March 28, 2024, 03:36:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Drew Peterson arrested/indicted for murder 3rd wife Kathleen Savio #1(GUILTY)  (Read 311221 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #200 on: July 08, 2010, 10:31:20 AM »

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/foxvalleysun/news/2471482,4_1_JO07_PETERSON_S1-100707.article
July 7, 2010 (With article in above post)
THE TIMELINE
Peterson case

• Oct. 29, 2007: Stacy Peterson's sister, Cassandra Cales, reports to the Bolingbrook police that Stacy is missing.

• Oct. 31: Drew Peterson speaks publicly for the first time about his wife's disappearance and claims she ran off with another man.

• Nov. 9: The state police announce that, after maintaining since March 2004 that Kathleen Savio's death was accidental, they have changed their minds and now believe she was the victim of a homicide. They then identify Drew Peterson as the sole suspect in the Savio homicide investigation.

• Nov. 13: Savio's body is exhumed from its grave. A state-sanctioned autopsy is conducted the same day.

• Nov. 14: Peterson flies to New York and appears on the "Today" show. During his interview he asks for a lawyer to represent him on the cheap. Attorney Joel Brodsky takes Peterson up on this.

• Nov. 16: Celebrity medical examiner Michael Baden performs yet another autopsy on Savio's body, this one at the behest of her family and the Fox News channel. Baden declares that Savio was the victim of a homicide.

• Feb. 21, 2008: The state announces the November autopsy shows Savio was slain. Peterson says, "You're kidding me."

• May 21: Peterson is arrested on a felony gun charge for allegedly carrying an illegal assault rifle when he was a cop.

• Oct. 1: "Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Drew Peterson," by Joseph Hosey, hits bookstores.

• Nov. 19: The state legislature passes a law allowing hearsay evidence into murder trials. The legislation is dubbed "Drew's Law."

• Nov. 20: Rather than surrender internal communications, prosecutors drop the gun charges.

• April 21, 2009: Savio's family files a wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson.

• May 7: Peterson is taken into custody at a busy intersection near his home and jailed on charges he murdered Savio.

• July 14: A state cop on the Peterson case asked the accused wife-killer's 24-year-old fiancee out on a date, says Brodsky.

• Jan. 19, 2010: A landmark hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be permitted at Peterson's trial begins. The hearing lasts a full month with dozens of witnesses testifying. Judge Stephen White keeps his decision secret until the start of the trial.

• April 14: Two of Peterson's four attorneys quit the case. Four Chicago lawyers replace them.

• July 8: Jury selection is set to start for Peterson's murder trial.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #201 on: July 08, 2010, 03:01:16 PM »

Drew Peterson Stays Locked Up
July 8, 2010 - 2:22 PM
 An Illinois judge denied a defense request to release Peterson, now that his murder trial is being delayed.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/08/drew-peterson-stays-locked-up/
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #202 on: July 13, 2010, 03:02:39 PM »

ACkkkkk, this is long enough!

Monday, July 12, 2010
`Drew's Law' may let Drew skate
Share | Sunday's story,  "Table turns for Peterson case prosecutor -- Drew's Law advocate now finds himself fighting it in pretrial appeal" would be amusing if the back-story weren't so grim.

Saddled with a botched police investigation, Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow pushed for a state law that would allow prosecutors to use hearsay statements against Drew Peterson at trial....

 (But) on the eve of Peterson's much-anticipated murder trial, Glasgow delayed the case Thursday by appealing a ruling on the admissibility of some hearsay evidence. He argues that the judge's decision — made under the guidelines established by Drew's Law — should have adhered instead to less-restrictive common law....

 The new statute requires judges to consider two things: whether the statement is reliable and whether the bulk of the evidence shows that the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify....   

Though (trial Judge Stephen White)  ruled in the state's favor (on the question of whether it was likely he killed his third wife and caused the disappearance of his fourth wife), White still barred the majority of hearsay witnesses because they did "not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability."...

Five weeks later, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slayings of four relatives. In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled that common law does not require judges to weigh a hearsay statement's reliability.  (.pdf of that ruling is  here ; extended excerpt in text below)

(White) said Thursday he is bound to follow the guidelines established under Drew's Law. Hanson was convicted before passage of the Glasgow-backed statute and therefore faced a different standard, he said.

"When you codify common law … that codification (Drew's Law) takes precedence over the common law," White said.

In other words, Drew's Law may turn out to be Drew's ticket to an acquittal. Yet as I wrote here nearly two years ago, I don't see how using hearsay against Peterson is going to pass muster with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.


I. Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

Defendant’s first argument is that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Jennifer Williams relating to a conversation Jennifer had with her sister, Katherine. In that conversation, Katherine mentioned that defendant had threatened her.

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to forfeit defendant’s right to cross-examine these statements made by Katherine. The State argued that defendant sought to prevent Katherine from serving as a witness against him and did so by killing her.

In a hearing on the State’s motion, Jennifer’s testimony was consistent with the testimony she would later give at trial.

Katherine phoned her shortly after she and Mary had confronted defendant about the credit cards he had obtained in Mary’s name.

Defendant had admitted to Mary and Katherine that he had gotten the credit cards issued and had run up debt.

He also promised he would pay the money back to his parents.

At that time Mary and Katherine agreed that neither of them would tell Terrence about what defendant had done.

After Mary had left the room, however, Katherine told defendant that she would tell Terrence about defendant’s scheme.

Katherine told Jennifer that defendant responded by saying, “If you tell dad, I will f---ng kill you.”

Jennifer testified that Katherine was very upset during the phone conversation. Jennifer urged Katherine to tell Terrence what had happened, but Katherine demurred, saying she had promised Mary not to tell Terrence.

When Jennifer had a second conversation with Katherine the next day, Katherine said she “had a very unsettling feeling about what Eric had said.” She told Jennifer that she had stayed home from work and turned on her home security system.

Lastly, Jennifer testified that she had found a printout of a credit report in Mary’s name. The report had Mary’s handwriting on it, and the report was found in Mary’s dresser drawer.

Several items on the report were circled and other had question marks next to them. On cross-examination, Jennifer acknowledged that she did not know why Katherine would tell defendant she was going to tell Terrence what defendant had done, but then tell Jennifer that she would not be telling Terrence.

She also admitted that she did not call the police after Katherine told her about defendant’s threat, but explained that she was trying to honor what Katherine had asked, that she not tell anyone else.

At the hearing, the State also proffered testimony which tracked what would eventually be its case in chief. This testimony included the estimated timeline of the murders, defendant’s whereabouts the day of, and days following, the murders and a summary of the forensic evidence discovered at the scene of the murders.

The State also referred to a letter from defendant to Bob Stutelberg in which defendant reported that he had told Katherine to stay out of his business and out of his life. Further, he told Katherine that if she did not, she would “regret it.”

According to the letter, Katherine responded by asking if defendant was threatening her.

Defendant responded, “No, I’m promising.”

