Christina Raines hires lawyer, Gloria Allred

Christina Raines

Christina Raines


Today, self-described discrimination attorney and feminist lawyer Gloria Allred released a statement on behalf of her new client, Christina Raines.  Here it is in its entirety:

Today, I can confirm that I will be representing Chrissy Raines as a spokesperson in the case of People v. Drew Peterson.

Chrissy, age 24, has known Mr. Peterson for many years. This year they became romantically involved and she lived on and off with him for part of this year. She cares for him and believes that he cares for her. They did have plans to marry once the divorce from Stacy Peterson became final.

Chrissy was shocked when Drew was arrested on a charge that he killed Kathleen Savio (his third wife). She takes no position on whether or not he is guilty of that crime or whether or not he had anything to do with the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy Peterson. That is for the jury to decide. However, her heart goes out to both families who have suffered such a terrible loss.

Gloria Allred

Gloria Allred

Chrissy may be a witness in this case. If called as a witness Chrissy plans to tell the truth.I am in the process of applying to the Illinois Court for permission to represent her in this matter. It will be within the discretion of the Court as to whether or not to admit me for this purpose.

Chrissy has no plans to do any interviews at this time. She wishes to maintain her privacy both at work and at home. Chrissy asks that the press not contact her, since she will not be making any comment, and will simply refer everyone to me. Any such contact with Chrissy will be viewed by me as attempted harassment of a potential witness.

I look forward to working with Chrissy Raines and protecting her rights in this very challenging, emotionally tumultuous, high profile case.

Gloria Allred
Attorney at Law
representing
Chrissy Raines
May 15, 2008 

As far as considering approaches to her client as harrassment, if Ms. Raines continues to make obscene gestures, and to swear and swat at the press, I get the feeling they are only going to be more inclined to pursue quotes from her. Some ladylike behavior might be more fitting with her apparent desire to be left in peace.

I somehow doubt that Chrissy’s heart goes out to the families. Her actions have shown nothing but disrespect for them since the beginning and her actions speak volumes. I hardly think they need or desire the condolences of the woman who jokes to Drew, “Are you going to drown me in the bathtub, too?”


Video courtesy WomenScorned – Thanks!

~By commenting 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.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

79 thoughts on “Christina Raines hires lawyer, Gloria Allred

  1. Rescueapet, I know what you are saying as far as Chrissy is concerned, as well as her motives. I was addressing Gloria Allred’s motives for suddenly inserting herself into another high profile case.

    Everyone is entitled to representation in court, but who is paying for her fees? I smell book, movie, media deals. Gloria got a lot of mileage out of Amber Frey.

  2. Womenscorned – you say you heard her say “she” has presumption of innocence? Hmm. I’d like to listen to that again.

    Thanks for the heads up. I thought it was “he”.

  3. (copied myself)
    Watching that GA video again I noticed at the end GA says “She (not he) is entitled to the presumption of innocence”
    Why would she say that?

  4. delilah – oh, absolutely, agree. In my mind, Gloria Allred has no where to go but down by inserting herself in this mess. It’s not as though she’s rescuing the poor damsel in distress. She’s fielding interviews and backroom deals for her client.

    I have lost all respect for her if she continues to represent this idiot-woman.

  5. someone help me with the math

    Chrissy is 24 years old, correct?

    Stacy would have been 25 years old last January…if I’m not mistaken Chrissy must have just had a birthday recently…if Chrissy was 15 years old when she met Drew and Stacy in a laundromat wouldn’t that have made Stacy 16 years old? not 17 almost 18 when her and Drew got together…am I doing the math right?

  6. Dearheart, I think she met him when she was 15 and a teenager run amok. I don’t think that is necessarily the same time that they all met in the laundromat.

  7. Ah, yes, womenscorned, you are correct. “She” is entitled to the presumption of innocence is what Allred says in the phone call interview.

    Now, what is it that we’re to presume “she” is innocent of, may I ask?

  8. They IDd the photo as Chrissy but I thought she was the one wearing the black. Delete this too. I’m watching the video again.

    Maybe it’s just because I’d never seen Chrissy so vocal.

  9. You got to admit Christina is not very poised or mature for someone her age and therefore her handling of the Media has obviously been woeful.

    It is not helping her cause by being hostile and offensive by saying stuff like: “none of your f#@*&%g business” and giving them the finger every time she drives off as it is a war she can’t win and if she got herself a lawyer that can at least prevent her from crucifying herself that way it can only be a good thing(!!)

