Joel Brodsky, Firebrand Chicago Lawyer is Fighting For His Life

Chicago, IL--Amazing how a lawyer can be disbarred for simply fighting for justice in Chicago's Courtrooms.  Despite no allegations of theft, dishonesty or fraud Joel Brodsky faces possible disbarment.  In the meantime the Illinois State Bar Association will destroy Brodsky's clients with a questionable interim suspension. All I have to say is, WOW!  Sit back and watch what my investigation uncovered about Brodsky's case.

Drew Peterson, Legal Team Fallout and Sour Grapes

Lead lawyer, Joel Brodsky

Chicago, IL—The Drew Peterson Inquisition was an un-American legal experience.  Trial by unprecedented hearsay testimony rather than evidence doomed Peterson to an adverse verdict.  This was to satisfy the lynch mob mentality that dictated the predetermined result.   

There were no less that six lawyers defending Drew Peterson.  That was a recipe for dysfunction, anger and loathing.  I’ve seen it before even when the results were victorious such as in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. 

When the stakes are high each lawyer has different ideas and sometimes the mixture of ideas become incredibly caustic. 

As a criminal defense investigator and veteran of numerous murder trials I had my own ideas about Peterson’s defense direction.  I did not get to vote but sensed a disaster in the making, not from legal strategy but by the shocking perversion of the way this criminal trial was conducted.

I knew there were conflicts within the Peterson defense team.  I also understand that lawyers are remembered not for their overall batting average but the results obtained on a high profile case.   

Lawyers that believe in their positions fight for them like pit bulls.  Litigation is about conflict and lawyers are the gladiators that fight for survival.

Each lawyer had a huge personal risk of failure especially when you consider over 80% of all normal prosecutions end in conviction.  The Peterson prosecution was a lot of things but normal was not one of them.

I hate it when lawyers feud over professional decisions but it’s a reality.

I consider all the lawyers on the defense teem as legal champions in their own right.  I believe they made an adequate record to win at some stage whether in expected post-trial motions or in the higher courts.

Lead lawyer, Joel Brodsky released a statement today in response to former team member Steve Greenberg’s post trial,  sour grapes comments:

Steve Greenberg was given a job to for the defense team, which was to bring motions and make objections, as well as cross examine a few witnesses.   He failed to bring the most important motions, such as to bar the 2004 “botched investigation” evidence, saying he would object when the state tried to get the evidence in.  Then he failed to object when the State started with this evidence, potentially causing the loss of several important appellate issues.  He also missed several other important objections which are required to preserve issues to appeal.  It was then that Mr. Greenberg was relieved from the job of making objections.  Further, even though Mr. Greenberg he did win many of the motions, these were on small issues. Greenberg lost the big ones, such as barring the hearsay previously found to be unreliable, and keeping the “hit man” testimony out.  During the trial he was frequently absent from the defense table because he was hanging out in the press room, or by the TruTv television tent,.  He also failed to attend almost all after court team meetings, and was unprepared for his cross-examination of the few witnesses he had, fumbling for papers while the witnesses were on the stand. Mr. Greenberg was let go because of his failure to accomplish most of the tasks he was brought on board to take care of.

Also, for the record, Greenberg did not object to Harry Smith being called as a witness by the Defense, and in fact was in favor of him being called as late at the day before Smith was called.  Further, Smith was never barred from testifying, nor was his testimony reduced in scope by a motion that Mr. Greenberg made and any statements to that effect are false.  Finally, Greenberg never argued with me not to call Smith, and his statement to that effect is not true.  Greenberg didn’t change his story on the Harry Smith issue until after Smith testified and he felt that the testimony may have hurt Drew’s case, and only then did he vocally (to others but not to the defense team members), start saying that it was a mistake.  It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distance himself from the conviction that was not really anyone’s fault, as the jurors public comments show that they were going to convict Drew Peterson no matter how lacking the evidence was.”