Arguing the motion, the State admitted that Katherine’s statements to Jennifer were hearsay. However, pursuant to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, defendant had forfeited his right to cross-examine Katherine on those statements.

The State argued that it had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant committed a wrongdoing, murdering Katherine with the intent to undermine the judicial process or destroy the integrity of the criminal justice system by keeping Katherine from going to the police or testifying against him.

Defendant argued in response that the State had not proven any wrongdoing. Specifically, defendant questioned whether one person could have committed these murders, and could not demonstrate that defendant was in the Tsao home at 10:43 p.m. when the laptop was accessed for the last time.

Defendant also challenged the State’s forensic evidence as insufficient to prove any wrongdoing. The circuit court concluded the State had proved forfeiture by wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court specifically found that the State proved defendant committed the murder and proved that defendant did so with the intent to make Katherine unavailable as a witness.

The court, therefore, granted the State’s motion and allowed Jennifer’s testimony to be introduced at trial.

In reviewing this issue, we first note that the State argues defendant has only challenged the circuit court finding that, by a preponderance of the evidence, defendant made Katherine unavailable.

Defendant conceded at oral argument that he is not challenging the finding that he acted with the intent to make Katherine unavailable. Therefore, we will not review this finding concerning intent. Instead, we address defendant’s contention that the circuit court erred by admitting Jennifer’s testimony because the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing does not permit admission of non-testimonial hearsay.

Defendant also suggests that even if non-testimonial hearsay may be admitted under the doctrine, the reliability of the statements must be considered in the admission decision.

Lastly, defendant argues that the State’s proffered testimony was insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed Katherine’s murder.

A reviewing court will not reverse the circuit court’s ruling on a motion in limine absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Kirchner, 194 Ill. 2d 502, 539 (2000).

However, defendant is not arguing the circuit court abused its discretion. Rather defendant argues that the court had no discretion to admit Jennifer’s testimony because the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine requires that the statements be testimonial and because the statements must show some measure of reliability.

Defendant correctly argues that these questions are ones of law to be reviewed de novo. People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282, 289 (2006).

The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing is a common law doctrine. As early as 1878, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that if “a witness is absent by [a defendant’s] own wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away.” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158, 25 L. Ed. 244, 247 (1878).

The doctrine was later codified, at the federal level, by Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) as an exception to the general hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6). More recently, the Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Washington, recognized that the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, in addition to serving as an exception to the hearsay rule, also “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 199, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1370 (2004).

In People v. Melchor, our appellate court first recognized Rule 804(b)(6) as the law of Illinois. People v. Melchor, 362 Ill. App. 3d 335, 345 (2005). This court confirmed the appellate court’s recognition of the doctrine in People v. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d 246, 268-69 (2007).

However, defendant argues that Stechly adopted the doctrine only in the context of testimonial statements to be analyzed under Crawford. The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing is not limited to evidentiary questions that raise Crawford concerns. Rather, Rule 804(b)(6) is a general exception to the hearsay rule.

We have already expressed that the rule is coextensive with the common law doctrine. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d at 272-73.

This conclusion is based on the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that Rule 804(b)(b) codifies the forfeiture doctrine. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224, 244, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2280 (2006).

Therefore, although left unsaid in Stechly as a matter of Illinois law, we now expressly recognize that the doctrine serves both as an exception to the hearsay rule and to extinguish confrontation clause claims.

Traditionally, most hearsay exceptions allow the admission of non-testimonial evidence. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 195, 124 S. Ct. at 1367. Defendant provides no argument, other than a possible lack of reliability, for why the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine should not also permit non-testimonial statements.

As we next discuss, lack of reliability is an insufficient rationale. Therefore, we hold that the doctrine may be applied to admit both testimonial and non-testimonial statements.

Turning to reliability, defendant misapprehends the purpose of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine by arguing for requiring indicia of reliability.

Had Katherine not been made unavailable by defendant’s wrongdoing, she might have testified as to the threat defendant made against her. Defendant would have then had an opportunity to test Katherine’s reliability by cross-examining her, perhaps asking why she did not go to police if she really thought she was in danger. He could have also asked whether she fabricated the threat because she was angry with defendant.

Under the circuit court’s findings, however, defendant forfeited his ability to challenge the reliability of Katherine’s statements by improperly preventing her from testifying. Requiring additional indicia of reliability would, therefore, undermine the equitable considerations at the center of the doctrine.

Nor is reliability a significant consideration with respect to Jennifer’s testimony relating her conversation with Katherine. Unlike Katherine, Jennifer was present and able to testify. Thus, defendant had every opportunity to demonstrate that Jennifer was exaggerating, or even fabricating, the conversation she had with Katherine.

Defendant cross-examined Jennifer, pointed out to the jury the seemingly contradictory dates given for the phone conversation and asked Jennifer why, if she thought Katherine was upset and serious about the threat, she did not call the police after the conversation. Notwithstanding such arguments, a reasonable jury could conclude, and we can presume did conclude, that Jennifer was telling the truth and that Katherine indeed reported that defendant had threatened her.

The jury was aided in this effort by the State’s entering into evidence defendant’s letter, and the credit report found in Mary’s bedroom, which could be construed to support the conclusion that Jennifer was reliably relaying what Katherine had told her. I

n summary, the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine by its application obviates the need to consider reliability.

Under the doctrine, defendant had the opportunity to challenge the reliability of Jennifer’s testimony through cross-examination. Further, by his own wrongdoing, defendant forfeited his right to challenge the reliability of Katherine’s statements to Jennifer.

Accordingly, we hold that so long as the declarant’s statements are relevant and otherwise admissible, statements admitted under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine need not reflect additional indicia of reliability.

Additionally, based on the testimony elicited at the hearing, discussed above, we cannot say that the circuit court’s finding that defendant caused Katherine to be unavailable was arbitrary or unreasonable.

The circuit court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to allow Jennifer’s testimony.

Here is the Background section, which actually appears earlier in the ruling:

 Defendant was convicted of killing his sister, Katherine Tsao, and Katherine’s husband, James. He was also convicted of killing his parents, Terrence and Mary Hanson. The bodies of the four victims were found in James and Katherine’s home (the Tsao home) on September 29, 2005. Katherine and James had been bludgeoned. Terrence and Mary had been shot in the head.

Police later determined that Terrence and Mary had been shot in their own home (the Hanson home) and then had been wrapped in tarps and transported to the Tsao home. An investigation into the murders led police to the defendant after police spoke with defendant’s other sister, Jennifer Williams.


Jennifer told police that Katherine telephoned her six weeks prior to the murders, to tell Jennifer that defendant had been engaged in a scheme to obtain credit in their parents’ names. Katherine also told Jennifer that defendant had threatened Katherine by saying that if she told their father what defendant had been doing, he would kill her.


The investigation quickly centered on defendant, leading to his arrest. Prior to trial defendant filed several motions in limine, mostly attempting to prevent admission of opinion and hearsay testimony stemming from the investigation. One of these motions sought to prevent reference to Jennifer’s belief that defendant was responsible for the crime. This motion was denied. The State also filed a motion in limine seeking to admit testimony from Jennifer regarding her phone conversation with Katherine six weeks before the murders. The circuit court granted this motion over defendant’s objection.....

