Your Thread – November 21

Sorry for the cryptic Twitter messages yesterday. Needless to say, it was a bit hectic and difficult to get full sentences out. But, to be fair, Twitter is not exactly the appropriate medium to discuss the nuances of vindictive and selective prosecution defenses ;)

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

About these ads

184 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 21

  1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-21nov21,0,6184738.story

    Drew Peterson gun charges are dropped
    Case stemmed from the investigation into his missing wife, Stacy Peterson

    By Erika Slife | Tribune reporter
    November 21, 2008

    Former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson scored a victory Thursday after a Will County judge dismissed felony gun charges against him that had stemmed from the investigation into his missing wife, Stacy.

    “It’s a big relief, of course,” Peterson told reporters afterward. “You know, there’s potential to put me away in prison for this, and I didn’t want to go. So it’s a very happy day.”

    Circuit Judge Richard Schoenstedt dismissed two unlawful use of a weapon charges against Peterson after the state’s attorney’s office refused to give Peterson’s legal team internal police memos, e-mails and other correspondence relating to his arrest in May.

    Peterson, 54, was charged with allegedly possessing a modified assault rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches, a violation of state law. Authorities had seized the rifle and other weapons after search warrants had been executed relating to the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance of Stacy Peterson, who was 23 at the time.

    Peterson is a suspect in the case, which police have labeled a “potential homicide.”

    Earlier Thursday, Schoenstedt granted a motion by Peterson’s legal team to pursue a “vindictive prosecution” defense at trial and had ordered the state’s attorney’s office, at the request of Peterson’s attorneys, to give the defense a “narrow and limited” copy of their documentation leading up to the charges against Peterson.

    But Assistant State’s Atty. John Connor strongly urged the judge to reconsider, arguing that the charges were not brought because of a personal vendetta against Peterson.

    “It has nothing to do with personal animosity,” Connor said. “It has to do with illegal weapons.”

    He warned that if the state’s attorney’s office were to comply, it would prompt defense attorneys across the state to “flood” prosecution offices with similar discovery motions.

    Peterson’s attorneys questioned the timing of the developments in the state’s case. In February, Schoenstedt had ruled that police should return Peterson’s firearms to him granted that he had a valid firearm owner’s identification card.

    Hours later, police revoked Peterson’s FOID card.

    In May, authorities arrested Peterson the day before he was to learn whether the guns could instead be given to his son Stephen, an Oak Brook police officer.

    “Obviously we’re very pleased,” said Joel Brodsky, one of Peterson’s attorneys.

    The state’s attorney’s office will appeal, said spokesman Charles Pelkie.

    eslife@tribune.com

    Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

  2. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1291763,4_1_JO21_PETERSON_S1.article

    Drew Peterson gets out from under the gun
    PROSECUTOR REFUSES TO HAND OVER DOCUMENTS SO JUDGE DISMISSES EX-COP’S FELONY GUN CHARGES

    Recommended (1)Comments

    November 21, 2008
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    JOLIET — A day after a law was passed to supposedly pave the way for his prosecution on a murder charge, Drew Peterson slipped out of court a free man when a judge dropped the felony gun rap he faced.

    Peterson — the sole suspect in his much-younger fourth wife’s October 2007 disappearance and the subject of public scrutiny for the unsolved March 2004 homicide of his third wife — hugged and kissed his two attorneys and made the obligatory “I’m going to Disneyland” remark after Thursday’s hearing at the Will County Courthouse.

    [image @ site]
    http://i34.tinypic.com/raxlq0.jpg
    Drew Peterson shares a laugh with his lawyer Andrew Abood on Thursday as they leave the Will County Courthouse in Joliet after felony gun charges against him were dropped.(Keith Hale/Sun-Times News Group)

    Peterson will not actually be heading to Disneyland, but one of his lawyers, Joel Brodsky, said Peterson is “going to have a few beers, if nothing else. That’s for certain.”

    Internal documents

    Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor effectively forced Judge Richard Schoenstedt’s hand at the hearing after refusing to turn over internal documents.

    Schoenstedt had ordered the surrender of the documents to Peterson’s legal team so they could prepare to prove Peterson was the victim of a vindictive prosecution.

    Because Connor defied his order to turn over the documents, Schoenstedt had the option of jailing Connor, fining him, going ahead with the gun case without the ordered documents or dismissing the case.

    If Connor had chosen to comply with Schoenstedt’s order, it “would have opened a Pandora’s box for prosecutors across the state,” said Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office.

    Connor said his research showed no judge in Illinois had ever ordered prosecutors to turn over internal documents as possible evidence to show vindictive prosecution.

    “What (Brodsky) was looking for was essentially a fishing expedition,” Pelkie said. “It’s unprecedented, as far as we know,”

    Pelkie said prosecutors disagree with Schoenstedt’s ruling and will appeal it.

    Vindictive prosecution?

    But for now Peterson is in the clear on all counts, and will get back the $7,500 cash he posted as bail following his arrest in May.

    He had been charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon for possessing an assault rifle with a barrel allegedly shorter than the state-mandated 16-inch length.

    Peterson maintained throughout that he carried the weapon as part of his duties on the Bolingbrook Police Department’s SWAT team.

    His attorneys claimed Peterson was the subject of vindictive prosecution spurred by resentment when he triumphed in a civil action to get back firearms seized by police. State police also revoked Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification card after Schoenstedt ruled Peterson should get his guns back.

    Brodsky said the state police were at the root of the vindictive prosecution and said Connor dropped the case rather than release records that would have proved it.

    “We believe the only real reason the state didn’t want to turn over the documents is they would have helped us,” he said.

    Peterson was relieved the charge was dropped.

    “There’s potential to put me in prison over this,” he said, “and I don’t want to go.”

    ‘Drew’s Law’

    And though state police named Peterson the sole suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, and are investigating the slaying of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, Brodsky does not see Wednesday’s passage of hearsay legislation dubbed “Drew’s Law” playing into any possible prosecution.

    “I don’t think it’s significant in this situation,” Brodsky said of the law, which makes statements of murder victims admissible in court if the victims were killed in order to silence them.

    While he does not think the new law poses a problem for his client, Brodsky objects to it on principle.

    “This law will allow rumor, innuendo, gossip to replace evidence,” he said.
    Felony charges dropped again
    Thursday was not the first time Drew Peterson skated away scot-free when he was facing a felony.

    As a Bolingbrook police officer, he was indicted in June 1985 on charges of official misconduct and failure to report a bribe.

    Two months later, the village’s board of police and fire commissioners found him guilty of disobedience, conducting a self-assigned investigation, failure to report a bribe immediately and official misconduct, and he was fired from the police department.

    Peterson was working under the auspices of the multijurisdictional Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad when he allegedly committed the crimes. The indictments alleged he solicited drugs in exchange for information about his agency.

    The charges later were dropped. Special prosecutor Raymond Bolden said at the time that the charges were not provable.

    Peterson won reinstatement with the department in March 1986. Judge Edwin Grabiec ruled police and fire commissioners lacked sufficient evidence to find Peterson guilty of the charges.

  3. Found this to be very interesting…..

    Book Author Breaks News in Drew Peterson Trial
    Date Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 09:18PM

    STORY COURTESY CRIME REPORT USA.

    Drew Peterson Exposed Author and journalist Derek Armstrong first broke the news from an exclusive source—on a morning radio show in Chicago—that it was likely Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt would dismiss charges.

    Crime Report USA Correspondent Derek Armstrong, Staff Reporter

    Drew Peterson with attorney Joel Brodsky A source close to the Peterson case disclosed to this correspondent that the State is ready to indict Drew Peterson in the alleged homicide of Kathleen Savio.

    On the talk radio show, The Sandee and Clint Show on WKRS 1220AM at 10:30am today, this reporter stated that he believed the state would prefer to dismiss charges against Peterson than to produce documents requested by Peterson’s defense team. “I believe the charges will be dropped as a strategic move to protect a future homicide case.”

    The source indicated the state was “very concerned they would lose on the Leosa Exemption, and are concerned about releasing information to the defense at this time.”

    Drew Peterson seemed as glib and “sociopathic” as ever as he emerged from the courthouse and kissed his lawyers Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood on the cheek.

    JUDGE LEFT WITH NO CHOICE

    Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt was left with “no choice but to dismiss the case” after the State indicated it would not produce the documents requested by the defense to reply to the Vindictive Prosecution defense.

    DEFENSE THROWS DOWN GAUNTLET

    Peterson’s defense team Joel Brosky (left) and Andrew Abood (right)In an interview by phone, minutes ago, Joel Brodsky appeared to throw down the gauntet: “This is the first case in Illinois history where a State’s Attorney was asked to turn over its internal documents for a vindictive prosecution defense. We put on an extremely vigorous defense to demonstrate to the State that if they chose to bring other charges they’ll have a major battle on their hands.” He went on to describe the long line of “Drew Victories”, from the official misconduct case in 1985, when Peterson was still an officer, to reinstatement as an officer after he was fired.

    AN INDICTMENT STILL COMING FOR SAVIO HOMICIDE

    This reporter’s confidential source indicated “charges will come, if not today, then soon.” The source indicated the indictment was only slightly motivated by the new hearsay law that took effect today. The hearsay law may allow the prosecution to present hearsay from witnesses such as Pastor Neil Schori — who indicated he was told by Stacy Peterson that Drew admitted he killed Kathleen Savio.

