Joel Brodsky Interviews, Videos, Stories

[Lorie Taylor]

Joel Brodsky Drew Peterson on The Today Show
Posted on November 19, 2007
Filed Under U.S. News |

Tags: Dr. Baden Pathologist, drew peterson attorney, drew peterson Joel Brodsky, drew peterson lawyered up, Drew Peterson Today Show, Joel Broadsky, Joel Brodesky, Joel Brodsky Today Show, third Mrs. Peterson


Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson appeared on the Today Show this morning. It is the second time in a week that Drew Peterson appeared on the show. Since his third wife’s body was exhumed last week and analysis concluded that her death should have been ruled a murder rather than an accidental death, Peterson has lawyered up.


Joel Brodsky is his new attorney. With there appearance on the Today Show this morning Joel Brodsky did most of the talking. The interview was very intense, co-host Matt Lauer kept trying to ask questions to get Drew Peterson to respond. His attorney wouldn’t allow him to address most of the questions so he ended up responding to most of them.

The interesting thing about the Joel Brodsky Drew Peterson live interview on the Today Show was that they disagreed with the results of the analysis of the exhumed body of Peterson’s third wife. Joel Brodsky kept saying that the Pathologist Dr. Baden, that conducted the analysis on the exhumed body, had already made up his mind before doing that analysis that the body was murdered. Mr. Brodsky stated that Dr. Baden had talked about what he thought about the body that was to be exhumed before he had even looked at it and said that he thought that Kathleen Savio was murdered.

You can watch the video clip of the live interview with Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson on the Today Shows website. If we hear any breaking news regarding this story we will provide an update.

[Lorie Taylor]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22023004/


MSNBC.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Peterson’s lawyer in denial mode
Former police officer’s attorney says media in a frenzy, not helping
By Mike Celizic
TODAYShow.com contributor
updated 10:47 a.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
News reports that a relative helped former police officer Drew Peterson remove a barrel or container from his Chicago-area home around the time his fourth wife went missing last month are false and not credible, Peterson’s lawyer said Thursday.

During an appearance on TODAY, attorney Joel Brodsky also criticized the media for stories based on anonymous sources claiming that before she went missing, Stacy Peterson told an unnamed clergyman that Drew Peterson admitted killing his third wife and used Stacy as an alibi.

“What we have here is an unnamed, unauthorized source telling a gossip columnist that Stacy told an unnamed clergyman [something],” Brodsky told TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira.

Brodsky was responding to a Chicago newspaper story that reported that Stacy Peterson had told others that her husband had murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, shortly after they were divorced, and that Stacy Peterson provided him with an alibi.

Savio had been found dead in her bathtub, but the death was ruled an accidental drowning at the time. Her body was recently exhumed for a second autopsy.

The story, Brodsky said, doesn’t hold water.

“Nobody goes to the police, nobody tells anybody, Stacy stays married to Drew and lives with him and has two children with him,” he said. “It just doesn’t seem logical. It’s more rumor and speculation. It’s not evidence, that’s for sure.”

But NBC’s legal editor, Dan Abrams, sitting next to Brodsky, said that the lawyer was not being realistic.

“We don’t know who said what, but there’s a lot of evidence mounting, and Mr. Brodsky is going to be a very busy man, I think, in the months to come.”

Series of denials
Brodsky also responded to another newspaper report that Thomas Morphey, Drew Peterson’s stepbrother, helped the former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant move a large blue barrel or container on Oct. 28, the day Stacy Peterson went missing from her home.

Morphey reportedly attempted suicide after learning that she had disappeared.

“We have heard several stories,” Brodsky said. “First it was a barrel, then it’s a container. The shape keeps shifting. There never was a barrel, there never was a container. Thomas Morphey is the only supposed witness identified by name, and this man has multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, is a habitual alcoholic.”

Abrams said the number of accounts that keep surfacing about Drew Peterson present a problem.

“Either Drew Peterson is in huge trouble or he’s the unluckiest man in America,” Abrams said. “Four of the five people he was either engaged or married to are either missing, dead or say he stalked or threatened them.”

‘Wishful thinking’
And every story meets with a denial by Brodsky and Drew Peterson, he continued. “The problem here is that every time something comes out — an ex-wife, an ex-fiancee, a relative who may be a witness — Mr. Brodsky [and] Drew Peterson, assault them,” he said. “They either say they’re not credible, they had emotional problems, etc. etc.”

