Your Thread – June 30

Here’s Monday’s thread folks.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to reportabuse@mysuburbanlife.com.

About these ads

478 thoughts on “Your Thread – June 30

  1. basherette // June 30, 2008 at 12:15 am

    duckyone // June 30, 2008 at 12:10 am

    Bash-you think that you would have problems with different nics, imagine the trouble that Drew has with all his-you know?
    *****

    Well, as fond as he is of both the things I’m about to mention, I’ve just surmised that he installed a GPS on his pecker.

    He’s welcome to sue me if I’m wrong, but if I’m right, I don’t wanna know! :-)

  2. Guys, I wanted to stop by Ashley’s site to read the posts. The more I read that she personally wrote, the more I was/am convinced it’s not Ex. Ex writes much better and is more mature than this girl, but there were some similarities in certain things. Sorry Ex, for jumping the gun on this.

    I wish there had been more to read that Ashley had written before I jumped to conclusions, but at the time, there wasn’t…..just a LOT of darn strange coincidences. This Ashley knows about Kim too and mentioned Drew seeing her. So, maybe Ashley is just one of many girls Drew has or had on his stringer, and she finally found out what a POS he is. Good for her! This still has an odor, but not quite as stinky as it was, at least to me.

  3. Sorry, I was reading over there too. :-)

    Can’t believe some of the responses she’s gotten. What’s up with all the “anonymous” posters calling her a um, er, the opposite of a nun?

    And did you notice how many posts were swiped from here?

    This is just nuts!

  4. Yes, I did, and that one about the nun…not sounded like someone we all know….but I don’t wanna go jumping to no conclusions no more!!

  5. Not what you think, lol. Was just laughing at you for the pecker with the GPS remark. :D Hilarious!!

  6. myblueshark // June 30, 2008 at 12:30 am

    I did notice on her site she lists rick mims and acandyrose, and ummm…I forgot what else.
    Ok, kathleen Savio site and here.

  7. Yay, I didn’t miss you after all! :-)

    Hee hee, yes, it *was* pretty darn easy to figure out when some people we know from certain forums *cough*cough* were posting…

    Yeah, *that* was real rocket science, don’t cha know? NOT! :-)

  8. cfs7360 // June 30, 2008 at 12:30 am

    Not what you think, lol. Was just laughing at you for the pecker with the GPS remark. Hilarious!!
    *********

    Well, how else is he gonna keep track of that sapsucker? Microchip it like a pet dog maybe?

  9. I’m sure Ashley reads this blog. Ashley was concerned about her watermark and implicating someone else with the same name by using it. Why hasn’t she cleared the air with the thoughts posted here about it. Why is she letting “ex” take the heat and not poo pooing it?

  10. Rescue, I wondered that too, but this whole thing is just bizarre. Bash was right too. Nobody really has come on here or Ahsley’s site in anyone’s defense, so it kind of leaves you to wonder. My wondering just got a little ahead of me though.

  11. Beats the heck out of me. I’m wondering the same thing about Ex- how come SHE isn’t here caterwalling around demanding retractions instead of sending limpwristed denials via a third party?

    It’s like reading a book written together by Agatha Christie, Stephen King, John Irving, Carl Hiaasen and John Sandford… with a little input from MADtv.

  12. I’m a little curious about the “couple of people” that Ashley is going to be talking to this week, before she realease some other stuff. Sounds like the “rags” are after her, doesn’t it? Or Joe Hosey maybe?? Will be interesting to see what gets publicized and by whom, if anything.

  13. At the rate these people keep popping up from Drew’s recent past, the GJ is never going to get finished!! First Kim, now Ashley and Matt Phelps. I bet both of them would have some interesting testimony if they’re called.

  14. Hope DP’s and JB’s passports are in order. At this rate, they’ll have to sequester a jury from Tierra Del Fuego to get him a reasonably unbiased trial…

  15. What is this? Rehearsal for the Comedy of Romeo and Juliet’s Errors? Get yer butt back here! I made my entrance the same time you made yer exit! :-)

  16. I’m going to get some coffee Bash, but I’m still on if you come back.

    MBS, someone said there was one somewhere nearby, but she is a 17 year old.

  17. Bash – I’ve been agonizing over discussing this, but I’m going to give it a try.

    I have friends who have a 28 year old daughter. Long story short, she’s been sick for at least 3 years with a myriad of issues, sicknesses, conditions. Never quite was dx with anything conclusive, just tested and showing symptoms of various diseases.

    In fact, she, her husband and son were living in Alaska for a year and a half. She was in a hospital there at one point, then moved to a Seattle hospital for further testing, and attempts to dx her various crises.

    She’s back here now. She’s been dx with meso. 28 years old.

    The only thing they’ve come up with as far as a “reason” is that her dad was a firefighter, and they’re thinking maybe he brought home the crud on his clothes. She was adopted by her parents at 6 weeks, and there’s no biological family information to be had. However, that seems unlikely to add anything to this.

    Sorry if I’m out of line here and if I’ve overstepped my boundaries, please forgive me. I just couldn’t hold it in any longer after you mentioned something.

  18. MyBlueShark- Glad to see you! :-)

    Rescue- No worries. Mine most likely came from poorly constructed overseas military housing I lived in during the late 60’s/very early 70’s. I appreciate your tact. It sucks to talk about, but sometimes, a person just can’t help talking about it. Least, that’s what I went through for a while. I think I’m still at the “worn out of being pissed off” stage of grief right now- you know? Like I said, no worries. :-)

    Cfs7360- I get to be Juliet Dromio since you didn’t exit on cue. You’re stuck with Romeo Dromio. Deal with it. :-)

  19. I found the ashley g on myspace, a few days ago. Yes same name but not her, and dont know if who i found is who. (did that make sense?) I dont think anyone under 18 would turn up on a people search. So….

  20. Thanks.

    Okay then. I know of Juliet, I know of Romeo. Dromio? Was I not in class that day? cfs – help me out here.

  21. Typical Bash. Okay, I’m Romeo this time. But next time I’m going to be Juliet!!

    I’ve used my Senseo more since this case broke than I have in the three years I’ve had it. Good coffee!

  22. Yeah, but it’s not always hopeless, and she *has* got youth on her side. Might mention the free clinical trials they have going at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, NY. There’s usually 2-4 going on just for meso (some for different kinds of meso, some for different age groups, some for different stages, etc.). Rochester was where I went. Those docs have done a hell of alot more for me than anyone else I’ve ever seen. And if you want, I’ll even put the links up for them!

  23. Rescue- I combined “Romeo and Juliet” with “A Comedy of Errors”.
    Will Shakespeare.
    Twins.
    Dromio of Ephesus & Dromio of Syracuse (I think).

    Aw, just trust me- it’s funny what I wrote… :-)

  24. That didn’t sound right Rescue. Sounds lke Bash is confusing the two, is what I meant. Romeo and Juliet with the Comedy of Errors. Both are Shakespeare, lol.

  25. I don’t remember them, but if you say so. Okay, then I’m Juliet….where the hell are you Romeo??

  26. MyBlueShark- Earlier today (gosh, was it really today all this crap happened?), a poster named “someonewhomIcan’tbloodyremember” found an Ashley, but she was the wrong one. Too young. On her blog, the 29 year old Ashley said she removed her “watermark” on the pics because she didn’t want to cause grief for the other lass. So I think that the one you found might be the same one the poster I mentioned above found, which would be the Ashley Gabrys who’s too young and doesn’t have a blog Ashley, and ot the one who does.

    Gads… that paragraph even confounds *me*! Can you guys help me figure out what I’m trying to explain here?

  27. Yes, cfs, it’s overwhelming for her parents, to say the least.

    Bash – was at Mayo and they discussed clinic trials with her. Let’s just say she is very, very sick right now. But, not to put it all on meso, she’s had so many crises, blood clots, emergency heart surgery, complications, and some others, I think her body is giving up. Not her will, but her body.

  28. Okay, no more using up valuable bandwidth. We might have alot to discuss tomorrow if any news breaks since it’s been such a busy weekend. By they way Bash, you made me wake up my husband, and he wasn’t very happy.

  29. Im thinkin it has been 2 days that have blurred into one. The ashley blog started friday, right? Actually the whole weekend has been a blur to me as it was my first weekend off since april.

  30. Ok.

    I went back to read the current email of DP’s, and, I swear, he’d meet up with her, engage her, marry her and live life happily ever after (for what, 3 years, until he got sick of her and wiped her out) if she snapped her fingers and said yeah.

    When is someone going to figure out that this guy is a mental case that needs to be far, far away from society????

  31. Uh, my line is:

    I’m down here, shiska! I think yer hot, and I’m a stalker, so I followed you all the way to your bedroom balcony, where I’m gonna make a complete arse out of myself cause my teenage hormones think that this will impress you enough to risk STD’s, statutory rape charges and teen pregnancy, plus it’ll make a cool chick flick storyline years from now…

  32. Dang it, Rescue. That *really* and truly sucks. Sounds like her immune system has really had a rough time with all of that. I will keep her and her family in my prayers.

    Damn. And she’s just a kid, fer cryinoutloud… :-(

  33. basherette // June 30, 2008 at 1:27 am

    Uh, my line is:

    I’m down here, shiska! I think yer hot, and I’m a stalker, so I followed you all the way to your bedroom balcony, where I’m gonna make a complete arse out of myself cause my teenage hormones think that this will impress you enough to risk STD’s, statutory rape charges and teen pregnancy, plus it’ll make a cool chick flick storyline years from now…
    +++++++++++++++++
    Well, I think I’m going to have to kill myself, but you need to go with me!:D

  34. I told you! If you are going to be that way, I’m just going to kill myself and you’re coming along too!

  35. Uh Bash, I think we need to stop. People are lurking and they will think we really have lost it.

  36. Well, dang it wommen! Get yerself into that kitchen and cook me something in yer underthings before we get all seppuku happy!

    (pssst- did I get BM’s accent right?)

  37. Not everybody undertands we get a little crazy from time to time, but it isn’t permanent, ya know?? :D Besides, I don’t to see Sal back over here yapping at me!

  38. Oh, *SURE*…. step all over my cue, why don’t cha!

    I quit!

    I TOLD my friggin’ agent I couldn’t work with amatuers…

  39. So, guys, who on our blog here is left after the mass hack job the Big one did on the SYM board? Noway is the only one that I know of.

  40. Rescue- The only one left at SYM that I know of other than Noway is “iknoweverythinglol”…

    Cfs7360- Well, he IS from the SOUTH side, right?

  41. I came across this on a blog, so I guess I’ll pass it along FYI.

    Breaking Drew Peterson With Detective Joseph Kozenczak’s Techniques

    Okay, I’ll agree Drew Peterson is a pariah these days. I can’t agree that he deserves this label since he was career cop with no criminal history. The worst anyone can really say about him is his penchant for young attractive women. I guess that puts me in the same category since I too enjoy them.

    The real question is what happened to Peterson’s third and fourth wives and did Drew Peterson bring about their fate? The short answer is, nobody knows. Humans are a suspicious lot and murder investigations begin and too often end at the ones closest to the victims. Humans seem to only hurt the ones they love.

    Where’s the proof? The third wife drowned in the bathtub. Perhaps she had help in getting that way but we can only guess. After we make the first guess as murder we have to guess again who was responsible.

    Then there is Staci Peterson. We can’t say that she was murdered because we just don’t know. We suspect foul play but have zero evidence and we can prove nothing at all. The suspicious folks and arm chair amateur sleuths guessed that the missing girl was murdered and they guessed further that Drew Peterson killed her.

    I’m sorry folks but guesses don’t count. If it’s going to count it must be hard and cold evidence. For now and perhaps always that will be the case. There are may thousands of crimes that have never been discovered or have simply gone unsolved. They don’t write too may books and never make movies about unsolved crimes. Absolutely nobody wants to read or watch that story

    As for the police they have a nearly impossible task. They must determine if there was a crime or crimes and uncover enough evidence to bring someone to justice. The cops are not clairvoyant and without a confession and minimal evidence to support it they are powerless.

    Right now the Illinois State Police have only one tool to use and that’s unlawful harassment. They know that sometimes works as it did in the case of the infamous Chicago area serial killer, John Wayne Gacy.

    Gacy was stressed out and confessed because of remarkably clever stunts used to unnerve him. Most of those incredible tricks used by retired Des Plaines detective Joseph Kozenczak 30 years ago are in every homicide investigator’s playbook today.

    The problem is that retired police sergeant Drew Peterson has read that playbook too. If Drew Peterson killed anyone, the undeniable fact is he knew and knows how to avoid detection.

    It’s not a fair world, people get away with murder and innocent people are punished for murder. America’s founding father’s got it right when they gave us the Bill of Rights. Even Drew Peterson deserves those protections.
    Posted by Crimefile at 6/12/2008 09:52:00 AM

    http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/06/breaking-drew-peterson-with-detective.html

  42. Who knows who Iknow posts as. I don’t even know if they are male or female, but I’ve thought a male. Great wit that one!

    Dearheart said she posts as Justiceserved on there today. Didn’t realize that was her.

  43. I thought you’d been banned too, Rescue?

    Didn’t know about Dearheart88- I thought she was posting things from BM and JB from other blogs…

    Then again, I am easily distracted by shiny objects, so I might have missed a post or two.

  44. Basherette – I was banned. I never posted once. That’s why I think it sucks that they make up the rules as they go along – such as no posts, no privileges. That makes no sense. But, it is the Big ones forum and he can do as he pleases. Just don’t have to agree with it or find it to be fair.

  45. In fact, honestly, I never went to the board until cfs posted about her experience, and then I went back to read. I got privileges for one day!

  46. Well, there’s one glaring inconsistancy in the very first paragrah, 2nd sentence- DP certainly *does* have a criminal history…

    Reading on…

  47. Dearheart may have been Bash, but I just remember her saying she was Justiceserved on there. Maybe she was banned, but I didn’t get that impression at the time. However, I had to skim over a lot tody because we had several storms pass through. Blew some of our pool furniture into the pool, broke an umbrella that was rolled down, and we had chairs in the rose bed. What a mess! Limbs everywhere.

  48. Getting back to the article I posted. IMO, DP may know the rules and the tactics, but he can’t run from the stress of it all.

    Who’s to say that LE isn’t, in fact, pulling his chain. By not charging him, they don’t have to divulge any information they’ve got. Hell, Brodsky can’t even get a copy of the formal second autopsy on KS. They’re as much in the dark as anyone, except, he’s got more to fear of the unknown that anyone.

    Until this gun issue gets resolved, he can’t even go to Wisconsin. He’s a caged animal.

  49. Good points Rescue. But outwardly it doesn’t seem to be bothering him when he’s in front of a camera, but that might be an act. I just hope and pray he doesn’t lose it when he’s trying to handle those children. Inwardly, I feel sure he’s a wreck. He’d have to be with all of this hanging over his head. Wonder how Craig Stebic is coping. You never hear anything much about his and what’s going on.