Joel A. Brodsky

Attorney at Law

8 S. Michigan Ave.

Suite 3200

Chicago IL 60603

The Drew Peterson Prosecution and Verdict Threatens All Americans

Drew Peterson    Photo by Paul Huebl

Joliet, IL—A jury convicted retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson of murder yesterday.   Peterson very publicly proclaimed his innocence and in the process became an absolute public pariah.   The media he used to assert his innocence redundantly exposed Peterson’s troubled marriages with much younger women.  The self-generated publicity backfired.

Police and prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence to take action against Peterson under existing law.   There was no way to proceed with a prosecution.

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow quickly lobbied a special legislative bill that would retroactively allow him to use normally outlawed hearsay testimony as evidence in court.  Additionally, it was a special law that was designed and promulgated just for the prosecution of him and was given the popular moniker of The Drew Peterson Law.

The Constitution provides three protections that should have precluded this law.  The law was a prohibited ex post facto law.  This was also a prohibited bill of attainder.  The biggest problem of all was that it denied Peterson his right to confront the evidence used against him in court. 

Apparently there is no amount of pre-trial publicity that will cause today’s courts to take steps to prevent the outside influences from reaching a sitting high profile case jury.  Nothing interfered with the jury from their Internet access to hundreds of articles and videos related to the matter under examination throughout the trial.  Juror’s very human inquisitive nature makes judicial admonitions to avoid such exposure unenforceable and totally meaningless. 

I’m not clairvoyant and cannot tell you what happened to Kathleen Savio eight years ago inside her locked domicile.  The expert’s disagreed and that normally should have been reasonable doubt enough.  Police only bothered to look at one suspect.

The troublesome hearsay statements are never made under oath nor a guarantee that the witness repeating the statements are both accurate and truthful when they offer this kind of testimony. 

The capable lawyers representing Drew Peterson were placed into a grossly unfair disadvantage with this unprecedented hearsay prosecution.  They even had to somehow create new and untested jury instructions for this trial. 

Hearsay was popular evidence in another infamous criminal justice system from history, The People’s Court of National Socialist Germany 1933-1945. 

The Drew Peterson case endangers every American and their loved ones to the kind of tyranny we have just seen in Will County, Illinois.

Inside The Drew Peterson Trial. Savio’s Divorce Lawyer’s Testimony Accuses Stacy Peterson of Criminal Extortion and Telling Lies.

Drew Peterson     Photo by Paul Huebl

Joliet, IL—I present to my readers the actual Drew Peterson trial transcript of trial testimony that's attached below. But first a few words.

In the  trial of retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson the testimony of divorce lawyer Harry Smith tells a really sordid story through unprecedented hearsay that does not belong in any American courtroom. 

Smith said that the young missing wife of Drew Peterson, Stacy Peterson called him for advice on divorcing Peterson and grabbing his assets.  She told Smith that she wanted to use information she claimed would implicate Peterson in Kathleen Savio’s death as leverage to get a large cash payout.  Stacy wanted to Blackmail her husband.

Smith had no business even talking with Stacy at all since he had an obvious conflict of interest.  If Smith is telling the truth here, why did Smith not do his duty and call the cops?  He had no lawyer/client relationship with Stacy and was free to disclose what was vital information.  The real reason for Smith silence is obvious in that he knew she was a liar and never believed what she said. 

Stacy told more than one person she wanted to disappear and she was dating several young men.  If there was or is foul play in her disappearance none of her boyfriends were properly investigated.  We can only guess what happened. 

As for Smith’s testimony it has been warped, exploited and misquoted by the Tweeting Peterson Trial Harpies and the mainstream media.   Read it for yourself and it will open your eyes to the media’s disinformation.

 Drew Peterson Trial - Divorce Lawyer Harry Smith Examination

Snookered Media Organization again uses Proven Liars, Stark and Wawczak to Smear Drew Peterson

Like vampires risen from the dead,  Len Wawczak and his wife, Paula Stark

Bolingbrook, IL--Len Wawczak, 45, and his wife, Paula Stark, 40, are a couple of deadbeats.  They were and still are desperate for cash.  They were involved court collection lawsuits and filed Bankruptcy just before retired Bolingbrook police sergeant, Drew Peterson was charged with murder.  