Brodsky insisted that there have been no named credible sources for any of the reports connecting his client to the death of Savio or the disappearance of the 23-year-old Stacy Peterson, who had two children with Drew Peterson. He said that newspapers have talked to all the neighbors and haven’t found one who saw Drew Peterson removing a blue barrel or container from the home.

“We don’t know what the neighbors do or don’t know yet,” Abrams responded. He said that investigators are probably taking their time with their investigation rather than rushing to file charges that may or may not be in the offing.

Asked if he thought his client will be charged in connection with Stacy Peterson’s disappearance and Savio’s death, Brodsky said, “No, I really don’t. I don’t see any credible evidence that there’s even been a homicide or any crime committed.”

The last word went to Abrams, who commented, “That’s wishful thinking on Mr. Brodsky’s part.”







© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22023004/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com

[Lorie Taylor]

Ex-Cop Drew Peterson Speaks Out to Reporters About Wife's Disappearance
Tuesday , November 20, 2007







A confident Drew Peterson, who is a suspect in his fourth wife's disappearance, went toe-to-toe with a small army of reporters at his house Monday and called on his missing wife to come forward and "clear all this up."

Peterson said he was worried about his wife, saying "your wife leaves you and I have kids at home, you're very much worried about her."

"I'd like to have her publicly show herself so we can clear all this up," Peterson said.

• Click here for photos.

Peterson, 53, who recently resigned as a Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant, stood in the driveway of his home and criticized the media for their coverage, telling reporters he was glad he didn't have enough turkey to keep them around for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Stacy Peterson, 23, was reported missing by her family Oct. 29 after she failed to show up at a friend's house. Drew Peterson denies any involvement in her disappearance, saying his wife told him she was leaving him for another man. Drew and Stacy have two children together, ages 2 and 4.

After criticizing reporters, Peterson then participated in a photo shoot with "People" magazine in his backyard.

A photographer, who attempted to block reporters from viewing the photo shoot with four black silk sheets, confirmed to FOX News about photographing Peterson on his deck.

Peterson's new lawyer said Monday he didn't expect Peterson to be charged in the disappearance of his 23-year-old wife.

"We do not expect to be charged in these cases," said lawyer Joel Brodsky on NBC's "Today" show. "This is out of control. It's a rush to judgment fueled by people — by entertainment — and people seem to want to be entertained by what's going on."

Meanwhile, investigators exhumed the body of Peterson's third ex-wife last week from a suburban Chicago cemetery. Kathleen Savio was found dead in a waterless bathtub in 2004. A coroner's report ruled her death an accident but an independent medical examiner who conducted a second autopsy last week told FOX News it was a homicide.

Michael Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner, said Savio died after a struggle and her body was put in the bathtub.

"The results of Dr. Baden's autopsy on Ms. Savio do not surprise us, not because we believe they are accurate, but only because Dr. Baden had indicated over a week before he had performed the autopsy that he believed Kathleen's death was not an accident," lawyer Joel Brodsky said in a statement Sunday.

Baden is a regular contributor to "On The Record with Greta Van Susteren," FOX News spokeswoman Diana Rocco said. FOX News paid for his trip to Chicago in order for Baden to appear as a guest on the show that evening, she said.

Reporters asked Peterson about comments made by his second wife in the Chicago Tribune alleging he was abusive and told her that he could make her death look like an accident.

"I've never said nothing like that," Peterson said, adding that she was making it up for revenge.

Peterson's first wife, Carol Brown, told the Chicago Tribune for a story published Saturday night that he never threatened or abused her during their six-year marriage. But she said he could be controlling, and while she was pregnant she found out he had been cheating on her.

"I thought he always had respect for me, but I guess when you stray in a relationship, you don't have respect for the person that you were doing that to," she said.

FOX News' Steve Brown and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Lorie Taylor]

Joel Brodsky & Drew Peterson: A Strange Marriage Indeed
Rebekah Price





March 17, 2008
Drew Peterson is slated to return to court Monday for a minor hearing regarding the return of personal items confiscated during the state´s search for his fourth wife, Stacy, according to the Chicago Sun Times. His attorney, Joel (This-is-my-big-chance) Brodsky offered that his client was "looking forward to his court appearance". For anyone else that would seem a bit odd--most people are tentative being under the scrutiny of the court; for Drew Peterson it is another arena for more of the same self-centered, egomaniacal nonsense we have observed for so long. The hearing is such that it could probably be handled by Joel Brodsky, without Drew´s attendance. But we all know by now, like Brodsky, Drew Peterson would not miss an audience for the world.