  50. Then, when he was charged with the weapon violation, some said they’re just harassing him. It wasn’t exactly the highlight of DP’s day when they hauled him to the station to be charged and processed. Now, he’s got to appear in Court and answer to the charges. He’s on the other side of the fence now, and it’s got to be eating him alive. I don’t care how cocky he acts. He acts that way because he’s losing his grip, not because he’s so damn confident. He’s got nothing to be confident about. He’s got a whole mess of problems to deal with!

    The last time I checked, other than a few blogger who will chew you up and spit you out if they happen to be posting around the same time Drew’s getting psychoanalyzed and blasted, I’ve not seen anyone publicly profess their support for him and stand up for him.

  51. Dang, Cfs7360- all we really worry about up here are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, blizzards and it’stheirfirstwinterinAK drivers… I’d have been clicking my heels three times together if I had to go through what you did!

  52. Rescue, even though it drives me batshitakemushrooms crazy with impatience, I gotta say that LE has been playing this smart by *not* tipping their hand until THEY are ready.

    The gun charge is just some catnip to keep him occupied and distracted while they clip his claws and neuter the nutter, so to speak.

    Least that’s what I think.

  53. Basherette – I thought a lot of that, well, most of it, was a bunch of baloney too, other than thinking LE has nothing to lose by peeing off Drew every chance they get, as long as their within the law!

    I don’t know how one would say there’s no evidence. Should’ve said no evidence has been divulged so far.

    I do believe, however, that as long as LE holds the cards and they’re not letting DP in on the information, it’s got to be killing him.

    One minute he’s on tv claiming he’s “ready” to be charged. The next minute his lawyer is saying absolutely, positively, no charges will be brought. He’s no Superman, and he surely is having a hard time not living with a young, beautiful woman at the moment.

    He’s melting, he’s melting, just like the wicked witch in he Wizard of Oz.

  54. basherette // June 30, 2008 at 1:56 am

    Dang, Cfs7360- all we really worry about up here are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, blizzards and it’stheirfirstwinterinAK drivers… I’d have been clicking my heels three times together if I had to go through what you did!
    +++++++++++++
    Lol. It wasn’t as bad as it could have been. You’re the one who lives in a hazard zone Bash!!! Geez! Think I’d just rather fish furniture from the pool.:D

  55. I believe the dogs hitting on a scent in the master bedroom is a BIG piece of evidence. How can this guy say we can’t guess, it’s America I’ll guess if I want. I would want to hear all the evidence before I decided to throw the switch though. I am not, nor will I ever be a juror in dp’s trial and as humans we naturally look for answers, so I will connect the dots available to me and examine the shape that appears. If that shape looks bad then so be it. It’s my opinion based on information I have gathered.

  56. He’s melting, he’s melting, just like the wicked witch in he Wizard of Oz.
    *********

    Yipper, and watching him fry, oops, I mean *melt* is a hope of mine- but the most important thing to focus on is that no matter how much he melts, *this* greenie still kicks his arse in the looks dept.

  57. I’m thinking more and more that he had help relocating her body after he first disposed of her.

    The reason I think that is because he must have anticipated she’d be found within a short time, since LE says their theory is he planned on framing Scott Rosetto. Why else make a call from a cell phone in Shorewood unless that was part of the plan. Also, he knew they’d meet for coffee in a local restaurant, wherein, he joined in and started the guy down.

    He had no other reason, IMO, to leave his home for 3 days other than to tie up loose ends. By that, I mean, get help to move her body to a different location.

    Clearing his head for three days is a crock.

  58. Okay, this is my final adieu. Coffee isn’t working. Nite all. Hope to be with you tomorrow sometime.

  59. You know what would tickle my tailfeathers?

    Someone SYM has a beef with (for whatever frigging stupid reason) posting over here that they *still* hadn’t been banned from over *there*…

    Remember… IQ level… *whistles “Taps”*

    Be funny as allgitout if BM banned HIMSELF!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  60. oh, I’m tired and not making sense. He knew they’d met in a local restaurant….wherein, he joined in and stared the guy down.

  61. Ciao, Juliet Dromio… parting is such sweet sorrow…

    Just make sure your arse is here tomorrow! :-)

  62. Iknow, I thought you were male, but sometimes you seem so much like one of “old hens” as we’ve been called today several times, lol. I really enjoy your humorous posts.

  63. Good night, cfs. I guess I should call it a night too, since I am tired and not seeing straight anymore.

    Maybe Monday will be a busy blog day. See you all later.

    Bash – thanks again for posting the transcription of the radio interview.

  64. Thank you but dang I wish I was as smart and funny as you guys. You have me cracking up all the time.

  65. Before I go – IKELOL – do you “know” of some things we don’t? I’m not asking for particulars, just wondering if you’re privy to somethings we’re not?

    Like, you KNOW he’s getting real close to eating baloney sandwiches.

  66. I do know some things most don’t but when is going to get the new tennis shoes is anyones guess. No matter what though he is getting them.

  67. From the sounds of that book deal it seems like he is ready to admit to covering up Kathleens death at a minimum. If he did that then you have all the fraud charges concerning her estate. Probably enough years right there for a life sentence for him.

  68. Aw, Rescue… now I’ve got that stupid “Oh, Drew P”/”Oh, Mickey” song stuck in my head again… :-(

  69. Can anyone think of an angle where Brodsky and Drew would be running the Ashley Blog?

  70. Yeah, and I think the spirit of KS is going to be the first of the beautiful ladies to cut the monster off at the knees.

  71. The only angle that I could possibly see is to “expose” a cynical attempt by someone to make Drewpie look bad by creating and following through on an obsession to harass him. That’s JB’s whole theory, and that is that just about everyone is out to get his client, unfairly.

    Other than that, I can’t see anything reason.

  72. 100% real? You mean “Ashley.” I think whoever she is has the goods on him as she claims.

    It doesn’t prove him to be a murderer, surely, but it certainly is continuing to bring him down in the eyes of the public, contrary to JB’s attempt to prop him up and make him look good. Oh, and the PR guy trying to rehabilitate his image.

    Not working, and this isn’t helping.

  73. iknoweverythinglol // June 30, 2008 at 2:26 am

    Rescue, I would say chatrooms are not in his future.
    *****

    Whadda ya mean? Sure they are!

    He’ll be chatting in the shower room…
    “Don’t drop the soap”
    http://w ww.bobrivers.com/player/lyrics.asp?SongID=729

    He’ll be chatting in his cell room…
    “Who put the stump”
    http://w ww.bobrivers.com/player/lyrics.asp?SongID=1034

    He’ll be chatting in the dining room…
    “Boys’ Night for Weiners”
    http://w ww.bobrivers.com/player/lyrics.asp?SongID=592

    Yipper, I’m sure he’ll be just fine…

  74. Although, at the moment, the “public” has no clue about any of this. If it’s not reported in the newspapers or on tv, it’s got no legs. Now, if it gets some acknowledgment on tv, say on NG, that is not good for DP.

    What I think may have more significance is the crime writer, and his claims that he interviewed DP for a book deal. From the way the interview went, it’s a thriller. Very interesting observations by this man.

    It’s starting to become a he said-he said situation already, with Brodsky slinging the crud he usually does about everyone else being a liar but Drew. I’ll be curious to see if this is going anywhere.

  75. Oh, Basherette, you are precious. Very, very precious.

    Now, I am going for real this time. Nice chatting with you IKELOL.

    And, of course, you’re the best, Basherette.

  76. rescueapet // June 30, 2008 at 2:34 am

    It doesn’t prove him to be a murderer, surely, but it certainly is continuing to bring him down in the eyes of the public, contrary to JB’s attempt to prop him up and make him look good.
    *****

    Like I said… jury’s gonna have to be flown up from Tierra Del Fuego and sequestered in a bubble…

  77. Hee hee hee… :-)

    Time for me to toddle off to sleep, perchance to dream too…

    Goodnight Iknoweverythinglol! Happy dreams!! :-)

  78. P.S.- Here’s the link to the audio for those “chats” DP will be having in da pen…

    http://w ww.jokeaday.com/7twisted.shtml

    Yeah, I know… straight to hell in a handbasket I go… :-)

  79. YES I see jb and dp setting this, well I dont think they did it at this point but yes they could and it would serve to taint the jury pool more than it already is. I have said that all along, he is either real smart or real stupid. It would explain them doing things like the dating contest, blaming a womans cycle on her sanity bashing the victims and acting a fool on television. Dating young girls, going to local bars, etc., etc. Purposely doing things to upset the family and friends as well as the public. They are very,very stupid, or crazy like a fox.

  80. I think a more accurate description of DP is that he is clever. SP is smart.

    His Achilles heel, if you will, is the fact that he thinks he is *more* clever than anyone else. That he is *smarter* than anyone else.

    Wile E. Coyote, “Super Genius”, anyone? :-)

    JB, well, he kind of reminds me of Daffy Duck- all indignantly fired up for all the wrong reasons, and no place to go…

    My… they really *should* have taken that left turn at Albuquerque… ain’t that right, Doc? :-)

  81. Darn typo… should read:

    I think a more accurate description of DP is that he is clever. DP is smart.

  82. He himself said that he and Kathleen were always trying to outdo each other.

    I think it is just him who has to “outdo” people.

    This Ashley stuff was posted by “methodical” and that is what I see Ashley as. She had this planned out … maybe posting things in response to what the bloggers demand ;) but she has it all planned out.

    What I’d like to see is Drew’s yahoo chats for the time before and up to Stacy’s disappearance.

    Checked this a.m. and did not see anything from Joel regarding legal action against Matt Phelps.

    Oh, and good morning everyone!

  83. Just trying to catch up on reading on other blogs. Everyone seems to be talking about Ashley:

    Was this a setup (sting)? And isn’t it funny that Drew … Mr. “32 years on the police force” Peterson wasn’t suspiscious?

    Is “she” really a man? And wouldn’t that be too funny for Drew to profess his love for a man?

  84. Why didn’t Joel make all Drew’s chat buddies agree to disclosure agreements?

    Or did they agree to one and are blatantly ignoring it? :D

  85. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=6235906
    Former Chicago area police sergeant Drew Peterson is expected in the courtroom this morning. Peterson is attempting to get back a rifle that was seized from his home last November during a raid related to his wife, Stacy’s disappearance. Stacy has been missing since last October. Police are still looking into whether Peterson is linked to the investigation.
    *******************************
    IS HE INDEED BACK IN CT. TODAY?

  86. And Joel speaks:

    joelbrodsky
    Member

    member is online

    I want to clear up two issues about my past statements being misrepresentations:
    1. Drew isn’t dating: I may be from an older generation, but my definition of “dating” means that there is a personal face to face relationship where people go out on “dates” togeather. Internet and text flirting where people have never met in person do not qualify as dating in my book, (nor does flirting with girls in a bar). A date is when you call someone up and say lets go to dinner and a movie or such and then you go. If you disagree then that is because our understanding of what dating is differs, not because I intentionally lied. (I know that I said he wasn’t dating Kim, and I understand that Kim could be construed as dating except for the fact that Kim had and has a boyfriend other than Drew, and Drew told me that they were just platonic friends.)
    The Book Deal: I said that there was no book deal nor was one in the works. I never said that there would never be a book. Preliminary talks to literary agents and their authors is not a deal, its just discussing possibilties and seeing if there is any interest. A deal is a signed contract, and a “deal in the works” is when you are negotiating the terms of a contract. I did not lie when I said that there was no book deal and no deal in the works when I made that statement. We did not have a contract and we were not negotiating the terms of a contract. All we were doing was investigating and testing the waters to see what the possibilites were. If you believe that investigating and testing the waters is a “deal in the works” then there was a deal in the works, but that is only because your definition is different from mine (and from a legal standpoint your definition is wrong – but that is another discussion), but not because I misrepresented anything.

    Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Reply #383 Today at 7:46am »

  87. And my reply:

    Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Reply #384 Today at 7:50am »

    He told this woman he loved her (read the ear tugging post by Ashley yet?) … so it’s just flirting to talk about marriage proposals and I love you? It’s not dating? Right. It’s lies. IMO

    And the book deal … well, some people expected you to be upfront with your answers, but lawyers tell their clients and witnesses to only answer the question asked, so you fooled them.

    IMO

  88. Goodmorning .. been reading all your comments for a while .. your all very intelligent as far as i can see.

    Ithink this is real , why? because remember joron vander slut(opps sloot) , remember he had NO idea that he was being taped.

    I bet there are other women out there like Ashley.

    I , like you all are waiting for the next female to come out of the wood work.This just keeps this case alive.

    Common sense would tell drew peterson to shut his mouth, but then again we are talking about a man that thinks he is above the law and smarter than anyone on two legs(i hope this doesnt offend any of you) but its true , his fatal FLAW is his EGO and his CONTROL ISSUES.Get to his ego slash it down and i bet he’ll fly into a rage,and may be expose himself without anyone elses help! Hes slowly losing control and that may make him mad as well. i hope this makes sense.

    Every criminal slips up, and Mr Peterson has done this time and time again.Can anyone out there (and i know its a hard task, long and arduous-my spelling is not the best lol) but can anyone out there make a time line with all his slip ups , then we may get a clearer pic of this man.

    Have a nice day everyone and thanks for making me smile you’re all very funny at times.

  89. JB tries to be a smooth talker doesnt he? Also, didnt supposed Stacy recieve a text from someone where DP ran to media with… I believe he said text messages are not “DATING”.
    I mean anyone can say anything on a text message, and hers should be no different.. If he stands behind what he says as a counselor, then a racey text message , DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS INDEED HAVING AN AFFAIR….

  90. Why is this SSOB on the internet?
    Seems like a very detrimental thing to do, doesnt it? Looks like he is talkin out bof’ sides of da mof’!!!!

  91. Sher, that’s brilliant!

    By his own admission words are just flirting … not evidence of an affair!

    Oh …. you can say “lil” all you want Sher! That’s positively fabulous! :D

  92. I stole you thought Sher and went with it:
    _______________
    Posted on SYM:
    So Joel, what you’re saying is that the exchange of words is not proof of a relationship?

    So “racy texts” are not “proof” of an affair either?

  93. He is going to need major surgery to get that foot out of his mouth!

    Well … he’s a lawyer and he’ll find some way to wiggle out of this too. But watching will be fun!

  94. Joel said: Internet and text flirting where people have never met in person do not qualify as dating in my book

    cfs says: Funny when the shoe is on the other foot. Stacy was having affairs when she did it. Drew is not dating and hasn’t seen this person pace to face, but he says he loves this Ashley person and wants to marry her. No that’s not dating……that’s PSYCHOPATHIC!!

