In Session Defense attorney Steve Greenberg responds. This doesnt go to motive . . . it doesnt establish a motive . . . identity is not really an issue, and intent is not really an issue. Were not saying that Drew was there but it was an accident; were saying he wasnt there. So the State doesnt really need this extra evidence of intent. Greenberg cites case law to support the defenses position. What they want to do is bring in highly, highly prejudicial evidence, which is suspicious anyway. Mr. Pachter said he didnt really believe anyone . . . they dont need it for intent; all of the cases say that intent is not an issue when were presenting this kind of a defense. So its irrelevant, its prejudicial, and its not relevant of anything in the case. Our defense is its an accident . . . so what does a hit man have to do with anything? They dont say he hired a hit man; they say he [Peterson] went over there and did this . . . if they cant find an Illinois case; were in Illinois, Judge . . . they keep sending me [case] law from Massachusetts . . . to come here now and argue that Massachusetts and New Jersey say that its OK is just preposterous when theres Illinois law right on the issue that says if our defense is its an accident and he wasnt involved then it doesnt come in.