Over four months have passed since the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. During that time Drew Peterson has exhibited myriad behaviors, ranging from the morose to the bizarre, and usually accomplished in zero to sixty. Never out of touch with reality--a boon for future prosecution--Drew has continually taunted the public and the press with consistently sociopathic displays. His excuse for that exhibition is that he is the real victim here, not Stacy.

Joel Brodsky remains constant like a politician´s wife, standing by his man. STNG wire reports continue saying Brodsky "…doesn´t believe Peterson will be charged in either case", alluding to Drew´s third wife´s murder as well as Stacy´s disappearance. Is that a great lawyer or what? He believes his client to the very end, just like a good lawyer should.

But what role does Joel Brodsky really play?

The relationship between client and attorney has evolved into something quite strange: a co-dependency with Brodsky and Peterson feeding off each other´s egos, each deriving pleasure from this game of manipulation. Besides the mutual leaching, Drew Peterson will have the best representation his now defunct website can buy: the King of Denial in the public domain.

As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for.

Not able to leave well enough alone, the Herald News reports Brodsky has taken up the gauntlet against Drew Peterson´s neighbor, Sharon Bychowski and her son, Roy, for putting up "Where´s Stacy?" signs on their property. According to Brodsky, they "will be of no value" if offered up as witnesses for the prosecution since they appear to have a "vendetta" against Drew. Let´s get this straight: Peterson isn´t looking for his missing wife but the neighbors are… Yes, definitely a vendetta. And Brodsky discounts them as witnesses for the prosecution because of their behavior--in nearly the same breath he stated he does not believe Drew Peterson will be charged in either case. A non sequitur by any other name. Right.


Now Brodsky´s even snubbing Drew´s old Boughton Road watering hole, Tailgaters, on his client´s behalf. He states Drew Peterson will be enjoying Gibson´s in Chicago instead, so he can enjoy a better class of folks. Translation: Peterson will be around people who prefer the neatness of lethal injection after multiple appeals, as opposed to the Bolingbrook crowd who want to light the fire and see him fry at a public barbecue. Joel sounds like a manipulated wife.

As the relationship continues to devolve, Peterson and Brodsky fight to lead the dance against Drew´s perceived persecution. Since both parties desire control and fame, it must be difficult when one outshines the other with their seemingly incessant press-hogging touting Peterson´s innocence. In their passion to present Drew´s side, Brodsky and Peterson look like caviling buffoons stabbing at indiscriminant windmills. The pressure is getting to Drew and Joel.

Add to this souring mixture the Bolingbrook investigation of over four months. With enough circumstantial evidence surrounding Stacy Peterson´s disappearance alone to indict most mortals, one gets a rancid stew of a smelly investigation and tepid justice. Drew Peterson sits there like a smarmy thingyroach in a well-stocked kitchen, while Joel Brodsky´s probably dreaming of publishers clamoring for his book, perhaps entitled, "I Knew He Did It". A magnum opus offering to clear his name from any connection to Peterson´s personal circus, if he is, in fact, charged and convicted.

Clearly Brodsky should start looking for an exit plan. His sociopathic client is running out of options, as is the murder investigation. The facts are in: Stacy is not in Niagara Falls with some boy-toy. She would not have left her children according to everyone who knew her, except Drew. No other lone suspect can be scared up out of the bramble patch. Three people known to Peterson in the context of his 3rd and 4th marriages are missing and/or dead.

Yes, by law, Drew Peterson is innocent until proven guilty, and it is Joel Brodsky´s job to defend him. The question is, can Brodsky continue to hold the hard line? The answer is no. This pair's reckless public behavior belies a much deeper chasm. Joel Brodsky may conclude the present fame of the Drew Peterson case is not worth the potential infamy. Divorcing his client may turn out to be an inevitable choice if he is to salvage any reasonable life for his future law practice. Drew will be faced with finding another attorney willing to take on his case when he faces charges. Another honeymoon over; another relationship to pursue.

It is a bitter twist of irony that neither Kathleen nor Stacy were afforded that chance.

[Lorie Taylor]

www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/940171,4_1_JO09_PETERSON_S1.article

Attorney: Police have tunnel vision

May 9, 2008

By JOE HOSEY [e-mail]
The daughter of Drew Peterson's second wife and the sister of his third wife appeared Thursday before the grand jury investigating the third wife's death and his fourth wife's disappearance.

