Video: Mock Trial of Drew Peterson

On May 28th at the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, WGN Radio’s Legally Speaking presented a mock trial of the closing arguments in the prosecution of Drew Peterson for the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

State’s Atty. James Glasgow took Chicago-Kent College of Law and WGN to task for staging the proceedings, going so far as to call a school dean, the show and the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission to try and prevent the “abhorrent” event, which ended with a hung jury.

Chicago-Kent College of Law Dean Harold Krent said WGN contacted both sides in advance of the mock trial but he didn’t hear of Glasgow’s objections until the prosecutor left him a message the day of the event.

Attorney and co-host of Legally Speaking, Karen Conti presented closing arguments for the prosecution; while attorney Joseph Lopez argued for the defense of Peterson. The case was presided over by retired Judge Richard E. Neville.

In my opinion, the proceeding is ultimately irrelevant. The arguments were based only on what is publicly known to be the evidence, and the jurors were given only twenty minutes to deliberate.

Still, there’s no denying that it’s a fascinating venture. After all, isn’t this what we do on blogs and forums every day?

~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

217 thoughts on “Video: Mock Trial of Drew Peterson

  1. Sorry, but I found this INCREDIBLY BORING !!

    After about 4 minutes into this Video I nearly fell asleep.

    Can’t face watching the other 32 minutes of it !

  2. JAH, there are closing arguments by both the defense and the prosecution, plus a rebuttal, jury deliberation and judge discussion about the Hearsay law.

    I’m not saying it’s the most riveting watch ever, just don’t want you to think it’s only an hour and a half of closing argument by the defense.

  3. LOL, Facs!

    This is going to be a very long drawn out trial, so we need jury members that aren’t ADD. I also think visuals need to be made for each point the prosecution wants to get across to the jurors. Unless you’re familiar with the case, it’s a confusing mess. There are enough Steve’s in this case alone to cause utter confusion. I suggest poster size pictures, clearly labeled of each person named, so the prosecution can point to the reference. So then, the jurors can look and say, “Oh, yeah that was the guy who also gave Drew the cell phone.” (Those atttending each day will be given complimentary Drew Darts to take aim with at home.)

  4. Drew loves his children SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much, but he didn’t cry when Stacy ran away and he didn’t cry when Kathleen fell over in the bath tub, he just thought laughing about it on t.v. was much better (!)

  5. That is definitely Nurse Paulie in the front row. Around the “20” mark, when Karen starts speaking about the coroners jury being tainted due to a cop sitting with the jurors, who also knows Drew Peterson, Nurse Paulie starts rolling his eyes and making comments, which are quite obvious.

    I also noticed him recording in the beginning of the segment. He must of had to put it away, as I don’t notice it later on, in the same capacity.

  6. Sorry but it is like watching a really bad school play and you have to sit through it because one of your children is in it (LOL)

  7. justanotherhen- You’re forgetting the few seconds that Steve C. tells about Drew crying out “What am I going to tell the kids?”

    Didn’t DP started moving things out of Kathleen’s house about ten minutes later?

  8. I like how she stated the “16 year old” when referring to Drew’s affair. Something tells me she was 16 for awhile when Drew was chasing after her. I think I would have repeated that several times for the jury.

    The fact that he’s sitting there now with this adorable little girl makes my stomach turn. On the other hand, he’s NOT sitting at home with her at the present. (There is a God!)

  9. I was sitting with a group late this evening, with one being an attorney, and the opinion was that Brodsky’s office should be in high gear. (No time for leisure activities.) The amount of work to be done in this case, as the defense, is going to be enormous.

    I know people were frustrated with Glasgow for not moving forward months earlier, but now I think he was just being smart.

    I do feel for the individuals that will be testifying in the case. Many have been before the GJ several times, and now Brodsky will be diposing them again. The prosecution may also be revisting testimony in the upcoming weeks. We really have to appreciate those that stepped forward. Their jobs and lives are going to be disrupted quite a bit. I know this is nothing compared to the loss of a human life, but it still should be noted.

  10. Good morning everyobody :)

    I think a lot may come out of checking all the cases Drew run. McGury and Glasgow said they would check them. Can you remember Glasgow’s people removing documents from Harvey PD just after Stacy went missing?
    Additionally, “Drew Peterson was suspended in September for a “serious lack of judgment” in a police pursuit, McGury said. Asked if Peterson was a good officer, McGury said: “Drew Peterson came to work, did his job and went home. Drew Peterson left the department not in good standing.”/”Peterson turned in a resignation letter Nov. 12, but McGury refused to accept it, wanting him held accountable for the internal investigation’s findings.”/”Chief Ray McGury filed a complaint with the Bolingbrook Fire and Police Commission Nov. 14 seeking disciplinary action against Peterson, who had been suspended without pay pending an internal investigation.”
    [Chicago Tribune]

  11. DD, that is an excellent idea you had about clearly defining who is who at the Zoo.

    I have lots of friends called Peter, so my best friend and I have names for them all. One is English, so he is Pommy Peter, we met another while on holidays in Noumea, so he is Noumea Peter and so on LOL, otherwise it’s “which Peter do you mean??”

  12. Hello Cyrhla,

    Police Chief McGury wanted Drew sacked, but Drew pipped him at the post by resigning (!!)

  13. Sorry Cyrhla, what do you mean by Glasgow and McGury checking all the cases Drew ran ?

    Do you mean all the cases handled by Drew ??

    Did they actually say they were going to do this ??

  14. Hey Cyrhla, another question:

    When did the States Attorney remove documents from Harvey PD just after Stacy went missing ?

    I don’t know anything about that either (where have I been ??)

  15. In p.7 of the Petition for exhumation it is clearly stated that the laceration on Kathleen’s head could not render her unconscious.

    http://media.myfoxchicago.com/LEGAL_DOC.pdf

    When the Chicago Tribune released some info at the very beginning they said Stacy had testified that Drew had been at home all Sunday except going for doughnuts and then to work. So I wonder what the truth is because Drew says he was sleeping with Stacy that night.
    If he had gone to work on Sunday evening, and Stacy woke up in the early morning and could see he was STILL not back from work, she might have called him to check what happened. As Drew did not not answer she went downstairs to check if he did not fall asleep in the living room.
    I also had many doubts as for Stacy’s pregnancy at that time when I did the maths ;) the more than it was said her pregnacy was really advanced. In fact, it is of no importance. However, it would agree with the divorce settlement and the health insurance issues. This is only my speculation here but I wonder if Stacy did not lose this child because of stress and then got pregnant again. Things happen. ;)

  16. Cyrhla,

    Drew said he was in bed with Stacy (and vice versa) on SATURDAY NIGHT, which was the night Kathleen was murdered (or more precise early Sunday morning between 2 am and 6 am)

    The following night (SUNDAY evening) he went to work and did the song and dance routine in front of her door with Steve Carcerano and the locksmith.

  17. Oh, or did he say he wasn’t sure he was supposed to have the children for another day, which would make the song and dance routine MONDAY night, but in any event Kathleen was killed on the Saturday night/early Sunday morning when Drew said he was in bed with Stacy, yet Stacy was looking for him etc.

  18. justanotherhen Says:

    – Police Chief McGury wanted Drew sacked, but Drew pipped him at the post by resigning (!!)
    ——–
    Yes, I can remember that and all the reasoning of the Fire and Police Commission.

    =============
    Sorry Cyrhla, what do you mean by Glasgow and McGury checking all the cases Drew ran ?

    Do you mean all the cases handled by Drew ??

    Did they actually say they were going to do this ?
    ———
    Yes, they did. I read about it yesterday and it was something new to me as well.

    [...]McGury said he will meet with State’s Atty. James Glasgow to discuss the internal investigation. The department charges previously had been described as non-criminal, but the chief said Tuesday that some information in the report may warrant prosecution.

    He also said without elaborating that investigators may want to review some cases Peterson handled.[...]

    http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/1630712-Ill-sergeant-suspected-of-murder-resigns/

    =============
    When did the States Attorney remove documents from Harvey PD just after Stacy went missing ?