Defendant has challenged both of these rulings. The case proceeded to trial. At the guilt phase of the trial, the following evidence was heard.


Chiuchih Tsao, James’s brother, testified that he and James worked together at a trading company. The last time he saw James and Katherine alive was around 5 p.m. on the day of the murders, when the two left work for the day. He then testified that James did not show up for work the next day. He thought it very strange that James did not arrive for work, so he went to the Tsao home.


When he arrived, he first rang the bell. Then, when no one answered, he peered in a window. From the window, Tsao saw a woman on the floor with blood around her.


He called his daughter, who, when she arrived at the house, called the police. The fire department arrived first and broke down the front door. Tsao testified that he saw a person sitting on the couch when he went into the house. He went upstairs but did not see anyone there. At that time police asked him to leave the house.


During his testimony, Tsao also identified a watch that he had bought for James. John Eul, an Aurora firefighter, then testified to the events following the emergency call to the Tsao home. Eul testified that when he and his partner arrived, they forced down the front door and entered the house. Inside they saw the bodies of Katherine, James, and Mary. Eul testified that they then determined the scene was not safe and exited the house.


Katherine Von Holten, Mary’s coworker and friend, testified that she became worried when Mary did not show up for work on September 29. She testified that Mary had not called in to say she would be late. After noon, Von Holten called Mary at her house phone and cell phone but received no answer. At that point she and another coworker drove to the Hanson home. They entered the Hanson home with the help of a keypad code provided by Jennifer Williams. Inside the home, they noticed nothing out of the ordinary, other than a strong fire burning in the fireplace. Mary’s coworkers then left a note for Mary. The note was left next to a note, written by defendant, which read: “Mom, dad, see you Sunday. Have fun in Galena.”


Next to this note was some cash. The note included a postscript that indicated this money was for “payment this month.” While Von Holten was at the Hanson home, Mary’s nephew, Bob Stutelberg, arrived. Von Holten testified that Stutelberg also looked through the house. Stutelberg then drove the three of them to the Tsao home. By the time they arrived, emergency personnel had already arrived. Stutelberg testified that defendant called him the morning of September 29. He testified defendant told him he was on his way to Midway Airport to catch a flight. Defendant asked if he would make it in time. Stutelberg testified defendant was going to be flying to California. He also testified that defendant mentioned he did not get much sleep the previous night, as his mattress was “rotten.” I

n a second telephone call from defendant, defendant informed Stutelberg that he was at the airport and was going to make his flight. Stutelberg also testified that on September 29 he received a call from one of Terrence’s coworkers. The coworker told Stutelberg that Terrence had missed a meeting that morning. Stutelberg testified that it was unusual for Terrence to miss meetings. Stutelberg tried contacting Terrence and Mary by phone, but was unable to reach them. At this time, Stutelberg drove to the Hanson house, where he encountered Mary’s coworkers. Stutelberg, too, mentioned that other than the fire in the fireplace, nothing appeared out of the ordinary in the house. Stutelberg then accompanied Mary’s coworkers to the Tsao home. Stutelberg further testified that between 5:30 and 6 p.m. he called defendant on his cell phone to tell him that the police were saying they found four bodies in the Tsao home. Stutelberg turned the phone over to Detective Nilles of the Aurora police department, who had a conversation with the defendant.


Christine Undesser testified that she and the defendant had gone out together on September 28, the night of the murders. She testified that she and defendant were out from 7 p.m. until around 9:30 p.m. During the evening defendant mentioned that he was flying to California to meet with Allison Beck, his ex-fiancée. Defendant drove Undesser to her home, arriving around 10 p.m. She and defendant talked for 15 minutes and then defendant left.


Allison Beck testified that she and defendant had known each other for six years. They began dating in 2002 and eventually decided to get married. When they were engaged, she and defendant moved to Illinois from Phoenix, living with defendant’s parents. Beck testified that during the time they lived together, she had seen defendant looking through papers on Terrence’s desk. She also testified that defendant had mentioned he would get an inheritance if his parents ever passed away. In 2004, Beck broke off her engagement to defendant. At some point she moved to California, yet remained in contact with defendant. She testified that during the time they were dating, defendant was spending more money and buying nicer things. I

n May 2005, Beck inquired about defendant’s finances and he replied that he was doing very well at his job. However, Beck also had spoken with Katherine several times in August 2005. As a result of these conversations, Beck checked her credit. During one phone conversation, defendant asked if Beck had been speaking with Katherine. Beck responded, falsely, that she had not been talking with Katherine.


According to Beck, defendant responded, “If I ever find out, you are going to get it.” Beck asked him if that was a threat. Defendant replied, “It’s a fact.” Beck then testified about the week leading up to the night of the murders. She had invited defendant to a concert in Los Angeles.


Defendant had agreed to go, and planned to fly to California on September 29. Beck testified defendant had told her his flight left Chicago at 9:30 a.m. and that he would be leaving his house at 6:30 a.m. in order to arrive at the airport in time.


On the evening before he was to fly to Los Angeles, defendant called Beck around 11:30 p.m., Central time. Defendant said he had a bad connection, and asked Beck to call him back on his parents’ home phone number. Beck did call him, and Terrence answered the phone at first. Defendant then answered another phone in the house, and Terrence hung up. Beck and defendant then had a conversation about his trip to California. The next morning, defendant again called Beck to say that he was running late to the airport because of traffic, but that he was going to be on a later flight.


When defendant arrived, Beck asked him what he did on the plane and defendant replied that he slept the entire time. He said he did not know why he was so tired. Deborah Chereskin, a neighbor of the Hansons, testified that she took her dog out in the backyard at 1:50 a.m. on September 29. Chereskin’s backyard abuts the backyard of the Hanson house. Chereskin testified that when she took her dog out, all of the lights in the Hanson house were turned on, including the basement window where defendant’s bedroom is located. State’s witnesses then testified regarding the crime scene at the Tsao home.


Sergeant Nisha Kalra, an evidence technician and photographer, testified to the layout of the Tsao home, and identified several pictures depicting the location and position of the victims’ bodies, a laptop computer, bloodspatters and other forensic evidence. Detective Christopher Berard, of the computer forensics division of the Naperville police, testified that the hard drive taken from the computer found near James’s body was last accessed at 10:43 p.m. on September 28.