Sue Doman, the sister of dead third wife Kathleen Savio, said Savio's former boyfriend, Steve Maniaci, testified before her Thursday. Maniaci spoke to Savio on the phone two nights before she was found drowned in her dry bathtub in March 2004.

Drew Peterson (left), of Bolingbrook, is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson (middle). The death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio (right), is also being investigated.

State police initially found no indication of foul play in connection with Savio's death. Their opinion was contradicted in November after a forensic pathologist performed additional tests on her remains and concluded she was the victim of a homicide.

Did couple break up?
Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, claims Maniaci and Savio broke off their relationship the weekend before she was found dead.
"If he was smart, he took the Fifth," Brodsky said of Maniaci. "If it was my girlfriend who was found dead, and it was declared a homicide, and I had the code to the alarm system, and there were no signs of forced entry, I would have a lawyer with me."

Maniaci could not be reached for comment. Savio's niece, Melissa Doman, disputed Brodsky's assertion.

"No. If memory serves me correctly, he was at my aunt's wake," Melissa Doman said. "Why would he be there if they broke up?"

State police have not named suspects in the Savio homicide. They have conceded Peterson is under suspicion for disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, a matter they have classified a "potential homicide."

Brodsky said that instead of focusing on Peterson for Stacy's disappearance case, police should be turning an eye to others.

"They're got tunnel vision," Brodsky said. "I'm not just whistling Dixie."

Women testify
Peterson's second wife, Vicki Connolly, is alive and well in the tiny town of Paxton. Her daughter, Lisa Ward, appeared before the grand jury but declined to discuss her testimony. Sue Doman said she was advised by an attorney not to comment on her grand jury appearance but did share her feelings on the case.
"We miss my sister very much and this is just a horrible situation and we just want justice to be done," she said.

"We're just not letting this go," Doman said. "We miss her so much and our family just hasn't been the same."

[Lorie Taylor]

"The Dream Team"
(Drew Petersons Attorneys)

Drew Peterson's attorneys ( left to right ) Andrew Abood, Joel Brodsky and Kris Tieber, wait outside the Will County Courthouse in Joliet before the start of the afternoon hearing on Thursday. (Tribune photo by John Smierciak / May 22, 2008)

[Lorie Taylor]

Drew Peterson turns self in on gun charge
By Matthew Walberg | Tribune reporter
1:20 PM CDT, May 21, 2008

Drew Peterson turned himself in to Illinois State Police on Wednesday afternoon, hours after an arrest warrant was issued for a felony weapons violation, said his attorney.

At around 12:30 p.m., Peterson left his home and shouted "I love you" to a throng of reporters gathered outside his home before getting into the gold Mercedes owned by his attorney Joel Brodsky.

Spokesmen for both the state police and the Will County state's attorney's office would not comment on the matter, but Brodsky said the charge was related to an assault rifle Peterson carried while employed by the Bolingbrook Police Department.

"He was a SWAT team member, and he was allowed to have two duty weapons," Brodsky said. "This was a registered duty weapon with the Bolingbrook Police Department, and he carried it for 10 years. The state police had this weapon in their possession before he retired, so there is no basis for this charge."

Brodsky said the charge is related to a technical requirement about the length of the gun barrel.

"According to what I was told, [the barrel] was three-eighths of an inch too short."

Brodsky said his client will be fingerprinted and photographed, and then will be able to leave after posting 10 percent of the $7,500 bond in the arrest warrant.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-webmay22,0,1202975.story

[Lorie Taylor]

Drew Peterson Turns Self In On Gun Charge
Criminal Complaint: Peterson's Gun Barrel Too Short Under State Law

BOLINGBROOK, Ill. (CBS) ― Drew Peterson turned himself in to police early Wednesday afternoon on a gun charge.

His attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the charge was trumped up.

The criminal complaint against Peterson, issued by the Will County State's Attorney's office, charged him with Class 3 Felony unlawful use of a weapon.

The complaint said Peterson possessed a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These guns are not permitted under state law, the complaint said.

Bond for Peterson was set at $75,000, and he was required to pay 10 percent to be freed from custody, the complaint said.


Brodsky said the charge involves a gun seized after Drew Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in October.

Brodsky says the weapon in question is an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle that Peterson used while he was a police officer. He contends police officers are exempt from the length provision of the law and Peterson was still a police officer when the gun was seized.

