Suspect Drew Peterson #4

[Leila]

Where are this young woman's family and friends? Hellooo Mom and Daddy, it's intervention time! Your daughter is calling a double (or more) murderer for help in the middle of the night! She must be the one posting DrewP prayers on the other boards. Bet he has been crying on her shoulder, doing her favors 'cause he's so heartbroken and just needs a "friend".:sick:

Is she really so clueless that she believes DrewP is not a cold-blooded killer, or is she just naive enough to believe that; even though he killed Kathy and Stacy, it was self-defense and Drew would never hurt her? He only did the cover-ups and body disposal so the kids wouldn't have to be orphaned while he rotted in prison!

Susan

This is how it begins............a young woman believes that even if something happened to DP's other wives, he'd never hurt her, after all he's such a nice guy and all.

By all reports neither wife number two, Kathleen Savio, or Stacy Peterson, felt threatened in the beginning. It was only after being married to DP for a few years did they come to know the real DP and the fear began for real.

 

[Lisa Too]

I found this interesting comment in reply to the nbc5.com story about DP's speeding incident. Check out the comment made by orphan annie of Austin, TX:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/nbc5/TQDKRSN4234PEDO3N

 

[i.b.nora]

Some more Brodsky stuff from that Legal Blob:

Legal Pub Exclusive Interview With Attorney Joel A. Brodsky, Drew Peterson's Lawyer With 5-3-08 Follow Up ~ by Legal Pub

Thursday, May 1, 2008

"Legal Pub is a firm believer in our Constitution and our system of justice's fundamental principle that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Legal Pub has been granted an exclusive interview with Attorney, Joel A. Brodsky, an excellent criminal defense attorney." blah blah blah

You can go to that site to read the interview. Nothing about it is either new nor revealing, imo. Legal Pub seems to think that it has scored some kind of exclusive, rather it appears to me that Legal Pub knows very little about this case.

What is interesting is that Joel just can't keep his mouth shut. In the comments section he makes a couple of long winded comments.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I wish to address the person who says my peers are questioning my handling of the case. So far, in court, I have been successful, getting my client the property taken by the state back (police had to resort to illegally revoking the gun permit to keep Drew from getting the guns). The only criticism I get, and the criminal defense bar is split on this issue, is that I let my client give a total of four (4) controlled interviews, and make a number of sound bite comments on certain issues. The “rule book” in criminal cases is for the client to say nothing. This is what I call the “standard model”. I have given this a great deal of thought, and talked to many other lawyers about this, (including my excellent co-counsel, Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm of East Lansing Michigan, and my partner the very sharp Reem Odeh). My conclusion is (and its my decision), that the standard model does not apply in extremely high profile cases in the post O.J. world. The O.J. Simpson trial changed everything. It made and broke big time media careers, and consequentially made the media, and by extension public perception, an additional party in extreme high profile cases. Now, in these rare cases, the media and its influence is in the courtroom and jury room. Therefore, the media must be addressed and engaged in these extreme cases. Examples: (1) Scott Peterson did 3 short tv appearances (I wouldn’t call them interviews) before he was named a suspect and then he remained totally silent. He was convicted. (2) Robert Blake and Michael Jackson both did media interviews. Michael Jackson even produced a TV special on his case to counter some bad publicity, and Blake did an interview from his jail cell without his lawyer present as well as other interviews. Both these men were acquitted. I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.
May 3, 2008 9:23 AM

and

Joel Brodsky said...