    MORE COMPELLING EVIDENCE

    “The more compelling evidence,” the source said, “were the transcripts of the property settlement for the Drew Peterson, Kathleen Savio divorce.”

    The withdrawal of charges today on the lesser gun charge seems to be a move to protect prosecution documents from the defense.

  4. “hugged and kissed his two attorneys and made the obligatory “I’m going to Disneyland” remark ”

    ***

    This is the kind of stuff that just rubs me the wrong way. The hugging of his lawyers was OK – the kissing of his lawyers was just creepy. I can’t believe they let him do that to them on TV.

    The Disneyland comment – unfreakinbelievable. It is all a joke to him is how that comments makes it seem. I do hope though that he does take his kids on a vacation to get away – they deserve it.

    I’m sure he’s happy and relieved. In fact, the response from him also makes me think that he was actually worried about that case.

    Anyone that had thought all of these were “cake walk” cases now see that in the legal system, sometimes things don’t always go the way you think they will. I just pray that Stacy is found and that if she is found dead that justice is served to whoever harmed her.

  5. thinkaboutit2 – I agree, the whole thing is creepy. He won a round in court, which is where this circus needs to be fought. But, the more you think about it, the more realization kicks in and you see it for what it really is. The defense didn’t win their case through a jury verdict or mistrial. We know now the Judge’s reasons and we’ll leave it at that.

    There was one point I heard last night on NG – why didn’t the Judge take the discovery evidence into his possession and review them first, rather than just tell them to turn everything over or else?

    I’m not even going to try and guess what happens next – appeal or other charges. This whole thing is just too weird. But, you must admit, Peterson is like one giant sheet of teflon – stuff just oozes right off of him.

  6. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/82368

    Drew Peterson’s Days of Freedom are Dwindling

    Rebekah Price

    November 21, 2008

    If you can´t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, right? Well, anyone with half an ounce of sensibility would; but not Drew Peterson. Not even when he could slither under the nearest door jamb and almost get away from the ubiquitous and unsympathetic public.

    Before he debuts his current rerun of “Poor Drew & Brodsky, Too” on the local Whine channel, the recently low-lying Peterson once again reared his classless head, this time in the office of one Mr. Jeffrey Leving, Esquire. Mr. Leving is the leading legal expert in the issues of men´s custody and men´s rights in divorce proceedings and family law.

    Are you getting a picture in your mind?

    He´s been trolling the local waters not for his missing wife, Stacy, but for Wife #5. Drew is seriously obsessed with another stupidly unsuspecting chippy. Why else would he be schmoozing the accomplished divorce attorney, Mr. Leving? So now he wants a divorce from the missing-and-presumed-deceased Stacy Peterson. Too bad he couldn´t have offered that to her a year and a half ago when she wanted it.

    Another classless moment in the sociopathic Annals of Peterson.

    Drew Peterson´s behavior has been so well documented in the local community that he has now decided Bolingbrook is not the right place to raise his children. Funny, it seemed like the right place when Stacy was around. Drew Peterson´s year long antics of blatant, in-your-face and idiotic behavior have done nothing to ingratiate him with his neighbors, who are counting the days until he is gone. One would be willing to bet that if he had looked even fractionally interested in locating Stacy, the community would have circled their wagons to protect him and the children.

    But that is not the way Drew Peterson played it. Rude and ridiculous, he continued his despicable behavior to the point where one could easily argue he tacitly admitted causing Stacy Peterson´s disappearance, taunting the public with his outrageous capers. Combine that with his less than stellar parenting skills, leaving the younger ones in the care of older ones–one who allegedly suffers from suspected mental health issues–and you have a rotten recipe for a disastrous outcome. All in a day´s work for Nothing-Should-Get-In-The-Way-of-My-Social-Life Peterson.

    But Drew´s days of freedom and running amok are dwindling away.

    The Illinois House unanimously passed the ´Hearsay Law´, after also being unanimously passed by the Illinois Senate, which allows the prosecution to utilized hearsay testimony if, in fact, it can prove a deceased witness met his or her untimely demise in order to prevent testifying. Dubbed the “Drew Peterson Law” by the rabid media, the law may very well come into play not only in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, but the murder of Kathleen Savio as well. The unfortunate Ms. Savio sent a letter to an attorney saying Peterson was likely to take their children or kill her. After Kathleen Savio´s death, Stacy Peterson revealed to her minister that her husband, Drew, admitted killing Kathleen Savio. Sounds like a witness was silenced to me.

    Of course, allies of Stacy Peterson hope that this brings the festering case of the missing Bolingbrook woman to a head and charges are formally placed where most believe they should have been long ago. Kathleen Savio´s supporters are just as invested; and certainly, Lisa Stebic´s family is watching these developments with great interest, as to how the Hearsay Law may affect their cause.

    Now the state has the opportunity, the information and the tools to see that justice is done. At least three families could be affected by this new law and it is time for charges to be placed squarely where they belong. You don´t need a body to convict a murderer, just a body of evidence. And to the layman it looks like that is one body that is not missing.

    Buckle up, Bolingbrook. It is going to get bumpier before it gets smooth again. Joel (I-Think-I-Can) Brodsky is finally going to have to do some real layering, not just photo ops, in the not-so-distant future.

  7. “…Combine that with his less than stellar parenting skills, leaving the younger ones in the care of older ones–one who allegedly suffers from suspected mental health issues…”

    ****

    Oh, man, just reading that gave me the goosebumps. Oh, heaven help them all if this is true. What is there to say?

  8. NANCY GRACE

    Aired November 20, 2008 – 20:00:00 ET

    THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

    (Snipped for Peterson content)

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    GRACE: Tonight, the mystery surrounding 23-year-old mom Stacy Peterson vanishing, upscale Chicago suburbs, husband/cop Drew Peterson the prime suspect in his fourth wife`s disappearance, the suspicious bathtub drowning of wife number three officially ruled homicide.

    Bombshell. Just moments ago, a judge drops — repeat, drops — all existing gun charges against the former cop. But a secret grand jury reportedly set to hand down murder charges against Peterson in the death of wife number three. All the while, the former cop making plans to divorce wife number four, insisting she left her own children for another man and that she remains in hiding. Right!

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Breaking news. Just moments ago, an Illinois judge totally dismissing felony gun charges against Drew Peterson after Will (ph) County prosecutors refuse to turn over their documents, the judge ruling moments earlier the defense had a right to see the documents, the judge even warning prosecutors if they didn`t turn the documents over, he`d have to drop the charges.

    More developments in Drew Peterson. A new law just approved by the Illinois state legislature could be a crucial break in the case for prosecutors in the Drew Peterson investigation, the new provision allowing previously barred hearsay testimony to come into court if the prosecution can prove the defendant is responsible for the witness not being able to testify.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a very powerful tool. No longer can someone terrorize a woman, threaten to kill her, physically abuse her. And if she relates this information to a third party, literally, she can testify from the grave.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the case of Stacy Peterson, a minister alleged Stacy said Drew Peterson was involved in the death of his previous wife. This statement could enter into a possible trial. In the case of Kathleen Savio, she wrote a letter to the prosecutor that said Peterson would take her children away or kill her instead.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It may have some small effect that there may be small pieces of evidence, some statements that one of — Kathy or Stacy made to some friend or family member that may potentially be admissible because of this law.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    Very quickly, case alert. The search of a suspect in the murder of a beautiful little 9-year-old girl in Chicago. Take a look.

    Mya Lyons stabbed to death July 18th in an alleyway yards from her home. A person of interest questioned and released. A knife discovered at the scene. Police say the location leads them to believe someone did see what happened. There is a $6,000 reward.

    Look at this little girl. If you have information please call Chicago police 312-747-8271.

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Peterson, off the hook on gun charges tonight. Just moments ago an Illinois judge totally dismissing felony gun charges against Drew Peterson.

    A new state law was overwhelming approved by the Illinois House allowing so-called hearsay evidence from witnesses who may have been murdered by a defendant trying to stop them from testifying.

    This means prosecutors have a new weapon in the investigation into Drew Peterson who has been named a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy. A minister has said Stacy told him Drew Peterson had killed his third wife Kathleen Savio whose death is now being called a homicide by authorities.

    State`s attorney Glasgow(ph) says the new law is very powerful and was passed with the intention of helping women who had been abused.

    JOEL BRODSKY, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Obviously, we`re very pleased. We believe that, you know, the only real reason that the state would have not wanted to turn over the documents is because they would have helped us, otherwise, if they would have been of no help they would have gladly turned them over and we believe the judge assessed the proper sanction which is dismissal and the case, we`re confident that if the state chooses to appeal will be upheld and this case will be over with.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    GRACE: News flash, it`s not going to be upheld. The judge, Judge Richard Schoenstedt had a little hair fit in court today because the prosecution would not do what he told them to, but the prosecutors don`t work for the judge any more than the defense does.