He said he would contact Illinois State Police and post bail for Peterson within the day.

Peterson walked into the police station around 12:40 p.m. He has been fighting a ruling that he cannot have his guns returned.

When asked for comment by CBS 2 as he left his house, Drew Peterson simply said, "I love you."

Stacy Peterson has not been seen since Oct. 28, 2007. Illinois State Police said several months ago they suspect she is dead and have called Drew Peterson a suspect in her disappearance.

But Peterson has long contended his wife left him for another man. His attorney has said perhaps Stacy Peterson just did not want to be tied down to an older man and four children anymore.

Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, was found dead in a dry bathtub four years ago, in what was initially ruled to be an accidental drowning. But Savio's body was exhumed in November of last year and her death was ruled a homicide.

Drew Peterson has not been charged with any crime in either case.

WBBM Newsradio 780 and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.gun.2.729364.html

[Lorie Taylor]

Petterson Arrested on Gun Charges

Last Edited: Wednesday, 21 May 2008, 1:11 PM CDT
Created: Wednesday, 21 May 2008, 12:34 PM CDT


Bolingbrook, IL. -- Drew Peterson arrived at the Bolingbrook Police Department around 12:40 pm, with his attorney. Joel Brodsky says Peterson turned himself in on a gun charge, and is expected to have bond set, and then will be released later this afternoon.
Brodsky told reporters he did not consider the charges to be a form of harassment by police. The weapon in question, according to Drew's spokesman, Glenn Selig, is a gun that Peterson possessed legally as a member of the Bolingbrook Police Department's swat team, and it was later seized by police, so Peterson could not return it even if he needed to.
Brodsky says the weapon is 3/8 of an inch shorter than is allowed by law.

www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6594337&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

[Lorie Taylor]

"Wednesday's charge—a Class 3 felony that carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison—alleges Peterson "knowingly possessed a rifle, namely a Colt model Sporter Lightweight, 223 Remington rifle ... with a barrel less than 16 inches in length" in violation of state law, the Will County state's attorney's office said."

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-webmay22,0,1202975.story?track=rss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The gun in question is one of 11 seized during a search of Peterson's Bolingbrook home. Those guns were expected to be returned to Peterson's son on Thursday.

"For some reason I can't fathom, state police seem fixated or obsessed with making sure Drew or his family can't get these weapons back," said Brodsky. He also said "Drew has never fired a gun in anger."

abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6156635

[Lorie Taylor]

"Drew Peterson (inset) was charged Wednesday with unlawful use of a weapon by Illinois State Police and Will County authorities. Pictured is Peterson's Colt model Sporter Lightweight, 223 Remington rifle."

www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/962393,052108peterson.article

[Lorie Taylor]

Former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson was arrested Wednesday on a weapons charge.

Peterson was released after an adult son posted 10 percent of a $75,000 bond. As he left the Will County Jail, he joked with reporters but didn't comment on the warrant, which was issued Tuesday.

The weapon, a semiautomatic rifle, was one of 11 seized during a search of Peterson's home Nov. 1, shortly after his wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in late October, authorities said. Illinois State Police said the rifle's barrel was too short under Illinois law.

Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky said his client still was a police officer when the weapon was seized, and officers are exempt from the length provision of the law. Peterson retired from the force about two weeks after Stacy Peterson's disappearance.

Will County State's Attorney spokesman Chuck Pelkie refused to say whether police are exempt from the law, but said the charge against Peterson was valid and appropriate.

"An illegal weapon might be put back on the street and we can't let that happen," Pelkie said.

Brodsky said the arrest was part of an effort by the state police to harass Peterson.

"Any inconvenience they can cause him, so much the better," Brodsky said as he waited outside the jail. "They might believe it's a tactic to shake him up."

Police also are investigating the death of Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio. She was found dead in a bathtub in 2004 and her death initially ruled an accident.

After Stacy Peterson disappeared, Savio's body was exhumed and an autopsy determined she was the victim of a homicide. Peterson has not been named a suspect in her death.

The gun charges show authorities do not have a case against Peterson in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson or the death of Kathleen Savio, Brodsky told reporters outside Peterson's home.

"I would find it hard to believe there's an imminent homicide arrest," Brodsky said.

The investigation into Stacy Peterson's disappearance has drawn worldwide media attention. Authorities have said they believe she is dead, and extensive searches have been conducted in forests, marshes, lakes and other areas in the suburbs.