    I don’t know anything about that either (where have I been ??)
    ——–
    The big raid was made by FBI in Dec.2008 but I can remember (I hope my memmory serves me well and I do not spread rumors here) Glasgow taking files from this PD in Nov or Oct. 2007. There were lots of speculations then because a friend of Drew worked in the department. I will try to find a link to the site I found it.

  19. JAH, I think we are both right. LOL

    *On Saturday/Sunday night he was in bed with Stacy.

    *On Sunday/Monday night he went to work and Stacy found him downstairs on that early Monday morning.

    *On Monday evening Kathleen was found dead.

  20. Police interviewed Stacy Peterson for one hour March 3. She said she and her husband had spent the weekend with the children, backing up Peterson’s statements made to police a day earlier. She said they had spent Saturday hanging around the house and had gone to the Shedd Aquarium Sunday. The only time Peterson left was Sunday morning to get doughnuts and to go to work Sunday evening. Savio was found the next day, a Monday.

    http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/18/local/chi-savio_18aug18

  21. Thank you cyrhla,

    The good thing about Drew Peterson having worked as a Police Officer is that they don’t have to look far for what he’s been up to during working hours, since they have all these records themselves (!!)

  22. Sorry for using for the whole text.
    Stacy’s testimony makes me think Drew killed Kathleen when at work.

  23. You’re welcome, JAH.

    McGury said: “Drew Peterson came to work, did his job and went home”.

    In the light of all the facts, it seems McGury was right.

  24. Funny too how they interviewed Stacy a day AFTER they interviewed Drew as normal practice is to bring them in together and interview them seperately so they cannot collaborate each others story (!!)

    They might as well gotten Stacy to hand in a copy of Drews statement for all that was worth !!

  25. Sorry I can’t copy again, but from reading the links cyrhla provided it is clear Drew was in uniform on Monday night (as in his first officer on the scene trick) considering he walked all through the crime scene and was in the bathroom alone with Kathleens body for some time, yet told arriving officers to treat the scene with respect – hmmmmm

  26. Dr. Baden said that Kathleen Savio’s time of death was a minimum of 10 hours before she was found but could be upwards of 24 to 36 hours.

    The National Enquirer mentioned that Stacy found Drew doing laundry less than 24 hours before Kathleen was found.

    Drew didn’t account for his time on Monday did he? Is there anything in Stacy’s statement that indicates what Drew did on Monday?

  27. And I have to roll my eyes at the statement that Drew had totally accounted for his whereabouts.

    A. Well, prior to that, he had the children, they got up that weekend, they went to the Shedd Aquarium, I believe it was. His – his whereabouts were totally accounted for that whole weekend.

    From what I got from Stacy’s statement: … spent Saturday hanging around the house and went to the Shedd Aquarium Sunday … left on Sunday morning to get doughnuts and to go to work Sunday evening …

    IMO there is a lot of yadda yadda yadda room in there.

  28. Good Morning everyone!

    1. ROFL Prudence said Nursie looks like Barney.

    2. Harvey PD….that is the department that sought to recruit those “with a clear criminal background” and mayor of Harvey that personally oversaw the return of a firearm to a convicted felon.

    They were raided by FBI as Cyrhla said, in December 2008. A number of Harvey POs accused of being part of a syndicate of crooked cops across other forces including ISP that provided safe transport for drug shipments. Tons of records taken by the Feds. (they surrounded the HQ and shut it down to search and seize). Sort of funny that security for drug suppliers is something that some of us thought a long time ago that Droopy may have been up to himself.

  29. Yes a lot of yadda yadda yadda room in there and no mention of wisdom teeth having been removed or Drews wonderful nursing skills in that regard, let alone trying to take the children back without success, as if that was something extremely unimportant and irrelevant considering Kathleen didn’t answer the door or phone – hmmmm

  30. When Stacy found Drew in a garage on Monday morning, he was wearing black clothes. If he had been at work that night, he must have changed his uniform either at Kathleens or his home.

    Hardy probably did not know if Drew was wearing his uniform when murdering Kathleen. LOL. I couldn’t resist. Forgive me. :)

    The person we know was close to the case from the very beginning and was present at Kathleen’s autopsy was Robert Deel (whose name was wrogly spelled on the autopsy report). He is a Field Supervisor of ISP Forensic Services for Cook, Kankakee and Will County.

    “When they bagged the hands, that was when I asked the question, you know, ‘Do you think anything is out of whack here?’ ” VanOver said {Deputy Coroner]. “Bob Deel was asked by me if he thought there was anything hinky here, and stuff like that, and if we should be doing something different, and I was told no.

    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.”

    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.”


    And IMO, we have the answer here why the protocol was followed on the crime scene (bagged hands, pictures and very detailed description of it like missing towels, clothes, things in the bedroom, etc.) but the investigation did not go any further.

    If all the investigations were based on the feelings…

    I wonder why Deel said there was nothing suspicious about the scene. I do not think he could have made such a wrong judgment being an experienced forensic technician.

  31. It’s obvious that the underlings saw it as suspicious, because those observations of missing towels/clothing, no disturbance were recorded.There will have been more than one person present who would have recognised the incongruent lividity, you would think. Who, precisely, bagged the hands? And if not suspicious, why were the bags not removed? Or were they? They might have wanted to hide the injuries to her hands/nails…

  32. As for the bags, bucket, can you remember Kathleen’s sister saying they were always long? It seems they were cut before the autopsy, either by Drew or someone else. I rather think by Drew. As you said she might have broken them when fighting with Drew, or she had his blood/DNA behind them.

  33. 1. If Stacy was pregnant I don’t think they would have removed her wisdom teeth, unless it was an emergency.

    2. According to Drew he tried to return the boys Sunday at some point. No answer. If he knew she was already not going to answer that would make it Saturday/Sunday when he killed her.

  34. You’re right, charmed :)
    If he REALLY tried to return the boys he must have killed her on Sat/Sun night. On Monday he might have only come back to make order.
    The last person talking with her was Steve Maniaci on Saturday night. It seems that Kathy did not have contact with anyone later (on Sunday)though some news said she was talking to her sister on Sunday morning.

  35. In response to DD, way up the thread, I am also feeling for the witnesses at this point. Up until now they’ve been attacked publicly but the defense will really pull no punches in the courtroom. The closing argument by the defense at the mock trial makes that clear.

    It was hard to listen to Reverend Schori being mocked, the suggestion that he and Stacy had enjoyed a “grand slam” together, and hearing Kathleen being called a bitter and overweight “scorned woman”, but that’s exactly the kind of thing that is going to be done by Joel and company.

    Just a taste of things to come…

  36. Well, facs, that just may be true what is coming, but there are going to be “overweight” women on the jury, someone may have been involved in a “grand slam” themselves, and, for sure, a person or two may have been scorned.

    Criticize carefully. You never know just “who” you might be talking about, Mr. Defense Man.

  37. I think that another bombshelf may be toxicology reports on Kathleen Savio. Their results were not even disclosed to Thomas Burek and ISP.


    The complete autopsy report is a component of the investigation into the March 1, 2004 death of Kathleen Savio and will not be released.
    His report includes the results of microscopic examinations and toxicological tests conducted on postmortem tissue specimens. The specimens examined by Dr. Blum were collected during the first autopsy on March 2, 2004, the second autopsy performed by Dr. Blum on Nov. 13, 2007, and a third autopsy performed by Dr. Michael Baden on behalf of Kathleen Savio’s family on Nov. 16, 2007.

    The results of those examinations and tests are part of the investigation and are not being disclosed at this time.”

    http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/25/savio.latest.autopsy.pdf

  38. charmed4sr Says:
    June 15, 2009 at 7:56 am

    1. If Stacy was pregnant I don’t think they would have removed her wisdom teeth, unless it was an emergency.

    2. According to Drew he tried to return the boys Sunday at some point. No answer. If he knew she was already not going to answer that would make it Saturday/Sunday when he killed her.