    Joel said: I understand that Kim could be construed as dating except for the fact that Kim had and has a boyfriend other than Drew, and Drew told me that they were just platonic friends.)

    cfs says: Are you just now finding out that Drew is a liar and you can’t believe anything he tells you or anyone else?? Besides, Drew had a wife, and he “dated” and now it looks like he may have been two-timing his girlfriends. What a piece of work.

    Joel sadi: A deal is a signed contract, and a “deal in the works” is when you are negotiating the terms of a contract

    cfs says: Not negotiating a contract huh? But there was a non-disclosure agreement? Sounds like a deal in the works to me, regardless of what you say the definition is. And you’re going to sue a guy for “no deal in the works?”

    Joel seems to get himself in these pickles by posting answers he probably shouldn’t be posting on SYM anyway, IMO, and then when it’s discovered he’s really NOT giving truthful answers because he’s either from the “old school” or his “definitions” are different, or even that he has the details wrong, he has to tell more lies and do more double talk to make up for what he lied about in the first place. Makes me think of that really old song “Willie go round in circles” but I bet Joel remembers it, lol.

  95. Sher – Just got done reading your post. You are an absolute genius! Racy text messages do not mean someone was having an affair, anymore than online chatting.

    You are one smart Sher. You win the prize of the day, whatever that may be!!!!!!

  96. LOL, it may be a long, long day, as long as that foot is stuck in JB’s mouth.

    Oh, the drama……..

  97. Morning all. Was too busy responding to Noway’s post after she posted it. What a bunch of double talk! She several others feel the same way I do.

  98. Stop please it is going to my head, LOL!!! I just cant stand that a lawyer would be asking, and or answering questions on a blog or forum. It was told to him -STFU, and what does he do, not listen! See what happens when you flap your gums?
    He is opening to many doors for a SLAM shut in his own puss!!! LOL!

  99. I’m sitting here laughing at what Drew said to Ahsley about proposing to her on “national TV.” Wouldn’t that have been a hoot??? And he’s not even divorced. Larry King would have had a field day with that….but no, he’s not dataing…..he’s just a mindless POS.

  100. Looks like Joel isn’t online anymore. Or he’s hidden (don’t know if he’d show online or not with that).

  101. noway – has anyone else questioned JB about the book deal besides you? What about the Ashley blog?

  102. Who is worse as far as the blabbing?

    I felt some sympathy for Joel, having Drew as a client.

    I felt some sympathy for Glenn, having Joel as a client.

    BUT … they both made the choice … will they stick with each other until the death? IDK.
    :D

  103. Hey everyone. At 1:08 this morning, Joel Brodsky posted a reply on the website of the radio blog:

    http://johngrant.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/drew-peterson/

    One Response to “Drew Peterson”

    1. Joel Brodsky Says:
    June 30, 2008 at 1:08 am

    Check out this e-mail Mr. Phelps sent to Glen Selig, Drew Peterson’s publicist, after the conference call with Drew (which lasted 62 minutes, not 3 hours – another falsehood by Mr. Phelps – We have the phone records to show this and who was on the call, Drew, Selig, Brodsky and Peter Miller Phelps agent). From reading the e-mail I guess Phelps was not as disgusted as he is leading us to believe. Seems all he is concerned about is the effect Joe Hosey’s book is going to have on “the value of what I would do”. I guess he didn’t have to take a shower after the call and only went to check out if there was going to be any competition for his book.

    “From: M. William Phelps [mailto:mwilliamphelps@comcast.net]
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:54 AM
    To: glenn@thepublicityagency.com
    Subject: Drew Peterson

    Glenn,

    We’re going to have to discuss this: Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson (Hardcover) by Joseph Hosey (NAL; July 1, 2008).

    This puts a wet blanket on what we discussed on Saturday. It brings the value of what I would do down considerably. I do have another idea to discuss with all of you, however.

    I’ll look forward to your call with Joel and Drew at 10:00 this morning. 860-870-7247

    Thanks,
    ____________________________________________________
    M. William Phelps
    Investigative Journalist, Author
    PO Box 3215
    Vernon, CT 06066-2115
    World Wide Web: http://www.mwilliamphelps.com”

  104. Rescue, Joel hasn’t said another thing about Ashley although it is one of the most-posted topics of the last few days.

    I’ll try to find the discussion about the book deal. If it’s someone I know posts here, I’ll quote them (I think Dearheart asked something) but it’s all mixed in … have to find the thread where it was first discussed.

    These “questions” for Joel aren’t in the specific thread for Questions for Joel … it’s just people posting and sometimes he replies (not specifically to someone but in general).

  105. Well … other than his response to Ashley today.

    Were you asking if anyone else had questioned Joel about Ashley and the book?

    Yes, they have. And if not questions, they’ve made comments, which he somewhat addresses in his general response.

    It’s not like he is saying “Noway, in response to your question about how big a putz Drew is …” or anything like that.

  106. I just went over and posted my support for Mr. Phelps on the other blog (posted above). I didn’t get any impression from listening to the interview that Mr. Phelps is an anything but honest and forthcoming.

    Merely because the man was appalled at what he heard from Drew Peterson doesn’t warrant the attack mode Joel Brodsky is now in. Maybe he and his client should shut their mouths and they wouldn’t need to be doing damage control.

  107. Rescue … you had me going through these threads again and I found a reply from Joel about legal discourse. Not sure if it was posted here and I missed it both places … thanks for getting me back in there!

    Re: Peterson Case Discussion # 3
    « Reply #111 Yesterday at 11:23am »

    I have a lawsuit for both reasons, he lied and he breached the non-disclosure. If you breach a non-disclosure with lies its still a breach. A non-disclosure means your not going to talk about it period. I am going to give him a chance to retract now before we take the next step.
    As to Ashley, the fact she doesn’t post all the threads, but only picks out a few small portions, just confirms my prior statement. There is nothing more to say.

  108. Yes, I agree with this does not imply anything.. It is simply a speculation on JB’s part.. Dont they call that out in CT.?
    I object your honor, defefnse is speculating! He seems to be slammin, when he gets slammed!

    Gawd, he is actin a fool!!! If I was a judge, which Im not; Id slap um in the back of the head, just for opening his mouth, and practicing bad law!!! LOL!

  109. Does signing (or agreeing verbally) to a disclosure agreement mean that you won’t tell anyone that you’ve met at all? Or does it mean that you won’t disclose the details of what was talked about?

    Found this on wikipedia:

    A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) (often known outside of the United States as a confidentiality agreement; occasionally called a confidential disclosure agreement or CDA, or secrecy agreement), is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential materials or knowledge the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to. It is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement. An NDA creates a confidential relationship between the parties to protect any type of confidential and proprietary information or a trade secret. As such, an NDA protects non-public business information.

    NDAs are commonly signed when two companies or individuals are considering doing business and need to understand the processes used in each others business for the purpose of evaluating the potential business relationship. NDAs can be “mutual”, meaning both parties are restricted in their use of the materials provided, or they can restrict the use of material by a single party.

    It is also possible for an employee to sign an NDA or NDA-like agreement with an employer. In fact, some employment agreements will include a clause restricting employees use and dissemination of company-owned “confidential information.” NDAs are used in the IT field, and are often given directly prior to taking a certification exam.

    In rare cases, the contract may state that the existence of the NDA itself cannot be disclosed. [1]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement

    Will be interesting to see what type of nondisclosure agreement they had or didn’t have.
    ;)

  110. Rescue, I may do the same thing. You know that Phelps and his agent canceled the phone meeting at 10:00 that morning because he said they didn’t want to be a part of it. His email to Glenn sounds like it may have been sort of a preparation for getting out of it and maybe doing something else……like maybe writing something after the outcome of a trial or whatever that actually had factual information, should there be one.

    There was reference to more than one phone call, so maybe all of them together was about three hours or so, who knows, and we don’t know how far apart they are. But Joel doesn’t mention that he and Glenn were to call Matt, but Matt canceled out on him. Wonder why?

  111. Did this one get posted:

    Re: Peterson Case Discussion # 3
    joelbrodsky
    Member

    member is offline

    « Reply #106 Yesterday at 10:23am »

    Look, in the interview Phelps admits he agreed to a non-disclosure, and then he goes and discloses (albiet falsely) what was said in the interview. What is that if not lying? He admits he lied to me, Glenn and Drew when he promised non-disclosure.

  112. Is it 62 or 64 minutes that the call lasted?

    The quoted post above said 62 … this says 64.

    Is it 62 plus 64 ?

    From SYM

    Re: Ashley.Gabrys Blog Discussion
    « Reply #155 Yesterday at 6:20pm »

    joelbrodsky
    Member

    member is offline

    I can prove that the Author M. William Phelps, a/k/a Matthew Phelps, is lying:

    1. First we just checked the phone records and the call he refers to lasted 64 minutes, not 3 hours.

    2. He was not so disgusted that he had to go take a shower after our call. In fact he was the only reason he was turned off of the deal was Joe Hosey’s book would interfere with his profits. Even then he wanted to enter into further discussions. Here is the e-mail that proves it:

    From: M. William Phelps [mailto:mwilliamphelps@comcast.net]
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:54 AM
    To: glenn@thepublicityagency.com
    Subject: Drew Peterson

    Glenn,

    We’re going to have to discuss this: Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson (Hardcover)
    by Joseph Hosey (NAL; July 1, 2008).

    This puts a wet blanket on what we discussed on Saturday. It brings the value of what I would do down considerably. I do have another idea to discuss with all of you, however.

    I’ll look forward to your call with Joel and Drew at 10:00 this morning. 860-870-****

    Thanks,
    ____________________________________________________
    M. William Phelps
    Investigative Journalist, Author
    PO Box 3215
    Vernon, CT 06066-2115
    World Wide Web: http://www.mwilliamphelps.com

    His agent and Phelps cancelled the follow up conference call and it never happened.

  113. Noway, it would depend on what the verbal non-disclosure was. Since there is nothing in writing apparently, who’s to say what the terms were? I don’t think it would hold up in court, and Brodsky surely knows that. Both parties admit that there is one, but what was agreed to? No written disclosure, no case. It’s all he said, he said.

  114. Joel is just trying to cover his you know what. They (JB, DP, GL) all created this mess by trying to get a book of lies written, and it got exposed. Now, they’re looking like the fools they are, and they’re trying to cover it up, IMO. What else is new?

  115. I wasn’t sure whether there was a signed agreement or not. How dumb is Joel that he didn’t fax or overnight or whatever an agreement to be signed before any further discussion took place.

    “Characters” does not begin to describe the people involved in this whole thing. It certainly doesn’t do some of them justice! ;)

    IMO

  116. I guess “my wife left me for another man” is not going to sell many books … but “my wife killed my exwife and left me for another man” just might.

    I guess Drew decided to go with “sinister sells” after all.

  117. « Drew PetersonDrew Peterson – The Lawyer vs. the Author
    The comments regarding Drew Peterson made on my Internet radio show on June 26 by M. William Phelps have received attention from Mr. Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky. Below is Mr. Brodsky’s response to my post of June 27. The email he refers to can be seen under “Comments” for the June 27 post.

    Joel Brodsky Says:
    June 30, 2008 at 1:08 am edit

    Check out this e-mail Mr. Phelps sent to Glen Selig, Drew Peterson’s publicist, after the conference call with Drew (which lasted 62 minutes, not 3 hours – another falsehood by Mr. Phelps – We have the phone records to show this and who was on the call, Drew, Selig, Brodsky and Peter Miller Phelps agent). From reading the e-mail I guess Phelps was not as disgusted as he is leading us to believe. Seems all he is concerned about is the effect Joe Hosey’s book is going to have on “the value of what I would do”. I guess he didn’t have to take a shower after the call and only went to check out if there was going to be any competition for his book.

    I received the following message from M. William Phelps this morning and am posting it at his request:

    “Look, I’m not about to get into the minutia of what was said, what was not said, etc … but I can release snips of the conversation on audio if need be. Notice what Joel Brodsky doesn’t deny. Also, during the radio show I specifically said I was very interested in pursuing the Drew Peterson book idea. Didn’t mean I wasn’t feeling dirty about the conversation or the potential book. In fact, my agent and I spoke right after–and I talked to him about my feelings. If they want me to start releasing emails, well, I can do that, too. I never signed a confidentiality agreement with them. I spoke to Joel Brodsky a few days after this call and told him–pointblank–that I was having trouble and struggling with some issues involved with the book. I said my journalistic integrity was more important. Drew Peterson would not take a lie detector test for me. That was of great concern. Now, this is the last time I speak about this. I’m done. I’ve moved on. They have an author, or so I’ve been told.”

    Mr. Phelps sent this follpw up message on June 30 to clarify the length of the telephone interview in question:

    “I should probably note that my call with those guys was more along the lines of about 90 minutes (two sides of a 90-minute cassette tape). I had spoken to my agent and Drew’s publicist Glen for an additional half-hour/45 minutes before Drew and Joel came into the conversation, and my agent by
    himself for approximately 45 minutes before that–all of which centered around the Peterson case/potential book. So the entire process that morning took over three hours. Perhaps I did misspeak in implying that I spoke directly to Drew and Joel for three hours. I apologize if anyone
    misunderstood me.”

    Denny
    http://johngrant.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/drew-peterson-the-lawyer-vs-the-author/

  118. No one has said there was anything in writing, but Matt did say there was an agreement over the phone. That tells me, the brilliant attorney that he is, that Joel never got anything in writing, or he would be stating they had a “written” agreement. How many times have we seen this already?? All these people do things they agreed not to, but there’s nothing ever in writing that says otherwise. Most attorneys know two things: Keep your mouth shut. Get it in writing. Joel must have missed class that day.

  119. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

    I guess “my wife left me for another man” is not going to sell many books … but “my wife killed my exwife and left me for another man” just might.

    I guess Drew decided to go with “sinister sells” after all.
    +++++++++++++
    Now THAT was the quote of the day!!! :D

  120. Yea!!! I’m go glad Matt Phelps recorded the conversation! Hoped he did. Smart man! Way smarter than the other side of this. Brodsky, got tapes?

  121. I figured an author would record discussion about his case. One can never rely on shorthand written after the fact (my own personal experience with my own version of shorthand of minutes from a meeting).

    Plus, you’d just want to have it “from the source” if there was a particular thing you were writing about.

    LOL
    I think a crime writer would be more concerned about the facts and getting them straight. After all, if his book is full of inconsistencies, who is going to take him seriously and buy his books?
    :D

    And Matt need not worry about how long the conversation was … Joel can’t either … since two quotes from him (unless I cannot read anymore) had two different times (62 and 64).

  122. One more quick dig…..

    I bet Joel lost his breakfast when/if he saw these:

    but I can release snips of the conversation on audio if need be. Notice what Joel Brodsky doesn’t deny. (my words….like what they wanted the book to be about, hmmmm?)