    So when the prosecutor is told by the judge hand over your whole file, your work product, everything, all your direct examination questions you`ve prepared, your scientific arguments, the outline of your opening statement, hand it over right now and the prosecution says no and what did the judge do? He dropped all the charges against Drew Peterson.

    Now, that`s a fine kettle of fish, Judge Richard Schoenstedt.

    Out to the lawyers, Eleanor Dixon, Peter Odom, Richard Herman, I`m coming right back to you, but first to Joe Hosey with the “Herald News,” author of “Fatal Vows” in court today.

    Joe, what happened?

    JOE HOSEY, REPORTER, HERALD NEWS, IN COURT TODAY: Like you said, Nancy, the judge dropped the charges. He ordered the prosecutors to turn over internal documents, memoranda and the like so that they could establish whether or not this is a vindictive prosecution and the Assistant State Attorney John Conner refused to do so.

    He risked going to jail himself for doing that. He could have been held in contempt and the judge decided to dismiss the case.

    GRACE: You know what? I hope my path crosses with John Conner some day. I want to shake his hand.

    To you, Eleanor Dixon, current felony prosecutor in Atlanta, that is complete BS, you cannot force the state to hand over their work product. When I say work product, I`m talking about your legal research. Everything you`ve done on the case, your interview notes with your witnesses.

    The defense doesn`t have a right to that any more than the state has a right to the defense notes. What the answer should have been, Eleanor, in my mind, correct me if you think differently, is for Judge Richard Schoenstedt to get off his bench and review the file himself.

    See if there`s evidence to support a genuine prosecution or if this is selective prosecution of Drew Peterson. Right or wrong?

    ELEANOR DIXON, PROSECUTOR: You`re exactly right, Nancy. They can take it in chambers, look at it, do what`s called an (INAUDIBLE) inspection. And you know what, I bet he didn`t ask the defense attorney to turn over his work product.

    GRACE: You know this is a blow to the state, but from my understanding, to Derek Armstrong, author of “Drew Peterson Exposed,” hours of interviews with Peterson. Derek, I understand that the grand jury is about to hand down a murder charge on wife number three, Kathleen Savio, who drowned in a dry bathtub covered in bruises.

    I guess you saw that autopsy report.

    DEREK ARMSTRONG, AUTHOR OF “DREW PETERSON EXPOSED”: Yes, I believe they are. I have an inside source whose indicated to me that if charges weren`t filed today or the indictment didn`t come down today they would imminently be coming down.

    GRACE: Richard Herman, try to take off your defense hat just for a moment. You know a judge cannot order the state to hand over its entire file to the defense or vice versa.

    RICHARD HERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, there is open file discovery, Nancy, and they were claiming.

    GRACE: Not in that jurisdiction.

    HERMAN: They were claiming a vindictive prosecution.

    GRACE: There`s not open file in that jurisdiction, OK? Number one, so let`s get off that incorrect premise, but go ahead.

    HERMAN: The issue is whether or not it was a vindictive prosecution.

    GRACE: Right.

    HERMAN: . against Peterson which it absolutely was and as a result of that, the judge made a direction which the district attorney chose to not comply with. That`s OK. He`s not going appeal the case. It`s not.

    GRACE: Yes, they are.

    HERMAN: It`s not dismissed with prejudiced. They can bring it back.

    GRACE: They are appealing it. They are taking it up.

    HERMAN: When they indict him for murder they`re going to add this in, too, and then they`ll turn over their documents down the road.

    GRACE: Peter Odom?

    PETER ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The prosecution doesn`t work for the judge, Nancy, but the prosecution should be working for the people. This judge realized that the prosecution was doing something unfair to the people.

    GRACE: Which was?

    ODOM: Vindictively prosecuting Drew Peterson for this trial.

    GRACE: I want to see Odom`s face.

    ODOM: And such.

    GRACE: Odom, do you really believe that?

    ODOM: Yes, I do, and the judge had every right.

    GRACE: Why? Why is it vindictive?

    ODOM: . to ask for that file. And nothing shows that more clearly, Nancy, than the fact that they wouldn`t turn over the file.

    GRACE: Peter, when you were prosecuting, did you give open file to the defense?

    ODOM: If the judge asked me to turn something over, Nancy, even if I didn`t like it.

    GRACE: Typically would you? Would you?

    ODOM: If the judge told me to turn something over, I would.

    GRACE: No, SOP, standard operating procedure, unless you had a judge`s order, would you give open file, all your work product?

    ODOM: Not only would I give open file work — not work , not work product because that`s privileged, but open file discovery, yes, and I`d invite the defense attorney into my office to make.

    GRACE: You just said if a judge told you to. How about when a judge didn`t tell you to?

    ODOM: My notes, Nancy. No, no attorney would turn over notes in work product. However if a judge told me to do so I would have to even if I didn`t like it and the fact that they didn`t turn them over is suspect.

    GRACE: With a judge — you listen to every nut job judge down there on the Fulton County bench?

    ODOM: That`s why they make.

    GRACE: You think they know the law better than you? They`re appointed by the governor, all right? Just like every other jurisdiction and then maybe run for re-election some day.

    Uh-uh, it`s on you to know the law and give it to the judge, not let some nut job tell you what the law is. Uh-uh.

    Hold on. We`ll pick this back up.

    Candace Aikin is Stacy Peterson`s aunt. Miss Aikin, thank you for being with us. What do you make of Peterson`s decision to divorce Stacy Peterson?

    CANDACE AIKIN, STACY PETERSON`S AUNT: I think it`s kind of late for that. She wanted one like 13 months ago. So it`s kind of late for that now. I don`t think — I don`t think she`s around to be able to divorce him.

    GRACE: Why do you think he`s seeking a divorce at this juncture?

    AIKIN: I`m really not sure what he`s thinking. Maybe — I just — I don`t know.

    GRACE: To Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst and author, what do you make of it?

    BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR OF “DEALBREAKERS”: I think Drew Peterson, always in his own mind, thinks he comes off looking like the good guy.

    So if he paints a picture to the public that his wife took off with another man, what is he going to do, ringing his hands, all he can do is file for divorce. It makes him look fantastic in a really miserable situation.

    (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

    ARMSTRONG: Do you think the story of this divorce might encourage Stacy to contact you?

    DREW PETERSON, HUSBAND OF MISSING MOM STACY PETERSON: I have nothing more to say.

    ARMSTRONG: What about the rumors that the state`s attorney is getting ready to indict for homicide on one of your wives?

    PETERSON: I told you. Nothing to say.

    (END AUDIO CLIP)

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: . as far as a bill helping allow into court stories that Stacey told her minister that Peterson killed his third wife, Brodsky says the bill wouldn`t apply to that either.

    BRODSKY: Well, that wouldn`t be hearsay, that would be double hearsay. That would be Drew that told Stacy told the pastor who told us. That`s double hearsay. Just, still doesn`t covered by the hearsay.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    GRACE: Hearsay is hearsay, Mr. Brodsky. Check out the law.

    To Joe Hosey in court today with the “Herald News,” is it true that when Judge Richard Schoenstedt dropped, the gun charges that Drew Peterson kissed his lawyer on the cheek and said I`m going to Disney Land?

    HOSEY: He kissed them both. He kissed both Joel Brodsky and (INAUDIBLE).

    GRACE: And?

    HOSEY: Yes, it is true. And he had also said — you know, he said I love these guys. Before that, he said I`m going to Disney Land. I think he had that all planned out. I think he probably knew how this was going to go.

    GRACE: I`m sure Disney Land is so proud of that endorsement.

    Out to the lines, Mercedes in Michigan. Hi, Mercedes.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi.

    GRACE: Hi.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks for taking my call. I love your twins. We need more picture.

    GRACE: Oh you`ll get them. I`ll get them for you online. What`s your question, love?

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh good. I`ve been watching the Drew Peterson thing for a long time and I never miss your show. I don`t even go shopping anymore at night. I just come home to see your show.

    GRACE: Thank you.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And yes. And all with Caylee and everything, too, and with Drew Peterson, though, who in their right mind would believe him, saying that she would run off and leave the kids behind? Because even in a custody fight, the kids — she would come back and kidnap them. She loved those kids so much.

    GRACE: Bethany Marshall, do you think anybody would really believe that?

    MARSHALL: No, and when you really understand the pattern of domestic abuse that leads to domestic homicide, the man is always belittling the woman, belittling her motherhood, her personhood, every aspect of her character.

    GRACE: So I guess that`s therapy talk for no, nobody is going to believe it.

    Thank you, Dr. Bethany.

    Let`s stop, everyone, and remember Army Sergeant John Kyle Dagget, 21, Phoenix, Arizona, killed Iraq. On a first tour, awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, Army Service ribbon. Loved football, outdoors, hunting, fishing, camping rafting, volunteering at nursing homes.

    Leaves behind parents Jack and Colleen, three sisters.

    John Kyle Daggett, American hero.

    Thanks to our guests but especially to you for being with us. I`ll see you tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern. And until then, good night, friend.

    END

  9. Since they plan to appeal, I would think the gun would stay where it is.

    If at some point they decided not to appeal, the (illegal) weapon would be destroyed. IMO

  10. My favorite line from the NG transcript is:

    GRACE: OK, so let`s go to someone who can hear and interpret the question. Eleanor?