    I think it was determined that Stacy was not pregnant with Lacy at that time, so it is very likely she did have the dental surgery as described by Drew.

    I also think that if she had been pregnant and miscarried, that information would have been made public by now. Certainly Drew would have used it against Stacy as part of the description of her mental condition over the years?

    About when Kathleen died … Stacy said Drew only left the house to get doughnuts and go to work (on Sunday) so if he tried to return the boys on Sunday, it must have been at one of those times. The more logical one would have been on his way to work … and if Kathleen didn’t answer, then he would have had to bring the boys back to Stacy. I wonder if she said anything in her hour-long interview that talked about him trying to return the boys.

    Has Drew ever mentioned the specific time(s) he tried to return the boys on Sunday?

  39. “For example,” Rodriguez said, “in your third wife’s death, Kathleen’s death, you say that you had the kids that weekend. You were in the middle of a divorce and you dropped them off that night, she wasn’t there, she wasn’t answering, so you took them back home and it wasn’t until the following night that you asked the neighbors to go in. Why did you wait a long night?”

    “It was a long weekend,” Peterson explained, “so I was confused whether she was giving me an extra day or she had had plans. It was a holiday weekend, so I didn’t think that of much of it until the following day, and it was unlike her to not answer the phone or call me or complain that I wasn’t there on time. So, there was some confusion on my part whether she was giving me an extra day or not and she had plans for the following day.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/earlyshow/main4486038.shtml

  40. From Kathleen’s Order of Protection:

    “Visitation as follows: Every Sunday starting March 16th pick up at 12:30 and return at 6:00pm. Every Monday starting March 17, 2002 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm.”

    Drew was to return the boys at 6 p.m. on Sunday; he started his job at 5 p.m.. If the boys were really there and she did not answer the door, we can also assume that he killed Kathleen in the meantime. Then he went to the house again to stage the accident or murder (if my memory serves me well he or Brodsky said Steve stuffed her with drugs and he should take the 5th). Just an option to Saturday/Sunday night :).

    BTW, can anyone of you provide a link saying Pastor Shori was talking about Sunday/Monday night not Saturday/Sunday? [I rather think the first option does make more sense as I cannot imagine after such a discovery Stacy would have been able to enjoy the trip to Aquarium]. Thanks.

  41. In the same order it is said that the “Petitioner is granted exclusive possession of the following items of personal property: Jewelry”. Does it mean Drew had already started collecting her jewerly then and it had to be returned?

  42. Cyrhla said:

    “…(if my memory serves me well he or Brodsky said Steve stuffed her with drugs and he should take the 5th)”..

    * * * *

    WHat?

  43. I remember some anonymous poster on a blog saying that he was a neighbor of Drew’s and that the night Kathleen was found, at the scene Drew was badmouthing Steve M and saying that he had gotten Kathleen into drugs.

    Of course, we know that there were no drugs or alcohol found in her system after death.

    I can’t find the article anymore but it was from a Suburban Chicago News article from May 9, 2008:

    …Joel Brodsky, claims Maniaci and Savio broke off their relationship the weekend before she was found dead. “If he was smart, he took the Fifth,” Brodsky said of Maniaci. “If it was my girlfriend who was found dead, and it was declared a homicide, and I had the code to the alarm system, and there were no signs of forced entry, I would have a lawyer with me.”

    Cyrhla, I think is pointing out that Drew may have originally intended to cast some suspicion upon Steve M, in case Kathleen’s death was deemed suspicious.

    It looks as if Joel also hasn’t missed the opportunity to try to implicate Steve. After all, how could he not?

  44. She said they went to the aquarium, she didn’t say they were having a good time. Going to the aquarium keeps kids occupied and keeps them from wanting to return home or calling mom. That of course is pure speculation.

  45. Ahhh. Thanks, Facs!

    You’re right…no drugs, no alcohol on board.
    ….which reminds me that there are toxicological results under seal. They may just be looking for more sedatives or illegal or prescription drugs than were tested for at the time; a routine screening test of a few of the usual suspects..barbituates, amphetamines, etc. I think they would be examining any retained fluid and surrounding tissues recovered from her lungs/respiratory tract to try to identify the source of the drowning fluid. Or any other clues…a hair, anything that may have found its way there.

  46. I think it was ‘Facs’ earlier who mentioned that there was an ex-cop on the mock jury. I did not watch the video, but I understand Brodsky was there at the mock trial. I wonder if the ex-cop is John Paul Carroll, who really is an ex-Chicago Cop? I saw that tiny stamp of a picture above and saw a bald headed man sitting there and I’m thinking he looks a little bit like Carroll. Wouldn’t that be laughable, to have two people from Drew’s defence team there trying to pick up some pointers. The way I see it, they are going to need all the help they can get. If Drew in the past was trying to float rumors that Mike Robinson was trying to get his ex-wife Kathleen on drugs, then for several reasons it would not surprise me if Robinson throws Drew under the bus. Oh the savagery of mankind. PJ

  47. As reported on http://www.acandyrose.com/kathleen_savio.htm; originally found at http://www.topix.com forum thread titled, “Man believes wife safe” by, “friend of a friend”, Evanston, IL, #18 Nov 1, 2007, QUOTE:

    5) The night that wife #3 was murdered, he was calm as a cucumber. He didn’t act surprised and was saying that her current boyfriend had gotten her on drugs or that drugs might be involved somehow, …

    Funny … Drew hasn’t mentioned that any of the times he’s been on TV talking about Kathleen’s accident.

  48. You may be right, charmed. I buy your option.:)

    I reread Kathleens police report of June 2002 in which “Kathleen also mentioned [..] a time where he was living in the basement and while she was gone cut a hole in her bedroom door to gain entry and removed jewelry and money. I[...] She advised that Drew later gave her back the pair of earrings when he came to the house with another unidentified police officer to have her sign a legal document, at which time he returned the earrings to her. [...]

    All of this took place before July 2003. I wonder if it was the power of attorney signed on April 24th. Jeffrey Ortinau is a former BB policeman.

    http://www.mapunion.org/web-data/SmartObjects/Board.pdf

    (page 7)
    Legal Advisor
    I have been serving on the MAP Board for approximately twenty years. I retired from the Bolingbrook Police Department after 27 years of service at the rank of Sergeant. At the present time, I am MAP’s legal advisor and attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois since 1991. My objective is to assist MAP (Metropolitan Alliance of Police) members and all those who serve in law enforcement.

    Two weeks later he bought a house at 6 Pheasant Chase Ct.

    ———–
    The second person in MAP who knew Drew is Joseph Mazzone who replaced Alex Beck during Kathleen’s estate processing.
    —-
    There is also another collegue of Drew from BBPD

    http://www.mapunion.org/mapsite_/george.html

    The World is so small, isn’t it? ;)

  49. Cyrhla, I don’t think it’s right to start dragging up the names of people that Drew may have known or worked with and with a wink, draw some inferrance that they may have been complicit in any illegal activity that Peterson was engaged in.

    Drew was on the BBPD for 30 years and of course he knew many, many people involved in law enforcement (including MAP). We have no idea how most of these people felt about Drew or feel about him now, how many were called to testify at Grand Jury or how many will testify for the prosecution at his trial.

    It just seems very unfair to me.

  50. PJ, I watched the video – no it wasn’t John Paul Carroll on the mock jury.

    “If Drew in the past was trying to float rumors that Mike Robinson was trying to get his ex-wife Kathleen on drugs,”

    Where did you see this?? Never heard of it.

  51. LOL @ me: … new links is …

    I have never heard that Mike Robinson tried to get Kathleen on drugs either. I’ve only just seen the comment from “friend of a friend” that said Drew was trying to connect Kathleen’s death to her boyfriend Steve Maniaci and him getting Kathleen into drugs or drugs being involved.

  52. From the mock trial comments:

    crimefile (8 hours ago)
    This was an interesting presentation. This is a paper thin case that will fail without some real evidence.

    marigold1930 (1 day ago) Show Hide
    Excellent trial! Thanks Greg & Karen!