To address briefly the post of May 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM., let me start by saying that you are obviously unfamiliar (as I was at the start) with the games the media, especially the cable media, play. You would be totally amazed.
But I want to first address the quote attributed to my partner, Reem Odeh. She never said those things. What occurred was that she engaged in a long conversation with a reporter in which they discussed many subjects, including the media, the Today Show interview (which occurred the next day but which had been promoted by NBC), and if we had been approached by book publishers. The reporter then cobbled together the quotes and the story which you have now quoted from. It is extremely inaccurate, (made out of “whole cloth” as they say), and out of context, and we complained to the reporter. You will notice that the story has not been repeated or quoted in any other papers. That is because Reem told everyone it was not accurate.
In fact many of the quotes in the newspapers are inaccurate or out of context, (though not as badly done as the quote from Reem) I would say they get a quote right and in context about 50% of the time, or less. It is not that they are bad intentioned, but that is just the nature of print journalism. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video. And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read.
As to the blue barrel and Dan Abrams, this is a good example. Actually Dan Abrams people had a copy of the pictures via e-mail a week before we went on. Then they took grapic scans while we were in the studio so they could put the pictures on the screen. (The pictures are recent pictures of Tom Morphey smoking a crack pipe and stoned out of his mind) We wanted to put these out to counter a recent news article that portrayed Morphy as clean and sober since the mid-90's. (in fact he was fired from his last job in September of 07 because he kept showing up for work drunk). Abrams people agreed to show the pictures on the condition that Drew also come on the show. We agreed because the pictures are important on the issue of Morphy’s credibility. (By the way he is not in protective custody, he is in rehab because the State is trying to clean him up, but its not working. He still is not clean enough to go before the grand jury after 5 months of rehab, thats how messed up he is. Not a credible witness I say.) When I realized that Abrams was not going to show the pictures, as his producer had agreed, then I decided to try to show them to the camera, but Abrams cut away and just described the pictures verbally, which did not do them justice. (So what appears like me trying to sneak a picture on tv is not what occurred. The bottom line is that there is no evidence (receipts, credit card records, forensic traces, etc.) what so ever that a blue barrel / container ever existed. Morphy was so horribly messed up on drugs and alcohol at that time you cannot rely on anything he as to say. (Webmaster - the pictures are on my office computer and if you want I can e-mail them to you so your bloggers can make up their own minds about Morphy.)
Finally, the Steve Dahl “Date With Drew” thing, was both intentional and a mistake. Dahl’s people knew we were going to call in, and we new in advance that he was going to address the fact that for some reason Drew is hit on by women because of the publicity. Dahl is a radio comedy legend in Chicago for over 20 years and he had been doing a Drew parody (including songs) every day on his show for from a half hour to an hour. He had been very hard on Drew, and we thought if we joined in his comedy bit we could take some wind out of his sails, and maybe even change the slant of his comedy. (Kind of like when politicians go on comedy shows to laugh at their campaign mistakes) It was going well until Dahl suggested the dating contest. I mistakenly ok’d it. We approved because of what we have latter come to understand is an inappropriate sense of humor that cops, defense lawyers, prosecutors, develop to deal with the daily tragedy and stress they deal with. We all tell tasteless jokes about some very tragic situations to psychologically deal with the situations. I just did it in public which was the mistake.
I hope this adds to your understanding of the media issues in the Peterson case.
May 4, 2008 10:19 AM

Anyhow go check out the blob for yourself and see what you think.

 

[Leila]

Some more Brodsky stuff from that Legal Blob:

Legal Pub Exclusive Interview With Attorney Joel A. Brodsky, Drew Peterson's Lawyer With 5-3-08 Follow Up ~ by Legal Pub

Thursday, May 1, 2008

"Legal Pub is a firm believer in our Constitution and our system of justice's fundamental principle that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Legal Pub has been granted an exclusive interview with Attorney, Joel A. Brodsky, an excellent criminal defense attorney." blah blah blah

You can go to that site to read the interview. Nothing about it is either new nor revealing, imo. Legal Pub seems to think that it has scored some kind of exclusive, rather it appears to me that Legal Pub knows very little about this case.

What is interesting is that Joel just can't keep his mouth shut. In the comments section he makes a couple of long winded comments.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I wish to address the person who says my peers are questioning my handling of the case. So far, in court, I have been successful, getting my client the property taken by the state back (police had to resort to illegally revoking the gun permit to keep Drew from getting the guns). The only criticism I get, and the criminal defense bar is split on this issue, is that I let my client give a total of four (4) controlled interviews, and make a number of sound bite comments on certain issues. The “rule book” in criminal cases is for the client to say nothing. This is what I call the “standard model”. I have given this a great deal of thought, and talked to many other lawyers about this, (including my excellent co-counsel, Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm of East Lansing Michigan, and my partner the very sharp Reem Odeh). My conclusion is (and its my decision), that the standard model does not apply in extremely high profile cases in the post O.J. world. The O.J. Simpson trial changed everything. It made and broke big time media careers, and consequentially made the media, and by extension public perception, an additional party in extreme high profile cases. Now, in these rare cases, the media and its influence is in the courtroom and jury room. Therefore, the media must be addressed and engaged in these extreme cases. Examples: (1) Scott Peterson did 3 short tv appearances (I wouldn’t call them interviews) before he was named a suspect and then he remained totally silent. He was convicted. (2) Robert Blake and Michael Jackson both did media interviews. Michael Jackson even produced a TV special on his case to counter some bad publicity, and Blake did an interview from his jail cell without his lawyer present as well as other interviews. Both these men were acquitted. I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.
May 3, 2008 9:23 AM

and

Joel Brodsky said...