    “I should probably note that my call with those guys was more along the lines of about 90 minutes (two sides of a 90-minute cassette tape).

    Thank goodness for tape recorders.

  123. I’m here. Catching up on my reading. You all know I did send an email to Mr. Phelps last evening regarding this.

    This is quite interesting, to say the least.

  124. Rescue, thank you for helping further expose these two clowns by posting that interview with Matt Phelps. Good find!

  125. I’m on battery power for a bit … this is running very slow though. I’ve shut everything else down hoping it will help.

  126. Rescue, you said you did, and I’m so glad you took the time. And I’m guessing your email is why he was responding to Joel so early this morning, huh? Again, good job my friend!

  127. If Selig knew what he was doing he would have faxed over the non-disclosure agreement prior to the phone call. If he and Brodsky think that they can just say “look, man, this is not to be repeated, OK?” and think they can enforce it, good luck. Boobs.

  128. But now, according to Matt, they possibly have another author. Guess that means there may be another book deal in the works. Wonder if Brodsky is going to deny that one too.

  129. Is JB still talking about this on SYM? I am very happy to see a response from the journalist in his own words, rather than a recreation of them by Brodsky. That is exactly what I was hoping for. See it from the source, make my own conclusions.

  130. Facs, you’re a hoot. :D

    I need to try to get some work done this morning, but now folks are showing up on here, lol.

  131. Maybe Noway can shed some light on that Rescue. My guess would be that Joel is going to have a hard time coming up with something intelligent to respond to Matt’s response to Joel. Should be interesting if he says anything further. We can all use a good laugh from time to time.

  132. Rescue, sorry I had to shut down SYM in order to get my laptop to refresh here!

    I’ll be back on later today and can check then but I know there are others who were not banned who may be on in the meanwhile.

  133. Here’s an additional creepy thought.

    Imagine if the book idea was Selig’s. So, while he’s busy putting the spin on Drew as “Mr. Mom” – taking the kids to Meijers and making the sandwiches – he’s at the same time shopping for an author to ghost-write a book about Drew’s poor wives killing each other.

  134. My response to the LV blog of today:

    rescueapet Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    June 30, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Thanks so much for letting us read for ourselves what Mr. Phelps’ reaction was to Joel Brodsky’s comments regarding the interview. It is certainly much better to be able to read one’s reaction directly from the involved individual, rather than a recreated version from the opposing one.

    I am sure we can all process and come to our own conclusions about how the author came across during the interview in question, as well as his response to Mr. Brodsy’s claims.

    Again, thanks for giving us this opportunity to see the “other side.”

  135. Just popping in to add my 2 cents…. With all of this talk of a book – Whether there is or isn’t one, I really hope that John Q. Kelly, and who ever the attorney for Stacy is – Are all over this. I would hate to see JB or DP make one penny off of this tragedy.

    Also, am I the only one that doesn’t think the boys will be able to give much to the GJ? I just feel like they have been heavily coached by their father.

  136. Ewww, and now I’m imagining the scene where pregnant, hormone-crazed Stacy returns home to Drew (who has been frantically trying to reach her cell phone since he woke up to find her missing) and confesses to the terrible deed she has just committed. She sobs that she did it for him – for HIM. He holds her, his heart pounding, terrified, but for her sake he appears calm outwardly and tells her that everything will be alright. “Honey, I know how you both wanted me, and it was inevitable that this day would come. But now you’re the winner. I’m all yours”.

    Then come a few chapters about how he covers up the crime for her and how his fatal flaw is that he wants to help everyone because “that’s just the kind of guy Drew is.”

    Eventually, Stacy (the Wal-Mart whore) can’t help but show her true colors and throws it all in Drew’s face, cheats on him with assorted men and then dances off to Alcapulco, waving an undisclosed amount of money and a passport.

    Shower here.

    The person who actually does write this book is going to need a LOT of showers. I guess the contract includes a one-way ticket to hell?

  137. I’m speaking strictly for myself, but this so-called book from the point of view of Drew Peterson is no more craved by the public than the OJ Simpson book, If I Did It. The adverse reaction from pretty much anyone that can read past a 5th Grade level will be fierce. Reading a book that is one-sided, especially from the suspect’s point of view, just isn’t going to float too many boats.

  138. Good job Rescue. Thanks for speaking for me too.

    Harley: I really feel they were probably “coached” too, but who’s to know how they really feel and what they may have said. I sort of feel like their attorney (which Drew is paying for) may have helped try to persuade them in one direction or the other too. We shall see.

  139. I would think most people wouldn’t even want to put a book with his face on the jacket on their bookshelves.

  140. Actually Rescue, that was supposed to be for another post you made about the post you made to LV, but it applies to the book as well. Guess we’re on the same page again today.

    Facs, they should have hired you to write their book, lol!:D

  141. Thanks CFS – I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking that. I just hate that these boys have to go through this.

    I would never ever buy a book by these fools. I would just hope that if one comes about, that something like what happened to the OJ book would happen – The families get the rights to it rather than DP & JB.

  142. It’s funny because I’m usually a cheerleader for freedom of the press – especially the journalistic press – but the thought of this book has me fantasizing scenes from Farenheit 451.

    The man has no boundaries whatsoever. Isn’t there a whole separate circle of hell for people who kill and then slander their victims after death?

  143. http://www.crimerant.com/?p=1711

    Crimerant has been updated with some comments from Gregg Olsen.
    *****************

    Drew Peterson: Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

    It just gets better and better. Can you smell the desperation in the air? Drew Peterson’s lawyer is making threats against M. William Phelps (that’s Matt to his CR family) over comments made on Crime Rant Live radio last week…

    …if they’d done his due diligence at all, Brodsky would have known that Matt was not in the hunt for writing a sympathetic tome about Peterson at all. He posted this on CR on January 15th, when the Peterson circus started going from town to town like some kind of old school freak show:

    Turn on your TV, in fact, and look at the smut and trash we call entertainment. Now, our favorite former cop, the chief suspect in his wife’s disappearance, is somehow trying to take his situation and spin it into a profitable, 15-minutes of fame moment.

    Drew Peterson, the loveable media whore who we couldn’t get away from on TV during those initial moments when his wife went missing, has hired a publicist and, I’m guessing, an agent, too, and is not speaking to anyone, anymore, he said, unless he’s being paid.

    Is this not an incredible turn of events in this story? Does this man not have any morals whatsoever? Makes me want to write a book about this clown now and prove how dirty he actually is and expose the true sociopathic behavior he is exhibiting at the current moment.

    And Brodsky wanted Matt to write a book about his client?

  144. harleyjoey // June 30, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Also, am I the only one that doesn’t think the boys will be able to give much to the GJ? I just feel like they have been heavily coached by their father.
    ——————————————————-
    Good afternoon everyone.

    Harley-I am positive that the children have been coached by more people than just Drew. However, the professionals will be able to see through the lies. A trained professional will be able to get accurate testimony. They may try to fool the GJ, but I don’t think that it will work. The kids will get tripped up when they ask the same questions in different ways. IMO I feel sorry for the children.

  145. Maybe that is the other idea that Matt wanted to talk to them about … the trashing of Drew Peterson.

    And they declined.
    :D

  146. The automatically generated thread two at the top of this page was at the top of “home”… Now it’s listed as “a possibly related thread” so no big deal anymore Gatehouse sorry to alarm you.

  147. Oh, I’m sorry, but I’ve read Crimerant over a couple of times and it’s just laughable how much Drew Peterson’s limelight is losing it’s wattage, real fast. LOL.

  148. rescueapet // June 30, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    facsmiley – wow, I guess that is all over the place now, LOL.
    ***********************

    Well, that’s Matt and Gregg’s blog so I’m not surprised they’re writing about it.

  149. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Maybe that is the other idea that Matt wanted to talk to them about … the trashing of Drew Peterson.

    And they declined.
    **************
    :)

  150. cheena,
    gotchya…no worries…it got moved down the list when this thread was created. if ya’ll ever need to find another post or thread, just click on the “Front Page” at the top to go to our home page. All posts are listed there chronologically.

  151. sher69 // June 30, 2008 at 8:47 am

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=6235906
    Former Chicago area police sergeant Drew Peterson is expected in the courtroom this morning. Peterson is attempting to get back a rifle that was seized from his home last November during a raid related to his wife, Stacy’s disappearance. Stacy has been missing since last October. Police are still looking into whether Peterson is linked to the investigation.
    *******************************
    IS HE INDEED BACK IN CT. TODAY?
    ———————————————————
    No, he’s not in court today. It was changed to July 14, 2008

  152. Regarding court dates – July has a couple of things coming up, besides possible GJ.

    On 7/14, as ducky says, that’s the DP rifle hearing.

    On 7/22, MRobinson has domestic battery/battery cases (final) up.

    In the meantime, we have all of this other stuff to keep us busy.

    :)

  153. rescueapet // June 30, 2008 at 11:48 am

    I’m speaking strictly for myself, but this so-called book from the point of view of Drew Peterson is no more craved by the public than the OJ Simpson book, If I Did It. The adverse reaction from pretty much anyone that can read past a 5th Grade level will be fierce. Reading a book that is one-sided, especially from the suspect’s point of view, just isn’t going to float too many boats.
    _________________________

    “float too many boats”! Ha, his ship (BOOK) would sink like the Titanic!!!

  154. Hi everyone. Whew, I’ve just caught up with you all now (all day, on and off!)

    It’s always really bothered me that the boys’ lawyer is in DP’s pay. It would be hard for me not to accept that he wasn’t going to turn around and tell my dad everything I said. What’s to stop the lawyer telling JB all? …except that it’s illegal..they would do pretty much anything they thought they might get away with, though, IMO.

    Bash, my lovely, can you get decent tea in Alaska? We must compare notes sometime. I’m an expat, too, but went the opposite direction…Pacific Northwest to UK.

  155. bucketoftea // June 30, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Hi everyone. Whew, I’ve just caught up with you all now (all day, on and off!)

    It’s always really bothered me that the boys’ lawyer is in DP’s pay. It would be hard for me not to accept that he wasn’t going to turn around and tell my dad everything I said. What’s to stop the lawyer telling JB all?

    ***********************

    It is my understanding that the attorney is NOT present in the room while the questioning is going on. He is available outside of the room for the client to confer with, but he’s not able to be in the GJ room with him.

    So, if he questioned the young man after he was done with the GJ, he’d get the same answers he’d give anyone, including JB or even his father.

    Hope that helps.

  156. For those who aren’t inclined to pop over to Ashley’s blog, here’s her latest comment:

    “Ashley said…
    I am not posting any emails sent from me to drew because simply put I never sent one to him (my direct conversations with him were always in a yahoo pm – not to mention Internet Protocol can be got from emails ) now a few of you have asked why am I only posting Lil snips of the conversations, well its pretty simple why I am doing this, but I will explain just one reason why and that is because I know Joel would love to get his hands on what I got so he could TRY to pick it apart and make up lies like he & drew always do (sorta like why would the state give him rights to a discovery before a trial, well the same applys here, why would I let him see everything I have before I need to,I mean does anyone ever call thier enemy to give full details on what to expect ? What I post is plenty ) and as for why me & drew stopped talking ? you will have to draw your own conclusions on that one …”

    So, it looks as if she wanted to set him up from the start, if she was actually concerned about DP being able to access tthe info in her email headers. Do you all see it that way or…?

  157. oh….and, please, I’m not bashing, but thought I might mention one of those weird coincidences. All this discussion re Exlawenforcement (which I can’t really follow…I don’t know all these various nics and players from elsewhere (but what is *up* with that Big Mugabe? I was banned and didn’t post much, and not in an inflammatory way, I thought.)
    …anyway, this first time I came across exlax on a different forum altogether *ages*ago, and the reason I remembered the name, was that they were saying horrible slimy things, among which that they thought Stacy had killed Kathleen. Just sayin’.( Had no idea exlax was a woman, so think of them in the genderless pronouns.)

  158. facsmiley – it’s true, if she never sent him an email, that, I suppose, eliminates the IP address.

    On another point, she is right, she’s keeping her cards close to her vest, keeping the characters involved in suspense, just like LE is doing. So, that’s not such a wild idea.

    That PR guy better fire up his PR machine, because it’s getting real hot outside and he needs to cool the fires.

  159. Hello everyone, Wow you guys have been very busy! You guys are great, funding and posting these details. Yes jb can’t shut up any better than his client can. What a pair! I hope the prosecution has caught the “text message doesn’t mean dating” comment by jb that sher posted. LOVE IT! I’m off to work, I’ll have to catch up later. Have fun!

  160. rescueapet // June 30, 2008 at 2:08 am

    I’m thinking more and more that he had help relocating her body after he first disposed of her.

    The reason I think that is because he must have anticipated she’d be found within a short time, since LE says their theory is he planned on framing Scott Rosetto. Why else make a call from a cell phone in Shorewood unless that was part of the plan. Also, he knew they’d meet for coffee in a local restaurant, wherein, he joined in and started the guy down.

    He had no other reason, IMO, to leave his home for 3 days other than to tie up loose ends. By that, I mean, get help to move her body to a different location.

    Clearing his head for three days is a crock.

    I agree…I also believe he didn’t go that far from home but wants everyone to believe he was in Wisconsin
    Drew did not count on Cass acting so quickly I’m pretty sure he thought he had at least the weekend to carry everything out BEFORE she would be reported missing

    can anyone get an accurate quote for me regarding his phone call into work…I’ve seen a couple of different versions…but if he did indeed say he couldn’t come into work because she was “missing” it is all too reminiscent of Scott Peterson…remember what he said to Laci’s mother? “Laci’s missing”

    I’m sure those with the FBI have profiled Drew and I hope that if he is a true crime reader they looked at the books he possibly has about prolific killers…there may be something important there

    as far as Joel is concerned he’s scrambling…BIG TIME!

    If the non disclosure was verbal he can’t do squat and I have a really hard time believing that Joel’s license is valid…you NEVER agree to anything unless it’s in writing…a simple overnight would have sufficed. He’s more ignorant than I thought

    As far as Ashley is concerned…I think she’s the real deal…I think there is a bit of spite mixed in with disgust…not that she necessarily “fell” for Drew but that she got a good dose of what a shyt spewer he really is…being talked to about marriage one day and seeing the arm candy on TV the next wouldn’t sit well with many…whether she was serious about him or not

    And YES!!! Thank you for someone voicing exactly what I was thinking…if Joel believes flirting in text or online is not dating..then racy text messages DO NOT PROVE an affair!

    if they do…then Drew’s “marriage proposal” proves that Joel has an even bigger fool than himself for a client!

  161. Noway – when you see this and go back to SYM, could you pose a question to JB?

    Would you ask him:

    are your law partners in agreement with all that you are doing right now, such as shopping around book ideas, and posting your comments/theories on a blog concerning your client?