    Fortunately, I believe Glasgow has some real evidence. ;)

  53. Yes, I believe Glasgow has some real evidence too. Plus, the State has had months to confront and solve any issues they felt would come up.

    I would imagine they held their own mock trial, only, this time, they had all of the evidence that will come out in the real trial. Nothing like this mock trial that had to base closing arguments on what is only known publicly. Which, I find silly to rely on by certain individuals who think it’s an indication that the State’s case is weak.

  54. Interesting that Pauly feels the case is “paper thin” but yet he was compelled to travel all the way from L.A. in order to be in attendence at a mock trial for the case, and that the defendant’s lead attorney also attended.

    If the case were “paper thin” why not stay comfortably at home rather than take the trouble and expense to attend a pretend-trial based only on public knowledge of the evidence?

  55. Interesting that Pauly feels the case is “paper thin”

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

    LOL, LOL, Good on him !

    Maybe they all got so caught up in it, they thaught it was the real thing (!)

  56. The Defense is always saying the ex wife was on a downward spiral, had affairs, gotten into bad company, drugs, drug dealers killed her, all very ridiculous and stupid stuff, just grasping at straws.

    If you read through every high profile case, you’ll find the Defense goes for that angle, including the first O.J. Simpson trial (!!)

  57. Drew already tried his very best to make Kathleen look bad by saying she disgraced herself at Bolingbrook Village by being drunk and wanting to sit on several members laps.

    Roger Claar said he doesn’t recall any such incident at Bolingbrook Village – LOL,!

  58. Over a year and a half Peterson and the defense had to clear up some things that have come out unfavorable to Peterson. Instead, they used their time to become media whores, and to discredit the victims and witnesses with name calling and character assassinations. If this is supposed to bolster the idea that the State’s case is weak, I’m missing something here.

    I haven’t seen one credible piece of anything that points away from Peterson, especially anything he’s come out with. A year and a half and all I know is he’s obsessed with being in the limelight, and so is his attorney, and it took a court order to shut them up.

  59. The only thing Drew and Joel cleared up is that they are two pathological liars.

    They did a very good job in that department (!!)

  60. Does anybody think drew will shut up if he gets bailed out? Do you think he will be able to contain himself? I don’t.

  61. I wonder…What do the phone records show from the night KS was murdered ?

    I wonder..What key piece of evidence is going to do the two time murderer in ?? Hmmmmmmm

    I wonder..Will it be more than one thing ?

    So many things to wonder about.
    Have a wonderful evening while we all wonder.

  62. I don’t know about pathological liars, JAH. That would mean that some sort of pathology accounted for the lies being told.

    In Drew’s case, I would say his lies are calculated to hide his criminal activity. He created them and has had to stick to them in order to walk free up until May 7, 2009. His narcissism and need for attention, on the other hand does seem pathological.

    As for Joel Brodsky, his lies are constructed to cast suspicion upon witnesses and victims and to discredit their potential testimony. It’s part of his job, but it’s still pretty reprehensible.

    I think a pathological liar would be more someone like Casey Anthony, where she proabably doesn’t even always know where truth ends and begins. In her case, I think she may actually be incapable of speaking the truth.

  63. OT but FYI for all the IE users who were frustrated by not being able to copy and paste — IE 8.0 allows you to do it.

  64. Hmmm … I have Firefox on one computer and had trouble on this one (IE). Been using 8.0 for awhile but never bothered to try it — I just copied into Word pad and copied/pasted back to here. I forgot where I was and copied and pasted directly, and it worked. So it’s more of a Windows issue? Good to know.

  65. so her boyfriend Steve got her into drugs huh?

    ALL the more reason he would have called family, the boyfriend..THE HOSPITAL AND THE JAILS before just entering her house!

    why did Drew never attempt to keep the kids from her if that were the case? Why did he never filed for permanent custody based on those accusations?

    Because as we know they weren’t true..but he cast that the night of her death, just in case the ISP viewed her death as anything but an accident..if he’s spouting off about her being on drugs than that could explain why they didn’t treat the scene the way we think it should have been treated…they were viewing it as a possible OD instead???

    “My ex isn’t home, she’s not answering her phone, you know, that new bf of hers has gotten her mixed up in drugs, I’m going to try calling her family, check with her friends, even get a hold of her boyfriend and if none of them have heard from her or have seen her I’m going to check the hospitals, maybe she OD’d? I’m going to check the jail database..maybe she got arrested in a neighboring town for possession?”

    that is the frame of mind he SHOULD have had, ESPECIALLY being a COP…Heck 99% of us here are not in law enforcement and that is what we would have done long before entering her home!

    the whole thing stinks to high heaven, we recognize this, so why did no one back then see it?

  66. Good question. Are they afraid of him? Just the ones he outranks?

    I don’t think they’d need to know anything except that he seems to have gotten away with murder… and blowing the cover of a colleague to a known drug dealer (in return for drugs), failure to report a bribe, etc, been chucked out and got back in. Makes him look connected. I would be wary of such a person if I worked with them.

  67. By the way, in typical Drew fashion, the time line says he tried to return the boys after the trip to the Aquarium around 8 p.m. He should have had the boys home at 6 p.m. on Sunday night.

  68. Charmed, how do you know that he tried to return the boys at 8 pm? I am asking because he was supposed to start his work at 5 pm on Sunday.

  69. Also if I read it right, he didn’t work Sunday night, but was to be at work Monday at 5. So Drew’s accounting is:

    Friday–picked up kids
    Saturday–spent the day at home with wife and kids including Steven
    Sunday–Donuts and Shedd Aquarium, attempt to return boys home.
    Monday–called Kathleen to see about returning kids, no answer.
    Went to work
    Went to Kathleen’s
    Found body after patiently waiting for someone to carefully let him in.

  70. Funny, charmed, as I think Stacy testified he worked on Sunday, didn’t she? He must have forgotten he worked then LOL

    “Police interviewed Stacy Peterson for one hour March 3. She said she and her husband had spent the weekend with the children, backing up Peterson’s statements made to police a day earlier. She said they had spent Saturday hanging around the house and had gone to the Shedd Aquarium Sunday. The only time Peterson left was Sunday morning to get doughnuts and to go to work Sunday evening. Savio was found the next day, a Monday.”

    http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/18/local/chi-savio_18aug18

  71. There’s a longer version of this in Armstrong’s book, but this is essentially what Drew says happened:

    Feb. 27 (Friday) – Drew picks up Tom and Kris from Savio’s home. He spends the rest of the night at home with Stacy and his children.

    Feb. 28 (Saturday) – Drew spends the day and night at home with his family, including his adult son Stephen and Stephen’s girlfriend.

    Feb. 29 (Sunday) – Drew, Stacy and the children go to the Shedd Aquarium before attempting to return Tom and Kris at about 8 p.m. Savio does not answer the door or her phone.

    March 1 (Monday) – Drew calls and leaves messages for Savio throughout the day but does not get a response. He goes to work at 5 p.m. At 7 p.m. goes to Mary Pontarelli’s house to ask about Kathleen. Between 8 and 9 p.m. he summons Savio’s neighbors, Mary Ponterelli, Nick Pontarelli and Steve Carcerano, and a locksmith to gain entry to Savio’s home. Ponterelli and Carcerano enter the home while Peterson waits outside. Peterson runs into the house when he hears the neighbors scream.

  72. I wonder how easy it was for Drew to leave work.

    From his actions on Monday, it appears to have been pretty easy — To be at Mary’s at 7 and talk to Steve between 8-9 (IIRC, Steve’s recollection was 9).

    I thought Joel said it was impossible for him to leave work. Someone said it. Anyone remember who?