  10. dearheart88 Says:

    May 15, 2009 at 8:00 pm
    someone help me with the math

    Chrissy is 24 years old, correct?

    Stacy would have been 25 years old last January…if I’m not mistaken Chrissy must have just had a birthday recently…if Chrissy was 15 years old when she met Drew and Stacy in a laundromat wouldn’t that have made Stacy 16 years old? not 17 almost 18 when her and Drew got together…am I doing the math right?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Dearheart, the laundromat story and meeting at age 15 are not one and the same.

    There are at least four different stories circulating as is the norm with stories concerning Drew, but at least the attorney confirmed “Christina has know Mr Peterson for MANY years”

  11. LOL, I thought ISP has the engagement ring, from when she left the first time. Or was that the second time?

    Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is.

  12. Someone had asked whether she was wearing one when she visited Drew in jail. It didn’t look like she was. So what ring from Drew did law enforcement take, and do they still have it?

  13. I’m going over all the interviews with Chrissy both on TV and the radio….

    what is up with her hostility when it comes to the subject of Stacy? I mean, I get the whole “she’s putting my boyfriend through all this” aspect of it…but there seems to be something more with her..like a jealousy

    am I the only one that thinks this?

  14. Noway, I always assumed they had the ring that Ernie is waving around in that one picture. I think he is the one who said it was turned over to LE.

  15. Thanks
    Thinking back, does anyone know what happened to the the ring DiP bought Stacy 1 week (IIRC) before she went “missing”?

  16. dearheart88 Says:

    May 15, 2009 at 8:25 pm
    I’m going over all the interviews with Chrissy both on TV and the radio….

    what is up with her hostility when it comes to the subject of Stacy? I mean, I get the whole “she’s putting my boyfriend through all this” aspect of it…but there seems to be something more with her..like a jealousy

    am I the only one that thinks this

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    No, you’re not the only one to think this.

    If Christina has “known” Drew for the same time he has known Stacy and Drew married Stacy and as a result Christina was left hanging, a few things start to make sense (!!)

  17. found something maybe interesting over on a candyrose from the Ashley chats and then from Chrissy’s interview with Julie Chen after the “engagement stunt”

    may mean nothing…may mean something, if she is the same person he’s discussing with “Ashley” then their relationship was active as far back as February 2008

    Transcribed by http://www.acandyrose.com:
    ___ashley (3/18/2008 12:32:53AM): you had a girlfriend for 3 weeks just 2 weeks ago and you said …so shush
    ___ashley (3/18/2008 12:33:10AM): the 24 yr old
    bpd95969 (3/18/2008 12:34:06AM): wasnt the same hard to expalin very plastic if you know what i mean didnt seem real or emotional
    ___ashley (3/18/2008 12:34:17AM): was she a hottie ?
    bpd95969 (3/18/2008 12:34:43AM): ya but a self center ditz
    ___ashley (3/18/2008 12:34:47AM): was she one of them that left her name or whatever on your mail box?

    bpd95969 (3/18/2008 12:35:25AM):No i knew her from before just hooked up at a bar

    ___ashley (3/18/2008 12:35:36AM): gotcha

    From February 2nd 2009
    JULIE CHEN, co-host: Joining us are Christina and Ernie Raines, along with CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom.

    Good morning to you all.

    Christina, let me begin with you. Can you walk us through your relationship with Drew Peterson? When did you meet him and how did you meet him?

    Ms. CHRISTINA RAINES (Former Fiance of Drew Peterson): “I had met him at a bar, but before that I’ve known Drew Peterson every since I was like 15.”

  18. she just comes off as very spiteful on the subject of Stacy, IF Stacy had left on her own to be with someone else, you would think that Chrissy would be happy that she had Drew all to herself but instead she acted like a jealous wench, like the subject of Stacy’s clothes still being there and her “presence” in that house, you could tell it really bugged Chrissy to the point of her being PO’d about it, like maybe she was told nothing can be changed because that would look suspicious…although Drew admitted to letting Chrissy take what she wanted of Stacy’s after claiming he packed up all of her things, to me it just goes beyond being hurt that her man is going through the trouble…it’s like a deep seated resentment of Stacy, hope that is making sense?

