeah Drew will do it. It’s going to cost you some money.”  If a media outlet shows some qualms about ponying up cash, Joel tries to work out a barter, trading air-time with Drew for advertisement for his bar; as long as “the plug [is not] connected in any way to Drew Peterson or his attorney”.

Strange behavior from a defense team that has lashed out at every potential witness for the prosecution with accusations that they are speaking out only for financial gain.

When Drew’s old friend Ric Mims spoke of Drew showing him a fold-up gun in his possession, Brodsky dismissed it saying, “I think this is just another story that Mr. Mims is trying to shop to The Enquirer… He made money, you know, selling some pictures of a bed to The Enquirer. Now he’s trying to do it again.”

Continue reading