    In defense of Richard Herman, he was confused because NG was talking about Carlos Padilla, spokesman for OCSO.

    Mr. Herman got that confused with Leonard Padilla, bountyhunter.

    She later does acknowledge where the confusion may stem from, but that IMO is classic Nancy Grace.

  11. I can’t imagine anyone will ever get the gun as long as it is in an illegal form. But for now I guess it’s…in the vault!

    That Rebekah Price can certainly turn a phrase.

  12. facsmiley // November 21, 2008 at 10:36 am
    …That Rebekah Price can certainly turn a phrase.

    I have to say I was a bit offended by her article.

    Unless Drew is seriously obsessed with another stupidly unsuspecting chippy was meant to refer only to the girlfriends Drew has had since Stacy disappeared, and not Stacy or any of his previous wives.

  13. She writes more like a columnist than a reporter.

    In Price’s defense, at the time Stacy met him he wasn’t currently in the midst of a media maelstrom and a suspect in the death of two women, so I wouldn’t automatically assume that calling his girlfriend “another stupidly unsupecting chipppy” could be construed as to reflect back on Stacy.

    I think she’s referring to any dumb young thing who might get involved with him despite his present situation.

    But that’s the trouble you get into when you write an opinionated piece…

  14. Yeah, she is a very opinionated writer when it comes to the famous Drew Peterson. I enjoy reading her pieces, but she sure doesn’t mince words.

    But, still, that stopped me in my tracks when she mentioned that one of the boys may be having issues. Oh, I feel so bad about that, whether it’s true or not, it sure gives you something to think about. That things behind those doors are not 100% tip top.

  15. LOL, I think everyone has issues in this whole mess, from family, friends, right down to bloggers. The guy sure brings out the worst in everyone!

  16. I wonder……Just exactly how long does it take to listen to 7 months worth of wire tapping ?

    I wonder….Does the GJ have to listen to everything on the over hears ?

    I wonder….Just exactly how many hours of this per day do they get in ?

    I wonder…could this take years since they have to listen to months of tape,cd,etc and they only meet once a week ?

    Thoughts ??

  17. I don’t understand why they have to listen to any of the overhears. They’ve heard from witnesses and probably have enough to hand down an indictment. I thought the saying goes – you can indict a ham sandwich.

    Indicting him is one thing, charging and trying him is another. I really don’t think someone is doomed to spend the vast part of their life in jail based on GJ proceedings. They don’t judge someones guilt or innocence. So, enough GJ already!

  18. I’m still not clear on exactly what the Judge aws asking to be turned over. Nancy Grace appeared to believe that it was the prosecution’s “work product” and notes. This is what we read yesterday:

    “Schoenstedt… ordered the Will County state’s attorney’s office, at the request of Peterson’s attorney’s, to give the defense a “narrow and limited” copy of e-mails, memos and other documentation relating to the decision to charge Peterson.”

  19. I’m still not clear on exactly what the Judge aws asking to be turned over. Nancy Grace appeared to believe that it was the prosecution’s “work product” and notes. This is what we read yesterday:

    “Schoenstedt… ordered the Will County state’s attorney’s office, at the request of Peterson’s attorney’s, to give the defense a “narrow and limited” copy of e-mails, memos and other documentation relating to the decision to charge Peterson.”

  20. It was interesting to read the transcript of that Nancy Grace show. Makes it sound a little unreasonable … what the judge asked. IMO

    GRACE: No, SOP, standard operating procedure, unless you had a judge`s order, would you give open file, all your work product?

    ODOM: Not only would I give open file work — not work , not work product because that`s privileged, but open file discovery, yes, and I`d invite the defense attorney into my office to make.

    GRACE: You just said if a judge told you to. How about when a judge didn`t tell you to?

    ODOM: My notes, Nancy. No, no attorney would turn over notes in work product. However if a judge told me to do so I would have to even if I didn`t like it and the fact that they didn`t turn them over is suspect.

  21. No, no attorney would turn over notes in work product.

    And yet, isn’t that what the judge instructed the State to do?

  22. Well, maybe not.

    Schoenstedt granted a motion to give the defense a “narrow and limited” copy of their documentation leading up to the charges against Peterson.

    I guess it depends on what “documentation” is and what “narrow and limited” means. Would two Post-it notes have sufficed?

  23. I think they were after the communications between ISP and state attorney office in the period coming up to the arrest.

  24. I can absolutely, positively attest to the point that NO attorney will ever turn over their work product. If a client fires an attorney and the new attorney writes and sends a request for their up-to-date file on the client, general correspondence and records will be forwarded. By records, I mean any outside records, such as medical or police reports, etc., that an attorney must pay a fee to obtain, as long as the new attorney reimburses the withdrawing attorney for them.

    But written notes or internal memos – no way, Jose.

  25. iknowenough // November 21, 2008 at 11:51 am

    I wonder……Just exactly how long does it take to listen to 7 months worth of wire tapping ?

    I wonder….Does the GJ have to listen to everything on the over hears ?

    I wonder….Just exactly how many hours of this per day do they get in ?

    I wonder…could this take years since they have to listen to months of tape,cd,etc and they only meet once a week ?

    Thoughts ??

    ****

    I wonder this as well and wonder why they couldn’t summarize it into a neat little package like they did for the Casey Anthony GJ.

  26. think – It’s just a rumor that they’re listening to 7 months of those tapes. Maybe they are, maybe they’re not, but it was just mentioned here in passing by someone. There’s plenty of rumor to go around.

  27. Afternoon, First off the last post under my name was not made by me. I would never be so mean in a post. I would like to apologize to my fellow bloggers here on behalf of my idiotic BF now known as STUPERMAN. This “was” his way of trying to embarass me off spending what “he” feels is too much time on the internet blogging about this case. Anyway long story. I am so sorry he felt it necessary to bring a personal problem to a public internet forum. I will be back soon oneday. I have other pressing issues as I am sure you can just imagine !!!

    Once again I apologize for his idiocy !

  28. This “was” his way of trying to embarass me off spending what “he” feels is too much time on the internet blogging about this case.
    :D
    Maybe the men in our lives could start their own chat. Blogging Widowers. ;)

  29. My hubby plays the internet war games–seems to do it for him. (if I knew how to do the emoticon with the ???, that would follow)

  30. 1wonderwoman // November 21, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Afternoon, First off the last post under my name was not made by me. I would never be so mean in a post. I would like to apologize to my fellow bloggers here on behalf of my idiotic BF now known as STUPERMAN. This “was” his way of trying to embarass me off spending what “he” feels is too much time on the internet blogging about this case. Anyway long story. I am so sorry he felt it necessary to bring a personal problem to a public internet forum. I will be back soon oneday. I have other pressing issues as I am sure you can just imagine !!!

    Once again I apologize for his idiocy !

    ***

    Which post? Did I miss something?

  31. They were listening to those tapes the second they were handed over which was probably daily (as in each time they (you know Julius & Ethel) spent time with him)

    The tapes have been listened to long long ago no doubt.

  32. Heh, one of my favorites!
    *************************

    I came in here for an argument!

    Oh, I’m sorry, this is Abuse.

    Well that explains it.

    You want 12a, next door.

    Sorry.

    Not at all. That’s all right…stupid git.

  33. I’ve been trying to figure out what’s wrong with this dropping the gun charge, and using vindictive prosecution as a defense.

    VP doesn’t address the charge. Seems to me that vindictive prosecution isn’t a defense at all. They haven’t indicted him for being an arrogant shifty jerk or because he’s ginger or he never paid his share into the coffee fund, the charges are specific about the gun. The charge must be answered.

    He can sue for vindictive prosecution afterwards if he must.

    I think it’s shocking that a judge thought it appropriate to try to compel disclosure of internal communications when it is not directly relevant to the matter of the gun. weird that defense can hijack the matter this way.

  34. I read a little bit about VP when Joel first mentioned it and it’s strange, but apparently when that is pursued as a defense the actual charges take the back seat. It’s almost like a punative action against the prosecution rather than a defense. You could bloody well have committed the offense but if the charges were brought vindictively, it’s such a grievous thing that the offender is allowed to walk away from them.

  35. Most discussions of ‘vindictive prosecution’ mention that the prosecution is in violation of someone’s constitution rights, so I think Joel would have brought up the right to bear arms and that the charges were done in order to keep Drew from having his guns back.

    We may never know tho…unless they appeal.

  36. bucketoftea // November 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    I think it’s shocking that a judge thought it appropriate to try to compel disclosure of internal communications when it is not directly relevant to the matter of the gun. weird that defense can hijack the matter this way.
    ***********************

    It seems then like either Joel was very clever to take this route, or the judge was overstepping his bounds by asking for so much to be tunred over. Maybe Conner did the best thing.

  37. That sounds like that needs addressing! Last resort illegal tackle kind of a thing? LOL There seem to be major loopholes for whiners like our own JB. He who is most childish wins.

    They didn’t have any evidence as such for VP, did they? Just bleated about the timeline, and all they have on that is spin.

  38. Depends what was in those emails and memos. If they said, “Get that bastard, Drew Peterson. I hate the fact that he’s exercising his constitional right to get his guns back. And I don’t care who else has an illegal gun, he’s the one who’s going down. We’ll show him!”, then he could probably prove it.