Next, Jennifer Williams, sister to both Katherine and defendant, testified as to defendant’s spending habits in the months leading up to the murders. Williams also testified to the conversation she had with Katherine six weeks before the murders. In that conversation Katherine told her that defendant had admitted to opening up credit accounts in his parents’ names and had charged around $80,000 to these accounts. Defendant had admitted this both to Katherine and to Mary. Defendant promised to pay the money back and asked that Katherine and Mary not tell Terrence. Williams testified that Katherine told defendant she was going to tell Terrence anyway. At that point Katherine told Williams that defendant had threatened her, saying, “If you tell dad I’ll f***ing kill you.” Katherine called Williams that same day to tell her about the confrontation. Williams testified that Katherine called her again the following day. Katherine called to say she did not go to work because “she was really freaked out” about what defendant had said the day before. Over the next few weeks, Katherine and Williams continued to talk about the situation over the phone, but Williams did not provide any more specifics. Williams also testified that on the night of the murders, Katherine had called her twice, at 10 and 10:06 p.m. Williams was out of the house the first time Katherine called, but Katherine spoke to Williams’s daughter.


The second time Katherine called, Williams did not answer, as she was getting ready for bed. The following morning, Williams tried calling Terrence to ask about a home repair issue, but there was no answer. Williams testified she also tried to reach Mary at work, as well as Mary’s cell phone and Katherine’s cell phone.


She called again later in the morning, and then made repeated attempts to call each of them. She also spoke with Bob Stutelberg, and she asked him to drive over to house to check on her parents. Williams testified she also spoke with Mary’s coworkers and provided them the entry code for the garage door. Later, from the Tsao home, Mary’s coworkers put Williams on the phone with Detective Nilles, of the Aurora police department. During that conversation, Williams told Detective Nilles that she “was really worried because my brother had threatened my sister.” Williams testified as to a copy of Mary’s credit report she found when cleaning out Mary’s bedroom dresser. The credit report was dated August 13, 2005, which was the day before Katherine called her about defendant’s threat.


Lisa Stewart, a custodian of records for Southwest Airlines, testified that the airline’s records showed defendant had purchased a ticket from Chicago to Los Angeles, departing at 11:15 a.m. and arriving at 1:30 p.m. A return flight was booked at the same time, for flight on October 2, leaving Los Angeles at 11:15 a.m. and arriving in Chicago at 5:10 p.m. Stewart also attempted to testify to a note included in those records. That note read “if passenger checks in, please contact the LAPD ***. Passenger is very dangerous.”


This testimony drew an objection from defense counsel and the objection was sustained. Stewart then testified to another reservation defendant had made for a flight on September 30, leaving Los Angeles at 7:15 p.m. and arriving in Chicago at 1:05 a.m. on October 1. Stewart testified defendant did not board either of defendant’s booked return flights. Sarah Voss, an airlines record custodian for United Airlines, testified that defendant had booked a flight on September 29, leaving Los Angeles at 11:05 p.m.


Voss confirmed that defendant did board this flight. The State called several witnesses to explain how various evidence samples were collected and how the case was investigated. The witnesses, mainly police officers, testified that bloodstains were found in the Hanson home, that the Hansons’ mattress had been switched with a mattress in the guest bedroom, that the murderer had attempted to repair the headboard where bullets had penetrated and that a cordless drill was found.


One witness testified that a bullet fragment was found in an attic joist near the Hansons’ bed. The State later argued this evidence demonstrated the calculated nature of the crime.

John Collins, a firearms and tool mark expert, testified that the bullet found in the joist matched other bullets found within Terrence and Mary.


Collins also testified as to tool marks made in an attempt to repair the headboard of the Hansons’ bed and testified that the plastic garbage bag found under Terrence’s head came from a box of garbage bags found at the Hanson house. He compared markings on a plastic zip lock bag found in defendant’s car, containing green latex gloves, to a box of zip lock bags at the Hanson home, and concluded that the bag found in the car came from the same manufacturer as the box of bags in the Hanson home.


Dr. Scott Denton, a medical examiner, testified to his autopsies of James and Katherine Tsao. He described in detail the various injuries sustained by both victims. He confirmed that James’s and Katherine’s deaths were caused by skull and brain injuries as a result of blunt trauma to the head. He also testified that James lacked any indication of defensive wounds. However, Denton did conclude that injuries to Katherine’s forearms were defensive wounds. Denton also testified that Katherine’s ring finger had been broken. He opined it was broken by being bent backwards. On cross-examination, Denton acknowledged that her ring finger had no indentation from a ring and no cuts or bruises. Denton further testified that he did not know if Katherine was wearing a ring when she was killed.


Similarly, Dr. Jeff Harkey, chief forensic pathologist for the Du Page County coroner’s office, testified as to his autopsies of Terrence and Mary Hanson. Harkey concluded that each victim died as a result of a single gunshot wound to the head. Harkey also concluded, based on a stippling pattern on Terrence’s head, that a second gunshot was fired near Terrence’s head but did not hit him.


Craig Morehouse, a Wisconsin state trooper, testified that he initiated a traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle north of Madison, Wisconsin. He further testified that he informed defendant that there was a warrant for his arrest in Illinois, and took defendant to a nearby county sheriff’s department. Reynaldo Rivera, an evidence technician with the Aurora police department, testified that he examined defendant’s vehicle after his arrest. Rivera testified he began by taking photographs, and then examined the contents of the vehicle. Specifically, he testified that he found a clear zip lock sandwich bag containing rubber or vinyl gloves. The gloves had a brown, reddish flaky substance on them. Rivera also found a gold Rolex watch in the center console of the vehicle along with a silver, princess-cut diamond ring.


Tamara Camp, a DNA analyst, testified that she tested swabs taken from both crime scenes, as well as from items found in defendant’s vehicle the night he was stopped by Wisconsin police. Camp identified several samples that contained DNA profiles matching those of James and Katherine Tsao and Terrence and Mary Hanson. Profiles matching Terrence and Mary were found both at the Hanson home as well as inside Terrence and Mary’s SUV. Camp testified that she identified a DNA profile matching James on the watch found in defendant’s SUV. Camp also testified that although she noticed a brown speck on the ring found in defendant’s SUV, she was unable to identify a DNA profile. Lastly, Camp testified that stains on the green gloves found in defendant’s vehicle tested positive for blood, and that the gloves contained a DNA profile matching that of Terrence. Michael Nilles, a detective with the Aurora police department, testified as to his investigation of the murders. When he arrived at the Hanson home, he encountered Belinda Robinson, Mary’s coworker who had gone to the home to check on Mary. Belinda handed Nilles a cell phone. On the other end of the phone was defendant’s sister, Jennifer Williams. Nilles testified that this phone conversation led him to consider defendant a suspect.


After that conversation, Mary’s nephew, Bob Stutelberg, gave his cell phone to Nilles, telling Nilles that defendant was on the phone. During this conversation, Nilles confronted defendant with, among other things, the statement “Jennifer thinks you did this” and told defendant that he knew defendant had an argument with Katherine over his using his parent’s identities to get credit cards. Nilles informed defendant that he was sending two detectives to Los Angeles to meet with defendant. Nilles testified to a series of calls between himself and defendant, including a conversation in which defendant acknowledged being at the airport and Nilles told defendant that it seemed as if he was running from the police, which defendant denied.