When the Drew Peterson investigation went high profile the tabloids came to town and provided some short-term financial hope for this troubled pair.  They had known Peterson so they put themselves out for the media and police as spies.   

This pair claimed they could get Peterson to implicate himself in criminal activity on tape.  Police wired this couple for months and despite numerous recorded conversations with Peterson they completely failed to trap the retired cop.

They pair lied to various media organizations claiming that they had trapped Peterson on tape with damaging statements.  Of course there were none and the police investigators and prosecutors quickly distanced themselves from the devious duo.

Wawczak and Stark have no value as witnesses to anything including the Peterson Prosecution.  However, the In Sessions show at Headline News fell into their web once again.  In recent years the media seems to have lost their ability to vet their sources.

Additionally, Wawczak was stupid enough to threaten and physically attack Peterson in front of news cameras.  I hope he got paid some cash for his antics because he was arrested and brought to justice in criminal court for battery.

This pathetic couple has risen from the dead like vampires in the night.  Does anyone have a couple of wooden stakes and a mallet?

The Peterson Defense Rests! What’s Next in the Murder Trial?

Drew Peterson    Photo by Paul Huebl 

Joliet, IL--Lawyers for Accused retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson rested their case today.  There’s no reason for Peterson to testify because everyone knows what he has to say.  He formally declined to do so.  

Prosecutors get yet another bite ate the apple putting on their hired gun, expert witnesses to cancel out Peterson’s.   The defense will cross-examine but the tricky part will by for prosecutors not to punish the jury with the total duplication of their murder speculation.

Throughout the day both sides will offer up jury instructions to the court.  The rub here is addressing the barrage of never before admitted hearsay evidence brought on by the new Drew Peterson Law.  The judge may have a few instructions of his own. 

Next come the final arguments beginning with the prosecutor claiming they’ve proven their case, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That’s a difficult concept for even the brightest lawyers to define.  In this case it will be a miracle if prosecutors don’t again cross boundaries in their attempt to poison the jury.

The defense will get their turn and attack the case made through gossip, hatred and emotion.  As for attacking viable physical evidence, there is none. They will ask the jury to put aside the hype, guess work and wild speculation and work with proof.  They will also ask the jury to follow the rules and be fair.  They will tell the jury that there is no murder, nor a killer to be found or punished.

The prosecution will get a second shot to beg the jury for a conviction and waive Kathleen Savio’s picture around in dramatic fashion to play on juror’s raw emotions.

Look for yet another mistrial motion or two, which probably will be once more denied.

The jury will be sworn and sent to deliberate.  Realistically they have all be saturated with tweets and every form of media about this legal mess.  They will break off into two groups.  One group will ask, “Where’s the beef?”  The other group will express their hatred to Peterson and his lawyers.  Will they be able to settle on a unanimous verdict? 

If it’s anything like the mock trial some three years ago the answer will be, no way.  Of course this jury knows that this was not intended to be a fair trial.  Anything is possible.

Drew Peterson and the Prosecutor’s Case

Drew Peterson   Photo by Paul Huebl

Joliet, IL—The prosecution in the murder trial of retired Bolingbrook, IL police sergeant Drew Peterson is taking its last gasp. 

The Illinois Legislature put their foot on the scales of justice by enacting the, “Drew Peterson Hearsay Law.”  That allowed gossip rather than sworn direct testimony be used as evidence in this trial.  They still, have yet to make a case for murder.

They put up two forensic experts that were convinced that Kathleen Savio was murdered based on their re-examination of remains that had been decaying in a grave for over three years.  They may be right but it’s only their best guess and speculation.

Of course there is the original investigation and autopsy on fresh remains that were determined to be the result of an accidental death.  We can’t now guess that if the first group of investigators and experts did a better job what the results might have been.  It is what it is.

The problem with the prosecution, their investigators and experts is that none of them could recreate the event.  They can’t even say how Savio received her scalp wound or if or when the scene was somehow rearranged.

Nobody can explain how Drew Peterson could enter the house since the locks were changed and he was not welcome there.