    If we ever get to trail maybe we’ll find out…

  39. facsmiley // November 21, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    TrIAl.

    I was kind of hoping that there would be a murder arrest before it ever got to that.
    ++++++++++
    … an arrest for TWO murders before it got to that…

  40. Interesting read by Eric Zorn. It’s long so I haven’t posted all of it. Click the link to read in entirety.

    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/11/drew.html

    Why the `Drew Peterson Law’ is unlikely to ensnare Drew Peterson

    Yes, I found the scenes of Drew Peterson (middle) celebrating Thursday with his legal team outside the Will County Courthouse disturbing.

    The man’s wife has been mysteriously missing for more than a year, and even if he had nothing to do with her disappearance (which, like many of you, I doubt very much), it would be decent of him not to mug for the cameras like a lottery winner and smooch his attorney on the forehead after a felony gun-possession charge against him was dismissed.

    But I also found the charge itself disturbing — a nitpicky indictment alleging that the barrel on one of his rifles was about five inches too short. To me it looked like authorities tossing a technicality tantrum because they couldn’t find a way to indict Peterson for murder.

    Meanwhile, my reading of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision tells me not to get too excited about the recent passage in Springfield of Senate Bill 2718 — the so-called “Drew Peterson Law.”

    As Ray Long reports over at Clout Street, the new law will “allow a judge to admit hearsay evidence into court for first-degree murder cases if the prosecution [can] prove that the defendant killed a witness to prevent testimony.” (read the entire text below)

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s office has been pushing for the law: “Peterson’s last two wives had told family and friends that they were fearful of Peterson, who is a suspect in the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. In addition, Stacy Peterson also told her minister that her husband had allegedly confessed to her that he killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, according to the minister.”…

  41. Zorn’s point and his example of Giles v. California only take into account the way the hearsay law might apply to Stacy or Kathy’s testimony about danger to themselves, and in that case you do run into issues of circular logic.

    I think the law will be more easily applied to Stacy’s testimony about Drew’s involvement in Kathleen’s death and that’s what the law is really there to do, allow the testimony of a silenced third party in the murder of a second party.

  42. Hi bucket, good afternoon.
    I agree facs, and from what I read acceptable “testimonial” evidence is what they look for.
    In the Savio case, I would think that the KS/DP settlement transcripts, and anything confided to Pr Schori or H Smith (by either woman) would be considered credible, as well as anything sent to the SA office as documentation.

    I hope it’s just another tool, though. There is a lot of character witness testimony, key witness testimony (ie Stephen’s girlfriend), the faked will, the uncle as executor crap, murder cover-up facts, phone records, plus all we aren’t aware of, which is much seeing as Conner refused to let go of it.

    Along with thirteen months, and counting, of investigation, I think they have enough to go far in a trial.

    As far as witnesses, I do believe there is at least one person who, knowingly or not, was involved in both crimes and has finally turned on DP.
    hmmm… which friend/neighbor/relative could that be? And how many already have?

  43. I’m still confused though as to why Illinois needed a separate law, when forefiture by wrongdoing is already a hearsay exception:

    Hearsay exceptions that apply only where the declarant is unavailable

    * dying declarations and other statements under belief of impending death: often depicted in movies; the police officer asks the person on his deathbed, “Who attacked you?” and the victim replies, “The butler did it”. Although, case law has ruled out this exception in criminal law, because the witness should always be cross examined in court.
    * declarations against interest
    * prior testimony: if the testimony was given under oath and the party against whom the testimony is being proffered was present and had the opportunity to cross examine the witness at that time. Often used to enter depositions into the court record at trial.
    * admission of guilt: if you make a statement, verbal or otherwise, as an admission of guilt of the matter at hand, that statement would not be regarded as hearsay. In other words, self-incriminating statements (confessions) are not hearsay.[2]
    * forfeiture by wrongdoing: the party against whom the statement is now offered (1) intentionally made the declarant unavailable; (2) with intent to prevent declarant’s testimony; (3) by wrongdoing. In plain English, if you get rid of a witness, statements they made can be used against you.

  44. Oh poop – I only meant to bold that last part:

    * forfeiture by wrongdoing: the party against whom the statement is now offered (1) intentionally made the declarant unavailable; (2) with intent to prevent declarant’s testimony; (3) by wrongdoing. In plain English, if you get rid of a witness, statements they made can be used against you.

  45. “Forfeiture by
    wrongdoing means that a defendant
    may not complain about the inability
    to cross-examine when the defendant
    “bears responsibility” for the witness’s
    absence.” according to Mason, 160 Wn.2d at 925.

    They may not complain about it; a defense kind of like Vindictive pros?

    The hearsay law just applies to capitol murder and the forfeiture law applies a lot to DV. That’s what I gathered anyway.

    According to a UNC website: “The forfeiture by wrongdoing exception survives Crawford (he made one of his wives unavailable, but not dead) because it is based not on the reliability of the declarant’s statement, but rather On the equitable consequences of the defendant’s misconduct.” UNC website.
    “based on the equitable consequences…” gives the impression that just showing what his advantage is at not having the testimony is heavily weighted.

    Sounds good to me. Use them both.

  46. Based on the move that team Brodsky pulled on gun charges and judge allowed, wonder what they are planning if/when charges are brought against Peterson on Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson. He has already said more than once that the hearsay law can’t be used because it’s “double hearsay”.

  47. Stacy was a witness to DP activities that night (not double hearsay), aside from anything he actually said to her. His alibi turning witness wouldn’t be advantageous to his defense.

    But I’m sure they’ll try it, or some other loophole, to creep through.

  48. Also thinking, with the amount of time Will County has been working on this, I’m hoping/thinking, they have alot to use and hearsay will only assist.

    The double hearsay was relating to the comments Stacy made to the minister/pastor on Kathleen. Will be intersting to hear what Steve’s ex has to say about that weekend back in March as well.

  49. Joel won’t have any say about what testimony/evidence is admissable. That will be up to the judge.

    And I think his protestation of double hearsay is just…wrong. Lizanne is right.

  50. Hi everyone!

    Yeah, it will be interesting to see what Steve’s ex-girlfriend has to say about the weekend of Kathleen’s death.

    Same goes for the older boys, and what they have to say about the morning Stacy was heard arguing with Peterson, and then nothing.

    When will it all come together and make sense?

  51. Kathleen Savios death. No hearsay needed here! Just ask the relevant people the questions and get the answers.

    No towels or clothes were in the bathroom where she was discovered, a paramedic noted. Shampoo bottles were in upright positions along the small tub, unlikely if she had suffered a fall, according to a source.
    ************
    If confronted with this, how would a defense attorney explain this away? If the clothes were there when found, Carcerano will certainly be able to testify to this, no? If they were picked up by Peterson, where did he put them, or if he didn’t pick them up, where are they?
    ************
    Although a state police crime-scene technician had covered Savio’s hands with bags to preserve evidence—a procedure that typically precedes a homicide investigation—the statements of police that night indicated no evidence of trauma or foul play, according to the deputy coroner’s report.
    ************
    What does “no evidence of trauma” mean? A gash on the head, and bruises on the ankles and other parts of the body sounds like trauma to me, whether it’s by a fall or otherwise. Why no evidence of trauma? Getting beaten up or falling, doesn’t that constitute
    “trauma?”
    ************
    The reports also show he was walking around the scene before state police arrived. At one point, he was alone in the bathroom with Savio’s body and told emergency responders, “This is my ex-wife. Treat the scene with respect.”
    ************
    If someone thought it important enough to make a note of the fact that the ex-husband was alone with the body in the bathroom, why didn’t anyone become concerned about that before an actual determination was made as to the cause of death?
    ************
    The police reports confirm speculation that Stacy Peterson gave him his principal alibi for his whereabouts in the days before Savio was discovered.
    ************
    Well, we all know how this played out, i.e., no follow-up of phone records to indicate he was where he was, or who he called or who called him. But, there were two other adult people living in the home at the time, Stephen and Jennifer. Were they interviewed (nothing has ever been publicly said about this) at the time. If so, do their statements from back then parallel their present statements? Why was Jennifer before the GJ for hours regarding this investigation? Stephen’s been before the GJ a number of times. Why?

  52. According to a report from that night, Deputy Coroner Mike VanOver asked Robert Deel, a crime scene technician for the state police, and “detectives if there was any reason to believe that this was a traumatic death and they stated NO, therefore the homicide/suspicious death protocol was not followed.”

    VanOver wrote in his report that he had notified his superiors that “the protocol was not being followed … because it was felt at that time by all parties that there were not signs of foul play or trauma for this death investigation.”
    ************
    What do Will County law enforcement officials use as their on-the-scene guidelines to determine what is a “traumatic death”. A “traumatic death by homicide,” specifically? Because, the way this looks to me is that the determination was made that night, on-the-spot, that Kathleen’s death was not traumatic (homicide), and that was it. The only thing they left to conjecture was the cause of death, not the manner. Who’s call/determination was that?
    ************
    State police Lt. Scott Compton declined to comment on why his agency’s technicians and investigators concluded the death was not suspicious, noting that crime-scene technicians “make observations and document those observations as part of their investigation and processing of a crime scene.” He declined to comment further.
    ************
    This speaks for itself, heh?
    ************
    Police interviewed Stacy Peterson for one hour March 3.
    ************
    No hearsay here. She said what she said and it can be investigated and compared to what is known now.
    ************
    Peterson told police during his 65-minute interview that his divorce from Savio was “difficult at times,” but that their “relationship had gotten a lot better” after he married Stacy.
    ************
    Same thing applies here. He gave his “65-minute” statement to the police, and it sure can be gone over. Did they ask him who he called or who called him during the relevant weekend? What was his response? Since they never did get the phone records at the time, but have them now, that should be easy enough to compare. No hearsay needed.