Illinois State Police Sgt. Thomas Burek denied that the gun charge was an attempt to harass Peterson.

Separately, he said the investigations into Stacy Peterson's disappearance and Savio's death are "going well."

"We're moving methodically," Burek said. "We're confident that (the investigations) will result in an arrest."

The felony gun charge, unlawful use of a weapon, carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

Brodsky has been trying for months to convince a judge to order the Illinois State Police to return the seized weapons to Peterson. The judge already ordered police to return Peterson's vehicles and other belongings.

A court hearing was scheduled for Thursday on a proposal from Brodsky that ownership of the guns be transferred from Peterson to his adult son.

Peterson's next door neighbor, Sharon Bychowski, and other people who have searched for Stacy Peterson gathered outside Bychowski's home Wednesday wearing pink and yellow T-shirts with pictures of Stacy Peterson on them.

"They're doing a very thorough investigation of Drew Peterson. There will be justice for Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio. Our search continues," Bychowski said.

Searchers have held many fundraisers and recently purchased a 14-foot flat-bottom boat to search nearby waterways. The boat is called Stacy Ann.

www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=194874

[Lorie Taylor]

Nancy Grace Transcript - Show aired 5/21/08

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/21/ng.01.html

Exerpts from show:

GRACE: You know, Mike Brooks, why would he need an assault rifle? This is not a police-issue gun. At the very beginning, when this happened today, Joel Brodsky says, Well, he used this gun when he was on the SWAT team, inferring that it was a police -- a cop-issued gun. It`s not.

BROOKS: No. There are some departments, Nancy, that will allow you to use your own gun, if you buy it on the job. But he was issued two guns by the Bolingbrook police, and they came out earlier today and say, No, no, no, no, this is not a police-issued weapon. He was issued a Sig Sauer handgun and a Heckeren Coke (ph) MP5 submachine gun to use when he was on the SWAT team. And they got both of these back when they did the search of his home.

So this is a gun that he bought on his own. And he probably modified it, Nancy. This is a picture of this 223, this AR-15 model gun, if you will. The area in question they`re talking about is this right here. That`s the barrel. And it cannot be less than 16 inches, and the rifle overall cannot be more or less than 26 inches and it`s a violation.

Even though Joel Brodsky said, Oh, it`s only a three eighths 8 of an inch -- I`m sorry, he modified the weapon. When he`s not a cop anymore, if he wanted to take the weapon and do something else to it and put the original barrel back on to it, that`s fine. But otherwise, it`s an illegal weapon, plain and simple.

GRACE: Back to Mike Brooks. It`s the same theory behind outlawing a sawed-off shotgun. Explain it.

BROOKS: That`s exactly right, Nancy, because you talk about the overall length -- it`s very, very concealable. Now, law enforcement officers, you`ll see guns like this that they`ll carry, but because it`s easier to get around in a tactical situation. But this whole thing of, Oh, this was my gun that I used on the SWAT team -- the Bolingbrook police are saying, No go, there, Drew. We issued you a gun, and we got that back when we did a search warrant on your house.

GRACE: But the purpose, the reason we don`t allow sawed off shotguns...

BROOKS: Is because of concealability, Nancy, because a sawed-off shotgun -- and it`s in the same statute. If you modified it and sawed it off, you can put it under a coat, walk into a bank. And there`s been many, many times -- in fact, I arrested someone in Washington, D.C., when I was a rookie cop with a sawed-off shotgun underneath a raincoat.

GRACE: Well, I remember the first time I had -- it was my first kidnap and rape case that I prosecuted. I saw the gun and I said, What is that? It looked like a stick. It was a sawed-off shotgun. The whole thing was about 14 inches long, and that was the weapon that was used. So of course, there was a weapons charge added on. That`s just what we`re talking about right now.

Drew Peterson has turned himself in to police on a weapons charge. Many people believe that this is a police tactic to get him under arrest and then have some leverage over him.

We are taking your calls live. Out to Sandy in Delaware. Hi, Sandy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nancy. How are you?

GRACE: I`m good, dear. What`s your question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good. I just wanted to find out if anyone`s done any ballistic testing on the gun to find out if and when the last time it was used?

GRACE: What about it, Jon Leiberman?

LEIBERMAN: Yes, we understand that they have, in fact, tested this weapon. They tested many of the weapons that were seized from Drew Peterson. That`s why state police have had them for this long. They were conducting tests. That`s why state police argued and prosecutors argued against giving these guns back to Drew Peterson, because they said they weren`t finished testing the guns.