    If your partners are subjected to any adverse exposure due to perceived missteps by things you may say or do, what recourse do they have? Can they “fire” Drew Peterson as a client and “require” you to stop blogging and speaking out in the press?

    …..thanks, Noway!

  162. after reading dearhearts comment:

    Yeah, “Mr.” Brodsky, never underestimate the public when it comes to your client.

    The Internet is a very powerful, informative device that we have and use at our disposal. If it was said, read, shown, printed or heard, we will find it. Our memories are long. Of course, you already know that, since you’re apparently counting on that as we’ve watched your client over he past months tell us how unfairly he’s been treated, yet acting otherwise.

    Ah, that is for to laugh.

    (I wrote that exactly as I meant it!)

  163. I’m not surprised JB is prone to stupid errors…that’s what happen one succumbs to their greed. Worse in pairs or more, because they flatter and egg one another on…He was salivating and more, no doubt, that more fame and money was o the way.

  164. Noway, thanks for that link. This comment was priceless:

    An hour on the phone with Peterson and his flack and lawyer would make anyone reach for the hot water spigot and a bar of Dial.

  165. dang just reading about it on all the blogs makes me want to shower!

    blech!

    well if anything this writer has ruined any chances of Drew and Brodsky writing a book from that perspective…since Joel is in full blown denial about the content…but I suppose he’ll put some sort of spin on it when one does come out..that they have “evidence” that Stacy killed Kathleen…probably a text message or something

    lol

    I know I said it a long long time ago that they would “go there” and it looks like they have

    I asked Joel if he plans on suing Matt Phelps since he didn’t “retract” his statements

    let’s see what he says

  166. Dearheart – re: Joel suing Matt, he said this earlier:

    “I have a lawsuit for both reasons, he lied and he breached the non-disclosure. If you breach a non-disclosure with lies its still a breach. A non-disclosure means your not going to talk about it period. I am going to give him a chance to retract now before we take the next step…”

    According to Phelps they did find another author to write the book that Drew wanted, so if that’s the case Joel is lying about there not being a book deal…again.

  167. Excellent Dearheart! Joel’s reply, if he gives you one, should be interesting…to say the least.

  168. Sorry for any screw-ups, I have a sinus cold and it’s making me kind of stupid and off balance. I was playing fetch with the dog and I ended up socking him in the jaw…so now it hurts to type, too! :)

    P.S. The dog is fine. He had a bloody lip but he doesn’t seem to notice now.

  169. no problem…I think you see where I’m at? I know that Joel stated that he was giving Phelps a chance to retract…Phelps has replied and did NOT retract his statement…so let’s see if BIG BAD BRODSKY is gonna put his money where his mouth is…or should I say Drew’s money????

    no more playing fetch with a heavy head…one we need you here and two you’re dog will love you for it! lol :-)

  170. yeah Joel doesn’t want to answer any tough questions…and most of the time he answers questions WITH questions….grrrrr I really hate that..it’s very annoying!!!!!

    some questions he still has not answered

    how can Drew be so sure she’s not coming back for her stuff or her kids?

    have abandonment charges been filed?

    someone said you have to wait a year to file abandonment in Illinois…I’m not so sure about that and am currently looking into it…because if that is the case then if we go with Drew’s story she could walk back in at any moment and take all 4 of the kids…you think he would take more care to keep that from happening

    again Joel isn’t answering the questions with any meat to them…just these accusations about the book…he thinks he’s proven their side…everything he’s posted proves nothing, an email with the writer asking for a meeting doesn’t prove the content of their book discussion the only thing it may prove is that the writer may not have been as disgusted as he claimed about that content…but then again his email to CS is subjective as to what exactly all of the issues are

    I just love how when anyone says anything to contradict Drew they all are either “hormonal””crazy””drug addicts””drunks””money mongers””Liars”

    if they are talking about writing a book from Drew’s perspective I think we will see all of the above from that group!!!!

  171. How does Brodsky know that Phelps didn’t immediately shower again after writing the email? He never said that he didn’t entertain the idea of writing the book. He just said that he found Drew disgusting.

  172. Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Result #1 Today at 3:08pm »

    ——————————————————————————–

    Today at 3:02pm, joelbrodsky wrote:I am respond to what Phelps said: That we asked him to slam the ex’s and put Kathleen’s death on Stacy. (sorry about the mispelling though) We deny both.
    ~~~~~~~~~

    Mr. Brodsky, Im sorry, but of course you would.. We all didnt fall out of the sky yesterday….

  173. Re: Q&A Joel Brodsky
    « Reply #417 Today at 2:53pm » [Quote]
    Here is the response to Mr. Phelps that I just posted on the http://johngrant.wordpress.com/2008/06/3….-vs-the-author/

    Guess what Mr. Phelps, we do DENY that we asked you to slam Drew’s ex-wifes, and we do DENY that we wanted to put Kathleen’s death on Stacy. You lied when you said that. We are glad that you recorded the conversation, even though it is illegal for you to do so. (BTW if you recoded the phone conversation you should consult your lawyer because conneticut is a two party notification state. Did you just admit that on the internet that you committed a crime? Not to smart for a “True Crime Author” and “Investigative Reporter”.) But don’t just play snippits, play the whole thing if you are going to play anything. And go ahead and release any e-mail you want. We have nothing to hide.

    Joel’s post regarding his response to Phelps previous response….my question regarding Joel’s post

    okay so if that wasn’t going to be the content what was?

    a “kind” account of these women???

    because so far publicly we haven’t heard many nice things out of your clients mouth…or your’s for that matter, so maybe that’s why it’s so easy to believe Matt Phelps when he says that is what you both wanted the content to be, I don’t agree with him IF he is lying about the request but maybe that should send the message to your client not to make disparaging remarks about a dead woman and a missing wife?

    so was this to be a book from Drew’s perspective as we’ve already seen it, comments about menstrual cycles and dancing for male attentions?…or a tragic tale of a misunderstood man?

  174. Thanks Sher. He’s responding to whom? The people on SYM? Doesn’t say anything about a rebuttal to Matt Phelps. Maybe because he won’t since Matt taped the conversation and has proof of who said what?? He can deny whatever he wants, but that surely doesn’t mean anyone has to believe him. Just sounds like another empty threat against the good guys is all.

  175. I’m flabbergasted…yes Sher…that’s right…ME flabbergasted!!!!!

    lol

    deny deny deny deny….if that wasn’t going to be the content what was?

    I seriously doubt Brodsky will answer and if he does it’ll be something lame like another answer to my question with a question like

    “you tell me if you were writing a tell all book would you give away what the content is or would you wait until it hits store shelves??? if we give that away no one will buy our book now would they?”

    some BS like that…he very rarely answers my questions directly usually always with another question for me…I have already asked myself every question possible about every scenario…and have answered myself too!!! I want HIS response and he’s pussyfooting around!

    grrrrr

  176. well that’s just the thing

    he posts this and says it’s his response to Phelps statement today….but he didn’t answer my question

    Since Phelps did NOT retract his statement as Brodsky requested with the threat of lawsuit…is Brodsky now going to file suit against this writer?

    he won’t answer me…I would have to venture that he’s not going to because he really can’t

    if he could he wouldn’t be in a war of words with this guy via the internet he would just do it IMO

    could it be that that is exactly what the content was supposed to be and because Brodsky blundered in not getting a SIGNED agreement he’s trying to posture and intimidate this writer?

    it’s starting to look that way to me!

  177. Well Dearheart, just as I sent my last post, you sent Brodsky’s repsonse to Matt. I will not surprise me if Matt just gets his attorney to handle Brodsky from here on out. He doesn’t seem to be the type to want to continue yayaing back and forth on the Internet. Besides, he said in his last response to Joel that he was done with it, and wasn’t going to say anymore. We’ll see.

  178. Oh yes, I believe his career choice makes him a pussyfootin fool!! I dont know wth is going on , but being 3 were on that GS,DP, JB and they may serve as witnesses to what was agreed verbally. Now, we will see wth Phelps will say to all this.. Of course he will NOT tell you anything about books content, He wants ya to squirm!!! IDK already with all of this chit.. Phelps needs to get the ball back in his court NOW!!!

  179. I think that is exactly what Matt is going to do…what is Brodsky really thinking????

    if this writer “broke the law” Brodsky should handle it in a court of law because that is what he’s getting paid to do…besides there is his own reputation as well…this writer didn’t just “lie” about Drew he lied about Brodsky and Selig too…according to Joel

    the correct forum would be in a courtroom right? but maybe courtrooms intimate Brodsky?

    he says time and time again that Drew is innocent until proven guilty…will not answer questions about money or a time line but will spar with this guy over the internet while pontificating legalities…on the internet?????

    if he has cause for a suit anything he responds to can and will also be used against him…and he’s peacocking???

    truly the dumbest lawyer I’ve ever seen!!! and I’ve seen my share of dumb lawyers but this guy totally takes the cake!

    I love how this guy is a “liar”

    but everything that Ashley is posting by Joel’s definition is a woman scorned? By Joel’s definition they weren’t “dating” and flirting with someone doesn’t mean that they are…but anonymous text messages “means” Stacy was cheating?

    pot kettle…kettle pot

    uggggh

    again I’m flabbergasted!!!!!

  180. It’s funny, Joel gave a link to the “Crime in Vegas” blog but I don’t see his comment there. Did he email Denny? Why doesn’t he just fight it out on Matt’s blog?

    If you go to the ‘Drew Peterson’ category on Gregg and Matt’s Crimerant blog you can see all of their blog posts about him. They’ve NEVER liked him. It’s kind of bizarre that Selig approached Matt about writing the book when you see what the two of them have been saying about Drew all along. No wonder the hair was standing up on the back of Matt’s neck.

    “The Cowardly Lyin’, Drew Peterson is without a doubt one of 2007’s most vile, egotistical people.”

    “Talk about bottom of the barrel (as in a blue one that might hold his dead wife’s body), doesn’t Drew Peterson make you want to puke?”

  181. I’ve always had a pretty strong gag reflex until this putz came along

    when I was a kid there was this guy that worked with my dad…feathered hair…unbuttoned shirt….gold chain with medallion and he strutted

    I thought he was the smarmiest guy ever…until Drew!!!!

    he makes that guy look like a real “catch”

  182. I wondered about the notification of recording the call … I worked for an insurance company and every department whose calls were recorded had to start out with “Your call is being recorded” … had to do this with every call they handled, even internal calls.

    Who is telling the truth … Joel seems so sure …

  183. If Phelps is lying, he had a long time to think about what he was going to say. I don’t know what his motivation would be for doing it now.

  184. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Why fight it out on the blogs? Why not handle it in a lawyerly fashion?
    ***************
    Yes, better that. But if he does want to fight it out in a blog, why the “vegas crime’ blog?

    Sometimes he just does seem stupid.

  185. because he has a publisher and I bet that publisher has lawyers and they were consulted before he ever was allowed to say anything…if Joel knows anything he knows that this guy has lawyers or at least the publisher does and since the publisher was part of the meeting I will guarantee their lawyers have been consulted!!!

    Phelps just can’t go around making these statements as a sort of “representative” of the publisher without consultation…the publisher would drop him like a hot biscuit!

    now if he does get dropped then we may have a very good idea as to why…but if he doesn’t over this I’m going with he’s done nothing illegal and the lawyers gave him the go ahead!

    I don’t think we’ll here more from him directly sort of speak..meaning his posted responses…it will probably be some sort of disclaimer such as “all correspondence is to be directed to my attorney” yadda yadda yadda

  186. dearheart88 // June 30, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    I’ve always had a pretty strong gag reflex until this putz came along

    when I was a kid there was this guy that worked with my dad…feathered hair…unbuttoned shirt….gold chain with medallion and he strutted

    I thought he was the smarmiest guy ever…until Drew!!!!

    +++++++++++++++
    Was his name Mike?

  187. no it was “Bill”

    he called himself “Buffalo Bill” because, according to him he was “hung like a baffalo” blech!!!

    he would snap his gum and make that click click noise while making guns with his fingers….simply nauseating!!!!!

    but I’m happy to see I’m not the only one who’s met one of these in my life!!!

    but like I said Drew’s got him beat!

  188. Dear, I was actually asking if it was someone we ALL know. :D But yes, absolutely I have seen one or two of those types guys before too…..they think they are the answer to every woman’s dreams…..not.

  189. Facs, I’m so sorry to hear about your cold and your hurt hand. Hope you get better real soon!! :D

  190. lol DOH!

    I get who you mean!!! lmao!

    he keeps blocking everyone he’s not going to have a board!????

  191. Illinois State Law for Taping Phone Calls:

    Illinois is, by statute, a two-party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks – NOT law enforcement). The reigning consensus is that one-party consensual recording is merely “enhanced note-taking” and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.
    —————————————————–
    Federal Laws for Taping Phone Calls:

    Federal Exceptions
    Consent: In the absence of more restrictive state law, it is permissible to intercept and record a telephone conversation if one or both of the parties to the call consents. Consent means authorization by only one participant in the call; single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).

    “Business telephone” exception
    The “business telephone” exception, which generally allows monitoring of calls and taping over an extension phone which is both provided to a subscriber in the ordinary course of a telephone company’s business and is being used by that subscriber in the ordinary course of its business. This provision generally permits businesses to monitor the conversations of their employees, including personal conversations.

    ——————————————————–
    Either way, Phelps was allowed to record the conversation and was not required to notify the other party. Only one party has to consent and that would be Phelps.

    LOL!

  192. M. William Phelps Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
    Two party state, indeed. I asked my agent, who was on the phone with me FIRST during that conference call, if he minded that I tape record. He said no. Also, NY is a one-party state. My agent called me from NY.

    Also, the email Joel released from me had this with it: “Notice: The information contained in this email and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete all copies of this email and any attachments immediately from your computer system. You should not retain, copy or use this email or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of M. William Phelps. Thank you.”

    Furthermore, as Gregg pointed out during our interview, I was clearly speaking my opinions about the call and NOT disclosing any information from it. I’m done with this. I will not facilitate further media publicity for them.

    I certanly DO NOT need to defend myself.

    M. William Phelps

  193. Another archived pm right before he goes on the Larry King live show , tells me he loves me , yada yada . Also I have not seen Ole Drew-cifer come online for a few days , so I started thinking maybe Joel or Glen got some smarts about themselves and told him to stay off the Internet but I was wrong , I decided to use a program to check his online status ( I used nothing illegal Joel so calm down – no chance for a law suit here pal ) and sure enough while my yahoo messenger showed him offline / not lit up , the program I was using did in fact show him as being online in stealth mode – guess this blog and the book deal that he’s been exposed for has him doing some ONLINE HIDING – too funny , once again Drew you’re busted .

