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 cockroach 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.
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 cockroach 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.