GRACE: To Caryn Stark, psychologist. Caryn, interesting what Ray in New York brought up about the burning of the body, and his attitude, whenever he is asked about Stacy Peterson, he is so arrogant and oh, it`s just like that, he`ll say, Oh, no, no, no, that`s not Stacy. How does he know?

CARYN STARK, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, clearly, he knows something, Nancy. But this is a very narcissistic, self-absorbed man, and he doesn`t care how he comes across. He has no problem with morality because he doesn`t really believe in right from wrong. He`s self-absorbed and he`s narcissistic and he`s sociopathic in the way that he behaves.

GRACE: Out to Dr. Joshua Perper. You all know Dr. Perper, renowned medical examiner and author. Dr. Perper, it is six months later. Would it be of any forensic value whatsoever to go back and reprocess Peterson`s home?

DR. JOSHUA PERPER, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Well, certainly there would be some value in trying to see if there`s any evidence left, but I doubt that any new evidence is going to be discovered after they did a quite thorough search before

[Lorie Taylor]

GRACE: Peterson turns himself in today to police. He`s already bonded out. Out to Pam Bosco, Stacy Peterson family spokesperson and very close friend of Stacy`s. Why is this guy always smiling?

PAM BOSCO, STACY PETERSON FAMILY SPOKESWOMAN: You know, Nancy, I first was going to make comment about the format of the Web site being changed. It had nothing to do with Drew Peterson or Mr. Brodsky. That was done on the fact that it was very time-consuming for the volunteers managing it. We never heard about his complaints to the FBI. It had nothing to do with us changing the format. It was a decision made strictly by the family and friends who run the site.

GRACE: Did he actually complain, Pam Bosco?

BOSCO: I have no idea if he`s making it up after we did just to bring attention again to himself, that they have influence on what we do. It had nothing to do with it. And please make that clear to the general public...

GRACE: I find it very difficult, Pam...

BOSCO: ... we made that...

GRACE: ... to believe that Peterson would make contact with the FBI. I think, if anything, it would be the other way around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TERRY: Yes. I wanted to find out if Drew Peterson was charged with a felony. Why he -- when he was a police officer and he had the gun at the time, could he lose his pension?

GRACE: Excellent question. Jon Leiberman "America`s Most Wanted," clear it up for us.

JON LEIBERMAN, CORRESPONDENT, AMERICA`S MOST WANTED: That`s a great question. Yes, if he is found to have committed a felony while he was a police officer with Bolingbrook, his $6,000 a month pension can be taken away.

GRACE: Oh, excuse me, did you say $6,000 a month? The taxpayers are paying.

LEIBERMAN: That`s exactly what I said, Nancy. The taxpayers write him a check every month right now.

GRACE: Ouch.

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/21/ng.01.html

[Lorie Taylor]

Video from Greta - re:gun charge
www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

[Lorie Taylor]

Litlred
Jr. Member

Posts: 71


Re: May 22nd
« Reply #57 on: Today at 08:35:33 PM » Quote Modify Remove Split Topic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 seemed to be a special year for dp. according to this article dp purchased that gun in 1985. he was also fired the same year. anything else happen in 1985?


www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-web-may23,0,6606743.story

(here is a snip of it)


Shortly before noon, Joel Brodsky filed subpoenas against the Bolingbrook Police Department and a Bolingbrook police sergeant asking that they produce registration forms regarding Peterson's duty weapons, training reports, SWAT team records, and any and all documents "authorizing Drew Peterson to use, carry, possess or store the Colt Sporter Lightweight .223 Remington rifle . . . since Jan. 1, 1985."

1985 - he also got fired that year

another snip .....

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-peterson_16_nov16,0,5607495.story?page=2&coll=chi_tab01_layout

His zeal for his job, though, led to a brief downfall. According to court documents, Peterson was fired in 1985 after the Bolingbrook Fire and Police Commission found him guilty of official misconduct, disobedience, failure to report a bribe and self-assigned police action. At the time, he was working on a case against a reputed drug dealer.

[Lorie Taylor]

[Lorie Taylor]

Joel Brodsky on Legal Pub
legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html

Was brought back up on Wordpress by Rescueapet

petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/michelle-lefort-lisa-wards-co-author-speaks-out/#respond




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</blockquote

legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html

[Lorie Taylor]

Rescueapet's response about above article on Wordpress

petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/michelle-lefort-lisa-wards-co-author-speaks-out/#respond

rescueapet October 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm | #17 Quote Well, I have this to say.