  19. Hey all. In an attempt to tidy up, I’ve deleted all the discussion about the two sisters and who is who.

    Here is the video Noway linked in case anyone wants to watch and decide for themselves. Let’s move on from the subject at this point.

  20. and who exactly wrote that anonymous letter to Kathleen??? I smell a rat!

    I’m going over to acandyrose to look at some dates

    I think what you wrote above IS VERY CORRECT Justanotherhen!!! I think you are spot on and I’m going to see if I can find that connection, this case just gets more twisted!

  21. The fact Christina got herself a womens/victims rights/ child advocay lawyer is no coincidence.

    I bet ISP’s “difficult questions” have been in relation to Christina “knowing Mr Peterson for many years”

  22. dearheart88 Says:

    May 15, 2009 at 9:13 pm
    and who exactly wrote that anonymous letter to Kathleen??? I smell a rat!

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I think that was someones mother (!!)

  23. But Gloria cannot represent Chrissy legally can she? She is not licensed to practice law in IL. Didn’t I just read that on the previous thread here?

  24. noway406 Says:

    May 15, 2009 at 9:25 pm
    But Gloria cannot represent Chrissy legally can she? She is not licensed to practice law in IL. Didn’t I just read that on the previous thread here?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I think she is going to apply to the Courts for her to represent Christina in Illinois.

  25. ” Christy has known Mr. Peterson for many years” KNOWN
    as in the biblical sense and he refers to her as a ditz to *Ashley* so what does she have on him?

    who is the real father of her kids ? was he carrying on with her while married to Stacy ? Now she knows she’s busted and along comes Gloria Allred, a known advocate for kids. Interesting.

  26. Duh.

    Should have kept reading:

    KNOWN FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE LETTER:

    1 – Stacy’s maiden name was not “Stacy Yelton” it was Stacy Cales.

    2 – The name “Yelton” is Stacy’s brother’s FIRST name. (Yelton Cales)

    3 – Stacy’s birthday is 01/20/1984 and Yelton’s is 08/07/1979 (Neither was born July 17th).

    4 – “the fact that she is an employee of the village” (Stacy was employed with the village of Bolingbrook for “ONLY 6 WEEKS” between November 5th and December 17th of 2001 which possibly dates the letter during that period).

    5 – *IF* the letter was written in the late fall of 2001 then Stacy would have been age 17, which according to Illinois law is not under age.

  27. I always thought that was strange. (last name Yelton)
    It was not someone that knew Stacy too well that wrote that letter.

  28. I wonder if Chrissy ever knew Yelton…met him through Stacy or around in circles, wasn’t Chrissy in trouble a lot as a kid?

  29. maybe she thought Yelton was called by his last name and knew they were siblings and just assumed that that was their last name…would be an easy enough mistake to make?????

  30. The letter could also have fake information on purpose. The intent of the letter was to let Kathleen know that Drew was having an affair.

    The rest doesn’t matter and could have been incorrect on purpose.

  31. I would like to know too, it was described as being “several pages long” we’ve only seen the first page

    :-(

  32. sounds like Yelton is what DP possibly came up with on the spot, when asked by Chrissy about his other gf??? DP is so brilliant…that’s what he came up with so Chrissy wouldn’t know Stacy’s real last name??? Just a possibility is all I’m sayin’.

  33. tink…I’m tossing that around too

    that letter does not come across as being written by an adult to me, at least not an adult with experience in writing letters, spelling, grammar, sentence structure, comes off sounding like a letter written by someone trying to “sound” like an adult.

  34. I just listened to the Gloria Allred thing. That certainly is odd the way she mentioned “presumption of innocence” really out of context. No one was accusing Chrissy of anything, so why would she say that? GA knows something. And you could absolutely tell from GAs tone when she said that Chrissy *thinks* he cares about her that GA has his #. That has to be a good thing, no matter what her motives for inserting herself into this case are.

  35. Listen again. Allred is talking about Chrissy visiting Drew. She says, “She has a right to do that. He has a right to a presumption of innocence.”

  36. I know that, at least in the beginning, Drew had no idea who wrote the letter to Kathleen. He was actually accusing his co-worker on BBPD of writing it.

  37. Chrissy Raines. What a waste of time and energy blogging about. Since she has Gloria Allred now to protect her rights, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean, I think it would be perfectly fine if Raines slithered back under the rock from where she came and go back to doing whatever it is she did before anyone ever heard from her.