Nilles further testified that on Friday morning, September 30, he received a phone call from defendant, who indicated he was still in Los Angeles. However, following a phone call with the FBI, Nilles had reason to believe defendant was actually back in Illinois, and instructed local police agencies to look for defendant traveling north toward Wisconsin. Following defendant’s apprehension in Wisconsin, Nilles traveled there and interviewed defendant. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, which defendant waived. Defendant repeatedly denied being involved in the murders. The State also questioned several witnesses regarding the GPS device recovered from defendant’s vehicle. The State elicited testimony that tracked the movements of defendant’s vehicle on the evening prior to the murders as well as its movements the morning before the bodies were discovered and the following day, when defendant returned to Illinois.


Testimony also revealed the device was turned off between 7:30 p.m. the day of the murders and approximately 9:30 a.m. the day after. During the trial, the State also called several witnesses to establish the basis for the identity theft charges against defendant. As defendant is not challenging the evidence or the convictions on these counts, we need not describe this testimony in detail. For the defense, Jennifer Cones, a forensic scientist certified as an expert in fingerprint identification and comparison, testified that she examined a fingerprint found on the bag containing bloodstained gloves that was found in defendant’s car. Comparing this print to defendant’s fingerprints, she concluded that the two did not match.


However, on cross-examination, she acknowledged that she did not compare the print to the fingerprints of Terrence and Mary Hanson. Defendant testified next. He acknowledged that he had used his mother’s and father’s names in order to secure credit, which he then used to purchase various items. He then admitted that in the middle of August his parents confronted him with credit reports and defendant admitted that he had been charging purchases to these credit cards. According to defendant, he convinced Mary that he would stop and that he would begin to pay her back. When he was separately confronted by Terrence, defendant testified, his father agreed to allow defendant to take out a consolidation loan in Terrence’s name, in order to pay off some of the current debt. Defendant then testified as to his whereabouts the evening of September 28, prior to the murders. He met with Christine Undesser at a bar and returned to his parents’ house, where he was living, around 11 p.m.

Defendant testified that Terrence was awake in his office when defendant arrived home. Around 11:15 defendant called Allison Beck in Los Angeles. The connection was not good, and defendant asked Allison to call him back on his parents’ house phone. When Allison called, Terrence answered, but defendant answered shortly after and told Terrence, “I got it.” Defendant then talked to Allison until approximately 11:30. Defendant testified that after this phone call, he put a movie into his DVD player and fell asleep during the movie, probably around 1:30 a.m. Defendant testified that the following morning, he woke up, went to a convenience store to buy cigarettes, took a shower, finished packing for his trip to Los Angeles and left the house. He testified he planned on driving to James and Katherine’s house in order to return Katherine’s wedding ring and the watch belonging to James.


According to defendant, Katherine had taken the ring off while painting some flower pots. As for the watch, defendant testified that Katherine had wanted to order Terrence a watch and needed to know how many links were needed for the chain. According to defendant, Katherine was going to order the watch because Terrence did not always do things in a timely fashion. If Katherine helped get the right measurements, she would order the watch so Terrence would not have to do anything. Katherine had James’s watch in order to compare it to Terrence’s wrist for sizing purposes and defendant testified that Katherine left the watch at the Hanson home. Defendant testified that although he intended to return the items before he went to the airport, he was in a hurry to get to the airport and forgot to stop by their house.

On the way to the airport, defendant realized that he did not have his driver’s license and that he was not going to be able to get to his flight on time. He returned to his parents’ home to get his license and called to book a new reservation to Los Angeles. On his second attempt to get to the airport, defendant called Bob Stutelburg to ask where to park and whether he thought defendant would be able to make his flight in time. Defendant testified that he did get to the airport in time and boarded his flight to Los Angeles

. While in Los Angeles, defendant learned from Stutelberg that there were four persons dead in James and Katherine’s house. Defendant denied killing any of the victims. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to all four counts of first degree murder. The jury also found defendant guilty of the armed robbery of James and Katherine Tsao and of the aggravated kidnapping of Terrence and Mary Hanson.


The jury found defendant guilty of the identity theft of Terrence and Mary Hanson. In the eligibility phase of defendant’s sentencing trial, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant to be eligible for a death sentence.The verdict was based on defendant being 18 years or older at the time of the murders and that the deaths were a result of the intent to kill more than one person, the murders were committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan scheme or design, James and Katherine were killed in the course of an armed robbery and Mary and Terrence were killed in the course of an aggravated kidnapping. At the sentencing hearing itself, the State first argued that the fact there were multiple victims and the fact that the murder was committed in a calculated and premeditated manner were both sufficient aggravating factors.


The State also argued that defendant’s criminal history, which included home invasions, retail theft and property damage, was an aggravating factor. The State referred to testimony from witnesses detailing other incidents involving violence and threats made by defendant. Lastly, the State asked the jury to consider the impact statements of the victims’ family members. In mitigation, counsel for defendant argued that the murder was committed while defendant was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Defendant relied primarily on the testimony of Dr. Dawkins, who concluded that defendant would not be a risk of harm to others in a structured environment such as prison. After weighing the evidence in aggravation and mitigation, the jury returned a verdict that death was the appropriate sentence. The court declined to enter a written order setting forth a basis for disagreement with the jury’s verdict, as permitted by section 9–1(g) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/9–1(g) (West 2006)).

Instead, the circuit court concurred in the decision of the jury and sentenced defendant to death. The court found that the convictions for armed robbery and aggravated kidnapping merged into the convictions for murder and so did not enter sentences on those counts.


The circuit court did sentence defendant to concurrent terms of 15 years for defendant's identity theft convictions. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 603 and section 9–1(i) of the Criminal Code, defendant now appeals directly to this court. 134 Ill. 2d R. 603; 720 ILCS 5/9–1(i) (West 2006).


http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/07/drews-law-may-let-drew-skate.html
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #203 on: July 24, 2010, 08:57:42 AM »

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/plainfieldsun/news/2521066,6_7_NA23_PETERSON_S1-100723.article
Judge: Clock hasn't run out on Peterson's gun charge
uly 23, 2010
By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

JOLIET -- Drew Peterson's murder trial is on hold, but the felony gun charge the cops arrested him on more than two years ago looks like it's finally on the fast track.

Judge Richard Schoenstedt tried to kick-start the trial into action Monday morning, but Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, was not prepared.

Brodsky argued Monday that a speedy trial term had lapsed and that Peterson should skate on the charges.

Peterson was arrested in May 2008 for allegedly possessing an assault rifle with an illegally short barrel. Brodsky claimed Peterson was allowed to carry the gun because he was a Bolingbrook police sergeant.

Peterson bailed himself out of jail the same day he was arrested and had a right to go to trial within 160 days, not including time off the clock for delays his attorneys created.

But in November 2008, Schoenstedt dropped the charges when prosecutors refused to surrender internal communications to Peterson's lawyers. The appellate court determined Schoenstedt goofed and sent the case back last week.

In the meantime, Peterson returned to jail in May 2009 for allegedly killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. His murder trial was set to start a week and a half ago, but a last minute appeal by State's Attorney James Glasgow put this case in limbo.