  53. Facs – Hearsay, Schmearsay. What about all of the other stuff? In Kathleen’s case, if the Hearsay is needed to bring into a trial her written letters and fears, then so be it. There’s plenty of other open ended questions that need conclusions, and it sure ain’t hearsay!

  54. …..and if ISP were involved in a cover-up during the “investigation” of Kathleen’s death, there are plenty of questions there, too. May take yet a bit more time to tease it all out and a fed grand jury to complete their business. ;-)

  55. What do Will County law enforcement officials use as their on-the-scene guidelines to determine what is a “traumatic death”. A “traumatic death by homicide,” specifically? Because, the way this looks to me is that the determination was made that night, on-the-spot, that Kathleen’s death was not traumatic (homicide), and that was it. The only thing they left to conjecture was the cause of death, not the manner. Who’s call/determination was that?

    =======================

    Don’t forget our favorite law enforcement person Drew Peterson was the first “police” on the scene.

    His input would have been crucial and would have orchestrated the direction the investigation was to go and no doubt he kept his ear to the ground making sure the investigation was heading toward an accident all the way !

    After his “discovery” of Kathleen he went home and told Stacy he committed the “perfect murder”.

    He told her investigators would come to their home and interview her.

    She was to say they were in bed all night “making love” (ugh).

    The transcript of the above is out there somewhere.

  56. A correction re the above:

    On the night of the murder Drew went home and told Stacy he committed the perfect murder, not on ‘discovery” of Kathleen’s body.

    That night (the night of the murder) Stacy had been awake to find her husband not in bed and had been calling him several times re his whereabouts and couldn’t find him.

  57. STORY COURTESY CRIME REPORT USA.

    Drew Peterson Exposed Author and journalist Derek Armstrong first broke the news from an exclusive source—on a morning radio show in Chicago—that it was likely Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt would dismiss charges.

    ==============

    HOW did Derek Armstrong, with so much certainty, already know what the Judges decision was going to be ??????

    What “source” already knew what the Judge was going to decide ?????

    Something is not right here !!!

  58. I bet when the judge said last time to the prosecutor “be prepared to hand over discovery” that it was understood that Conner wasn’t going to do it. Brodski knew that and planned to call his bluff.

    Whether it be to prevent them from seeing their VinPros hand or any other discovery it was a throwaway hand anyway. Bigger pot ahead.

  59. I have yet to find the radio show he made this major prediction on the morning of the actual hearing. This whole Armstrong stuff just defies logic.

    The attorneys talk amongst themselves, and Brodsky knew darn well the prosecutors weren’t going to turn over anything. That’s not rocket science. Defense and plaintiff attorneys talk all the time back and forth. So, Brodsky could just as well conveyed that to Armstrong, and told him the scenario – if they don’t produce, the case gets dismissed or they’re held in contempt. Duh. No big revelation!

  60. Brodsky must have only been allowed to ask for discovery of everything related to the GUN CHARGES and not everything on everything that’s being investigated at present as that would be absurd, considering Drew hasn’t been charged with anything other than the actual gun charges.

  61. It seems he wanted internal communications. If he won the point with the judge to be able to proceed with vindictive prosecution, then it would make sense that he went the next step over – ask for the internal communications from the SA’s office to confirm this. So, he already knew what the consequences were going to be IF the prosecutors didn’t comply – case dismissed.

    I doubt he can predict, though, what an Appellate Court is going to do. Unless he’s already given that information to Armstrong too. It seems that they have a direct line to one another. Him and the crimefile dude.

  62. Um, Mr. Armstrong, if you’re reading here, what is the Appellate Court going to rule?

    Thanks ever so much in advance for your information. :)

  63. Unless he’s already given that information to Armstrong too. It seems that they have a direct line to one another. Him and the crimefile dude.

    ============

    LOL, I see what you mean.

    Brodsky feeds info to Armstrong who then makes it look like he “independently” investigated and publishes his findings before the outcome of an event to give credibility to himself and the Drew-Crew.

  64. Rescue, here’s a link to the radio show’s web site:

    http://1220wkrs.com/THE-SANDEE-AND-CLINT-SHOW/1533319

    THE SANDEE AND CLINT SHOW

    Sandee Abern and Clint Wolf are the typical married couple….Clint thinks he knows all the right answers…but Sandee really does!

    Do they agree on anything…hardly! Do they enjoy proving their respective points of view…always! Do they love each other…You bet!!!!

    Listen in and feel right at home. A little bickering is fun…besides…as Sandee and Clint say, “Making up is sooooooooo much fun!”

    Their liberal, fun-loving ways keep this show jumping at all times!

  65. Bio….

    Our favorite time of each day is definitely from 12:00pm-1:00pm on The Sandee and Clint Show, when we are interacting with our listeners…and interact we do!

    Believe it or not, we each do have a brain between our ears! Clint has a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology, is extremely well read and knows “a little bit about a lot.”

    Sandee has a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology/Education and a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology. If you are lucky you might even have her as an instructor in undergraduate Psychology at one of our local universities. (she does that in her spare time!)

    Of course, we have very little of that spare time! In addition to our time on radio, we are full-time Realtors (20 years in the business) at Coldwell Banker in Buffalo Grove. Check out our website at http://www.sandeeandclint.com. We love helping people to buy and sell homes!

  66. Girls and boys, I am NOT making this up:

    Reporter Derek Armstrong broke news from an exclusive source—on a morning radio show in Chicago—that it was likely Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt would dismiss charges .

    Crime Report USA Correspondent Derek Armstrong, Staff Reporter

    Drew Peterson with attorney Joel BrodskyA source close to the Peterson case disclosed to this correspondent that the State is ready to indict Drew Peterson in the alleged homicide of Kathleen Savio.

    On the talk radio show, The Sandee and Clint Show on WKRS 1220AM at 10:30am today, this reporter stated that he believed the state would prefer to dismiss charges against Peterson than to produce documents requested by Peterson’s defense team. “I believe the charges will be dropped as a strategic move to protect a future homicide case.”

    http://www.crimereportusa.com/

  67. The DPJB goofs must be getting a $$ cut somehow on that book’s sales. Why else would they feed stuff to a guy that really didn’t make him look too good?

  68. So meanwhile, back at the Ranch, is it irrelevant now if the guns are too long, too short, illegal or whatever ?

    Has that become a triviality right now ?

  69. Reporter Derek Armstrong broke news from an exclusive source—on a morning radio show in Chicago—that it was likely Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt would dismiss charges .

    Well, let’s see – if Brodsky knew the prosecutors weren’t going to turn over their internal memos, correspondence and emails if the Judge allowed a vindictive prosecution defense, then I guess, for all intents and purposes, he could be counted in as Armstrongs “exclusive source.”

  70. I just want to know how I can get Glenn Selig to represent me so he can book me on top radio shows hosted by full-time Realtors from Buffalo Grove!

  71. I’m starting to see them all as a bunch of predators at a watering hole during a drought (Drew being the watering hole).

    Hyenas, lions and wild dogs all cheek to jowl, lapping up the water in a temporary truce in order to benefit themselves.

  72. Selig, working for DP, likely orchestrated a lengthy deal with DA to write the book including followup press etc for all. (maybe even Exposed II?) Selig multimedia owns PR News, too, which puts out all the releases.
    Yes facs, it seems it’s all about money hungry hyenas sitting back ready to pounce.
    Neither the pub company nor selig seem to be doing much biz without the DP name.
    No such thing as bad publicity, I guess.

  73. Hey Bucket, was it you who noted that there were no longer links to Paul’s blog in the Sun-Times articles? I checked a few and noticed that as well.

    So was it the picture of our president-elect waving a Nazi flag that finally did it, or was it that he kept calling him a Bolshevik at the same time? Maybe they are sticklers for consistency.

  74. LOL, sometimes it just becomes clear that authority and dignity rule the day, and bowing down to disgusting name calling and associations just doesn’t cut it.

    Guess that can apply to just about anything, heh?

  75. Here’s an external review of Joe Hosey’s book:

    http://crime.suite101.com/article.cfm/review_joseph_hoseys_fatal_vows

    Joseph Hosey’s Fatal Vows
    The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson

    Dale Van Every

    Joseph Hosey’s just-released book Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson, is an in-depth look at the ongoing Bolingbrook, Illinois investigation of missing-person Stacy Peterson. Tragic is a word that cannot be understated in this case, beginning with the back story of a pretty young (17 year-old) hotel desk clerk succumbing to the questionable advances of a cop 30 years her senior.