Savio was prescribed mood-altering drugs but apparently was not taking them.  She hated Drew Peterson and made no secret of that fact as she fought in court for his police pension and other assets.  It’s a reality that divorce litigants seek favor from the court by making extreme allegations during court proceedings. 

The missing Stacy Peterson is really not a part of this case.  Many people want to believe she is dead and that Peterson murdered her.  That case has lots of huge problems.  Unanswered questions are all around, none the least of which is where is she and if she’s dead, how’d she get that way.

Stacy was another woman troubled by a crappy marriage to Drew Peterson.  She consoled herself with dating other men. 

There are two very troubling hearsay witnesses in this mess.  One is the preacher I call Rev. Bootycall.  This religious leader meets his attractive, troubled and married lady followers, not at the house of worship, but at coffee houses.   I hope I’m not the only one that sees how inappropriate that conduct appears. 

 I consider Rev. Bootycall an opportunist looking to expand his fan base and celebrity His “contribution” here will certainly help in that regard. 

The next pathetic soul is the alleged hit-man candidate.  This unemployed and unemployable loser is another opportunist.  Once the tabloids came throwing money around he “suddenly remembered” that Drew Peterson solicited him to murder Savio.  His hearsay testimony stands alone without a shred of evidence he’s telling the truth. 

Hearsay has been kept out of American courts for a reason.  The defendant must be given an opportunity to confront his accuser in court.  Drew Peterson has been denied that most fundamental right in the Will County Circuit Court.  That is what I call, government tyranny.

Even with the hearsay, there is insufficient evidence of a crime and no evidence beyond the motive of an uncomfortable divorce. 

The Judge should grant a rare Directed Verdict of Not Guilty.  If that does not happen Peterson’s lawyers will have to offer up the sworn testimony of investigators, experts and perhaps an impeachment witness or two.  

As for the jury, they’re reading everything they can find on the web and other sources.  Some will hate Drew Peterson but some will try and be fair.  Getting a conviction from a unanimous jury should be difficult if not impossible.  We will have to see what the near future will hold. 

Drew Peterson Trial Ends Third Week, The Best is Yet to Come!

Drew Peterson   Photo by Paul Huebl

Joliet, IL—Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow made a non-stop mess of his questionable effort to destroy Retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson.  He knows that while gossip and hate may be over the top, real evidence of murder and Peterson’s possible involvement is almost non-existent.

At best it can be shown that Peterson was a lousy husband and that Kathleen Savio was on a campaign to grab the marital assets of her failed marriage. She was an angry and scorned woman.

Savio had her emotional problems and was taking or in some cases not taking drugs prescribed to her to keep her under control.

It's also reasonable to believe that Peterson said some ugly things about and to Savio.  Divorces seldom bring out the best behavior of those involved. 

The biggest problem I have is calling Savio’s death a murder.   Aside from the original investigation and autopsy are the total lack of signs of a fight for life that would normally exist.  No defense wounds, nothing in the area disturbed nor were there broken fingernails with DNA material.  

We can’t dismiss the reality that Savio changed the locks on the home and Peterson had no key. 

The hearsay issue has very frightening implication to the American freedoms and liberty so many brave Americans gave life and limb to protect.  If they can get Drew Peterson through hearsay evidence, you’re next!  We all have someone in our lives that would lie just because they can.  They tell others and the story spins and grows to epic proportions before it’s ever heard in court. 

In this case, was Savio lying to those close to her?  She can’t be cross-examined nor was she ever placed under oath.   Next did the people claiming they heard her statements tell the truth?  Did they perhaps misunderstand what they were told, if they were told? 

As a cop and criminal defense investigator I learned long ago people will embellish or even lie if they thought it could somehow “bring justice”.  Everyone wants to help the cops especially in a high profile case that can bring fame and fortune.

There’s a huge rub here that we are sure to observe if this silliness continues.  That is that this case has been dragging on for years.  Peterson has a sharp legal team and they left no stones unturned.  Any time a defense investigator has this much time he will find more and more people that will rat on the witnesses.  Relationships dissolve or were never quite as solid as some of the witnesses think.  Three years of idle chatter and inconsistent stories will be put before the court.