The way Brodsky had the days counted on the gun case deadline, the prosecution blew its chance to nail Peterson by two days. The judge didn't buy it, but to be on the safe side, he offered to start the trial immediately. After a lengthy, private conference with Peterson, Brodsky backed off.
If I had two more weeks, I could be ready to go to trial," Brodsky said. "I couldn't get ready in one day. That wouldn't be fair to Drew."

Familiar face returns

While Brodsky was the only one of Peterson's six current attorneys present in court Monday, a lawyer from the former cop's past turned up and stuck around all morning. Andrew Abood, who abandoned Peterson's murder case, showed up to quit the gun case, too.

While Abood was filing a motion to withdraw, Brodsky filed a motion signed by Peterson to fire him. Schoenstedt accepted Abood's paper instead of Brodsky's.

Asked if he was subpoenaed to testify at Peterson's murder trial, Abood said, "I heard I might be on the list," and added, "I don't think I'll be called, I'll tell you that."

Abood, who jumped ship on the murder case after clashing with Brodsky, sat next to Peterson in the jury box prior to Monday's hearing. The two men spoke for more than 20 minutes, smiling and laughing throughout.

"Drew and I are fine. Drew's great," Abood said of their conversation. He also said he offered to buy Brodsky lunch.

"I can buy my own lunch," Brodsky said.
Constitutional issue?

Of the gun charge being back in court, Brodsky accused Glasgow of trampling on the constitutional rights of not only his client, but everyone in Will County.

"Will County residents don't have the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to bear arms," he said, pointing out that Peterson must remain in jail during what might prove a lengthy appeal process, that Glasgow is trying to get hearsay evidence allowed at Peterson's murder trial, and that Peterson was charged with possessing an assault rifle he supposedly was permitted to carry as a Bolingbrook cop.

"Does Mr. Glasgow think Will County residents have any constitutional rights?" Brodsky asked, making Peterson a symbolic victim of the state's attorney's tyranny.

"Drew just happens to be the poster boy, so to speak," Brodsky said. "If (the Constitution) doesn't apply to him, it doesn't apply to anybody. Everybody in Will County should be concerned."

Glasgow's spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, took exception to Brodsky's criticism.

"These are comments that are not befitting of the profession that he's in," Pelkie said.

"Joel should argue these points in court," he said. "When he does argue these points in court, he's often wrong."
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #204 on: August 17, 2010, 08:32:02 PM »

DON'T MISS THE DANA PRETZER SHOW TONIGHT.  EMAIL DANA WITH QUESTIONS FOR RITA COSBY:

dana@scaredmonkeys.com

Logged
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #205 on: August 23, 2010, 03:21:43 PM »

Aug 23, 2010 2:01 pm US/Central Peterson Back In Court For Murder, Gun Cases
Murder Case Is On Appeal, Illegal Gun Case Is Still Pending

As they await a court ruling so former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson's murder trial can resume, defense attorneys also busy are fighting felony gun charges against him.

Peterson is charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a dry bathtub in March 2004. Her death was originally ruled an accident, but was reclassified as a homicide after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007.

Separately, Peterson is charged with keeping an illegal gun, specifically an AR-15 rifle on which the barrel is illegally short. Peterson is also charged with illegally transferring the firearm to his son.

The gun was seized during the investigations into Savio's death and Stacy Peterson's disappearance.

Will County Judge Richard Schoendstedt dismissed the gun charges in 2008, after prosecutors refused to hand over key internal documents. Peterson's attorneys had argued the gun charges amounted to vindictive and selective prosecution.

But in February of this year, an appellate panel revived the gun charges. Defense attorneys attempted again to get the charges tossed, arguing that a federal exemption allowed Peterson to possess the gun because he was a police officer.

At a hearing Monday before Judge Schoenstedt, Peterson's attorneys called three witnesses from the Bolingbrook Police Department.

One witness, Bolingbrook police Sgt. Jeff Drabek, said he and Peterson had both been members of the REACT SWAT team, which had been authorized to carry military-style automatic weapons such as the AR-15. He also said because the Bolingbrook Police Department did not have enough of the weapons in its arsenal to accommodate the whole REACT team, the officers were permitted to buy their own weapons.

Prosecutors contend that the federal exemption on weapons has to do with police officers being allowed to carry concealed firearms while off duty, not with modified military-style weapons such as the one Peterson had.

In a separate motion, the defense is also mounting a Second Amendment argument against the gun charges. The state statute that bans automatic weapons with barrels under a certain length is being challenged on claims that it violates the right to bear arms, following the McDonald v. Chicago ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court that forced the City of Chicago to toss its handgun ban.

Prosecutors won a continuance for a hearing on that defense argument, saying the defense had failed to notify the Illinois Attorney General about the Second Amendment motion.

In a separate hearing Monday, Will County Judge Stephen B. White said he planned to continue to hold the jury that had been picked for Peterson's murder trial, but he doesn't know for how long.

Peterson's trial was delayed last month, following an appeal by prosecutors. Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow is appealing Judge White's ruling regarding which statements will be allowed into evidence under the hearsay exception being used in the case.

A jury was impaneled before the appeal was announced.

Meanwhile, White is retiring, and says another judge will be taking over the Peterson murder case. He said no further status hearings on the case are expected until a ruling is issued on prosecutors' appeal.

Peterson sat quietly in a blue Will County Jail jumpsuit with shackles on his legs during the two hearings, which were held in different courtrooms. Judge Schoenstedt allowed defense attorneys to have Peterson's handcuffs removed as they called witnesses for the hearing on the gun charge.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/drew.peterson.court.2.1874615.html
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
AmandaReckonwith
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 219



WWW
« Reply #206 on: August 25, 2010, 12:37:28 AM »

Logged

Saved pictures and vids from lots of cases:

http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #207 on: August 31, 2010, 06:20:39 AM »

Drew Peterson's son suspended after testifying on dad's weapons

Attorney questions timing of move by Oak Brook police

By Steve Schmadeke and Stacy St. Clair, Tribune reporters
August 28, 2010

Three days after testifying that he let his father, Drew Peterson, hide weapons in his home, Oak Brook police officer Stephen Peterson was suspended from his job, village officials said.

The Thursday decision was directly related to Stephen's testimony, a source said.

Stephen Peterson, 31, has been suspended at least five times in the six years he's been an Oak Brook police officer, according to state records and prior police statements.

His father, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is charged with murder in the 2004 drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, as well as with owning an illegal gun. Peterson is also the sole suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

On Monday, his son testified that Peterson called him shortly after Stacy disappeared, then brought two bags holding two or three guns into his North Aurora house.

"They were his favorites and he didn't want anything to happen to them," Stephen testified Monday.

Stephen Peterson later turned the weapons over to Illinois State Police, according to testimony from a retired state police investigator.

Oak Brook Village Manager David Niemeyer said Peterson's son was placed on paid administrative leave Thursday pending the outcome of an internal investigation. He declined to comment on why Stephen was suspended, saying it was a personnel matter.