    The mother of two young children and stepmother to two others, 23 year-old Stacy Peterson went missing from her suburban Bolingbrook home on Sunday, October 28, 2007. Nearly every shred of evidence pointed to foul play at the hands of her husband, a veteran police Sergeant whose behavior following the disappearance did little to dispel the notion. A year later, the case remains open.

    Author Was At Forefront Reporting The Case

    Hosey has a uniquely advantageous viewpoint from which to tell this true tale, and he uses that sightline well. As a reporter for the Chicago Herald News, which covers suburban news, he was at the forefront of reporting both the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and the earlier death of her husband Drew Peterson’s ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    It is Drew Peterson around which Fatal Vows revolves. Drawing on interviews with friends, relatives, and even several with Drew Peterson himself, Hosey is able to paint the picture of an abusive, womanizing husband whose ego somehow allows him to bathe in the limelight of the investigative cameras. Peterson himself told the author, “I find me fascinating.”

    It was partly this type of behavior that led to a reinvestigation of his third wife’s “accidental” bathtub drowning, and the subsequent ruling that she’d been murdered, while Peterson dated his next wife, Stacy. Among the further evidence Hosey reveals is an account Peterson’s own stepbrother gave police regarding the day in question, and helping the secretive cop move a large, sealed plastic barrel that was “warm to the touch.”

    Author Remains Unbiased In The Face Of Mounting Evidence

    To Author Hosey’s credit, he has clearly done his homework and presented the story in as unbiased a manner as possible. At no time does this story devolve into the author’s opinion, something that wouldn’t be hard to do. The problem is that the evidence, even given in a straightforward manner, is so obviously stacked against Drew Peterson, that the story, at times, may appear biased. Most of that evidence, however, is of Peterson’s own making, and the attentive reader will note that Hosey’s language is carefully chosen.

    The very nature of the story behind Joseph Hosey’s Fatal Vows, as well as its timeliness, make much of this book feel like the script to a prime time magazine show. For readers interested in true crime of a disturbing nature, one which seems about an eyelash of evidence away from being solved (but may never be) it could be called a “page-turner.”

  76. yo facs, rescue

    That jokester paulie, eh?

    I noticed bobblehead’s gone, but I hardly looked there, so this may be old news.

  77. Thanks, facs. That was nice to read……all that evidence. Reminds me how the media presents DP as sinister just by reporting the facts.

  78. Yeah. LOL. I missed that. Should say “overstated”.

    Bobble’s was ridiculous so no loss. The one good thing about it was that it did allow people to vent, and if that kept them from peeing in someone’s front yard or something, I guess that could have been a good thing. :)

  79. A funny story from one of the press people who was camped out at Drew’s a year ago…

    http://drewpetersondoughnuts.blogspot.com/

    It was Sunday, November 11, 2007, and I was on assignment for the Chicago Tribune. My job: keep an eye on the home of Drew Peterson and see what, if anything, happens…

    …Paul came within a foot of me, then thrust both bags my way as he boomed, “Left or right?” I hesitated, unprepared for this scenario. Wasn’t I the one who was asking questions here?…

    …Ten seconds passed, and then the door opened a crack. Paul peered cautiously at me. Feeling like a Girl Scout trying to hawk overpriced cookies, I summoned my best sales pitch.

    “Hi, Paul. Nobody seems to want these and I thought I should bring them back to you,” I said. A moment’s pause, then my real mission: “Is Drew open to being interviewed?”…

  80. Oke I’m going to ask again:

    Has the length of the gun barrel or lack thereof now become irrelevant ??

    Is posession of an illegal weapon of less importance than thinking the cops have it in for you when they charge you ???

  81. just – guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens next with the Teflon Man, and what the Appellate Court’s decision is. Not much else to say about that.

  82. My understanding is that VP is a big deal. and it’s related to violating someone’s constiutional rights. In Drew’s case I think Joel was going to relate it to either Drew’s right to bear arms or to be free of unreasonable search and seizure (get his guns back).

    “To support a claim of selective prosecution, a defendant bears the burden of establishing unconstitutional discrimination in the administration of a penal statute. United States v. Gutierrez, 990 F.2d 472, 476 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both “(1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e. discriminatory purpose or intent.” Id. at 475 “.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00138.htm

    So if the defense could prove that a prosecution is vindictive then that’s a much bigger deal than whatever the alleged offense could be…even if the offense exists. At least that’s how it looks to me.

  83. This verdict raises the question – don’t the cops always have it in for you when they charge you ??

    If they didn’t they would never charge anybody now would they ?

  84. Yup, I don’t think the cops have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the people they charge. Guess that’s what happened when Kathleen’s death was investigated, though.

  85. From what I understand about vindictive prosecution, if it holds up as a defense the charge no longer can be pursued. In this case it can be appealed because teh charge were thrown out due to the proscution not complying with the request to turn over the materials.

    If it goes back to court and they purse the VP defense again, it will be up the jury. Either they will decide in Drew’s favor (accepting the VP defense) or they will not deem the defense to be adequate and they’ll go with a guilty decision.

    At this point, nothing happens unless the prosecution goes ahead and appeals the judge’s decision to dismiss.

  86. Wait – now I’m thinking that if the VP defense works that the charges are simply dismissed – there’s no innocent or guilty.

    Well, if you want to read more and get back to us…or if you just know more about this than I do (which wouldn’t be hard) and feel like filling us in on the facts, please feel free.

    http://www.vindictiveprosecution.com/

  87. And I see that my quote above related to selective prosecution, not vindictive prosecution. So now I’m really going to shut up for a while.

  88. Facs, that made me laugh. I used to work in an office with no windows (known as the sub-basement).

    We were always stunned when we’d emerge to the outside world and find 6 inches of snow on the ground.

  89. Did the new thread not appear because November has already been archived?
    ;) Or is Gatehouse in the sub-basement of slumberland too?

  90. I saw that as well, Noway.

    What confuses me is why the big push to get the hearsay law passed six weeks ahead of schedule and then put the Grand Jury on hold for six weeks?

    Barooo?

  91. Exactly. That is why I’d like it confirmed. But I’m not sure anyone would be able to confirm since the proceedings are secret.

    OT … but Facs, are you and I in the blackhole of WordPress posting? Where is everyone?

  92. Where is everyone ready about the grand jury break?
    If need be,they can always call a special secession.
    Grand jury doesn’t have to hear all 7 months worth, of the tapes.

  93. I’m around too. I find it hard to imagine that the State’s Attorney would make an announcement that a “conclusion” is near in one of the Peterson cases, yet, not move forward with it soon.

    Besides, a Grand Jury isn’t convene to hear a prosecutor’s entire case. They’re to hear enough evidence to hand down an indictment. Since the session appears to be over, it seems it’s just another indication the end is the beginning. ;)

  94. facsmiley // November 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    I saw that as well, Noway.

    What confuses me is why the big push to get the hearsay law passed six weeks ahead of schedule and then put the Grand Jury on hold for six weeks?

    Barooo?

    ****

    I think the 6-week thing was a mis-statement at the House session. I think it was more like 6 months.

    “But without an effective date written specifically into the bill, the law wouldn’t take effect until July 1, 2009, said Brian Williamsen, a spokesman for the governor’s office. ”

    Source: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/21/local/chi-hearsay_22aug22

  95. Woman’s body found in FdL County wooded area
    The Reporter Staff • November 24, 2008

    TOWN OF ASHFORD — Foul play may be involved in the death of a woman whose body was found in an isolated area of southeastern Fond du Lac County, says Fond du Lac County Sheriff Mick Fink.

    “It’s a real whodunit,” Fink said Sunday. “We’re definitely looking at a suspicious death, if not a homicide.”

    Two hunters driving deer for a third hunter found the body at 9:17 a.m. partially submerged in a frozen creek in a wooded area behind W4617 Skyline Drive in the town of Ashford, said Chief Deputy Mark Strand. The area is southwest of Campbellsport.

    The body is frozen in the foot-deep creek, but appears to be a woman due to the clothing, Fink said.

    “Anything is possible as we get into this, but we’re pretty sure it’s a woman,” he said.

    The death appears “relatively recent” and no women have been reported missing in Fond du Lac County that fit the timeframe, Strand said.

    A cause of death was not apparent, Strand said. The Fond du Lac County Medical Examiner processed the body for evidence and an autopsy was expected Sunday or today, he said.

    Strand would not reveal the name of the landowner, but said his department will be contacting a Milwaukee man who recently purchased the land. He said there are vacant buildings in the area, and it appears there would be no reason for someone to frequent the area.

    “This could be a lengthy investigation,” Fink said Sunday afternoon. “We’re working a little against the weather, it’s expected to snow later today.”

    Authorities could say little about the victim Sunday.

    “It’s going to be a lot of follow-up, a lot of leads that will have to be figured out and a lot more departments and agencies involved to determine if they have anybody missing,” Strand said.

    He said the entire detective bureau was at the scene Sunday to help with the investigation.

  96. Bones Found In Burned-Out Car

    (GARY, Ind.) A rusty, burned out car hidden in a northwest Indiana cornfield contained human bones, but few other clues to help police determine what happened there.