Impeachment of witnesses becomes easy when people lie, embellish or spin their accounts to their so-called friends.  Lawyers know this so they employ investigators trained to flesh out impeachment witnesses and other evidence. 

The fun begins during the defense portion of trials because the impeachment witnesses are not part of discovery process.  They can be brought into courtrooms by surprise.  In high profile cases its common to see people we look up to like professionals, members of the clergy destroyed especially when the media is watching intently.

For a defense investigator having three years to watch, track and record witnesses is a gift from heaven.   Today, an investigator contacts a friend, relative or acquaintance of a witness and learns nothing but he dutifully leaves a business card behind.  Months later the phone rings and startling facts come to life. 

I believe that the so-called prosecution blunders and not what they seem.  They are deliberate.  Glasgow wants this trial to go away because he knows all he has are his shaky hearsay witnesses and he rightly anticipates a credibility bloodbath.  If there is a mistrial Glasgow knows he can blame the judge to save his own political ass.

The Forbidden Fruit of the Information Age

As for the jury and the evidence being kept out of the courtroom that’s another total disaster.  Few jurors have the self-discipline or the motivation to not actively search out the forbidden fruit provided by today’s Information Age.  They can be counted upon to follow their human curiosity and learn what causes sidebars and the jury to be removed from the courtroom.  In this case they are also learning that prosecutorial misconduct is running over the top here. 

I can’t predict just how this circus will end but it’s proving to be the greatest show on earth.  I don’t share early defense team beliefs that the judge will have the balls to render a directed verdict of Not Guilty when the state rests their case. Directed verdicts are rare and seldom granted even when solidly warranted.

The defense will be forced to put on a case complete with impeachment witnesses, experts and investigators.   I doubt seriously that we will hear from Drew Peterson.  I doubt he has anything to add to the mountain of interviews he’s granted.  The jury  already knows what he had to say about this case.  

This trial Will Change Lives
The case will go to this jury and they will either render a unanimous verdict or not.   If they follow the instruction of the court I doubt there can be a conviction.  Jurors seldom follow instruction so anything is possible. 

The only thing I know for sure is that this trial will change the lives of those involved and not for the best.  

RE: Drew Peterson, "He’s going to Kill Me, I just know it!"

Drew Peterso   Photo by Paul Huebl

Joliet, IL—The murder trial of Drew Peterson is not about physical evidence but a relationship gone bad, through the subjective mouths of people that hate the accused.

Was Kathleen Savio a victim of an accident or murder?  That is the first question that needs to be answered and we can only take a wild guess as to the answer.  We really don’t know because nobody saw what happened and there is no reliable way to reconstruct whatever happened in that bathtub.  Grandstanding experts are not clairvoyant and neither is prosecutor James Glasgow.

If we want to insist it was in fact a murder than we have to determine who was responsible.  There are really two potential suspects we know about.  Drew Peterson who conveniently was in a divorce/property contest with Savio seems logical.  What about Savio’s new boy toy?   We know Savio and her new lover had an argument at the time of her death. We also know she did not want to let him sleep over that fateful night. 

As much as anyone that hates Drew Peterson must admit is that the cause of death is pure speculation.  If indeed it was a murder speculation comes into play once again.  This is compounded by the undisputed fact that Peterson did not have the key to the house involved in this inquiry.

As for the morbid statements of fear, despair and horror some people attribute to Savio I’ve heard them well over a thousand times.   You see as a private investigator I served perhaps three or four thousand court Orders of Protection.  I’ve heard the petitioners first hand making allegations of every kind.

Most are not old enough to remember what it was like for divorce litigants before the “no fault” days of matrimonial law.  Up until the 1970’s every divorce petition contained wild accusations of assault with deadly weapons.  These had to be verified under oath!   Without such a statement no divorce was granted.  Any divorce lawyer from that sad time can verify this.

To get an Order of Protection today the petitioner must swear under oath that they were threatened, assaulted or had their property damaged by their former spouse or live in companion.  The allegations fly like huge flocks or migratory birds escaping the cold.