    Gone are the days when Hang Drew had her pegged as being Peterson’s house whore, and how she denied it and begged him to make it go away as not being true. Wow, what a few beer muscles will do in such a short period of time.

  38. ok facs, I’ll listen again. thanks

    snyder, we should assume DP truly had no idea who wrote the letter because he is such an honest person? Of course he would claim he didn’t know who it was from, that’s what cheaters do. And they deflect, deflect, deflect. Maybe he really didn’t know. Maybe it wasn’t from Chrissy, but I bet DP did know who wrote it. I think the only words from dp that I actually believe are when he said he controls his family.

  39. I’m OK with the letter being a mystery. Maybe someday the person who wrote it will come forward. Maybe LE already knows.

  40. rescue, it does seem like a waste to discuss her. On the other hand, is it a waste of time & energy if it turns out she has information that would add to his motive, possibly in both Kathleen’s & Stacy’s cases? I know I’m jumping the gun. I’ll shush it now. :)

  41. All I know is that he caused a big scene when Kathleen got that letter. He yelled and screamed at his co-worker accusing him of writing it. The two of them had never gotten along and there was a lot of tension between them so Drew had assumed the co-worker wrote it.

    Facs, the picture at the top is of Chrissys little sister. They look a lot alike but if you look, she is thinner than Chrissy. I have seen them both IRL.

  42. Thanks, Snyder. We’ve already had discussion here about it but I’m to the point that I don’t care too much! LOL.

  43. Is Lisa Bloom the interviewer that spoke privately with Christina after one of her first t.v. interviews when she moved out of Drews house the first time and Christina told her several things she could not reveal, but were extremely concerning to her ????

    If that is her, it is not hard to see why her mother (Gloria Allred)is getting involved.

  44. yes Lisa Bloom is the interviewer and is of course Gloria Allreds daughter…that’s why I’m curious as to the angle that is going on

  45. snyder73 Says:

    May 15, 2009 at 11:13 pm
    I know that, at least in the beginning, Drew had no idea who wrote the letter to Kathleen. He was actually accusing his co-worker on BBPD of writing it.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    From memory the letter stated Drew had beaten someone up and planted dope on someone in order to arrest him, so he must have done that to more than one person if he didn’t know who that was refering to (!!)

  46. Chrissy Raines. What a waste of time and energy blogging about

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Maybe it is, but what if she has been “messing with him for years” as someone (family member ??) already pointed out on a blog some time ago and this has now more or less been confirmed by Christinas own lawyer (although in more conservative language) as she did not even opt for the “Christina met Drew a few months ago” story which would have been a lot less controversial in anyones books.

    For a lawyer to even emphasize such a hot potato there must be a very good reason and this makes me think Christina has been harboring a lot of long term secrets concerning Drew for which she now needs proper representation !

  47. Reading the comments on this thread and the last, it strikes me there’s probably been more consideration and examination of Chrissy’s words and thought processes from a handful of strangers than she’s ever engaged in herself.

    I still think GA has become the sort of attorney who, regardless of client, has her own media face time as her ultimate goal. I mean, come on… there’s no lawyer already practicing in Illinois who could help Chrissy? I think GA has been trying to get involved ever since she made the offer of help to Ernie on air and she’s quite happy to move on from her “grave concerns” about Octomom’s children to a hotter story.

  48. Chrissy, age 24, has known Mr. Peterson for many years. This year they became romantically involved and she lived on and off with him for part of this year.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If Mrs Allred had inserted the word OPENLY for the second sentence to read:

    This year they OPENLY became romantically involved

    that would have been closer to the truth !!

  49. Has it ever been determined whether or not Sohka Yauk is, indeed, the father of Chrissy’s children? I know that it has been discussed here that Peterson might be their father, but why would some other man step forward out of the blue claiming to be their father?

    You will note in this article that when Yauk was arrested, Peterson states that he learned of the arrest from Chrissy. Why would she even bring this up to Peterson if there was no measure of truth to his claim to paternity?

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1394911,Man-with-Drew-Peterson-ties-jailed-Jo012309.stng

  50. Apparently not.

    When Tony Yauk wanted to exercise his right as the childrens father by requesting BB Police remove them from Drews house, BBPD could not help him as Paternity had not been established !