    Gary police officers discovered the car shortly after noon Wednesday at the northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Chase Street near the Small Farms apartment complex, just west of the fire and police training facility.

    The car, which appears to be either a Chevrolet or Oldsmobile, was parked facing east, its windows gone, the color lost due to fire and the elements.

    Lake County deputy coroners took possession of the bones, which they will forward to University of Indianapolis forensic anthropologist Dr. Stephen Nawrocki.

    While searching the car, police found a cell phone that had been burned, as well as a set of keys investigators hope someone will recognize.

    Detective Cpl. Arturo Azcona said a round metal ring contains four keys and a heart-shaped holder with a heart pendant hanging from it.

    “It’s too burned up to tell what color it was, but maybe someone will recognize the hearts and help us identify this person,” Azcona said.

    Sgt. William Fazekas said detectives with the department’s Auto Detail division will inspect the car. He hopes they can find a vehicle identification number to help determine the owner of the car.

    Investigators said they will be checking missing persons reports for anyone who hasn’t been seen since sometime late this summer.

    Because of the condition of the car and the plants around it, police believe the fire was set sometime before the area flooded in mid-September
    What is going on? Bodies are being found all over.

  97. From everyone’s favorite PR guy:

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1007&z=4

    State’s Attorney to Meet with Victims’ Families in Drew Peterson Case

    Investigative reporter says a source close to the investigation told him the meetings may be a sign an indictment for murder is near.

    drewpetersonexposed.com – November 24, 2008

    (PRNewsChannel) / Chicago, Ill. / A key witness in the case against Drew Peterson in the alleged homicide of his third wife Kathleen Savio will meet with prosecutor James Glasgow next Thursday, a confidential source tells Derek Armstrong, author of Drew Peterson Exposed.


    Mary Ponterelli was the first person on scene after Savio’s death was reported and James Glasgow will meet with her personally on Dec. 4.

    “The meeting may indicate the State wants to know specific details of what she might have witnessed,” says Armstrong, who continues to investigate Drew Peterson even though his book, Drew Peterson Exposed, was published Oct. 1.

    Armstrong also says Glasgow, citing sources, is scheduled to meet with the families of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson, as early as tomorrow.

    “Either Mr. Glasgow is reviewing potential details for a future indictment–an indictment my source indicated is likely in the Savio case–or is offering a progress report,” says Armstrong. “The meeting with Mary Ponterelli is almost certainly to verify details of her account of the crime scene.”

    Armstrong broke the news last week that Judge Richard Schoenstedt would dismiss charges on the gun charges.

    “That was indicated by the potential indictment, now more likely than ever due to the hearsay law,” Armstrong says. “My source said, ‘I believe the charges will be dropped as a strategic move to protect a future homicide case.’ The prosecution clearly did not want the defense to have those documents.”

    Since the new hearsay law would allow introduction of letters from Kathleen Savio-who wrote that if something happened to her, Drew Peterson was responsible-an indictment in Savio is most likely. The meeting of the State’s Attorney with Ponterelli, the principal crime scene witness is another strong indicator that an indictment is forthcoming in the Savio case, Armstrong says. “Either that, or the state is concerned about the case.”



    An Indictment Still Coming for Savio Homicide



    Armstrong’s says his source indicated “charges will come, if not today, then soon.”

    The source also said the indictment was only slightly motivated by the new hearsay law that took effect last week. The hearsay law may allow the prosecution to present hearsay from witnesses such as Pastor Neil Schori who indicated he was told by Stacy Peterson that Drew killed
Kathleen Savio.

    There’s other evidence as well, according to the source Armstrong says he spoke with.

”The more compelling evidence,” Armstrong says the source said , “were the transcripts of the Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio divorce.”


  98. That’s some great reporting basically saying that either they are getting ready to charge him or they aren’t. Don’t need a crystal ball or inside source to figure that out.

  99. Mary Ponterelli was the first person on scene after Savio’s death was reported and James Glasgow will meet with her personally on Dec. 4.

    Does it seem odd to anyone else that Glasgow would wait an entire year before asking Mary P. exactly what she saw? Could he be meeting with her for some other reason?

  100. I don’t get it. The SA’s office has gazillions of reporters and others that can take a statement and disseminate it in the press. Why, of all people is Derek Armstrong, who merely wrote a book that potentially puts money into Drew Peterson’s pocket, getting all of this “inside” information all of a sudden?

    It would seem to me that Brodsky is the one that is passing along this information to him as the “inside” source. Brodsky very well could have someone passing along information to him which he, in turn, gives to Armstrong. You know, who happened to write a book, who happens to need the publicity to promote the book, who happens to have the same PR agency as Peterson. Hmmmm.

  101. Last month, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow issued a statement about the Savio and Stacy Peterson cases, indicating that a special grand jury is still weighing evidence in both.

    “I fully expect there to be a resolution in at least one of these investigations in the near future,” Glasgow said.

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

    “still weighing evidence.”

    “fully expect there to be a resolution in at least one of these investigations”

    Not hearing evidence or witness statements, “weighing evidence.”

    Not expecting to arrest anyone or arrest someone. Merely expecting a resolution.

    Okay, now what?

  102. “Either Mr. Glasgow is reviewing potential details for a future indictment–an indictment my source indicated is likely in the Savio case–or is offering a progress report,” says Armstrong. “The meeting with Mary Ponterelli is almost certainly to verify details of her account of the crime scene.”
    *****************
    Armstrong’s “source” has no idea why Glasglow is meeting with Pontarelli, if true. If true, the source has NO clue why. Merely speculating.

    This is so bogus, it can’t even pass the smell test! What a bunch of baloney.

    How about this cleaver statement about why the meeting: “Either that, or the state is concerned about the case.”



    Who would even say the state is concerned about the case? Duh, maybe the defense?

  103. “Either that, or the state is concerned about the case.”


    “Or…ummm, some third thing that didn’t occur to me”, says Armstrong.

    Ok, I made that up, but you see where I’m going with this…

  104. I think I see how this is supposed to work.

    Armstrong makes these statements and then the real reporters try to get clarification from Glasgow’s office.

  105. LOL – I just had a thought. Could this be the same “source” that told Geraldo that Peterson would be arrested in August?

    If so, we’re in BIG trouble. ;)

  106. Umm.. Does anyone take Geraldo that seriously after the whole Al Capone vault debacle? THAT was some funny, funny stuff. All the hype and then nothing – absolutely nothing.

  107. Well, there’s a couple people who take Geraldo seriously because they really get their undies in a bunch every time the guy talks about the case.

    The rest of the world recognizes that he’s a tabloid reporter…but Joel goes after him online with long-ago debunked rumors and didn’t they devote almost a half-hour to fretting over him on a Dana Pretzer show? I remember it well, because for some reason I volunteered to transcribe it. It was torture, I tell you. Torture!

  108. noway406 // November 24, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    I think I see how this is supposed to work.

    Armstrong makes these statements and then the real reporters try to get clarification from Glasgow’s office.
    *********************

    This makes a lot of sense. More fishing.

  109. Mary Pontarelli, her husband and son appeared before the GJ. Why would a State’s Attorney meet privately almost a year later with one of the GJ witnesses? What has she got to do with an impending conclusion to a homicide investigation that he must meet with her privately.

    Oh, yeah, I forgot. We’re talking about Drew Peterson, the Teflon Man.

  110. noway406 // November 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Can anyone confirm the rumor I just read? The grand jury is on break until January.

    Danya?
    —–
    Noway,

    I had seen earlier this morning and e-mail Danya and another reporter that I got to no but no response yet.

  111. Noway,

    Sorry, trying to eat some shelled peanuts and type doesn’t work out too well. Should have typed…”I go to know, not no….”

  112. givarat // November 24, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Can I ask where you read this rumor at whitesoxfan?

    It was on the Hang Drew site.

  113. Hmmm, very interesting indeed. I highly doubt they would break until January. Maybe someone got their wires cross to take the break through the holidays to include both Thanksgiving and Christmas and not days in between. Who knows though.I know I got called for jury duty during Christmas, yet I never had to go.

  114. On another board I belong to, a member contacted the States Attorney’s office.

    The receptionest did not think the grand jury had adjourned until next year.

    I’m more than willing to give them Thanksgiving and Christmas off. And maybe the 3 Thursdays between now and January. ;)

  115. Hey Noway can you PM me please. I left you a message thanks. I will try to find out more through some sources I know.

  116. noway,

    Also trying to find out some information from another source. May only hear something back tomorrow.

  117. Maybe they broke because they’re done and the indictment is coming.

    If Armstrong can look into his crystal ball, so can we.

  118. I was being nice about it. I was going to say, if he can pull a rumor out of his…………

    use your imagination

  119. Well, yes, I believe so, because she screamed and Drew then came running up the stairs to see what was happening. Remember, he waited downstairs while Carcerano, Mary and her husband, went to check the house.

  120. I was reading this just today at a candyrose: from Steve C.: “I yelled for Mary. Mary came in the bathroom, and then when she started yelling after seeing her, that`s when Drew came flying up the stairs. But out of respect, because, you know, Kathy is a woman and that`s Drew`s, you know… ex-wife at the time, and Mary, you know, it`s not something I wanted to stare at for a long period of time.”

Comments are closed.