To address briefly the post of May 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM., let me start by saying that you are obviously unfamiliar (as I was at the start) with the games the media, especially the cable media, play. You would be totally amazed.
But I want to first address the quote attributed to my partner, Reem Odeh. She never said those things. What occurred was that she engaged in a long conversation with a reporter in which they discussed many subjects, including the media, the Today Show interview (which occurred the next day but which had been promoted by NBC), and if we had been approached by book publishers. The reporter then cobbled together the quotes and the story which you have now quoted from. It is extremely inaccurate, (made out of “whole cloth” as they say), and out of context, and we complained to the reporter. You will notice that the story has not been repeated or quoted in any other papers. That is because Reem told everyone it was not accurate.
In fact many of the quotes in the newspapers are inaccurate or out of context, (though not as badly done as the quote from Reem) I would say they get a quote right and in context about 50% of the time, or less. It is not that they are bad intentioned, but that is just the nature of print journalism. When it comes to quotes tv and cable are the best because you get to see the comment being made. The truth is when it comes to depth in a story go to the print media, when it comes to accuracy of quotes, go video. And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read.
As to the blue barrel and Dan Abrams, this is a good example. Actually Dan Abrams people had a copy of the pictures via e-mail a week before we went on. Then they took grapic scans while we were in the studio so they could put the pictures on the screen. (The pictures are recent pictures of Tom Morphey smoking a crack pipe and stoned out of his mind) We wanted to put these out to counter a recent news article that portrayed Morphy as clean and sober since the mid-90's. (in fact he was fired from his last job in September of 07 because he kept showing up for work drunk). Abrams people agreed to show the pictures on the condition that Drew also come on the show. We agreed because the pictures are important on the issue of Morphy’s credibility. (By the way he is not in protective custody, he is in rehab because the State is trying to clean him up, but its not working. He still is not clean enough to go before the grand jury after 5 months of rehab, thats how messed up he is. Not a credible witness I say.) When I realized that Abrams was not going to show the pictures, as his producer had agreed, then I decided to try to show them to the camera, but Abrams cut away and just described the pictures verbally, which did not do them justice. (So what appears like me trying to sneak a picture on tv is not what occurred. The bottom line is that there is no evidence (receipts, credit card records, forensic traces, etc.) what so ever that a blue barrel / container ever existed. Morphy was so horribly messed up on drugs and alcohol at that time you cannot rely on anything he as to say. (Webmaster - the pictures are on my office computer and if you want I can e-mail them to you so your bloggers can make up their own minds about Morphy.)
Finally, the Steve Dahl “Date With Drew” thing, was both intentional and a mistake. Dahl’s people knew we were going to call in, and we new in advance that he was going to address the fact that for some reason Drew is hit on by women because of the publicity. Dahl is a radio comedy legend in Chicago for over 20 years and he had been doing a Drew parody (including songs) every day on his show for from a half hour to an hour. He had been very hard on Drew, and we thought if we joined in his comedy bit we could take some wind out of his sails, and maybe even change the slant of his comedy. (Kind of like when politicians go on comedy shows to laugh at their campaign mistakes) It was going well until Dahl suggested the dating contest. I mistakenly ok’d it. We approved because of what we have latter come to understand is an inappropriate sense of humor that cops, defense lawyers, prosecutors, develop to deal with the daily tragedy and stress they deal with. We all tell tasteless jokes about some very tragic situations to psychologically deal with the situations. I just did it in public which was the mistake.
I hope this adds to your understanding of the media issues in the Peterson case.
May 4, 2008 10:19 AM

Anyhow go check out the blob for yourself and see what you think.

I posted on the thread about Stacy, but my post more appropriately belongs here. This is my post on the other thread:

I read the article and the reader comments. I don't agree with the premise of the article. I believe the reason the ISP hasn't made charges yet is that they're waiting on a grand jury indictment, and are hoping that they find Stacy's body before proceeding with an arrest and charges. In the state of Illinois, the prosecution is to proceed to trial within 120 days of indictment. So they must have their case locked up tight before charges are made.

One thing to note................Joel Brodsky claims that his belief in his client going public is based on the outcome of the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial. In both these cases, Michael Jackson and Robert Blake went public with interviews and subsequently were found not guilty of their crimes.

Joel Brodsky didn't mention O.J. Simpson, who didn't go public with granting interviews, yet he too was found not guilty in his criminal prosecution. I feel that the not guilty verdicts in these cases had more to due with celebrity status and the communities in which the trial was held, and not because of the individual going public.