  51. Good morning :-)

    Missing wife could help convict Drew

    May 16, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY JHOSEY@SCN1.COM

    BOLINGBROOK — Some seven years ago, Stacy Peterson stole Kathleen Savio’s husband away. Now, more than five years later, the missing mom may be the murdered mom’s only chance at finding justice.

    A new law — passed six months ago that allows hearsay evidence from witnesses determined to have been murdered to keep them from testifying — could open the door for an account Stacy Peterson gave to her preacher about how her husband, Drew Peterson, killed his previous wife, Savio.

    “It’s possible, yes, that such statements can come in,” said Herb Tanner Jr., a Violence Against Women Project training attorney for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the author of a detailed analysis of hearsay-based murder case Giles v. California.

    While it will be possible to get the words supposedly spoken by Stacy, via her preacher, the Rev. Neil Schori, introduced at a murder trial, it will not be simple.

    Pretrial hearing

    “The prosecution would have to put on sufficient evidence to the trial court that Drew Peterson killed (Stacy) to make her unavailable as a witness for criminal proceedings,” Tanner explained.

    This would take place during a pretrial hearing in which the prosecution would have to display that it was more likely than not that Peterson not only killed Stacy, but did so to keep her from testifying against him.

    The time, content and circumstances of the statements must also stand up to scrutiny, in that they are believable, and that the hearsay witness relaying them has no motivation to lie.

    The hearing would be conducted without a jury present, and it would be left up to a judge to determine if the statements should be allowed at trial.

    “It’s my guess the judge will have a lot of leeway in the reliability judgment,” Tanner said.

    And if the case is allowed to remain in “Will County, where the prejudice (against Peterson) is highest of all,” and not moved to another venue, the prosecution will prevail and get the testimony in, said DePaul University professor Leonard Cavise.

    “It’s going to take a judge with the strength of a Goliath” to keep such statements out, Cavise said. And he doesn’t see a judge that strong in any of the courtrooms of Joliet.

    “If the case is tried in Will County, the statements are getting in,” said Cavise, who teaches criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence. “If he’s tried elsewhere, it might have a chance (to be disallowed).”

    Drew’s Law

    While the state House and Senate were grappling with the passage of the hearsay bill, it became known as “Drew’s Law,” as many speculated it was drafted as a measure to prosecute Peterson.

    State Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, denied this and said the law was crafted without any particular defendant in mind, but Cavise believes otherwise.

    “The reason they call it the Drew Peterson exception is because the Legislature passed it for just this specific case, and that’s how ridiculous our Legislature is,” he said. “They shouldn’t pass laws for just one specific case.”

    Whether it was passed with him in mind or not, Drew did not even get to be the first person tried with evidence allowed through “Drew’s Law.” That honor went to 24-year-old Joshua Matthews, who faces first-degree murder charges for allegedly gunning down his girlfriend, Sade Glover, in Warrenville in 2004.

    DuPage County Circuit Judge Perry Thompson ruled this week that Matthews killed Glover to keep her from testifying against him in a battery case in which she also was the victim, allowing a statement she made to police to be entered as evidence.

    What about Stacy?

    While the prosecution of Peterson may hinge on convincing a judge he killed Stacy, his fourth wife, he has yet to be charged with harming her at all. Tanner said this does not matter.

    “I think this may well be the type of case that shows why,” he said.

    Peterson and Savio, his third wife, were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004.

    State police investigated the matter but failed to find any sign of foul play. Savio’s death was eventually ruled an accidental drowning.

    Stacy, who married Peterson less than five months before Savio died, vanished in October 2007. State police believe she may have been slain and list Peterson as their sole suspect in her “potential homicide.”

    Stacy’s disappearance prompted authorities to reclassify Savio’s death as a homicide and to set the state police to investigating it once again. They arrested Peterson following his indictment on first-degree murder charges late last week.

    Hearsay comments

    Several weeks before Stacy went missing, she met with Schori to discuss her personal problems. During their conversation, Schori said, she confided in him that she knew her husband killed his previous wife. Schori said Stacy provided specific details that made him believe her, but will not publicly disclose what those details are.

    Savio herself supposedly made statements to relatives that she feared Peterson would kill her and make it look as if she was the victim of an accident. She even wrote a November 2002 letter to an assistant Will County state’s attorney in which she predicted, “He knows how to manipulate the system and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”

    ‘If he killed her …’

    Neither the statements to relatives nor the letter should — by virtue of the Constitution — be allowed into the trial, according to Cavise.