  73. Or was Drew acting in his official capacity when he met with Mary and Steve?

    From acandyrose.com

    Mr. PETERSON: “I was one of the first people there. And I was actually the watch commander of our town at the time that it happened. And I went ahead and met with her best friend because I haven’t seen her for a couple of days, which was very unlike her, to not be seen or heard from. So I was planning the next day to go into her home, you know, with her neighbor, and see if she was OK, but her neighbor was upset and her best friend was upset, same person. And she wanted to go in that night. So we called the locksmith, went into the house. I didn’t go in the house. I waited outside. Her friend…”

  74. If Drew was stalking Stacy as much as people remember him doing, it would appear it was pretty easy for him to “leave work”.

    When he met up with Stacy, Scott Rosetto, et.al at Denny’s was in he in uniform? Anyone remember?

  75. Yeah, Facs, I thought he was, in fact, on duty when he tracked down Stacy with Scott at Denny’s.

    Isn’t there an issue, also, of him using the BB Police Dept database to do his own snooping of anyone that was suspected by him of being involved with Stacy? Bet he was wearing his uniform then, too. ;-)

  76. Not what I was looking for but found this on SYM.

    *Joel, did Drew break into Kathleens home and send Steve C., Mary, her husband, and her son and the locksmith into it in the official capacity of a police officer?

    Quote:
    nonosense at 10:55am: No. He was off duty at the time, (but in uniform as he was coming off his shift)

    He only worked from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m.? Or was his dinner from 7-8 and he worked until 9 p.m.? :roll:

  77. “Stacy Peterson had told her husband she planned to meet [Scott] Rossetto [35-year-old registered nurse from Shorewood] at the Denny’s, Rossetto said. Drew Peterson told her not to go, and when she defied him, Drew Peterson showed up at the restaurant in his Bolingbrook police sergeant’s uniform and sat down at their table. He didn’t rant or rave. He was “quiet mostly,” Rossetto said.” – “he [Scott] said they met at Denny’s at about 9:30 p.m. on Oct. 19. That’s when Drew Peterson arrived, staying for about 15 minutes. It was the first time Rossetto had met him, he said.” – “He asked me how I’d react if my wife was with another man,” Scott Rossetto said.”

    From the Sun Times – November 22, 2007

  78. Yeah, well, one thing is known, while he was out and about and snooping on his wife, his chief was snooping on him. Peterson got a little shock and awe of his own when he thought erasing his young wife would go unnoticed, and it’d trigger the exhumation of his late ex-wife.

    I have to laugh sometimes when I hear people say the defendant was and is a smart guy, and that he wouldn’t be so stupid as to get nailed for any crimes. How come, then, was he so stupid that the State gathered six boxes of evidence against him. The defense used a year and a half to slime and criticize the victims and the witnesses, and now, when they really need to get out the word that they’ve got some exculpatory evidence of their own, they’ve had to shut their pie holes because they pissed off the State, and the judge agreed.

    What a stupid move that was. So, what is it the defense wants the potential jury pool to know, now that they’ve got the State’s evidence against them? Never mind. Mum’s the word. He he.

  79. Great point, Rescue! He he. Exculpatory. Can Joel spell it? Nevermind, he won’t need to. lol

    Noway, I think he controlled the whores by radio etc. He’d be out in his own squad car or a mate’s black pickup down at the truckstop.

  80. I just wanted to add, that during his long and hard shifts as a night commander, Drew visited hotels (with his friend, a policeman too) to check if all young receptionists in BB hotels are well and safe.
    Not to mention having regular evening meals at home and giving tickets to his former partners for speeding.

  81. I tell you, rescue, that I belong to those who to a certain point also believed in Drew’s intelligence ;). I mean diving, flying and ability to create a sophisticated plans.
    Now I am laughing at myself seeing how simple and primitive he is. LOL

  82. Diving, flying….yep, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and now Glasgow has all the duck’s information. LOL

  83. …actually, Cyrhla, that is when Drew says he used to socialise with Lenny and Paula…he’d drop by for a natter while he was on duty. ;-)

  84. bucketoftea Says:
    June 16, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Diving, flying….yep, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and now Glasgow has all the duck’s information. LOL
    —-
    LOL
    Though the fact is ducks do not need a lot of intelligency to dive and fly LOL

  85. At one time Joel said Drew didn’t go anywhere as he was a “desk-Sergeant”

    This was in relation to Drew being seen at the truck stop, where he supposedly couldn’t have been because “the truckers were lying”, but another trucker saw him there the week before and that trucker wasn’t lying, just hallucinating, because according to Joel Drew was always at his desk (!!)

  86. BTW – It wasn’t ISP that said the truckers were lying, ISP would never say anything either way.

    It was Joel Brodsky’s “Police Source” he was quoting.

    There is a difference.

  87. ….or smart as in pain? :-) (not advocating violence, here….could be pain of never being in control of all around him any more)

  88. okay there is some serious confusion for me going on here….did Drew or did he not work the Sunday he had the boys? I was under the impression that he was off on weekends

    can someone straighten this out please?

  89. I think to do that we’d need to see the BBPD log book for 2004.

    We’ve got what Drew said, what Armstrong says Drew said, and what a reporter says Stacy said. There are probably more versions floating around as well.

  90. reason I’m asking is…if he did have to work did he attempt to drop the boys off after he went into work..or would Stacy have been the one to take the boys home? and if Drew was confused about the extra day why did he not attempt to contact Kathleen at all that day prior to the drop off time…you would think that if he realized “hey this is a holiday weekend..I wonder if I get the boys and extra day?” that he would have attempted to contact Kathleen some time during the day on Sunday

    yes Facs all we do have is what Drew told Armstrong..and what a reporter says Stacy said…I’m sure there are more variations floating around..I’m just trying to look at this from both angels..from the angel of him working that day..or not working that day…either way, not attempting to contact anyone else when he failed to reach Kathleen is very suspicious to me

    my son’s father gets visitations and would NEVER enter my home unless he reached other people first..entering my home would be a last resort..and he and I get along and he’s never cut my drywall or taken anything from my house!

  91. facsmiley Says:

    June 16, 2009 at 1:51 pm
    If Drew was stalking Stacy as much as people remember him doing, it would appear it was pretty easy for him to “leave work”.

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

    I recall Cassandra or Sharon saying that Drew was so controlling of Stacy that he came home for dinner when he was on a nightshift and popped in unexpectedly from time to time so she would never know when he would suddenly appear. Sounds like he pretty much just drove around and did what he wanted when he wanted while on shift.

  92. LOL, I had a read and it was mildly amusing.

    I don’t see his point though. He seems to have devoted a lot of energy into giving us the mundane details of Chrissy’s day to day life.

  93. I’ve been reading the comments and they are so intelligent…my confusion is getting the best of me!

    Here is a link where you can plug in the year – 2004 and look at February. That February was a leap year with 29 days. When Drew said it was a holiday weekend, did he mean Washington’s BD? TIA

    http://www.timeanddate.com/

  94. We can say, Drew generally likes uniforms. His favorite two were his policeman and SWAT uniform. However, he did not like them when chatting in front of his computer camera.

  95. I also got a lot of bad publicity for The Drew Peterson Dating Game. Hey, it was a joke! That one was the brainchild of Drew’s lawyer, Joel Brodksy, but I repeated it. I even heard from CBS Corporate (owner of the radio station I was on) in New York on that one. I wasn’t really planning on setting him up. I claimed, and still do, that it was a satire of the way the media were covering the whole case.

    Steve Dahl talks about Letterman’s gaffe and references the “Date with Drew” fiasco.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0617-steve-dahljun17,0,3985272.story

  96. Going back to some comments from last night and earlier today, Drew was always around, always. It’s as if he would hide places and then pop out of nowhere. He was always at the hotel, probably close to everynight, it was disgusting, sometimes his partner was with him, other times not. Once Drew had his sights set I don’t think another guy spent more than 10 minutes alone with her. Wherever Stacy was, he was never far behind.

    To clear things up, I have been reading for quite awhile, always appreciated that you allowed non-registered people to read. I think it’s stupid paranoia that would close down other blogs and forums keeping unregistered people away, everyone needs to keep a level-head and keep faith that the ISP and the WCSA will find the evidence they need and be able to convince a jury of the evidence they already have.