Joel Brodsky also didn't mention the Laci Peterson case, which more closely resembles the Stacy Peterson case. In that case, Laci's husband, Scott Peterson, went public granting interviews, and he was subsequently found guilty and is now sitting on death row.

So, I feel Joel Brodsky's logic in this is faulty. In my opinion, he's in this for publicity and I think it's going to backfire on him.

Adding to my post that in re-reading JB's post, he did mention Scott Peterson, saying that Scott Peterson did do three short interviews. JB states that he wouldn't call them interviews.

I beg to differ. Scott Peterson's interviews were not short interviews and were in depth one-on-one interviews. They were meant to show the world that he was a grief-stricken husband, but most people didn't believe him any more than they do DP. Many people who watched those interviews felt Scott was faking the emotions.

 

[curiositycat]

IMHO one of the biggest mistakes DP has made in this case is hiring an attorney who apparently thinks just like he does. Every time I see or hear JB I think "he sure makes prejudicial statements against women." People do this all the time in hiring attorneys. They get someone who is like them to defend them. It backfires on them in court.

If DP were as smart as he thinks he is he would have hired a female attorney who fights for women's rights.

Instead... he did just what I would have expected of a man who describes women as "PMSing", getting sex-uped, emotional, ect. Hire another man who has no trouble telling the press about the sexually explicit messages on one of SP old cell phones. (They were probably sent to her by DP and he just "can't remember". LOL)

The two of them are laughable.

 

[mysteriew]

LOL, JAB's getting very defensive! That tells me he is feeling a lot of pressure from his defense attorney peers.

JAB does make one statement that I agree with wholeheartedly: "And then always remember, believe half of what you see and very little of what you read." It is true, when JAB or DrewP talk I believe little of what I see and even less of what I hear.

JAB almost admits that he tried to sneak the picture of Morphey onto Abrahms. Undoubtedly they were unhappy that they couldn't "control" that interview and get his picture on. Morphey with a crack pipe? How would DrewP know if Morphey was holding a crack pipe? Did it have any crack in it? Was Morphey actually smoking it? Was DrewP there doing drugs with Morphey? It isn't unusual for undercover officers to become so involved in the drug culture that they actually get hooked too.

JAB admits that he thinks like DrewP does. "We approved because of what we have latter come to understand is an inappropriate sense of humor that cops, defense lawyers, prosecutors, develop to deal with the daily tragedy and stress they deal with." What he doesn't realize that he is admitting to is a contempt for women. The kind of inappropriateness that believe that women should get "repair jobs." JAB really has no clue about just how inappropriate it is.

I think JAB really needs to take some English courses, he needs to review how to use words in a sentence correctly. I've noticed it before, but it is really apparent in these unedited writings of JAB.

How does JAB know (I don't think he does) who has testified at the GJ? GJ proceedings are supposed to be secret. And I believe that if Morphey testifies, LE will take him in a back door to keep him away from any media and take other measures to protect him. Secret contacts at the courthouse? Unless he has someone on the payroll, I really wonder if anyone would let JAB know if Morphey testified.

 

[i.b.nora]

Some more Brodsky stuff from that Legal Blob:

Legal Pub Exclusive Interview With Attorney Joel A. Brodsky, Drew Peterson's Lawyer With 5-3-08 Follow Up ~ by Legal Pub

Thursday, May 1, 2008

"Legal Pub is a firm believer in our Constitution and our system of justice's fundamental principle that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Legal Pub has been granted an exclusive interview with Attorney, Joel A. Brodsky, an excellent criminal defense attorney." blah blah blah

Apparently, Legal Pub no longer thinks Brodsky is an excellent attorney but as of this morning characterizes him as a creative attorney.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

"Legal Pub is a firm believer in our Constitution and our system of justice's fundamental principle that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Legal Pub has been granted an exclusive interview with Attorney, Joel A. Brodsky, a creative criminal defense attorney."

As for the other article at Legal Pub, originally published Wednesday, May 7, 2008 Scrutinizing The Microscopic View of Drew Peterson
Brodsky has added some comments this morning.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case. I don’t ever recall seeing a dog on any of the video tape of the police coming in and out of searches of Drew’s house. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up this rumor?
As to admissibility of a “hit” by a cadaver dog, I don’t believe it would be admissible. Under the Daubert standard I don’t think that the State would be able to establish the scientific basis that a dog performing the acts that constitute a “hit” (barking, clawing at the ground, ect), mean that a ded body was present at a certain location within a specified period of time. Does anyone have any examples of cadaver dogs being used in a criminal court, and for what purpose?