  194. facs-the author was “merely enhanced note-taking.” That saying make me chuckle. LOL

    I just saw Phelps response. I guess that I beat him to it. Well, if I can figure that out, I’m sure that the author is way smarter than me. ;)

  195. facs-the author was “merely enhanced note-taking.” That saying makes me chuckle. LOL

    I just saw Phelps response. I guess that I beat him to it. Well, if I can figure that out, I’m sure that the author is way smarter than me. ;)

  196. I hope Ashley is being careful. She might get served with a cease and desist if this gets too stalker-y.

    But by then I’m sure the Enquirer will have contacted her so…it’s all good.

  197. dearheart88 // June 30, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    I don’t think we’ll here more from him directly sort of speak..meaning his posted responses…it will probably be some sort of disclaimer such as “all correspondence is to be directed to my attorney” yadda yadda yadda
    **************************
    Dearheart you called it too, with the exception of the one message!

  198. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Rescue … you had me going through these threads again and I found a reply from Joel about legal discourse. Not sure if it was posted here and I missed it both places … thanks for getting me back in there!

    Re: Peterson Case Discussion # 3
    « Reply #111 Yesterday at 11:23am »

    I have a lawsuit for both reasons, he lied and he breached the non-disclosure. If you breach a non-disclosure with lies its still a breach. A non-disclosure means your not going to talk about it period. I am going to give him a chance to retract now before we take the next step.
    As to Ashley, the fact she doesn’t post all the threads, but only picks out a few small portions, just confirms my prior statement. There is nothing more to say.
    ___________________

    Personally, what she has posted thus far is enough for me. He is truly scum.

  199. I’m trying to catch up and this is like reading two trashy novels at the same time!!!! I do enjoy reading all of your comments.

  200. Recording Telephone Calls with Parties in Different Jurisdictions
    Federal law may apply when the conversation is between parties who are in different states, although it is unsettled whether a court will hold in a given case that federal law “pre-empts” state law, but either state may choose to enforce its own laws.

    The Role of FCC
    The FCC’s role in assisting consumers who believe their telephone conversations were unlawfully recorded is generally limited to ensuring that telephone companies enforce their tariff provisions regarding recording of telephone conversations. “The only penalty that can be enforced by the local carrier is revocation of telephone service. (In the Matter of Use of Recording Devices in Connection with Telephone Service)”
    —————————————————–
    Darn! hehe
    “The only penalty that can be enforced by the local carrier is revocation of telephone service”

  201. I can’t say enough how glad and appreciative I am, speaking only for me, that Matt Phelps posted his responses to Joel Brodsky, rather than us having to read and swallow one side, that being Brodsky’s.

    I’m sure, now, Mr. Phelps’ lawyer will advise him on how or how not to answer anymore, if at all.

    I would venture to say that Mr. Phelps had legal counsel advise him up to this point before he did even respond any further.

    Brodsky just has such an uncouth way of expressing himself. Even if all or part of what he says is, in fact, true or legally sound, who the heck would believe him? Who would believe a lawyer (mind you, there’s plenty of lawyers in total on the defense team) that blogs and responds to all kinds of things flying around out there. I’ve always thought that he can’t control his client and get him to shut up, but he’s obviously suffering with the same affliction.

    But, it makes for exciting blogging.

  202. that last IM with him she posted seriously made me throw up a little in my mouth!

    disgusting!!!!

    reminded….DON’T eat before reading Ashley’s blog

    gah!

    as far as the writer is concerned if Brodsky really had a case he would shut up and file it already…I asked the question over on SYM and again doubt I’ll get an answer

    if that wasn’t going to be in the content of the book then what was? ALL GOOD THINGS?

    if that is the case then at some point Drew lied?

    right?

    he’s been slamming his ex’s and their families since the beginning…so if he didn’t want to slam any of them and say everything that is good when was he telling the truth?

    I need to go gargle!

  203. Oh, that was another bad thing to see. Another wreck that I shouldn’t have looked at but did anyway.

    Oh, that was a very bad thing to see.

  204. Facsmiley – When I read one of your posts above that said:

    Drew Peterson: Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

    At first I thought they changed the name of the book! :) :cool

    Also another thought to JB – Hun, this is not a court of law. IT IS THE INTERNET. So why do you keep trying to PROVE yourself to bloggers???? Just boggles my mind…..

  205. harleyjoey // June 30, 2008 at 6:36 pm said:
    Also another thought to JB – Hun, this is not a court of law. IT IS THE INTERNET. So why do you keep trying to PROVE yourself to bloggers???? Just boggles my mind…..

    ************************

    I couldn’t agree with you more! How ’bout it?

    If Drew were a “normal” human being, this all would be enough to stress anyone out to the max, especially if your professing your innocence and meeting constantly with lawyers, while trying to maintain a household, take care of four minor children, and have your fun time, all at the same time. If this guy doesn’t blow a gasket soon, I don’t don’t know what to think. Is he subhuman, like a zombie, or what?

  206. “my heart belongs to you”

    gag!

    how could his heart belong to her when it belongs to Kim…or was that Stacy it belonged to???

    seriously I wonder how many more females online are going to come forward? the more I read Ashley’s blogs the more I do think she is a woman scorned…but not making things up….I think he did promise her all these things and love and marriage and then POW!!!! Enter Kim Matuska!!!! I would be pretty po’d too if someone told me they loved me and I found they were carrying on with someone else! regardless who it is and whether or not my feelings were mutual…she caught him in his BS and now he’s getting burned!!! and burned badly!

    ouch! must be hot in Illinois right about now!

  207. WOW… Trying to get through reading this after noon’s posts. Y’all are good.

    Dearheart – Where you talked about how can he be so sure she isn’t coming back for her stuff and kids….. To me he sure does seem confident that she won’t be coming back. At least from what I read on “Ashley’s” chats. He is planning for the divorce in November – hmmmmmmmm

  208. harleyjoey // June 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    To me he sure does seem confident that she won’t be coming back. At least from what I read on “Ashley’s” chats. He is planning for the divorce in November – hmmmmmmmm
    ********************************

    And that was in March. I suppose he would say that he was going to divorce her regardless, since she ‘ran away’. But still….

  209. yep!

    exactly Harley…if his story were correct he wouldn’t let those kids ever out of his site…because she could come back at any time and take them and disappear again…not much he could do about it…they are still married, apparently he can’t file abandonment charges on her until a year has passed or file for the divorce…so legally speaking she can show up at any time take ALL 4 of the kids and leave! so instead of staying home and having them under his watchful eye..he goes out to the bars and presumably leaves the children in the care of the teens…while he’s out she could walk in…grab all of the kids and leave and not much he can do about it…she’s done a good job hiding out so far hasn’t she?? (sarcasm of course) the two older kids may biologically be his but LEGALLY they are both his AND Stacy’s…Yep in November he’ll get his divorce and sole custody and all of Stacy’s possessions he can sell to the highest bidder since they are now worth so much more than they were worth before he became a “celebrity” If he didn’t already know she can’t come home or we are to believe his fained “concern” for her safety he would tell anyone that offered up a price on his missing wife to PISS OFF! no instead he’s counting the days….anticipating that big “pay off” when he gets to sell off his old life and try to build a new one with some twit who buys his ballad of BS

    sorry ranting again….seriously…I’m in AWWWW

    and disgust!

  210. Unfortunatley Rescue… I think he is like a zombie. Incapable of any real feelings. Pretty soon Wikipedia will have a picture of Drew next to the definition of narcisist :)

    Breaks my heart for those poor kids…….

  211. I hate to even mention this after my last nauseating comment, but Bash…..I made pork tenderloins with sauteed Shitake mushrooms for dinner. ALWAYS think of you now when Shitakes are on the menu. :D

  212. cfs – Don’t worry – I don’t think Basherette will take offense. Not when she sees you made Shitakes!

  213. Evening All –

    Busy place this has been today.

    My thoughts, we’re watching a pissing match between JB and Phelps, neither seems to have a brain cell. We all know JB speaks too much, but Phelps, well he’s not helping the matter at all.

    As for Ashley, she’s full of Caca. She never emailed him, please Ashley, stop already. I don’t believe that for one minute. There is something very wrong with this young women. Actually, she and Drew seem like they might actually make a happy couple.

    My gut tells me she is praying and hoping one of the rags approach her for her story, hence the not showing us everything, or she isn’t showing us everything, because she was more an active participatant then she wants us to believe.

    As far as the book deals, I’ll bet you each and every player in this saga has been approach and offered a deal. We don’t know what many of them might have already agreed to.

    I know people dont like to hear this, nor believe it, but this case has lost it’s legs. Except for a core group of “crime junkie” myself included, many people have tossed this case to the wayside. A perfect example the Neil Entwistle case. He killed his wife and 9 month old daughter, it had all the stuff we love, supposed affairs, international mystery etc, and you could walk into that court room anyday of the trial, and hardly anyone was there.

    I personally don’t care for Drew nor his actions, I believe he might have done something to his wifes, just not 100 % certain yet.

    The saddest part is, Stacy and Kathleen are hardly every spoken about. It’s become a circus, and I blame many people for that.

    Ok, sorry off my soap box now.

    Everyone have a good day? :)

  214. Dear, you make excellent points. Yes, if Stacy REALLY ran off, Drew would never know when she might reappear and take the children. Since he obviously doesn’t seem concerned about that possiblity (actions speak louder than words) then he must know he doesn’t really have to worry about that happening. For whatever it’s worth, I just wish he see what his trying to play innocent is doing to his children, especially when he has already put them through one of the worst things imaginable. He really just doesn’t seem to care about anything or anyone but himself. Even that little tryst with Ashley was for his benefit. She was just someone else to string along and eventually hurt.

    Drew is like a tornado, mowing down anything or anyone that gets in his way and leaving a path of destruction behind.

  215. Hope not Rescue, lol. Thanks for making the blog more interesting these last couple of days. It’s always fun to have more “stuff” on Drew to discuss until the GJ makes their decision. If anything else comes in your google email, please be sure to share. This book deal gone wrong was REALLY interesting!! :D

  216. LTTBF says: The saddest part is, Stacy and Kathleen are hardly every spoken about. It’s become a circus, and I blame many people for that.
    —————————————————-
    I agree with you 100%. It’s very sad that nobody is talking about the victims anymore. I have felt this way for a long time. The focus has been on so many things other than the right thing. This is about 2 women and the 4 children and very few people seem to care about them anymore. The women’s voices have been silenced. IMO

    Stay up on your soapbox. It suits you just fine. ;)

  217. Another thought since I’m at it….lol.

    It’s the summer, many festivals are happening all over the place, parades etc.

    Why doesn’t FSP go to these parades, march, hand out fliers, set up a booth on domestic violence, missing person’s etc?

    They have to somehow bring these women back into the spotlight. It might be too late for either of these women, but it could help many other’s.

    And it wouldn’t cost a thing!!!!!

  218. I am sorry nobody is talking about Stacy and Kathleen … but they ARE talking about the suspect.

    And for some families, no part of the case gets talked about at all, and their loved ones’ cases just disappear altogether.

    Take what you can get, I guess.

  219. Good thought about the booth and handing out flyers … from your keyboard to FSP’s fingers.
    :)

  220. I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but I think about those kids more than anything. The justice that needs to come is for the living – it’s too late for KS and SP.

    But Thomas and Kristopher – how much more can they handle?

    LTTBF – I respectfully disagree with your comment about Phelps “not helping the matter at all.” Actually, I was surprised and very happy that he, in fact, did respond. I was mistaken thinking that we’d have to listen to the same old mopey garbage spew from JB, without the benefit of a reply from Mr. Phelps. I even sent an email to Phelps last night with Brodsky’s comments about his interview, hoping, but not expecting, that he would respond. He did respond on his website, and I am glad. Now, I hope that it gets resolved by the lawyers. I know Mr. Phelps probably has one, but Brodsky, well…….??????

  221. Let, you make a lot of good points, and from my perspective, I think part of the reason that Kathleen and Stacy aren’t discussed as much anymore is that we’ve all said just about all we know to say about them. They’re gone and they’re not making anymore headlines. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t in our thoughts and their families aren’t in our prayers, espceially the children. But you can only say that so often before everybody on the Internet knows that you are thinking about them and praying for them. The both have pretty much made all of the news they’re going to unless something else is discovered.

    The reason Drew and his attorney seem to be the main topic of conversation most of the time is because of what they do in the “here and now.” If they behaved themselves and kept their mouths shut, it would be like most other cases that “have lost their legs” as you say. Although I personally don’t think this one has, and I’m by no means a “crime junkie.” I’ve never followed a case before and have no desire to follow another one after this one is done.

    As far as book deals, you may be right about other players in this being courted by publishers. However, as far as I know, none of them have been asked and then publicly denied there was anything in the works. That’s why this whole thing is relevant to many of us. Just more lies from Drew and his camp, and many of us are not buying it, or much of anything he tried to spoon feed the public. JMO. :D

  222. lol
    I’m not banned from SYM but interestingly … when I logged on a few minutes ago, I had to indicate whether I was male or female … but it also let me hide that information. Hadn’t noticed that I hadn’t checked a box for that. :D

    FYI, I am not Ashley! :D

  223. Hmmm Noway. I’m wondering why it would matter so much that you had to declare one or the other…..and yes, we know you are NOT Ashley, lol!

  224. Rescue, I see your point. It just seems to be mudding the waters a bit more. Sometime the high road is best. I tend to think both parties are telling portions of the story that are true.

    I couldn’t agree more about the kids, all of them.

    I would hope, and I want to believe, with this being as high profile as it is locally, the authorities, DCFS, Will County Guardian etc have all checked and continue to check on the kids. I know they can’t do much about the emotional health, but they can keep an eye on them. As I think BB has said, the oldest is doing wonderful in school, thank God for that.

    Which bring me to another part of the puzzle I can’t figure out, and maybe you can all help me with this.

    Let’s say Stacy did want a divorce, and custody of the children. First of all, at that point there would be no reason for the Judge to not give them joint custody.

    Why would he want to murder her, knowing damn well he would have to care for 2 very young children, and 2 teenagers. He would know that would cut into his “social” time. He is a 50 + year old man, it can’t be easy taking care of the little one’s.

    As far as paying child support, it seems to me that Drew has never, ever had a problem making money. They were living quiet well off one income.

    So if he did murder her, I have to believe it wasn’t planned, it was something that happened in a heat of an argument etc.

  225. Let said: So if he did murder her, I have to believe it wasn’t planned, it was something that happened in a heat of an argument etc.
    +++++++++++++
    Bingo!

  226. Something bothering me about the last chat Ashley posted. Drew just professed his “love” to her, and when they sign off he calls hr by her screenname (notice she blacked out name)? I did ask her the question. Just seems weird. Good night Max435 I love you, just seems off a little.

  227. Give, that whole Ashley thing stinks to high heaven to me.

    She isn’t being completely honest.