  97. WWK – welcome.

    Many of us sure are convinced and do have faith that the SA does have plenty to convince the jury that there’s nothing that points away from Drew Peterson’s guilt in the death of his ex-wife. If the defense had anything convincing of their own that’d help Peterson, I’m sure they would have come out with it in the more than eighteen months they’ve been playing games, using the media spotlight. Now that they have the SA discovery and know what they’re up against, they used up all their air time and can’t open their pie holes now. Too bad, so sad.

  98. LOL @ your insight, Bucket. Yes, panels lighting up, Complaint Department people quit, cut in pay, but we’re hanging in there and trying to use the lull to rest up for the big things a’coming.

    P.S. What pay?

  99. bucketoftea, There must be something in the water in bollingbrook, seems like all the men are drinking it.

  100. Going back to some comments from last night and earlier today, Drew was always around, always. It’s as if he would hide places and then pop out of nowhere. He was always at the hotel, probably close to everynight, it was disgusting, sometimes his partner was with him, other times not.

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

    That just goes to show Drew ran his own race within BBPD and basically did what he felt like doing as he could not possibly have justified his rostered time hanging around the hotel that much or anywhere else for that matter.

    That brings me back to the situation with Kathleen, returning his children from weekend visits etc.

    Did this always take place during his time on duty and what else did he do whilst supposedly on duty and in uniform ???

  101. I just can’t get over the fact Drew did a self assigned well being check on Kathleen, didn’t follow procedures in the slightest, yet interjected himself as “first officer on the scene” because he was in uniform and this was NEVER picked up on !!

  102. I think to do that we’d need to see the BBPD log book for 2004.

    We’ve got what Drew said, what Armstrong says Drew said, and what a reporter says Stacy said. There are probably more versions floating around as well.

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

    Yes, the BBPD log book for 2004 will speak volumes where Drew really was versus where he said he was or where he was supposed to be to what he signed in for (LOL)

    A LOT of his lies are documented, his own swindle sheets and other fraudulent documentation whilst on duty or when he considered himself on duty will get him undone !!

  103. HI ALL ,it’s been awhile since Ihavebeen here . anyways , what is going on with drew know , is he still in jail or tryin to get out . what about soon to be his 5th wife lol. as for the mock trial it will not work I remember on court tv they did that with either oj or someone and they did a mock one they the defense did not use that at all . haha. joel is an idiot.

    here is the question ,I read above where one of ya said that drew was saying he called her thru out the day is it in any statements he made and if he did would there be tapes of him calling her , I do not remember reading or hearing about that . also do you remeber that they say stacy said she kept calling drew on the cell phone did not know where he was ???and saw him putting clothes in the washer also…

    WIll he get bail or stay in jail and when will th trial start for him to stay in ..

  104. Regarding the mock trial, can everything the prosectuion and the defense say be taken as fact in the real Drew Peterson case?

    I just started listening to it yesterday and don’t agree with some of what was said (as far as what I thought was true).

  105. One item in particular was whether there was water in Kathleen’s lungs. I could not find mention of that in the autopsy report, just water in the ethmoid sinuses which is above the nose, between the eyes.

    The only mention of the lungs is what they weighed. If there was water in the lungs, wouldn’t they mention it?

    Or is that a flaw of the autopsy?

    It just seems to me that if you’re going to come up with “drowning” as the cause of death, you’d mention the presence of water in the lungs (or no water in the lungs).

  106. Noway, I wouldn’t take the mock trial as anything other than an interesting exercise.

    AFAIK, there was no actual discovery, just info gathered from public sources – kind of like we have – and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it was in error.

    If there was truly no water in Kathleen’s lungs, I hope that is brought up in the actual trial.

  107. Same here – thanks Irish. It will, no doubt, get exciting, once the trial begins. Until then, we’ll take the time to chill. I’m sure something or other catch our attention before then.

  108. snipped

    facsmiley Says:

    June 18, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    Noway, I wouldn’t take the mock trial as anything other than an interesting exercise.

    Thanks Facs … I’ve since read that Kathleen suffered what is referred to as a “dry drowning.”

    Without all the facts, the mock trial seemed pointless to me; even more so with the factual errors.

  109. I would have to agree about the mock trial. Even if they had voted 100% guilty, it means nothing. I was excited about the prospect at first, but, after hearing how it was going to be portrayed, it was no more than a bunch of legal talking heads on Greta or Nancy Grace. Except, these two, on either side of the fence, weren’t screaming at each other, trying to drown one another out by seeing who could talk the loudest.

    I still don’t grasp the concept, though, of those who feel the State’s case is weak, or there’s not enough evidence against Peterson, when, in reality, even if that were the truth, no one knows that yet. In addition, I have yet to hear or see one solid presentation of something that points away from Peterson, or contradicts anything that has come out already against him. The slam, damn and slime of the victims and witnesses only goes so far, and once the name calling and character assassination stops, I would hope and have to believe that intelligent, moral people would make the right decision about Peterson’s guilt or innocence.

  110. noway406 Says:

    June 18, 2009 at 12:25 pm
    One item in particular was whether there was water in Kathleen’s lungs. I could not find mention of that in the autopsy report, just water in the ethmoid sinuses which is above the nose, between the eyes.

    The only mention of the lungs is what they weighed. If there was water in the lungs, wouldn’t they mention it?

    Or is that a flaw of the autopsy?

    It just seems to me that if you’re going to come up with “drowning” as the cause of death, you’d mention the presence of water in the lungs (or no water in the lungs).

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

    Noway, I have read in more than one place (but can’t remember specifically where) that there was water in the lungs, however there was also air at the bottom, which meant she died by drowning, however the air meant that she was forced under the water.

    I just don’t understand the system in Illinois. I can’t understand how a medical examiner, somebody who is trained in these things, can’t simply make the determination themselves about the nature of the death. Why the hell do they need six people who don’t know anything about medicine or law enforcement to decide if it was a homicide or an accident????

    I am a little bit stunned about that whole process.

  111. I’m with you aussienat, maybe not so much the Jury process itself but the lack/omission/incompleteness of information and the fact the Jury had a very short time to make up their mind (hurry up there are a lot of cases to be heard !)

    I am still stunned the Coroner asked ISP if Drew was in uniform (considering he was supposedly on duty) and the answer was “I don’t know” and this bizarre answer was just taken on its merit (what merit ?), next no phone records (never mind just keep going), no option of reaching an “undetermined” verdict, etc, etc, etc.

    Was that a mock Jury trial at the time or was that the real thing ??

  112. Aussie, I found it. They just didn’t say “water in lungs” … my bad! :oop:

    2. Moderate pulmonary edema

    http://www.acandyrose.com/2004-03-01-SavioAutopsyReport-(pg04).jpg

    Found a bit of a definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_edema.

    Pulmonary edema (American English), or oedema (British English, Greek οίδημα), is fluid accumulation in the lungs.[1] It leads to impaired gas exchange and may cause respiratory failure. It is due to either failure of the heart to remove fluid from the lung circulation (“cardiogenic pulmonary edema”) or a direct injury to the lung parenchyma (“noncardiogenic pulmonary edema”).[2] Treatment depends on the cause, but focuses on maximizing respiratory function and removing the cause.

    Signs and symptoms
    Symptoms of pulmonary edema include difficulty breathing, coughing up blood, excessive sweating, anxiety, and pale skin. A classic sign of pulmonary edema is the production of pink frothy sputum. If left untreated, it can lead to coma and even death, in general, due to its main complication of hypoxia. If pulmonary edema has been developing gradually, symptoms of fluid overload may be elicited. These include nocturia (frequent urination at night), ankle edema (swelling of the legs, in general, of the “pitting” variety, wherein the skin is slow to return to normal when pressed upon), orthopnea (inability to lie down flat due to breathlessness), and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea (episodes of severe sudden breathlessness at night).