Finally, just so its clear. Tom Morphy is not in protective custody. He is in rehab for severe drug, and alcohol problems and for his mental illness that cause him to be suicidally depressed. If the state police did not cause his brother to put out a false statement that Tom was clean since the mid 90's we would not have released the pictures we did which show him doing drugs last year. Drew has to counter false evidence planted in the media by the state police. We cannot let the state police plant a false rumor that Tom has been clean for a decade.
May 8, 2008 7:47 AM

and

Joel A. Brodsky said...

LP. The bloggers are demanding to look at the other picure of Tom Morphy I sent you. The one where he is smoking the crack pipe. Please post that picture so they can be satisfied.
We know what Tom Morphy is doing because he calls his family members, who tell us what he says. (Drew is Tom Morphy's step brother).
May 8, 2008 11:32 AM

I am sure he will add additional comments before the end of the day. He just can't help himself.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Just curious how they can call this an exclusive interview with JAB? Jab has his face and voice out there just about very week, mocking or downgrading someone. So he's not very exclusive in who he'll let interview him.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case. I don’t ever recall seeing a dog on any of the video tape of the police coming in and out of searches of Drew’s house. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up this rumor?

Oh my, someone needs to do some research, we even have screen caps from the videos

 

[Leila]

Wow............I read all the recent comments at the Legal Pub and it doesn't look like many are believing JB's comments.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case. I don’t ever recall seeing a dog on any of the video tape of the police coming in and out of searches of Drew’s house. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up this rumor?

And............someone produced the picture of one of the cadaver dogs at the Peterson garage door.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Wow............I read all the recent comments at the Legal Pub and it doesn't look like many are believing JB's comments.

Joel A. Brodsky said...

I believe the cadaver dog hit is just another unsubstantiated rumor in this case. I don’t ever recall seeing a dog on any of the video tape of the police coming in and out of searches of Drew’s house. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up this rumor?

And............someone produced the picture of one of the cadaver dogs at the Peterson garage door.

Yep, we had that photo last year http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1865452&postcount=75

 

[fran]

My, my, my, DP must be getting desparate to find Morphy. Showing his picture to a 'legal blog?' What will he think of next?

I'm sure DP does help his neighbors a great deal. He's even helped Sharon open her garage door.

He's also helped clean up the neighborhood by removing flyers for his missing wife around his property.

He's also helped increase police protection in the neighborhood when he called police to complain about his neighbors. At least no one outside of the neighborhood would bother breaking into their homes with all the extra police presence.

I understand DP helped a neighbor when he hung himself by being the first one on the scene.....................Oh, wait, wasn't DP putting the make on the deceased neighbors sister?:crazy:

There's absolutely nothing sinister about DP being the first officer on the scene of his 'mysteriously' deceased ex-wife. After all he was on desk duty that day wasn't he?...........Oh, wait, that was in her home........

Wonder how many times DP used his lock-picking tools to help his neighbors break into their own home? Wonder why he couldn't find them that day Kathleen lay dead in her own bath tub and he had to call a lock smith?

DP is such a caring person, he complained about his own son talking to his own (son's) aunt in a neighbor's yard. Tried to have the neighbor charged with kidnapping or something didn't he?

DP is such a pillar of the community he used to use his badge to harrass his ex-girlfriend who broke up with him! Oh, wait, that was her harrassing him or she was just mad because he broke up with her. Yeah,......:crazy:.......that's why HE arrested HER or gave HER tickets. Because SHE was upset over the break-up.

DP is full of it and his attorney is too. They deserve each other.:bang:

Brodsky isn't even creative. He's transparent.:chicken:

Just sayin'

JMHO
fran

 

[mysteriew]

I love it that they posted the picture on him! And that they have changed discriptive terms! JAB should take a lesson from DrewP, the more you talk, the more that people know about you and the more they have to dislike!

The only possible credit I can give JAB is that he has b*lls. To go onto a legal blog, a blog of his peers, fellow defense attorney's.... and to give an easily refutable lie... that takes b*lls- but it isn't very smart!

Creative- a lie is creative, since you don't tell the truth you have to make up an imaginative story.

 

[fran]

Well, well, well,.........according to headlines this morning, JAB is advising Kathleen's 'former' bf to seek legal council. JAB is claiming Kathleen and her bf had broken up prior to her death and he should be worried about being looked at as a suspect.

