.

Lawyer Said Drew Peterson Wife Pleaded: 'You Can't Let Him Get Away With It'

Drew Peterson's lawyers sparred for hours in hopes of keeping out damning evidence, including testimony from his wife's divorce attorney.

"He's going to kill me."

"He's going to make it look like an accident."

"You can't let him get away with it."

Wheaton attorney Harry Smith testified Wednesday that Drew Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, told him constantly of her fear that the disgraced Bolingbrook cop would murder her.

Smith represented Savio in her divorce from Peterson and also defended her in a pair of misdemeanor cases.

He was Savio's lawyer from 2002 until her death in March 2004. He testified in a pretrial hearing Wednesday that Savio feared Peterson would kill her so he could keep all their money.

Peterson was charged in May 2009 with murdering Savio. He is also the sole suspect in the mysterious October 2007 disappearance of his next wife, Stacy Peterson, but faces no charges in connection with Stacy's case.

Judge Edward Burmila has yet to decide whether Smith will testify at Drew Peterson's murder trial. The judge and Smith are going to have a private interview Thursday to determine what other information Savio may have told Smith about her marriage to and divorce from Peterson.

Peterson defense attorney Steve Greenberg unleashed a vicious verbal attack on Smith both inside and outside the courtroom.

Greenberg questioned why Smith only made one attempt in 2004 to tell the police Kathleen Savio predicted her own death. He also pointed to a lack of documentation by Smith of Savio's fears.

"If she said these things, she's clairvoyant," Greenberg said. "And now it's come true and what does he do?"

Greenberg also imitated Smith's voice as he mocked the attorney's supposed motivation for coming forward again after Stacy Peterson vanished.

"I'm going to get my piece of this and I'm going to get my face on TV and I'm going to get my publicity," Greenberg said in his Smith voice.

"He wants people to see him as a hero. It's business," said Greenberg, who after the hearing called Smith "gold-digging" and "self-serving."

"It's been an evolving story with him of what's going on," Greenberg said. "It's getting better and better and better with him."

An angry, emotional James Glasgow shot back at Greenberg, calling the "attacks on Mr. Smith unwarranted."

"He didn't profit from this," Glasgow said. "He didn't make money from this. That's absurd."

Glasgow continued his defense of Smith after the hearing, saying, "Harry Smith is a courageous attorney. He didn't have to come forward with the information he did. But he did and I thank him."

Burmila also ruled on Wednesday that three of seven video clips prosecutors want to use as evidence can only be presented to jurors as transcripts and audio.

Burmila decided the videos are prejudicial to Peterson because he was filmed while sitting next to defense attorney Joel Brodsky.

"How would it not be prejudicial to the defendant if the lawyer's sitting there?" Burmila said. "You're sitting there with your lawyer—what do the movies call them? Mouthpiece?"

Greenberg had argued for all seven videos to be tossed.