  228. Calm down everyone, that is a proboards thing. I got it at Kimmer’s and another non related board.

  229. IMO the thought of having to murder was in Drew’s head but no actual plan.

    During their argument, he killed her.

    Not that he hadn’t thought that it might be a possibility (him having to kill her to shut her up). But I don’t think he intended to do it that day or necessarily ever if she stayed in line … it just happened.

  230. Giveit, lol, that’s funny. I saw that too and figured it was a double name like Mary Ashley and Laura Ashley, or something like that that she didn’t want to be seen.

  231. giveitarest // June 30, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Calm down everyone, that is a proboards thing. I got it at Kimmer’s and another non related board.
    _________
    lol
    I just posted that I wasn’t Ashley. That’s the only reason I could figure they’d want to know. :D No problem, and thanks for the input!

  232. Who is to say that the “Ashley” part is even her real name. Did she refer to Drew as “BPD959″?
    :D

  233. Lol Noway! And you know how that Drew is…..he’s such a jokester and all. He may have thought it was cute to call her by her screen name when he told her he loved her….barf!

  234. I wonder if she’s “lil_ashley” since she uses “lil” more than any person I’ve ever met … including Sher69! :D

  235. OT:

    Rescue, I’m posting this for you, what do think about those quotes…..(sigh)

    Chicago police have been involved in at least eight shootings in the last two weeks, including five that were fatal.

    Saturday’s marchers claimed the deadly force has been unwarranted.

    “Enough is enough. If you cant’ do the job, you’re scared to come to our neighborhoods, maybe you need to find another profession,” said Ashanda Harrison, the aunt of a shooting victim.

    “You expect them [children] to get shot, growing up in the city, by some thugs on the streets, but not by the Chicago Police Department,” said another woman attending the march, who was identified as a shooting victim’s mother.

  236. cfs7360 // June 30, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Let said: So if he did murder her, I have to believe it wasn’t planned, it was something that happened in a heat of an argument etc.
    +++++++++++++
    Bingo!
    ___________

    I believe this too. He knew she wanted a divorce …. and did not like it one bit. I think it may very well have been an accident – He hit her in the heat of the moment.??? . He never in a million years could have anticipated the media attention.

  237. You may be on to something there Noway. It would be weird if it were numbers. So maybe it is an adjective…sexy, hot..

  238. Let, your post was not addressed to me, but I wondering what the other side of this was. Why did the police shoot them? Were they involved in a crime, or did the police just go out shooting them randomly…..not likely.

    In the city where I live, in some neighborhoods, if certain people get shot, even in an attempted robbery or an assault, there are people who blame the police for shooting the offender….not the offender who caused the police to be there in the first place. So, what’s the other side of this story? And what’s your take on it?

  239. giveitarest // June 30, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    You may be on to something there Noway. It would be weird if it were numbers. So maybe it is an adjective…sexy, hot..
    ________
    Psycho.
    :D

    Okay. I apologize. But it’s the first thing that came to my mind.

  240. cfs, it’s that way here all the time. I remember not to long ago hearing a mother of one of the victims say, “I knew he had a gun, but did they have to shot to kill him, couldnt they have just shot him in the leg”

    The shooting are rule justifiable. These are gang bangers etc getting shot.

    I just love the quote that they expect to get shot….WTF, hears some news Mama, move outta the hood if you EXPECT your child is gonna be shot.

  241. Cop’s atty: Alleged rape victim not credible

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/news/1032062,WA30_haynes_s1.article

    June 30, 2008

    BY NICHOLAS ALAJAKIS nalajakis@scn1.com

    WAUKEGAN–A lawyer for the former Waukegan police officer accused of raping a woman while on duty said today that the alleged victim is not credible.

    Citing information received from an internal investigation against Delatwon Haynes, defense attorney ,b>Joel Brodskysaid some of the victim’s statements should not be taken seriously, because she might have been on drugs while being interviewed by police.

    The Waukegan Police Department’s official complaint against Haynes, obtained by the News-Sun, says that while speaking to officers about the alleged rape, the victim had to excuse herself because she was a heroin addict and she needed to “take care of herself and she would be back.” She returned to the police department after an hour, and an interview with internal investigators continued.

    “What we know, is that she was certainly on heroin on at least half her statement. How reliable is a heroin addict?” Brodsky said.

    Waukegan Police Chief William Biang said the woman did not leave an interview with officers to get high. The reasons for her leaving are unspecified.

    “Certainly our officers wouldn’t allow her to do that,” Biang said.

    Furthermore, the woman’s addiction should not jeopardize her story, he added.

    “Just because somebody has an addiction doesn’t mean they can’t be the victim of a sexual assault,” Biang said.

    Haynes, a seven year veteran of the police department until his resignation in January, is accused of assaulting a then-Waukegan woman in January of this year. He was charged last week with four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, one count of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated sexual abuse and eight counts of misconduct and is currently being held in the Lake County Jail on $2 million bond.

    The accuser claims she was walking near Whittier School on Lewis Avenue around midnight on Jan. 6, when Haynes stopped his patrol car and began talking to her. The internal report states that while speaking with her Haynes patted the woman down and found a crack pipe. The report also states that Haynes, 32, of Zion, fondled the woman’s breasts and commented on her tattoos and her lack of underwear. The report continues that Haynes then let the woman go and told her to go home.

    An hour later the woman was approached by Haynes as she walked on Grand Avenue and offered to give her a ride home. On the way there they allegedly stopped in a parking lot in the 1700 block of Lewis Avenue, where Haynes engaged in oral sex, during which the victim said she was crying and asked Haynes not to kill her. Moments later, he allegedly pulled a condom out of his pocket and the two had sex for 30 minutes.

    The internal report does not state that she asked Haynes to stop, nor does it state that she asked him to proceed. Afterwards, Haynes reportedly took off the condom, tossed it on the ground and drove the woman to the area of Julian Street and County Street where he let her go. The woman was able to pick up the condom and wrapper, which was later matched to condoms in Haynes work locker.

    The day after the alleged attack, the accuser phoned police to complain, but didn’t leave her name. Police tracked her down by tracing her number to an address on County Street. When contacted, the woman refused medical attention and said she’d speak to police after obtaining a lawyer.

    “There’s no doubt in my mind that there was no non-consensual sex,” Brodsky said.

    Lake County Chief Felony Prosecutor Patricia Fix said she could not comment on portions of the investigation not yet revealed in court.

    Haynes resigned from the Waukegan Police Department on Jan. 11, as police were wrapping up an investigation. A month later the victim filed a $5 million lawsuit against Haynes and the City of Waukegan.

    Haynes is due in court Wednesday, when Brodsky said he’ll file a motion to lower his bond.

  242. Just weird, seems to break the conversation “flow”. Who knows, oh well, just an observation.

  243. I wonder if anyone here agrees with this…You guys and gals are so awesome here, especially at research…I give it two more days tops and we’ll know who “Ashley” really is including most if not all of her internet alias’s…

  244. Oh and my take. The cops are out numbered and out gunned. These gangs have zero respect for the human being.

    Of course, there are always a handful of dirty cops, but cops don’t just run the streets shooting these people, but that’s what the Mama’s would like everyone to believe.

  245. LTTBF – what do I think? The ones getting shot by the police are the very ones that are robbing, doping and killing the sons of these women. They “expect” thugs to kill them, but not the police? OMG. What does that tell you.

    What I think? Lawyer cards are flying in their faces at the speed of light, and they’re all thinking “show me the money.” That’s all it is about.

  246. rescueapet // June 30, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but I think about those kids more than anything. The justice that needs to come is for the living – it’s too late for KS and SP.

    But Thomas and Kristopher – how much more can they handle?

    ________________

    Rescue.. you often write what I am thinking. These kids are the innocent victims in this mess. I think – what is going to happen to them when their dad is arrested? I also hope that the ISP is taking this into consideration. Afterall, these kids are (IMO) about to loose 2 parents. I really hope that all of this is being taken into consideration. And I still say to DREW – YOUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU! NEVER EVER. As they get older, they will see what you are for themselves…. just like Eric has seen you for what you are! MONSTER!

  247. You would think that if you’d professed your love for someone and asked her to marry you, she’d let you call her Ashley and not by her given name ?_Ashley.

    Heck, none of you guys have told me you loved me or asked me to marry you (thank God) and I let you call me noway and not noway406!
    ;)

    Oh, as a thought … that’s the area code for Montana (406) so maybe she is 406_Ashley (but with her own area code).

    The possibilities are endless. :D

  248. Chateua –

    Interesting article, and Brodsky has a new client.

    Story sounds a bit fishy on the young ladies part to me, but we will see.

  249. And Rescue, the City has to stop paying out all these dirt bags. I get it that it’s cheaper sometime to pay it out, then to go to trial, but it has to stop somewhere.

    These are no ANGELS being shot and killed.

  250. OMG I forgot to tell you all about the license plate today that actually made me laugh, and smile….it was simple……Hi Ofiser!!!!

  251. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    ___________

    LMAO… you need to apply to be on “Last Comic standing” It isn’t often that I am caused top spray fluids from my nose.

    But thanks for that…. :)

  252. Yes, the cash flow has to stop, and yes, these are no angels. These woman, and whoever else, are as afraid to walk out their front doors and anyone is their neighborhoods because the thugs are shooting at each other like the Wild, Wild West. But, as long as that check says “pay to the order of dead man’s mama, they’ll march their brains out for justice

  253. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Do you BPD959 take ?_Ashley to be your lawfully wedded wife?
    ——————————————————–
    Maybe BM will officiate the wedding? Joel the best man (that hurt typing “best”) and Exlaw the Maid of Honor (or the bride that lied about her age). You will have to ask him as we are all banned. lol

  254. Rescue, very well put.

    And given the choice, gang banging getting shot and killed, or my loved one coming home….I’ll take my loved one coming home.

    I have zero sympathy for gang bangers.

  255. Noway, I dont know, but if they did, how could you write them a ticket…it was too cute. I didnt take it as cocky, seeing the driver…..lol.

  256. Harley, thanks for the visual. :roll:

    I don’t like speaking in public … in front of crowds I get nervous.

  257. Let, you’re probably right … they probably get out of tickets more than get them.

    I know I’d give them points for the humor!
    :D

    Moving to another computer … too slow here.

  258. Noway – guess JB didn’t answer my questions about what his partners think about his means of defense and publicity seeking, huh?

  259. chateauofdoubt

    Great find, looks like Joel has him another filthy cop to defend…LOL

    Sounds like the cop deserves him too.

  260. duckyone // June 30, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Do you BPD959 take ?_Ashley to be your lawfully wedded wife?
    ——————————————————–
    Maybe BM will officiate the wedding? Joel the best man (that hurt typing “best” and Exlaw the Maid of Honor (or the bride that lied about her age). You will have to ask him as we are all banned. lol
    _________________________

    Oh come on… JB will have to make sure that the bride has at least tripled the insurance policy !

  261. rescueapet // June 30, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Noway – guess JB didn’t answer my questions about what his partners think about his means of defense and publicity seeking, huh?
    _________________

    SHOCKING! ok… NOT!

  262. How about this freaky story in Lake in the Hills?

    A Lake in the Hills man has been charged in federal court with possession of tetrodoxin, a poison a thousand times more deadly than cyanide, FBI officials have confirmed.

    Members of the FBI’s anti-terrorism task force searched Edward F. Bachner’s home Monday.

    Bachner, 35, 5704 McKenzie Drive, appeared before a federal magistrate in Rockford at 5 p.m. Monday and was formally charged with possession of a toxin, which is a felony that calls for up to 10 years in prison upon conviction.

    Kelly Brennan, an FBI spokeswoman, said Bachner was arrested Monday in Algonquin after accepting a “small quantity” of tetrodoxin.

    Also known as TTX, it is naturally produced and contained in the liver, ovaries and intestines of puffer fish. There is no cure for tetrodoxin poisoning, which appears as a white powder that is somewhat soluble, according to government safety guidelines. It is toxic if inhaled, swallowed or comes into contact with skin.

    It’s used medically to research the effects of neurotoxins.

    Brennan said Bachner tried to buy 95 milligrams of tetrodoxin over the Internet from a New Jersey-based firm, claiming he was an Illinois doctor doing research. An employee there became suspicious at the large quantity being ordered and called the FBI.

    Brennan said agents looked into it and determined Bachner lied about his identity – he called himself Edmond Backer – and his company – EB Strategic Research – was fake. An undercover member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force met Monday with Bachner, and he was arrested, she said.

    About 11:30 a.m., several vehicles pulled down McKenzie Drive to begin the search of Bachner’s home. The Kane County bomb squad, police cars, fire trucks and several unmarked black SUVs and vans surrounded the two-story white colonial that eventually was cordoned off with yellow tape.

    Personnel in hazardous materials suits sporadically went in and out of the garage. At least 10 agents worked on laptop computers under a blue tent set up in the street.

    The avalanche of emergency vehicles, TV vans and hovering helicopters drew out curious neighbors and their kids.

    “I was cutting the grass, and the bomb squad truck went by, and I said, ‘You don’t see that every day,'” neighbor Wayne Smith said.

    Court records do not show any criminal record for Edward Bachner in McHenry County – nothing more serious than a single traffic citation.

    Bachner’s wife, Rebecca, does not face criminal charges at this time, Brennan said.

    Neighbor Xhail Traub said Rebecca Bachner is part of a group of about 15 to 20 neighborhood women who would meet monthly to play games, talk and drink wine.

    Traub said the Bachners have lived in the subdivision, Meadowbrook at Lake in the Hills, since 2002.

    Neighbors said the couple did not have children. Rebecca has a career in the medical industry and works from home; Edward is a consultant. They, along with four other couples, are part of a monthly dinner group with neighbors.

    Traub, like many neighbors, was stunned to learn federal agents were searching the Bachners’ home.

    “It’s got to be a mistake. This doesn’t add up at all,” Traub said. “If those are the people you don’t know, then oh, my God, you don’t know anybody.”

    Carolyn Omiatek, who is part of the women’s group, also was floored by the search.

    “If that is going on there, then you don’t really know anyone,” she said. “They’re a really nice couple.”

  263. letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Why would they want to know if you are male or female?
    ***********************************

    My guess is because IKELOL has outed himself as being male and since there are so few males at SYM, it will make it easier for the admin to locate him and axe him.

  264. harleyjoey // June 30, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    duckyone // June 30, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Do you BPD959 take ?_Ashley to be your lawfully wedded wife?
    ——————————————————–
    Maybe BM will officiate the wedding? Joel the best man (that hurt typing “best” and Exlaw the Maid of Honor (or the bride that lied about her age). You will have to ask him as we are all banned. lol
    _________________________

    Oh come on… JB will have to make sure that the bride has at least tripled the insurance policy !
    ——————————————————–

    I don’t know. JB doesn’t seem to be that bright. I would think that DP would be very versed in the life insurance policy rules. Do you think that BM can reach the microphone to officiate? We can always get him a stool, but I hear that is will have to be reinforced to hold a TON of weight. Dang-off track. Sorry.