    “None of them should get in and the Supreme Court has been very clear about this,” he said.

    “The Supreme Court said forfeiture (of the right to cross-examine a witness) by wrongdoing only applies when the defendant kills a witness to keep them from testifying against him,” Cavise said.

    “There’s no chance Drew Peterson killed Stacy Peterson to keep her from testifying against him in the case of Kathleen Savio,” he said. “If he killed her, he killed her because he didn’t want to be married to her anymore or some other reason.”

    Double hearsay claim

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, refused to comment on the hearsay law but previously said anything offered by Schori would be “double hearsay” and inadmissible.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow declined to comment on how the new law will factor into his prosecution of Peterson, but DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett disputed Brodsky’s claim of “double hearsay.”

    “He’s obviously pandering to the media,” Birkett said of Brodsky. “He’s going to have to make his arguments in a courtroom.”

    And Birkett — who said he sent a murderer to death row with a case bolstered by hearsay evidence in 2007, without the benefit of the 2008 law — thinks those arguments will prove ineffective.

    “The bantering about not being allowed to enter statements from a deceased witness,” he said, “nothing could be further from the truth.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1576986,4_1_JO16_PETERSON_S1.article

  52. “The Supreme Court said forfeiture (of the right to cross-examine a witness) by wrongdoing only applies when the defendant kills a witness to keep them from testifying against him,” Cavise said.

    “There’s no chance Drew Peterson killed Stacy Peterson to keep her from testifying against him in the case of Kathleen Savio,” (Cavise) said. “If he killed her, he killed her because he didn’t want to be married to her anymore or some other reason.”
    * * * * * * * * *
    Nah, that won’t fly. Even though he killed Kitty for “other reasons”, he HAD to kill Stacy because she KNEW and could “bring him down”.

  53. “There’s no chance Drew Peterson killed Stacy Peterson to keep her from testifying against him in the case of Kathleen Savio,” (Cavise) said.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well hmmm, at the time Stacy disappeared there was no case against Kathleen Savio, so Leonard Cavise’s observations don’t make any sense.

    Drew didn’t kill Stacy because she was going to testify against him.

    He killed her because she was going to divorce him and EXPOSE him for the murder of Kathleen Savio !

    Leonard Cavise often says erroneous or negative things about the Hearsay Law etc.

    Makes you wonder (!!)

  54. Sorry I meant there was no case pertaining
    Kathleen Savio as there was never a case against Kathleen Savio.

  55. I know most of you will be angry with me but … I would not blame Allred so much :) Please, before reading my post, try to forget about your personal emotions. Remember I am just trying to understand, not justify what’s going on.

    I could see on TV show that Lisa Bloom really wanted to help Ernie(and in fact she did everything she could). It may sound a little bit controvertial but Christina need support to end the relation with Drew. Her father is helpless and Christina did not want to listen to his advice. This is not the matter of her but also her children who must be protected no matter what Chrissy did or didn’t. After ISP must have told her she is also a suspect and under scrutiny and may be in big troubles, it seems very reasonable to me that she started looking for legal counseling. The fact that Allred took the case does not mean she is on the side of Drew or even Christina’s. She is not the person like Brodsky. Allred does not accuse the victims, does not want to sell lies and so. Christina has a right to defend/protect herself, like Drew does. Allred is famous enough and well-being to go the case just for money.
    The role of a lawyer is not (as it is done by Brodsky) to defend his client using hearsay, fake evidence or accusing victims. This role is to protect his/her client taking into consideration circumstances.
    Let’s think Christina has been romantically involved in Drew for longer time that she admits, that both her children are his, and that she helped Drew in anyway to get rid of Stacy. If we look back at the story of Stacy knowing Drew killed Kathleen and giving him alibi and covering for him, the story now looks just like a copy (like all Drew’s patterns).
    I do not think it was funny for Stacy to learn all the stuff and she had wanted KS to be dead but for some reason she did it for him (and herself). She had also competed with KS and at some point had harrased her. This are the facts.
    If we apply the same standards of judgement for Christina as we did for Stacy, we can better understand how involed you can get with Drew and how difficult it is just to go to the police and say you know something. And the age has little to do with it.

