Peterson defense comments post-arraignment (5-18)

Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-22)

Hyeridad:

Here are post-arraignment remarks by Peterson Defense team. I couldn’t find a copy of this original post. Here’s just the raw shorthand. Not worth going back over. I’m pretty sure there was a more complete video than this but this was easy to find.

• Change of judge is gamesmanship
• They don’t want to approach on the merits
• Weakness of the state’s actual case
• Motion the judge is prejudiced toward the state
• Want the ruling to make the prosecution to spell out why

About Drew:

He’s certainly upbeat. He’s confident. He knows he hasn’t done anything as he said. The advantage of Drew as client is that he knows procedure. He’s not wondering why, why did they continue it. He knows the wheels of justice turn slow and it sometimes inconvenient.

• Drew’s rolling with the punches
• As long as Drew’s kids are ok he’s ok
• Understands that the motion will be heard
• Want to base the bond on issues of merit
• Can him face to face.
• Granted daily visits
• Bench vs jury trial
• Complex decision
• Haven’t made decision if he’ll testify
• Change of venue
• It wouldn’t change the judge

• Will Drew be indicted concerning Stacy?
• Have they said he is be indicted?
• Anybody’s guess
• Laughs. Believe he’ll ever be indicted in regards to anything with Stacy
• Laughs. We’re getting paid.

What’s missing?

The righteous indignation of the defense team of a client falsely accused and they’ve had way too many press conferences to change their tune now. Brodsky always says “Drew knows he did nothing wrong.”

He doesn’t say: I know my client. He didn’t do it. He is innocent. I know he’s innocent. I believe my client is innocent.

Why?

Because it would be a lie?