Puhleezzzzz!

EVERYONE knows full well WHY Kathleen was killed. Wonder if we should tell JAB?:waitasec:

It's called, MOTIVE,........MEANS,.........OPPORTUNITY

MOTIVE...We KNOW DP had MILLION$ of rea$on$ to MURDER Kathleen, and pronto at that time as he was going to have to appear in court for the financial settlement with his EX-WIFE Kathleen.

MEANS......DP had the means. Kathleen wrote in her own words, DP reprogrammed her garage door so he could hold her hostage. Of course he could do it again! and DID, IMHO..........

OPPORTUNITY....DP had the whole weekend to Murder Kathleen and STAGE discovering her with her friends and neighbors!

IMHO, DP should get an attorney!

Oh,........wait,..........he has one! ROFLMA,...........:woohoo:

pfftt,
JMHO
fran

http://www.nbc5.com/news/16210167/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

Grand Jury Hears From Savio's Ex-Boyfriend

Drew Peterson's Attorney Recommends Legal Council For Ex

 

[Taximom]

I keep thinking about this case, especially with Mother's Day coming up. Kathy and Stacy should be here celebrating w/their children.

 

[mysteriew]

Well, well, well,.........according to headlines this morning, JAB is advising Kathleen's 'former' bf to seek legal council. JAB is claiming Kathleen and her bf had broken up prior to her death and he should be worried about being looked at as a suspect.

Puhleezzzzz!

EVERYONE knows full well WHY Kathleen was killed. Wonder if we should tell JAB?:waitasec:

It's called, MOTIVE,........MEANS,.........OPPORTUNITY

MOTIVE...We KNOW DP had MILLION$ of rea$on$ to MURDER Kathleen, and pronto at that time as he was going to have to appear in court for the financial settlement with his EX-WIFE Kathleen.

MEANS......DP had the means. Kathleen wrote in her own words, DP reprogrammed her garage door so he could hold her hostage. Of course he could do it again! and DID, IMHO..........

OPPORTUNITY....DP had the whole weekend to Murder Kathleen and STAGE discovering her with her friends and neighbors!

IMHO, DP should get an attorney!

Oh,........wait,..........he has one! ROFLMA,...........:woohoo:

pfftt,
JMHO
fran

http://www.nbc5.com/news/16210167/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

Grand Jury Hears From Savio's Ex-Boyfriend

Drew Peterson's Attorney Recommends Legal Council For Ex

JAB trying to stage a Perry Mason moment? He sorta forgot that Perry waited until they got into court to pull a suprise suspect.

JAB is shooting for "reasonable doubt." IF he didn't believe that DrewP had reason to be worried, he wouldn't be trying to pull this trick. I am thinking that DrewP is worried about his GJ testimony for some reason. This has been going on for months, and they wait to pull this until he goes before the GJ? They are worried!

 

[fran]

JAB trying to stage a Perry Mason moment? He sorta forgot that Perry waited until they got into court to pull a suprise suspect.

JAB is shooting for "reasonable doubt." IF he didn't believe that DrewP had reason to be worried, he wouldn't be trying to pull this trick. I am thinking that DrewP is worried about his GJ testimony for some reason. This has been going on for months, and they wait to pull this until he goes before the GJ? They are worried!

"They are worried"

As they SHOULD be! :behindbar

fran

 

[Leila]

Kathleen Savio's former boyfriend, Steve Maniaci, should be highly insulted at Brodsky's suggestion that he needs to have legal counsel.

After reading Brodsky's remarks at the Legal Pub blog, and his remarks on television media shows, regarding Tom Morphey, I would think that Tom Morphey would be very angry at Brodsky for publicly tarnishing his reputation, which he's done repeatedly.

I find myself wondering if, after this case is over, Joel Brodsky will be the defendant in a number of lawsuits for slander, brought by people he's made negative remarks about?

I too feel badly for the Peterson children with this weekend being Mother's Day. I can only imagine how sad it must be for them. I think the two older children would feel the loss more acutely having lost two mothers in their short lives. The two younger ones, at age 2 and 4, may not be as aware of the holiday.

 

[Rosco]

So horrible for the kids this weekend.

I pray for them and for justice!

Rosco

 

[curiositycat]

I keep thinking about this case, especially with Mother's Day coming up. Kathy and Stacy should be here celebrating w/their children.

I know it! It breaks my heart also. Especially those teenagers! They lost their mom and then step mom! What a heartbreaking situation. We have to keep that foremost in our minds, IMHO.
They are additional victims!