    By what I wrote above, I do not want to justify anything wrong Christina did. If I switch on my emotions again I feel lots of anger and hatred towards her.The more that she could have learned a leeson from previous Drew’s coincidental events…
    I think Allred is OK and that she may help Christina find good psychological counseling and break her relation with Drew. For the sake of Stacy’s case and all the children involved in this story.

  56. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned ! Perhaps the
    acorn “ditz” found out recently via revealed secret conversations or wires worn that in Drews eyes she is but a spare tire, among other things. What a pity, especially considering all those years of ” hanging in there” and if DP is father to at least one of her kids, that will cement things.

  57. cyrhla,

    I agree with you.

    We now know Christina “has known Mr Peterson for many years” as confirmed by her lawyer.

    If he has been “messing with her” for years as another poster once said, we cannot possibly know what has transpired and what kind of promises were made by Drew as he may have been stringing her along for a long time.

    I feel there is now much more to Christinas story as originally thought and hopefully via her lawyer it will all unfold in time (!!)

  58. May I add there may be many more “Christinas” out there and not just during his marriage to Stacy.

    Possibly from his first marriage onwards !!

  59. I am sure about Drew having more girlfriends. Probably most of them or their parents could stop those relationships.
    The one we know about is Monica whose brother was found hung in a garage.
    Someone once wrote on Topix about his sister being raped by Drew many years ago (meaning her age or force, I do not know) though it is difficult to confirm.

  60. Drew was married to Vicky when he was supposedly seeing Monica. They lived a couple of streets apart. Monica’s brother found out about the relationship, confronted Drew about it, and was subsequently found hanged. Drew was the first officer on the scene. (This is all according to Ric Mims.)

  61. Cyrhla
    Nice thoughtful post. I agree with you about Chrissy and can see she has been left in the shit, another victim of Drew’s,( though disrespectful and grasping), but I reserve judgment on Allred’s true motivation. There is never enough fame or money for those who chase them. I still think Chrissy would have been better off with a proper, full-time attorney locally….but that’s if she really is not there for money and fame herself.

  62. I can accept that Chrissy might feel the need to lawyer up at this point. I don’t know why that ‘statement’ needed to be released, especially with the patronizing laguage aimed at the families. If that was Allred’s idea, I think she erred on that.

    If she felt that she needed to make some sort of statement about her relationship with Drew in order to temporarily satisfy the press, that would have been sufficient.

  63. Drew Peterson’s mouth could compound his troubles
    By DON BABWIN – Associated Press Writer

    CHICAGO (AP) — Drew Peterson may not take the stand if he goes to trial for killing his third wife, but his words could still play a big role as prosecutors try to put him away.

    The former police officer, set to be arraigned Monday on first-degree murder charges in the 2004 drowning death of ex-wife Kathleen Savio, has never shied from the media that has followed his every move since his fourth wife Stacy vanished in 2007 and he became a suspect in Savio’s killing.

    In fact, he’s seemed to relish the spotlight, often offering reporters a joke or smart-aleck remark — like smiling and calling his handcuffs “bling” as he was led to his first court appearance earlier this month.

    And that, attorneys say, could be one of Peterson’s biggest problems.

    “If one wife goes missing and (another) wife is dead, those aren’t usually the subject of jokes,” said Roy Black, a defense attorney whose clients have included Rush Limbaugh and William Kennedy Smith. “People are going to think this is a very bizarre person, who’s more likely to have committed murder than someone who is in mourning.”

    Peterson is accused of drowning Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004 with a gash on the back of her head. Her death originally was ruled an accident, but after Stacy Peterson went missing, Savio’s body was exhumed and authorities ruled it a homicide staged to look like an accident.

    Marilyn Brenneman, a senior deputy prosecutor in Seattle’s King County, once won a murder conviction after she showed a jury a video of a news conference given by the man she was prosecuting in a drowning death.

    “We used it to show his attitude was blase,” she said. “He was kind of wooden and didn’t show any emotion. … That is not really an appropriate response.”

    Defense attorney Mark Geragos has seen what a defendant’s own words can do to a case — starting with one of his most famous clients, Scott Peterson, who was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, after a trial in which jurors watched three television interviews given by Peterson before he retained Geragos.

    The interviews included Scott Peterson saying he told police about his affair with another woman the first night his wife was reported missing and saying he told his mistress the truth about being married within several days of the disappearance. Neither was true. And by the time those clips played at trial, jurors knew from other testimony they were watching Scott Peterson lie.