    More from autopsy:

    The parenchyma is red-purple and soft with mild congestion and moderate edema.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/2004-03-01-SavioAutopsyReport-(pg03).jpg

  113. I don’t know whether all that means there was an injury to the parenchyma or not. Speculation on my part; delete if you need to!

  114. This is a very old transcript from Nancy Grace. Well-worth a re-read. At least, it was for me.

    Nancy just cleans the floor with boobsky and the segment really illustrates how stupid he is.

    A police investigator weighed in…pity he wasn’t working for the BBPD when Kathleen died.

    MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Nancy, from looking at this, is that — former detective and investigator, looking at this, you know, Mr. Brodsky`s saying that these are defensive marks on – – you know — no. These aren`t — no. No way.

    “And the other thing that really bothers me, Nancy, if we look back to the first autopsy and when they had the coroner`s court, who testified in that? It was an investigator with the Illinois State Police. He had not been to the scene. He had not been there at the autopsy, and he`s testifying to all this evidence. The Illinois State Police is still now investigating this. I just hope that detective, that investigator is not working this particular case.

    But Nancy, unless she jumped up on the side of the tub and took a dive into the tub and hit her top of her head, as this autopsy reports — you know, I don`t know how it was ruled accidental in the first place. After reading this detailed report, no way.”

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/21/ng.01.html

    I’m still looking for the information that says the water and air in her lungs proves she was held under water to drown…

  115. OK, I am starting to think the bit about water and air both being present proving she was held down was just myth. I re-read Dr Baden’s interview on Fox and have looked at a few other sites and can’t find any mention of it.

    I hate it when that happens!

  116. Aha! I knew I didn’t imagine it. This is from nancy Grace, 13/12/2007:

    From Nancy Grace Show 2007December 13,…

    Dr. Makary explains Kathleen had air in her lungs which indicates a struggle when she drowned in the bathtub ILL DR. MARTY MAKARY, PHYSICIAN: “But what we do know is that there was clearly air in the lungs. And any time there`s air in the lungs and a drowning, that means that the epiglottis has spasmed. There was a struggle. And water was not able to get through that valve. So that is a very important finding that we know about.” – PAT LALAMA (HOST): I just want to go back to Dr. Marty Makary. You said something really that caught all of us, and that was that there was air in the lungs. Now what could that signify, a struggle or that she was in the water, then out of the water, then back in the water? Tell us lay folk. – MAKARY: “Well, that`s a good point you raise here. When there is a struggle, when there is wrestling, when there is a gasping for air, a true struggle, then the epiglottis will spasm, and that acts as a valve and air will not enter the lungs. That is why bodies float when somebody dies. And that indicates that there was not a sudden heart attack or a stroke or a bruise or a fall which led to the drowning”

  117. Hi everyone :-)
    I’ve searched around and I can’t find a reference, but
    I’m pretty sure I remember, too, that the way she was biting her tongue and clenching her teeth was another indicator of the struggle. (I’m so sorry, Kitty)

  118. These indicators of violence weren’t described to the coroner’s jury or explained in the first autopsy? Well, I have just looked at the report again and the only comment was that the laceration on the scalp may have been caused by a fall. That’s it.

    There was more than her bruises that betrayed the violence. The pathologist saw it. He recorded it. He did not comment on the significance of the findings. If this is how it is usually done, how the hell is a jury supposed to know? How do they detect any suspicious deaths (as opposed to obviously murdered…lab reports showing poison or gunshot wounds and the like)?

  119. Yep, like I said; recorded but no interpretation. I will find the ref, I’ll keep looking, but IIRC it was suspicious especially as it was associated with drowning, I think.

    It’s as if he (pathologist) announced a blood level of caffeine of such and such a number without the information that that number represents a fatal dose. (it’s possible to die of caffeine OD)

  120. If she had hit her head against the tiled rim of the tub (the only place to cause the laceration in this bathroom), there would have been blood on it.

  121. The cover up was not the manner in which Kathleen died (as that will always stay the same)but the lack or deliberate omittance of information to the Coroners Jury for them to make an informed decision.

    As a result the Jurors were left floundering and weren’t even given the option of an “undetermined” verdict, which would have been the most sensible considering the Jurors weren’t getting any answers to their questions to make a proper decision.

    That whole Jury process was a snow job and had nothing to do with the logistics of how Kathleen really died.

  122. Rescueapet says:
    I still don’t grasp the concept, though, of those who feel the State’s case is weak, or there’s not enough evidence against Peterson, when, in reality, even if that were the truth, no one knows that yet. In addition, I have yet to hear or see one solid presentation of something that points away from Peterson, or contradicts anything that has come out already against him. The slam, damn and slime of the victims and witnesses only goes so far, and once the name calling and character assassination stops, I would hope and have to believe that intelligent, moral people would make the right decision about Peterson’s guilt or innocence.
    ***
    Rescue, this is not meant in any way to be a criticism of your post, so please consider this a jump to the next level.
    I just keep remembering that Brodsky, Drewpy, et al do not have to prove anything. If there is no proof positive that Drew committed this act, then I honestly believe that the ‘name calling and character assassination’ will be brought up over and over again by the DEFENSE, as it has already.
    While there may be nothing that points away from Peterson, and much that points to him, I’m really afraid that without the ‘hearsay law’ he will walk. And that makes me sick at my stomach.
    Just like in the OJ trial-it for dang sure wasn’t the defense that got his verdict, it was the prosecution that did not prove their case.
    I’m not convinced that this will be any different. I’m not even sure that if I were on this jury, I could vote to convict, on the evidence ALONE.
    The acts of abuse and hatred are very well documented.
    It’s the act of Kitty’s murder itself is, to me, where it will all break down.

  123. Good Morning!

    I hear what you’re saying, Cheryljones, but take heart. While we here would certainly give Drew the really high bail or none at all, thanks to JBlobsky challenging the bail we’ve had some reassurance via 4 judges who have seen the files….one to set it high, one to uphold it, and a further 2 (?) appelate judges who refused the appeal.

    I’m pretty confident that there will be more surprises. Wasn’t it quite a surprise when we heard a little more of Tom Morphey’s story about the trip to the storage facility and then Droopy had to admit it happened? What did Steve Peterson’s girlfriend, Jennifer, have to share with the Grand Jury? What contribution from Eric Peterson? We don’t know yet, but I do believe DP will never be out of custody again. :-)

    I just had another thought about the high bail…have LE got actual threats on the overhears? (eg suicide by cop or against someone in particular)…that, of course also begs the question why would an innocent man go for a shootout?

  124. Good morning!

    I would like to add Mary Pontarelli to your list, bucket. I think there are some reasons she was not present at the coroner’s jury and her testimony at the police report was not made public.

    In addition, we do not know what those who ‘helped’ Drew testified now. Were they manipulated or did they have busisness to do with Drew? IMO it may be very significant as well.

  125. Good morning everyone.

    Cheryljones says:

    If there is no proof positive that Drew committed this act, then I honestly believe that the ‘name calling and character assassination’ will be brought up over and over again by the DEFENSE, as it has already.
    While there may be nothing that points away from Peterson, and much that points to him, I’m really afraid that without the ‘hearsay law’ he will walk. And that makes me sick at my stomach.

    “Proof positive” Just what is proof positive? An actual secretly recorded video of Peterson killing Kathleen? An eye witness who was hiding and watching the whole incident? An actual recording of the murder defendant saying “I killed Kathleen?”

    See, this is what I mean. There is never going to be “proof positive” using any of these circumstances. Let’s face it, most heinous crimes like this are prosecuted on the circumstantial evidence, left to the jury to sort out.