Many allegations connected with the petitions are made only to curry favor with property, child custody and financial support issues.  Often the allegations were designed to insure that the petitioner obtains or maintains exclusive use of the residence involved.   The sad truth is a substantial percentage of these petitions are based on simple perjury. 

Revenge by jilted spouses and lovers is also a serious factor in those kinds of legal proceedings.  Again the accusations fly.

Many divorce litigants want to involve their close friends and relatives as witnesses to reinforce their tales or woe in court.  They dramatize everything that can to that end.

I don’t want to suggest that the petitioners are always lying.  Over the years I have had one client murdered by her husband and another shot while working in a Scottsdale dental office as an assistant.  Many times there are valid claims made.  

That statistic comes out to two in several thousand cases.  Allegations made during divorce cases are just not very compelling or credible.  I’m glad to report that thousands of women who personally told me they would be killed are still alive today. 

I don’t want to not suggest that spouses don’t make threats of violence because they do.  The good news here is that only a tiny percentage of these threats ever amount to more than hurtful words.

The hearsay testimony being offered the Drew Peterson case has no real value to determine what may have happened to Kathleen Savio.   Remember Savio has never been placed under oath before her alleged statements were made.  Unfortunately taking an oath does little to prevent people from telling tales.

The guilt or innocence of Drew Peterson should be based on reliable physical evidence or eyewitness testimony.  In the State of Illinois vs. Drew Peterson there is neither.   

Drew Peterson’s late Wife, Kathleen Savio Was Taking The Drug, Zoloft

Kathleen Savio Death Scene

Joliet, IL—Retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson is on trial for his life.  He was in the middle of a protracted and difficult divorce from Kathleen Savio.   Their marriage was problematic perhaps because of Savio’s mental illness and state of emotional turmoil.

We have to first get past the difficult hurdle of proving Savio’s death was not just a tragic accident that happened while she was locked in the safety of her own home.   Savio changed the locks specifically to keep Drew Peterson out. 

Savio was prescribed the controversial drug, Zoloft to help her function under the circumstances.  The drug is commonly used to treat Bi-Polar disorder and other mental disorders. 

The prosecution wants to use hearsay evidence of what others are now claiming Savio said.  Since Savio was an emotional mess and was going through a stressful divorce it’s only common sense that she said some outlandish things.  When you add her mental condition and the effects of Zoloft everything seems to suggest whatever she may have said was far too unreliable to accept as truth. 

When you add that the people providing the alleged hearsay will benefit financially if Peterson is convicted it makes the hearsay incredibly unreliable. 

Hearsay does not belong in American courtrooms.  This attempt to bring the emotional outbursts of a sick woman taking Zoloft as evidence is something out of the Salem Witch Trials in a sad chapter of American history.

Read the standard warning that comes with Zoloft:

A small number of children, teenagers, and young adults (up to 24 years of age) who took antidepressants ('mood elevators') such as sertraline during clinical studies became suicidal (thinking about harming or killing oneself or planning or trying to do so). Children, teenagers, and young adults who take antidepressants to treat depression or other mental illnesses may be more likely to become suicidal than children, teenagers, and young adults who do not take antidepressants to treat these conditions. However, experts are not sure about how great this risk is and how much it should be considered in deciding whether a child or teenager should take an antidepressant.

You should know that your mental health may change in unexpected ways when you take sertraline or other antidepressants even if you are an adult over 24 years of age. You may become suicidal, especially at the beginning of your treatment and any time that your dose is increased or decreased. You, your family, or your caregiver should call your doctor right away if you experience any of the following symptoms: new or worsening depression; thinking about harming or killing yourself, or planning or trying to do so; extreme worry; agitation; panic attacks; difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep; aggressive behavior; irritability; acting without thinking; severe restlessness; and frenzied abnormal excitement. Be sure that your family or caregiver knows which symptoms may be serious so they can call the doctor if you are unable to seek treatment on your own.

Your healthcare provider will want to see you often while you are taking sertraline, especially at the beginning of your treatment. Be sure to keep all appointments for office visits with your doctor.

The doctor or pharmacist will give you the manufacturer's patient information sheet (Medication Guide) when you begin treatment with sertraline. Read the information carefully and ask your doctor or pharmacist if you have any questions. You also can obtain the Medication Guide from the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/UCM096273.