Drew Peterson's attorney Joel Brodsky called the move "pure vindictiveness" and "baseless" and said no new information had emerged during Monday's hearing for Oak Brook to act on. He suggested the move was intended to get at Drew and noted that Stephen was caring for his two younger siblings.

"What's next — they're going to catch (Drew Peterson's daughter) Lacy running across the street and charge her with jaywalking?" Brodsky said.

Stephen Peterson's prior suspensions have been for running improper database checks on 10 village employees, driving an Oak Brook squad car and appearing in uniform before a grand jury investigating Stacy's disappearance, making a rude comment to a citizen and sending an inappropriate message on a police computer, according to past police statements.

He could not be reached for comment.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/ct-met-peterson-son-suspended-0829-20100828,0,5208008.story
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #208 on: September 07, 2010, 01:34:51 PM »

Oh BOOHOODREW.....your son Stephen is a 31 year old man...NOT a kid. Hey Drew.....your KID is 31, how old does that make you  Monkey Devil! You effin POS

Chicago Sun Times
September 7, 2010 Tuesday
 
Drew Peterson: Back off my kids
 
Drew Peterson is making an impassioned media plea on behalf of his children; specifically his son, Stephen, an Oak Brook policeman who is on suspension because of what Peterson claims is the result of "malicious prosecution."

Drew Peterson, who is in jail awaiting trial on charges of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, dispatched a letter to his attorney Joel Brodsky urging the press to "watch over" what he considers vindictive legal proceedings against Stephen, the caregiver of four of Drew Peterson's six children.

Oak Brook Police are investigating Stephen Peterson's court testimony that he accepted guns from his father after Drew Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, vanished in 2007.

The letter, which was given to Sneed by Brodsky, contains references to five of Drew Peterson's six children. Missing is a reference to Peterson's eldest child, Eric, the product of marriage to his first wife, Carol, and from whom he is estranged. (There were no children from Peterson's marriage to his second wife, Victoria.) Peterson is also a prime suspect in the disappearance of Stacy, the mother of his two youngest children, Anthony and Lacy Ann. The following is an excerpt of Drew Peterson's letter, spelling and punctuation errors and all. The entire letter can be viewed online at suntimes.com.

Its been almost three years since my wife Stacy went missing with the Illinois State Police and the Will County States Attorney's Office launching probably the largest, most obsessive and expensive investigation in U.S. history. The investigation has thus far turned up rumors, gossip hearsay and out right lies and more recently the bodies of a lot of raccoons and possums all at the expense of the hard working Illinois tax payer. This investigation has threatened, harassed, pestered and hounded just about every loved one, friend, family member, fellow employee and love interest I have ever know. . . . On several occasions my home and property have been searched and vandalized by these obsessive thugs with my little children being terrorized in the process. Our heroes. I was taken from my family without being able to say goodbye to my kids with my kids being also taken into custody and turned over to The Department of Children and family Services. This process would be scary for an adult much less a four and five year old. My 31 year old son Stephen, an Oak Brook Police Officer, stepped up and took custody of my four kids just after having a child of his own. My son Stephen is a good man and a dedicated father and policeman. Stephen got his Bachelors degree in law enforcement at Western Illinois University just so he could fulfill his dream of becoming a policeman. My little girl Lacy Ann just started Kindergarten with her daddy unable to be at her first day of school. Anthony is now in 2nd grade full of life and love just happy to be a kid with his friends. Thomas is now a senior, number one in his class, and now the Vice President of the National Honor Society. He is an athlete and plays trumpet in his school and area church bands. Kristopher is also an athlete and an honor roll student now in his Junior year of high school. All my children are exceptional kids just wanting a happy childhood after their little worlds were turned upside down almost three years ago. It's not bad enough their father is in jail being held unlawfully after the state appealed a Will County Judges decision to not allow bad evidence at trial, but now my children's well being and security is now in jeopardy again. For the third time, in less than three years, my son Stephen is again being brought up on departmental charges of misconduct by Oak Brook Chief Sheehan stemming from trumped up gun charges I'm now facing in a Will County Court. The charges Stephen faced in the past were brought when he took a squad car to a Will County grand Jury while on duty under supeona for the case against me. The second charge was for the use of the departmental computer which were said to be unauthorized. Nothing could be more ridiculous. . . . I have no doubt that the Illinois State Police and the Will County States Attorney's Office are also involved in this action against my son in an attempt to get at me. . . . During a prior action against my son Chief Sheehan referred to Stephen as "Drew" at least three times during the hearing so we know where his head is. . . . I'm not looking for any sympathy for me. I can handle myself. But I am asking the media to closely watch over these proceedings to help protect my son Stephen, being my children's caregiver, against the malicious prosecution he is now facing. What will it take to stop the madness being perpetrated against my family in an attempt to get at me. . . . Someone somewhere has to stand up and say STOP. . . . If I gave my life, which I would gladly do to protect my kids, would that stop the harassment against my family? . . . I'm devoting all my resources that I have available to fight this atrocity against my son.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020825&docId=l:1258100220&start=1
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #209 on: September 07, 2010, 02:04:00 PM »

Sounds like the son is as big a POS as Drew. 
Logged
seemeatthebeach
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6195



« Reply #210 on: September 07, 2010, 06:50:28 PM »

Sounds like the son is as big a POS as Drew. 

You got that right!!

Drew talks about his children being put in jeopardy.......duh!!!
So what in sam hell does he think he's doing by sending the media a picture of all his children. The man is as evil as a day is long. Freaking media whore!
Logged

<a href="http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/files/countdown/countdown.swf?co=0000A0&amp;bgcolor=808080&amp;date_month=05&amp;date_day=09&amp;date_year=1&amp;un=Caylee&#39;s Justice&amp;size=small&amp;mo=05&amp;da=09&amp;yr=2011" target="_blank">http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/files/countdown/countdown.swf?co=0000A0&amp;bgcolor=808080&amp;date_month=05&amp;date_day=09&amp;date_year=1&amp;un=Caylee&#39;s Justice&amp;size=small&amp;mo=05&amp;da=09&amp;yr=2011</a>
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #211 on: September 08, 2010, 07:08:13 AM »

Sounds like the son is as big a POS as Drew. 

You got that right!!

Drew talks about his children being put in jeopardy.......duh!!!
So what in sam hell does he think he's doing by sending the media a picture of all his children. The man is as evil as a day is long. Freaking media whore!

Pfft.....what a piece of chit. 
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #212 on: September 08, 2010, 06:14:50 PM »

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/09/drew-peterson-letter-from-jail.html
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Drew Peterson Letter from Jail
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #213 on: October 05, 2010, 11:27:24 AM »




Chicago Sun Times
October 2, 2010 Saturday
 
Peterson grins as felony weapons charge fails again
 
A Will County judge for the second time has dismissed a felony weapons charge filed against former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson.

The ruling Friday by Judge Richard Schoenstedt prompted a broad grin from Peterson, though the 56-year-old ex-cop still remains jailed on charges he drowned third wife Kathleen Savio in 2004.