Brodsky himself used bought and paid for pictures that were, at the time, ten years earlier of Tom Morphey. Peterson bought them from an old gf of Morphey’s, as I understand it. I can find the information to portray myself as being accurate in saying this.

Once he got his hands on those pictures, he tried every which way he could to get them on tv while he was being interviewed, opening up his pie hole.

He tried to get Dan Abrams to show them, but the show rejected that idea. Also, he tried to get Legal Pub, an attorney blog of sorts, to publish it, and wanted all to think Morphey was a drug head, smoking a pipe. Only problem is, he misrepresented the facts. But, the idea was to destroy the character of the man that said he helped Drew Peterson carry something out of the house.

So, whatever Brodsky says and does, and no matter how much he puffs himself up, he’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Damn.

[Lorie Taylor]

TOM MORPHEYS RESPONSE TO DREW AND JOEL PAINTING A BAD PICTURE OF HIM


Stepbrother: Drew tries to discredit me

www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1469992,Stepbrother-Drew-tries-discredit-me_jo031009.article

March 11, 2009
By JOE HOSEY [e-mail]

BOLINGBROOK — If he is supposed to be such an unreliable, delusional, mentally ill alcoholic, Thomas Morphey wants to know, then why has Drew Peterson gone to such lengths to discredit him?

“From the very beginning, they have done nothing but paint me in a certain light,” said Morphey, the stepbrother of the celebrated murder suspect. “If there was nothing to hide, why would they go to the extremes that they have?”

Thomas Morphey says his stepbrother Drew Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky have done their best to smear and discredit him since he told authorities what he knew of the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy.

It might have something to do with Morphey recently accusing Peterson of asking him to kill for him the day before Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, was last seen alive.

And on the next day — Oct. 28, 2007 — Morphey said he helped Peterson carry a blue barrel out of the Peterson home and down to a waiting sport utility vehicle. Morphey believes Stacy Peterson’s body was in the barrel.

Morphey said the experience left him despondent and fearful for the welfare of his longtime girlfriend and her three children. He attempted suicide two days after Stacy vanished, he said, in hopes they might escape Peterson’s malice.

Morphey survived the drug overdose. The next day, he said, State’s Attorney James Glasgow offered him immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. The Herald News has obtained a copy of the immunity offer, which demands the full story of what he was up to with Peterson the weekend of Oct. 27, 2007, along with his disclosure of any knowledge he has of the “kidnapping or murder of Stacy Peterson.”

Peterson’s pattern

Since then, Morphey said, Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky have done their best to smear and discredit him.

In fact, Brodsky held a press conference Tuesday in Chicago in which he questioned why Morphey has not gone before the grand jury and his viability as a witness.

“If they found him credible, (Morphey) would have been one of the first witnesses they would have brought in and they would have based the entire investigation and the entire case on his testimony,” Brodsky said at the news conference called to rebut Morphey’s first public allegations against his stepbrother that were first reported in The Herald News.

Morphey said he sees a pattern in this, with Peterson ripping anyone who dares speak ill of him — including ex-wives, a former fiancee, a minister and two friends, Len Wawczak and Paula Stark, who worked with the state police to record his conversations.

“It’s been anyone who has anything negative to say from the get-go,” Morphey said.

Morphey also accused Peterson and his friend, Steve Carcerano, of paying one of Morphey’s former girlfriends $500 for photographs depicting Morphey in a less than favorable light.

Brodsky, without success, attempted to distribute the photographs, one of which allegedly showed Morphey smoking marijuana. The woman, Holly Steele, confirmed in September that she sold the photographs to Peterson and Carcerano.

Carcerano said he remembers accompanying Peterson to purchase photographs of Morphey but did not know the name of the woman they obtained them from. He also disputed the $500 price tag for the pictures but did not give a figure for them.

Morphey described the picture ploy as “the stunt that they tried to pull in the beginning, buying 10-year-old pictures and trying to make them seem recent.”

More witnesses?

Despite the backlash from Peterson and Brodsky, Morphey said he has no regrets about breaking his 17-month silence to go public about the role he believes he played in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

“I feel like a weight’s been lifted,” he said.

And Morphey hinted there may be more potential Peterson witnesses going public.

“I don’t think it will be too long before Len (Wawczak) and Paula (Stark) have had enough where they say what they need to say,” he said.