jski June 07, 2012 at 06:11 AM
He is gross needs to go to the death penality asap
Watchful Eye June 07, 2012 at 01:33 PM
*** "I'm going to get my piece of this and I'm going to get my face on TV and I'm going to get my publicity," Greenberg said in his Smith voice."*** I'm disgusted with this whole team. I thought maybe Peterson had one or two members on his defense team that could rise about the Brodsky-esq kind of nonsense and actually sound professional, but I was wrong. Yes, Greenberg's job is to defend his client, but I don't think it's necessary to morph into an actor and change his voice to mimic an opposing witness. Also, he had an inspiring moment in one of his pre-trial motions to mock the prosecutors by mentioning Scotty of the Starship Enterprise and his beaming-up abilities. Absolutely unprofessional and childish! Also,is Greenberg kidding? Did he take on this case because he's a fan of or gives a hoot about Peterson? He was doing legal commentary before ever coming on this case and didn't have much in the way of kind words to say about Peterson or his lead attorney. The reality is, these defense members are using the notoriety of the client and his case to further their own name recognition. Sounds like Greenberg and Brodsky have a mini-competition going on. Who can sound and act the stupidist. (Oops, stupidist isn't a word. Sorry!!!!!)
John Moreli June 07, 2012 at 02:17 PM
Like I said before Judge Edward Burmila is not going to play games at trial! He's not going to allow a lot of things into the trial and he's not done yet!
Elena Maria Scully June 07, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Greenberg is a moron, plain and simple. I'm glad Smith came out with it all. And for some of you that may not know this out there? Atty/client privledges end when one or the other pass away. Just sayin'.
John Moreli June 07, 2012 at 03:22 PM
Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking for the Court, made it abundantly clear that in cases such as the present one the attorney-client privilege is very broad and will even survive the death of the client. In refusing to use a "balancing test" (balancing the importance of the information against the client's interests) to define the contours of the privilege, the Court rejected the Independent Counsel's argument that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding. The Court also rejected the argument that a current exception to the attorney-client privilege, where a client has died and litigation ensues between the testator's heirs--the so-called "testamentary exception," was analogous to the case at hand. The Court pointed out that the rationale for the testamentary exception was that it furthered the client's intent, an assumption that, lacking clear evidence, cannot be made in other contexts. The Court also emphasized the need to assure the posthumous application of the attorney-client privilege in order to encourage full disclosure by clients to their attorneys. This decision is especially important because it provides a clear statement from the Supreme Court that a client's confidences will be maintained and protected, even after the client's death.
Flora Dora June 07, 2012 at 05:04 PM
You don't need to be clairvoyant to know when someone is a danger to you, Lawyer Greenberg.
Watchful Eye June 07, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Attorney Greenberg seems to be having a hard time keeping his mouth in check. It's all well and good that he's an advocate for his client and we all understand that he is there to defend him and win an acquittal at trial, but, along with Brodsky, the hits just keep on coming from those two with their snotty, incoherent remarks. On one hand, you have Brodsky using Peterson for years and parading him around from one media outlet to another, then has the audacity to go into court and ask that none of the videos, etc., be used at trial. HUH????? What about his "white noise" theory? Who did Brodsky play to then, if he used the media to get out his b.s., but now wants a jury who has no clue about any of this? I mean, this is mind boggling! The lawyers that stand alongside of Brodsky know full well he screwed up big time by allowing, and even helping, Drew Peterson yap away and mug for the cameras. Yet, they stand there and criticize an opposing witness, who happens to be an attorney, for coming forward with information about the death of the murder defendant's ex-wife. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. How is it that Smith is in violation of his oath by breaking the attorney/client privilege rule, but Brodsky isn't in violation of jack squat for using Peterson to promote his now failed bar? If these lawyers are trying to get Peterson convicted with their nonsense, I think they're pretty much right up there with a fighting chance of doing it!
Karen Sorensen (Editor) June 07, 2012 at 07:52 PM
So, should Kathleen Savio's lawyer be allowed to testify? Which side do you think the judge will come down on?
Watchful Eye June 07, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Good point, Flora Dora. She wasn't a clairvoyant and didn't need to be. She was being realistic. and had the ability to know that her ex-husband was capable of what she feared.
John Moreli June 07, 2012 at 08:03 PM
The prosecution!
Sheila Raddatz June 07, 2012 at 08:08 PM
This whole Peterson dealio is just noise.
Watchful Eye June 07, 2012 at 08:25 PM
As it stands now, Judge Burmila wants to hear privately what Attorney Harry Smith hasn't divulged. The judge claims he wants to hear it because he wants to know if Smith is withholding information that may be helpful to Peterson. While I don't quite understand that logic, I can understand why the judge wants to know everything. The only guess i'd have about what Smith is withholding is that Kathleen told him information that indicates both she and the murder defendant were involved in something that might have been illegal or something along that nature, and she was afraid he'd kill her to keep her quiet. Maybe she held this over Peterson, knowing he'd not want it to get out. Maybe she had dark information she kept quiet about, rather than expose him. That would seem why Smith doesn't want to violate the privilege by divulging sensitive information she gave him. He doesn't want to implicate her in anything she and the murder defendant were involved in, and information she had that she kept silent about. Obviously, that would be violating the attorney/client privilege if it was of that nature. But that's just my wild speculation..
bmail57 June 18, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Kathy was a beautiful young woman with 2 little boys whom she adored. I cannot wait for her to speak from her grave. Where that arrogant bastard put her. I have prayed every night since I heard she was murdered that Justice would be served. Finally his day is about to come. Okay Kathy, it's time to shine. Speak loud and clear. it's almost time to bury drew. Lets see how he likes it. Im still prayin for Stacey to turn up. I'd love it to happen in the middle of his trial. Get out of that one you bastard. Rot with the devil drew .
Tony June 26, 2012 at 12:16 AM
This goes.out to all the womens in america when u date a guy and his last name is petterson u better run
Tara August 07, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Too bad this coward state doesnt have the death penalty any more
Tara August 07, 2012 at 06:57 PM
I really hope he doesn't but I think this scumbag will get away with both murders of his wives. These crooked cops always get away with breaking the law!
Anna Hultin August 25, 2012 at 10:42 PM
THIS MAN IS AN ANIMAL....HIS ATTORNEYS ARE ANIMALS....THEY HAVE NO IDEA OF HOW PRECIOUS LIFE IS....4 CHILDREN ..2 MOTHERS...LIVE WITH THAT ...BRODSKY...LOPEZ....GOLDBERG....SCUM.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something