    “Some of the most compelling evidence the jury can see is prejudicial but unfortunately it’s compelling,” Geragos said.

    If the Scott Peterson case is exhibit A in how their own words can hurt defendants, then the case of Cynthia Sommer is exhibit B.

    Sommer was convicted in San Diego in 2007 of first-degree murder in the slaying of her husband after prosecutors based much of their case on the idea that Sommer did not behave like a grieving widow after her husband’s death.

    The jury heard about how Sommer used insurance money to pay for breast implants, took part in wet T-shirt contests and had casual sex with other men.

    Then a year later, a judge dismissed the charges that Sommer poisoned her husband with arsenic after new tests revealed there were no arsenic in his system.

    “This case was all about a grieving unbecoming of a widow,” said Sommer’s attorney, Allen Bloom. “That’s all it was, it was a lifestyle, it was painting her with a scarlet letter.”

    Even if the videos of Drew Peterson’s arrival in court or of his interviews don’t make it into trial, they can still have an effect.

    “Whether it’s admissible or not is one thing …” said Joe Tacopina, a prominent defense attorney in New York. “But it’s certainly admissible in the court of public opinion, which is your jury pool.”

    Peterson’s attorney said joking around is how Peterson deals with stress.

    “In a tight, uncomfortable situation, you’re gonna get humor and wisecracks,” said attorney Joel Brodsky, who is expected to ask a judge Monday to reduce Peterson’s bond, which is now $20 million.

    Peterson said he wouldn’t behave any other way.

    “Would it be better if I hid my head down and tried to hide my face and hunched and had tears in my eyes?” he asked NBC’s Matt Lauer during a telephone interview aired on the “Today” show Friday. “I mean, no, that’s just not me.”

    Instead, from almost the day Stacy Peterson vanished in October 2007, Peterson has done things like joke about his fourth wife’s menstrual cycles and agree to take part in a radio show’s suggested “Win a Date With Drew” contest.

    Brodsky said he is confident that if Peterson stands trial the jury will do the right thing.

    “My experience is that juries usually work very hard to put away biases and look at the facts,” he said.

    Others, though, aren’t so sure.

    Bloom said even though most people who sit on juries want to be fair, they can still end up being swayed by things that have nothing to do with evidence.

    “They say they won’t, but they can be impacted by innuendo, suspicion, speculation and moral judgment,” he said.

    That explains why Peterson reminds Black of a lawyer who displayed a mounted fish on his wall.

    “It had a sign that said, ‘I wouldn’t be here either if I kept my mouth shut,'” said Black, chuckling.

  64. Thanks, myabelle.

    Thanks, bucket.
    I argree with you that it would be more logical to look for a lawyer from the area, but it was not so normal situation for Ernie.
    Before all the recent mess he was in touch with the media. Bloom had offered her help to him. So when Christina histerically called him during/after her very long and tough interview with ISP, it could be his first thought to call her (=the media)to ask for advice than to look for a local lawyer. That might have beed the scenario; however, I do not have too be right. I am not Allred and do not know her motivation, of course, but her professional profile goes well with the case.
    I can remember Bloom being very concerned during the program and in some way relieved that Chrissy was no longer with Drew.
    I just want to leave this gate open that Christina is not so bad as she sells herself but she does not know/did not know if/how tp run away from this sick relation with Drew.
    If their relation had lasted much longer than she told the media, and she was ashamed of it (that was her father’s friend!) it is also possible that she had not said a word to her father and that she was afraid of telling him that her children were Drew’s (if they are Drew’s but I think there must be something about it if Younk does not have his fatherhood established). You know, there could have never been a right moment (or willing) to say the truth. The things went so far that now she need someone to support her to confess the truth and blame herself only for the things she personally did, not Drew. Whatever the truth is.

  65. Thank you, Bucket. That was very good reading.

    Drew Peterson has used these past eighteen months to sway the jury pool. In fact, I think he even referred to this in a video once as the “jury of his peers.”

    Yet, he says the Grand Jury are lay people who don’t have much going on for themselves when it comes to handing down indictments.

    Let me rephrase that. Drew Peterson doesn’t think the special grand jury hearing testimony in his cases don’t have much going for themselves. Never mentioned anything before this point, so….

    Maybe Peterson is insinuating he might have a hand in picking his jury pool, comprised of lawyers, lawyers and lawyers, heh? That way, they’ve be well versed in the law.

Comments are closed.