But the decision could help his police officer son, Stephen, who faces dismissal from the Oak Brook Police Department for allegedly taking the modified AR-15 rifle from his father before a search of Drew Peterson's Bolingbrook home in November 2007.

Oak Brook police in August suspended Stephen Peterson from his job after he acknowledged taking the rifle and at least one other gun from his father just after the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance of Drew Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy.

Schoenstedt's dismissal of the gun charge bolsters Stephen Peterson's contention that he did nothing wrong in holding the guns for his father for several days after Stacy Peterson's disappearance, said attorney Tamara Cummings.

"It pretty much supports our position -- there never was anything improper about him taking the guns," said Cummings, who represents Stephen Peterson.

In dismissing the weapons charge against Drew Peterson, Schoenstedt ruled that prosecutors hadn't shown he was barred from owning the short-barrel, assault-style AR-15 rifle.

"Under different circumstances, the officers of the Bolingbrook Police Department would have been able to possess . . . this very weapon," Schoenstedt wrote in his ruling.

Defense attorneys had argued that Peterson as a police officer was allowed by federal law to own the weapon, which they said he used in his law enforcement duties.

"It was absolutely the correct decision to make," said Joel Brodsky, one of Peterson's attorneys.

Will County prosecutors in May 2008 charged Drew Peterson with felony unlawful use of a weapon, contending he had illegally modified the rifle by shortening the barrel.

Schoenstedt, however, dismissed that charge in November 2008, though prosecutors appealed his ruling. An appellate court later reinstated the charge and sent the case back to Schoenstedt.

Prosecutors could still appeal the judge's latest dismissal of the charge, though a spokesman for Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow said no decision has been made.

Peterson's pending murder trial has been delayed by an appeal from prosecutors seeking to admit second-hand, hearsay statements against him from several key witnesses, including Savio herself.

Peterson remains a suspect in Stacy Peterson's still-unsolved disappearance but has not been charged. 
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020825&docId=l:1275557139&start=11
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #214 on: October 08, 2010, 07:32:20 AM »

http://www.cayleedaily.com/2010/10/drew-peterson-to-stay-in-jail-pending-trial/
Drew Peterson To Stay In Jail Pending Trial
10/07/10
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #215 on: November 25, 2010, 07:16:55 AM »

Chicago Daily Herald 
November 24, 2010 Wednesday
 
Peterson’s son will learn his fate next week
 
A hearing on whether to fire Oak Brook police officer Stephen Peterson, son of murder suspect Drew Peterson, will go on as scheduled Nov. 30.

Oak Brook’s Board of Fire and Police Commissioners on Monday denied Peterson’s request for a continuance.

Peterson has been on paid leave from his $67,422-a-year position since August. Earlier this month, commissioners rejected Chief Thomas Sheahan’s motion to halt Peterson’s paychecks.

Sheahan is seeking Peterson’s dismissal.

Peterson, a six-year veteran of the force, is accused of violating department rules when he briefly stashed his father’s "favorite" guns so law enforcement authorities wouldn’t find them. He also is charged with failure to tell his superiors.

The guns included an assault rifle with a prohibited shortened barrel. Oak Brook rules limit an officer’s off-duty firearms to handguns, which must have departmental approval.

Peterson admitted under oath that he hid the guns his father brought to his house on Oct. 30, 2007 — just a few days after Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, went missing. Drew Peterson, a retired Bolingbrook police sergeant, has not been charged in her disappearance, but is awaiting trial for first-degree murder in connection with the 2004 bathtub drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Police raided Drew Peterson’s home two days later, on Nov. 1, 2007. Drew Peterson told them his son had the three guns and Stephen Peterson turned in the weapons.

Officer Peterson later knowingly broke department rules by talking about the internal investigation into his conduct with numerous people, including several fellow officers, Sheahan charged.

Tamara Cummings, who is Stephen Peterson’s police union attorney, has said the officer is being unfairly targeted because of his father’s notoriety. In a news release, she called the charges "meritless" and "vindictive."

But his father aside, Stephen Peterson "has a long history of disciplinary issues as an Oak Brook police officer," according to documents submitted to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. That disciplinary history includes a 25-day suspension without pay for running unauthorized police data checks on village employees’ cars. The 25-day suspension was later reduced.

The board is expected to hear testimony from both sides at the Nov. 30 hearing before making a decision on Peterson’s employment. If necessary, the hearing will continue to Dec. 9.

Neither Peterson’s attorney nor Charles E. Hervas, attorney for the police chief, could be reached for comment Tuesday. 
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020825&docId=l:1309983006&start=4
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
Patricia Mocha Latte
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1218



« Reply #216 on: November 30, 2010, 12:40:40 PM »

This man disgusts me. His arrogance/false bravado is enough to make me gag.
I followed this case for a while but then I just couldn't stand it anymore.

I haven't read back through all of the threads so I am not privy yet as to what information our astute monkey's came up with in regards to this case.
I am wondering though if there has been any links to Drew, Stacy or possibly other family members to Spencer, Ill? Did any of them own, consider to own,  or know someone there who owned quarter horses or property in Spencer, Ill. where quarter horses were kept? TIA.

PS I am following up on research I was doing before I had taken a break from this case. It's been a while. If any other monkey would like to contribute to this line of research please do.
Logged

“Getting over a painful experience is much like crossing monkey bars. You have to let go at some point in order to move forward.”
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #217 on: December 01, 2010, 02:11:58 PM »

11:21 p.m. CST, November 30, 2010


Drew Peterson's son defends not telling anyone about receiving guns, money from his father
Hearing Tuesday on Oak Brook police chief's bid to fire Officer Stephen Peterson

Oak Brook police Officer Stephen Peterson was questioned for more than an hour Tuesday night about why he failed to notify authorities when his father, a suspect in his fourth wife's highly publicized disappearance, gave him three guns and $236,800 cash a day after she vanished

Peterson, 31, repeatedly told an attorney for Oak Brook police Chief Thomas Sheahan, who is seeking to fire him, that he didn't see any reason to share the information either with investigators or his own supervisors, even after he was subpoenaed earlier this year.

"I felt it had nothing to do with my duties as an Oak Brook police officer," Peterson said. "(My father) was upset. I was there to help him out."

Peterson, who remains on paid leave, has been brought up on three charges before the Police and Fire Commission, which began a formal hearing on them Tuesday.

(More at link with picture)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-stephen-peterson-hearing-20101130,0,228931.story
Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
Nut44x4
Maine - USA
Global Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18800


RIP Grumpy Cat :( I will miss you.


« Reply #218 on: December 01, 2010, 02:13:04 PM »

Logged

Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware/Of giving your heart to a dog to tear  -- Rudyard Kipling

One who doesn't trust is never deceived...

'I remained too much inside my head and ended up losing my mind' -Edgar Allen Poe
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #219 on: December 01, 2010, 02:17:33 PM »

BOOHOODREW......too funny.   Monkey Devil!
And yes,they do seem to be two peas in a pod.   
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 1.717 seconds with 20 queries.