  265. facsmiley // June 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Why would they want to know if you are male or female?
    ***********************************

    My guess is because IKELOL has outed himself as being male and since there are so few males at SYM, it will make it easier for the admin to locate him and axe him.

    iknoweverythinglol // June 30, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    LOL LOL
    ——————————————————
    Facs-you is a bright one in that crayon box! LOL

    Are they so stupid that they think that IKELOL said the truth? hehe!

  266. Not all that smart, are they?

    I could say I’m anything, its not like they would know the truth, the computer’s aren’t that smart…..yet!!!!! lol

  267. BM thinks I am a girl,,,,,,,,,,and I think BM would like to be a girl, there we have common ground.

  268. Either that or Proboards is following Facebook ‘s lead and asking so that they can use gender-correct messages such as:

    ‘Username has not updated HER profile yet’

    Of course, if you can sign on at another proboards forum without being asked that (Kimmer’s for instance) then that isn’t the case.

  269. facsmiley // June 30, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Why would they want to know if you are male or female?
    ***********************************

    My guess is because IKELOL has outed himself as being male and since there are so few males at SYM, it will make it easier for the admin to locate him and axe him.
    __________
    No just a proboard glitch … but how the heck would they know if I was telling the truth anyway?
    :D

  270. Anyone know the name of the girl that was murdered in Chicago Heights while jogging the same day that Stacy was murdered?

  271. Joel hasn’t posted since 3:02 … but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been on and hidden.

    Unlike Ashley, I don’t have the software to determine whether he is online or not. But she’s providing an email soon and would send it to me if I asked. :D If I read her post correctly.

  272. It appears to be the wave of the future:

    “Hi,

    The need to add your gender has been added for a number of reasons.

    In the main, it’s in preparation for our next version, where we, and you can customise messages gender specifically. For example, we can have a message, say, in my profile, it can say view his most recent posts instead of the view recent posts by this member. The former, i’m sure you will agree, is more ‘friendlier’.

    Craig”

  273. I haven’t looked at Ashley site today until just now.

    She is seriously sick in the head. What is her obsession with Drew?

    Isn’t that bordering on stalking?

  274. letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Isn’t that bordering on stalking?
    ***********************************

    I think it could be, but anything that messes with him is fine by my book.

  275. Yep Alma Mendez, I see there is a reward for her murderer, do they have anything on the case yet?

  276. letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Not all that smart, are they?

    I could say I’m anything, its not like they would know the truth, the computer’s aren’t that smart…..yet!!!!! lol

    iknoweverythinglol // June 30, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    BM thinks I am a girl,,,,,,,,,,and I think BM would like to be a girl, there we have common ground.
    ——————————————————
    The computer keys can’t determine your DNA. Dumb arses! That is what paranoia does to little brains.

    Ashley seems scorned. I enjoy her posts but they are starting to make me feel the same way that DP and JB do, like taking a shower.

  277. Please, please, please someone explain this to me.

    This man is suspected of two murders, correct?

    Why would anyone want to mess with him?

    If I truly believed that he was a murderer, the very last thing I would do is mess around with him, taunt him etc….as a lay person.

    I’m sorry, but whatever happens to her, she brought it on herself. Play with fire, your gonna get burned.

  278. letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I haven’t looked at Ashley site today until just now.

    She is seriously sick in the head. What is her obsession with Drew?

    Isn’t that bordering on stalking?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Don’t talk about my hero like that please.

    SHE ROCKS, SHE ROLLS

  279. Let, and that’s what I think is odd about this whole Ashley thing.

    Did she got to LE with what she had and they said, no thanks, we know he is scum and send her on her way?

    So she took matters into her own hands to address those people out there who maybe think Drew was just misunderstood and really, truly, loved and missed his wife?

    I’m with you … if I thought DP was guilty of two murders, I’d stay as far away as possible and be as nice as possible if I happened to run into him and had to have any kind of exchange with him. I wouldn’t make eye contact … I think they see that as a threat.

  280. But I still think she set him up from the beginning. It’s strange about the PM “from Drew” that he denies.

    We all know it is possible to send PMs, IMs, emails, texts that are fake but look real.

    IMO Ashley was in on that first PM and sent one back and Drew said “didn’t send it” and she said “oh silly me well I have it … isn’t that weird … crazy computer system … yada yada yada” and the conversations just started.

    Drew was suckered by Ashley.

    And with every comment and email and PM Drew was reeled in further and further. It would have helped if he actually thought with his brain, but they were counting on that (and I do now think there is more than one person involved).

    And, as they say, the rest is history.

    But it doesn’t stop me from wanting to know what she is going to post next. I try not to go there but as soon as someone says there is something new … off I go.
    :)

  281. Again, I’m picturing the DA’s office tomorrow morning.

    Logging on and seeing Ashley’s new crap, and breaking out into a cold sweat…..lol.

  282. I personally think it’s three people that are actually Ashely. And I also think one of them is amongst us in here.

  283. he’s the victim again ? whoa is me crap , sorry if i confused you ..
    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    Facs and Let….here’s an example, but the reason THIS was funny to me was the WHOA is me crap, instead of WOE is me. She’s a funny girl, lol, but she may not mean to be as funny as she is.D

  284. I hope whoever Ashley are (since Let thinks it’s three people) that they’ve thought long and hard about this.

    It’s going to come out eventually.

    Of course, if it was a sting with LE, that’s another ball of wax.

  285. It makes no difference if Ashley set him up. This could be some man who weighs 250 lb and is a logger that did it to him in his spare time.

    (if it is a 250lb man i take back my proposal)

    The important thing is that these emails and pm’s show exactly what drew is like. What an evil, nasty, greedy piece of crap he is.

  286. Another important thing to remember, every word he typed that points to greed will be used in a trial.

  287. It wont be used in trial, unless the ISP and DA’s contact Ashley, and determine that Ashley was as clean a sun dried sheet….which I highly doubt.

  288. I’m still not convinced that this Ashley is not the Ashley who left the note in DP’s mail box. And I think it could have been a set up even at that time.

    And, yeah, the spelling, the choice of words, the grammar. I don’t want to sound like I’M obsessed with this crap but…damn, girl!

    Whoa is me ! :)

  289. 1wonderwoman // June 30, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    I wonder if anyone here agrees with this…You guys and gals are so awesome here, especially at research…I give it two more days tops and we’ll know who “Ashley” really is including most if not all of her internet alias’s…
    +++++++++++++++++
    I wonder why you think so…..want to share?

  290. A ONE PARTY STATE means one party to the telephone conversation has to
    have knowledge and give consent before the recording can legally
    occur.

    In a TWO PARTY STATE, all parties must have knowledge and give consent
    before the recording can legally occur.

    ?Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you
    to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing
    the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also
    permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most
    circumstances. Twelve states forbid the recording of private
    conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are
    California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
    Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
    Washington.?

    The origin of the call (intrastate, interstate, international, etc) is
    irrelevant. The STATE laws where the recording is taking place largely
    determine the legality of the matter. So, as you can see, the
    recording of a wire conversation is legal in EVERY state provided the
    proper notifications are met.

    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=535840
    __________
    If Matt was in CT, then he would have had to notify all parties … I think.

    I don’t know how a conference call plays into all of this … he got permission from his agent in NY but not DP, JB (in IL) and Glenn (FL).

    While NY is a one party notification state, all the others are two-party.

    Does not look good for Matt.

    What do you think?

  291. Is there something I don’t know about this space before a punctuation mark? Is there some school system in Chicagoland that teaches that, and I’m just ignorant to the fact? Cuz I kind of feel like I’m crazy or something. How many people write like that?

  292. I stole that post above from Exlaw at SYM.

    __________________

    facsmiley // June 30, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    I’m still not convinced that this Ashley is not the Ashley who left the note in DP’s mail box. And I think it could have been a set up even at that time.

    And, yeah, the spelling, the choice of words, the grammar. I don’t want to sound like I’M obsessed with this crap but…damn, girl!

    Whoa is me !
    _________
    Stop! “Your” killing me.

  293. letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    It wont be used in trial, unless the ISP and DA’s contact Ashley, and determine that Ashley was as clean a sun dried sheet….which I highly doubt.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Ashley or Bob or Johnny or Jimmy have nothing to do with the evil drew bragging about how much money he can get for Stacys motorcyle.

    See that is what it is all about for Drew. You murder for money. It is all about the money.

  294. noway406 // June 30, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    IKELOL, maybe it’s a trucker.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    I could believe that by the grammar and spelling used. Hmmmm, maybe he and ex are in cahoots!

  295. Noway, thats interesting. This is the comment that makes its interesting.

    The origin of the call (intrastate, interstate, international, etc) is
    irrelevant

  296. facsmiley // June 30, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Is there something I don’t know about this space before a punctuation mark? Is there some school system in Chicagoland that teaches that, and I’m just ignorant to the fact? Cuz I kind of feel like I’m crazy or something. How many people write like that?

    I’m not sure what you mean . Can you give me an example . Why do you ask anyway ?

  297. No, it wasn’t Exlaw I stole that from … it was mzinformed. I can’t even admit my thievery without errors!

    I am getting tired. Apologies to both …

  298. Oh carp.

    MSinformed.

    Bed time for me. Can’t type in the semi-darkness and can’t see either!
    :D

  299. In just nosing around, I see an article that quotes and Ashley, and says she is one of Stacy Peterson’s best friends. Different last name etc, but who knows.

    Stacy Peterson’s friend Ashley Keyhoe said, “We don’t think that she would’ve just gotten up and left and we’re trying to find her.”

  300. Question for all (don’t know how my outline format will come out on WP):

    Would it matter to you:

    1. If Ashley loved Drew and is a scorned woman?
    2. If she set him up from the beginning?
    a. Alone?
    b. With help from:
    1. Normal citizens or bloggers?
    2. Family members of KS or SP?
    3. LE?

  301. Okay … didn’t look like I wanted.

    1 and 2, under that a and b, and under b, the 1, 2, and 3.

    Clear as mud?

    I’ll be back in the morning … earlier if my kids wake up and I have insomnia.
    ;)

  302. I don’t know if any of you here were wanting it, but I know what program she used to scan to see if Drew was online. I will share if you are interested.

  303. I think there are two possibilites.

    First one is it is a blogger, or bloggers that thought it would be funny, and did it more or less as a set-up.

    Second, it could very well be someone from the FSP Camp, that wouldn’t shock me at all. One of them trying to be “funny” but it might actually back fire on them.

    I don’t believe it’s anyone that is related or has anything to do with KS, nor do I believe it’s LE.

  304. Give, what is the purpose of a program like that?

    I’m confused why anyone would want something like that, let alone use it.

  305. I don’t know why it would be necessary, unless you were trying to see if someone was hiding from you. I was looking at the screenshot she provided and on the far right-hand side there is a menu for YInformer Online Sites. I googled YInformer. That appears to be the program used.

  306. I think it would be great, maybe i will stick it on a blog and people can check drews onlineness anytime they want…………….LOL

  307. It just dawned on me, I havent seen Liz since I got back….did she leave wordpress? I believe that was her name.

  308. Was it Lizanne? If you go back back a month or two you’ll see that lots of people seem to come and go.

    Not me. I’m stuck. But then, I have no life!

  309. letthetruthbefree // June 30, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    I could careless if Drew is online, offline etc.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    So you won’t be coming to my blog??

  310. Noway – I’m interested in all the possibilities you posted, but no, theydon’t really matter to me as far as a thumbs up or thumbs down of the blog.

  311. Facs, thats the name, and the person.

    She was a fairly regular poster here. I don’t know why it just dawned on me that I haven’t seen her.

  312. letthetruthbefree

    I don’t mean any disrespect with this but are you Chuckles on BMs board?

  313. Why would think such a thing Iknow? Chuckles is positively one of the most disgusting posters I’ve ever seen anywhere, seriously.

  314. I havent a clue who Chuckles is, and now seeing cfs write….what have I said or done that would make you think I’m that person?

  315. Now this is funny!!

    Ashley said…
    I Half 2 Laff at tha cupple peeple that cum hair and reed mi blog and then go bak to tha blog thay hang on and tawk shit about mee adding a space,ore mi choice uv werds if thats awl eye eva git picked on about then life iz good ( I type , space , and choose the words I want because the last time I checked this was my blog ) . Don’t like it ? Upsets you ? Then keep your coffee clutching asses ( and you know who you are ) on the site you normally hang on ..

    June 30, 2008 11:43 PM

  316. The other day someone said letthetruthbefree was ske from days gone past. I was just thinking about some of chuckles anti Stacy post and I knew ske was anti stacy. I guess I should have asked first if she was ske. Makes no difference either way, I believe her when she says she is not.

  317. I was/am ske, and I’m not anti stacy, neither am I pro stacy.

    I don’t know Stacy, her family, or friends.

    But I do look at everyone involved, and make my view points on what I read and see.

    Just like Im not anti Drew, or pro Drew.

  318. That’s funny Iknow! Ashley just doesn’t know some of us pick everyone’s spelling apart on here, and we’re just trying to figure out if we know her. No offense Ashley. You’re right, it’s your blog, so spell your words however you want to. Some of us didn’t realize you were coming over here to read what we write and go back to your blog to criticize us either, but hey. Keep up the good work!!

  319. § 720 ILCS 135/1-2. Harassment through electronic communications

    Sec. 1-2. Harassment through electronic communications. (a) Harassment through electronic communications is the use of electronic communication for any of the following purposes:

    (1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene with an intent to offend;

    (2) Interrupting, with the intent to harass, the telephone service or the electronic communication service of any person;

    (3) Transmitting to any person, with the intent to harass and regardless of whether the communication is read in its entirety or at all, any file, document, or other communication which prevents that person from using his or her telephone service or electronic communications device;

    (3.1) Transmitting an electronic communication or knowingly inducing a person to transmit an electronic communication for the purpose of harassing another person who is under 13 years of age, regardless of whether the person under 13 years of age consents to the harassment, if the defendant is at least 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;

    (4) Threatening injury to the person or to the property of the person to whom an electronic communication is directed or to any of his or her family or household members; or

    (5) Knowingly permitting any electronic communications device to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in this subsection (a).

    (b) As used in this Act:

    (1) “Electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photo-optical system.

    (2) “Family or household member” includes spouses, former spouses, parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, and persons with disabilities and their personal assistants. For purposes of this Act, neither a casual acquaintanceship nor ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute a dating relationship

  320. Drew did not send me an email ! I Was just trying to prove a point that you can’t believe everything you read as Gospel and I proved my point . That being said you should keep an open mind and look at all possible angles.

Comments are closed.