No matter what your age, before you take an antidepressant, you, your parent, or your caregiver should talk to your doctor about the risks and benefits of treating your condition with an antidepressant or with other treatments. You should also talk about the risks and benefits of not treating your condition. You should know that having depression or another mental illness greatly increases the risk that you will become suicidal. This risk is higher if you or anyone in your family has or has ever had bipolar disorder (mood that changes from depressed to abnormally excited) or mania (frenzied, abnormally excited mood) or has thought about or attempted suicide. Talk to your doctor about your condition, symptoms, and personal and family medical history. You and your doctor will decide what type of treatment is right for you.

Peterson Prosecution Misconduct is an Obvious Effort to Delay Trial

DREW PETERSON        Photo by Paul Huebl 

 Joliet, IL—Retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson has waited nearly four years to clear himself before a jury.   The outrageous delay was all on the part of prosecutors appealing court rulings that precluded evidence normally barred from American courtrooms.

Prosecutor James Glasgow has engaged in every stunt he could to save himself the embarrassment of watching his high-profile case evaporate ending his career.   

In just two days the prosecution has knowingly and intentionally exposed the jury to evidence precluded by the judges evidentiary rulings.  Both events prompted vigorous defense motions for a Mistrial. 

If a Mistrial is granted it would give Glasgow more time to somehow try and solve massive problems he has with his own witnesses that can’t keep their stories straight.  It would require a new jury panel be assembled and delay the proceeding another 60-90 days at a minimum.   In any event Glasgow can count on watching a slew of impeachment witnesses destroy the state’s strongest witnesses. 

The extraordinary delays have been a defense investigator’s dream.   Each and every witness has had time to blab to every friend and stranger they’ve encountered over the years.  It is the work of defense investigators to locate and interview the impeachment witnesses.  The fun part is the names of the impeachment witnesses need not be disclosed to the prosecution by the defense. 

It will be the friends, ex-friends and acquaintances that will recall the, rest of the story told by Glasgow’s witnesses.   I can’t wait to hear some of the braggadocio and hateful quotes attributed to these folks repeated in court for impeachment purposes.

Glasgow has enjoyed unparalleled negative pre-trial publicity to taint the case his way.  Every single piece of inadmissible evidence has and will continue to be published, broadcast and posted on the Internet.  No un-sequestered jury can be immune from the tidal wave of information that is well beyond sensational fiction. 

It will be impossible for natural curiosity to not overwhelm jurors into finding out what’s happing each time the judge kicks them out of the courtroom.  They will find out not only the information but, the outrageous embellishments added by the anti-Peterson media forces.

This weekend the Jury will be searching the Internet like prospectors looking for gold in absolute violations of the judge’s admonishments.

In any event the judge has the power to grant the Mistrial and even bar any further prosecution of Peterson on this murder charge.  Considering the continued conduct of the prosecution that would be a proper remedy.

Latest Update:  The Judge has not ruled on today's defense Motion for Mistrial with Prejudice.  The parties are ordered to return in the morning to resume arguments and present legal authorities.  The fireworks are sure to continue!

My take:
I don’t think prosecutors fear the judge having the raw courage to grant a Mistrial with Prejudice.  They really need to start over.  They need to find out whom their witnesses were blabbing to and what they were saying.  The also need to try and rehabilitate their witnesses so they don’t give yet another inconsistent version of their stories.   The prosecution in day two has landed in a quagmire of their own making.  I doubt seriously if they will make any kind of a graceful recovery. 

A mistrial is still likely because and the damage of what prosecutors allowed during testimony.  Tonight the media will be all over this and there’s no way to shield the jury.  

Is The Death of Drew Peterson’s Fourth Wife Greatly Exaggerated?

Bolingbrook, IL—Over four years ago Stacy Ann Peterson vanished. It was no secret that she had been complaining of marital problems with her much older police sergeant husband, Drew Peterson.

Peterson who had a noted preference for younger female companionship was in his fourth failed marriage. His third estranged wife, Kathleen Savio died in her bathtub in the safety of her own locked home. That death was investigated and ruled as an accident. Savio had recently changed the locks and Drew Peterson had no keys to Savio’s home.

After Stacy Peterson disappeared the investigation of Savio’s death was re-opened and re-classified as a murder on paper-thin evidence. Drew Peterson has been jailed on a $20 million bail bond for over three years. Peterson has been locked up without trial in the style of some rogue, Fascist government rather than a nation with a Bill of Rights.

Will County State’s Attorney, James Glasgow successfully lobbied the dull-witted folks that make up the Illinois General Assembly for a new and special law. The law was aimed at allowing long-banned hearsay testimony to be heard in an American courtroom. This new law was passed and has the moniker of the Drew Peterson Law. I guess whatever worked for the People’s Court of the Third Reich (1933-1945) is now somehow good enough for Illinois.

Hearsay evidence is fun because it automatically doubles the chance that the statement produced is a lie. Did the person being quoted lie or is it the person providing the hearsay making it up? Additionally if everyone was telling the truth or is the person providing the quote mistaken about the line? Hearsay does not belong in an American Courtroom but more hearsay exceptions are allowed just as all our hard won freedoms have slipped away over the years.

Is the Savio murder allegation against Drew Peterson really more about the missing Stacy Peterson? Stacy allegedly confided in several people telling them she wanted to leave her husband. According to Mike Kurdenok of Coal City, IL, Stacy told him during an after school date that she wanted to, “Slip away before Drew woke up.” Kurdenok made it clear that Stacy did not want to be found! Of course, I have serious questions for this man who was out drinking with Peterson’s young bride.

Is Stacy Peterson alive? They have written her off as dead long ago. Many have bolstered that argument with suggestions that Stacy would have never voluntarily left her children. None of us know for sure where Stacy is today. We can only guess.

People disappear from the radar all the time. They avoid friends, family and even their young children. Fugitives have been found often many decades after authorities that have diligently searched for them. Some are never found.

Take the recent resurfacing of a Stanwood, WA woman, Judith Bello. Bello left her three year-old, son vanishing in 1993. Police, friends and relatives searched for the woman in vain. The presumptions were that she was murdered since they all concluded she’d never leave her little boy.

The reality was she skipped out on her former life and child moving to California. After seeing a television "cold case" spot about her disappearance and presumed death due to foul play Bello called authorities ending the two-decade old mystery. The Bello case is just one of many.

As a private investigator I search for missing people and have found that women can hide much easier then men. Women often take the name of male companions without marriage ceremonies. Often in relationships one partner will borrow the identity of the other for employment purposes. Marty Ryan has a Social Security number and hooks up with Mary. Mary applies for and gets work as M. Ryan using Marty’s Social Security number. Marty may even get a significant boost in benefits as a result of the scam.

Women get significantly less police attention then men in our world. Stacy Peterson could easily be alive and happy to have shed the responsibility that her children brought. We don’t know for sure about Stacy and to assume Peterson murdered her is wrong.

Those who have judged Peterson most harshly are unhappy with his penchant for much younger women and his failure as a husband. Does that somehow make Peterson a cold-blooded killer?

Keeping any citizen locked up without a trial is un-American. Using hearsay evidence to secure a conviction is a sign that America has become a Police State.

Chicago Lawyer Joel Brodsky Wins a Rare Gun Rights Victory in Chicago.

Chicago, IL—When federally licensed firearm collector, David Lawson attempted to simply register four SKS carbines, the Chicago Police Department refused the applications. Lawson through his attorney Joel Brodsky (pictured right) sought a hearing with the Department of Administrative hearings.

A hearing was held before Chicago Administrative Law Judge Pat Riley. The police department’s witness stated their objections claiming the carbines were prohibited by Chicago’s newest gun ordinance. The department refused to even examine the carbines before they declined registration.

The department alleged that the carbines had characteristics that rendered the guns as banned by the ordinance. The judge ruled otherwise and ordered the department to register them.

Here is a copy of the ruling:
Order of Administrative Hearing Officer on Remand 8-5-2011[1]