    Many things we know, many we don’t. I do know that many people are making decisions about this man’s guilt or innocence based on what is known in the public. I made my decision about my utter dislike for the man the minute I saw him set out to butcher his young, missing wife’s character by claiming she left him for another man and bolted on her four children, while he portrayed himself as the victim. It doesn’t mean he’s a murderer, it just showed me he’s a piss poor excuse of a “man,” and someone who seemed to recover quite quickly and move on, rather than be anguished and sorry for his motherless children. Twice. I don’t make excuses why I “think” this man is guilty. But, that’s okay, I won’t be on his jury, nor should I be. Nor, should anyone who goes into the jury box with the mindset that unless there’s “proof positive” he killed Kathleen, he can’t be found guilty, or with the mindset that the State’s case is weak and based on mere hearsay. How does anyone, outside of the lawyers involved and the murder defendant himself, know this, at this point? How can anyone make a rational decision like that based on only what’s known in the public? I just don’t understand that.

    I see, repeatedly, those who say he’s guilty and he makes them sick, but there’s not enough to convict him and the State’s case is weak. Well, then, why should any defendant be brought to trial if there’s no videotape of the individual actually committing the crime? Or pictures of a murderer standing over his dead victim, with blood dripping from their hands?

    I “think” he’s guilty. Some “think” he’s guilty but he’ll walk. Maybe some think he’s not guilty, who knows. Why should he walk and live amongst those who abide by the laws of the Land, and not murder those who get in the way of their lives? Because some schmuck of a lawyer defending the creep says the victims are less than perfect, and the witnesses are dysfunctional?

    Let’s hope the jury is intelligent and worthy enough to see past that bullshit!

  126. Sure. No one could see Drew murdering Kathleen or Stacy but there are (at least) two people coming from two different circles who say he wanted to pay them for murdernig their wives.
    There are Kathleens reports of abuse and the testimonies of the people who saw her beaten and scared of Drew.
    There is a new autopsy report and new toxicology tests.
    There are phone records from that night…
    There is Glasgow saying that Drew shared the information only a murderer could be aware of.
    What’s more, Drew is the only person who might have been interested in murdering Kathy. As he said to many people, he would have been bunkrupted.

    [plus add the characteristics of his second wife who suspects Drew of having tried to kill her as well and of the fourth wife who confessed he killed Kathy; are there many people whose life is driven by so many coincidenced as Drew's, resulting in the deaths of his two wives?]

    Drew did not have to perform it in front of the camera. Do you know any murderer who does?

    I am not worried about the evidence. I am only worried the ISP can make procedural mistakes and BrodskyLtd will make use of it. The circle of attorneys surrounding Drew is a bunch of very specific lawyer. I strongly believe Glasgow is aware of it.

  127. Sure. No one could see Drew murdering Kathleen or Stacy but there are (at least) two people coming from two different circles who say he wanted to pay them for murdernig his wives.
    —-
    Sorry :)

  128. I’m not worried about the State’s evidence either. If nothing else, they used Kathleen’s documents and things she said to others to go down roads and paths that led them to witnesses who knew it was the right thing to come forward now. Stacy may very well have known things about Kathleen’s death that she repeated to others, which LE used to investigate and gather evidence. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, use some hearsay evidence, but it sure didn’t hurt them in their present investigation to gather possibly incriminating evidence. Again, not to mention that the State was ready to proceed in October, having had months and months to collect evidence, statements, and forensics against the murder defendant, without his lawyer being aware of anything they had against him. After all, Brodsky lives by the lies of Peterson, not what he should have been learning about the circumstances himself.

    Now, after all these long months, with discovery in hand, he’s probably scratching his head and wondering what filth and dirt he can gather up on the witnesses for the State to throw at them at trial, rather than show how his client is a victim of circumstances, of just plain bad luck and bad publicity.

    What in the world has Brodsky done in all these months that worries anyone who believes Drew is guilty, that makes them think Drew will walk? I’ve not seen an ounce of integrity and professionalism that makes me think he’s going to slam dunk the State’s case. He makes bold statements he can’t back up, he uses his client to promote himself on tv, he uses his client to promote his failing bar, and last, but not least, he uses his attorney/client visitation time to play cards to sooth his client, rather that strategize his defense.

    Most everything he’s predicted or said so far has turned out to be the opposite. Hmmm, must be his ultimate strategy, heh, that will have us all mesmerized and amazed at trial. Shock and awe, is it? Yeah, that’s it.

  129. Drew got used to thinking that people are idiots. What his collegues and buddies believed in, does not really work with general public.

    For me, the interesting thing is still the theft of the documents from the police car and their (again coincidental) returning to Kathleen’s family. If the ISP finds out or had found who did it, that may be another bombshell!

  130. cyrhla, bucket and rescue.
    From your lips to God’s ears, as the saying goes. I so hope you’re all correct. By “proof positive” I was thinking more of fingerprints, DNA, etc…at the scene of the crime…rather than a {{{shudder}}} recording, of course.
    *Hanging head*, here, that I have such little faith.
    I do not belong on that jury, either, although I would love to be a little mouse in the corner, wouldn’t you? They could probably sell tickets and solve their financial woes for the next decade.
    You all know I’ve always said that Drew acted alone that night, for just this reason.
    I know he had absolutely no intention of Stacy waking up and finding his loading the washing machine. That sealed her fate, and I believe put the rest of this sad, sordid tale into motion.
    I want him placed at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder so that there will be no chance of his ever being free again.
    Coincidence never proved anything.

  131. In fact, we do not, cheryl, if there is any evidence such as DNA or fingerprints, but I personally speculate that the second autopsy provided additional evidence. We are in the STR era and Drew might have left his DNA on KS’s body and other marks (maybe not fingerprints in the classic meaning but imprints of his fingers on her neck or chest, for instance). If so, Drew cannot explain it with checking pulse.

  132. Cheryljones – I would really relish the thought of being present at that man’s trial, for sure!

    Placing him at the scene of the crime at the time of her murder would, indeed, be the perfect scenario. That would be, of course, reconstructing time lines, alibis, electronic records. Maybe enough to give the jury no reasonable doubt that he did murder Kathleen.

  133. I don’t think I’ve seen nor heard anyone say Peterson is an innocent man. Only that the State’s case is weak, the hearsay law is crap, and they don’t have enough evidence to convict him. Some said they didn’t have enough evidence to arrest and charge him, especially as more time went by, but that proved to be wrong.

    No, I don’t think many, if anyone, believes Peterson is innocent. I think most do see him as acting like he is guilty, as you say, JAH. The question is the evidence against him is all.

  134. He kept going on t.v. “to clear his name” only to tell disgraceful and pathetic lies, contradicting his OWN timeline over and over again, even to the point of denying he said things two seconds earlier in virtually the same sentence.

    Other than him telling the truth about his name and date of birth, how can you ever trust anything this man is saying !!

  135. “Clear his name,” heh? Nope, didn’t happen. I don’t know what he thought he was doing, but it certainly wasn’t anything remotely close to clearing his name. That would have entailed coming up with some counter evidence, like waiving his phone records from the night he was supposed to be home with Stacy. Or, showing an accounting of his whereabouts during the weekend Kathleen died, when he wasn’t with the fish at the Aquarium. Or showing us all his statement to the police the night he “found” Kathleen dead. Now, his attorneys must convince a jury that Kathleen did, in fact, die from an accidental drowning, since that’s his story and he is sticking to it.

    The only thing he did by going on tv was to further bury his own image, rather than poison the public’s perception of his missing young wife. Ooops. Unfortunately for him, that legal issue is waiting in the wings after this one is dealt with.

  136. You can bamboozle a Jury with endless evidence and scientific evidence, Coroners findings, blood splatter patterns and DNA analysis ad infinitum, but at the end of the day a consistantly lying defendant is his own worst enemy and that is something Drew will NEVER be able to overcome (!!)

  137. And then Joel adds more lies to Drews lies, which is then suddenly called Defense or a Defense strategy.

    I think it’s called insulting peoples intelligence, especially if even someone like Christina (!!) needs to get herself a lawyer because of Drews lies !!

  138. “Now, his attorneys must convince a jury that Kathleen did, in fact, die from an accidental drowning, since that’s his story and he is sticking to it.”
    ***
    Now see, that’s the whole problem, for me. His attys DON’T have to convince anyone of anything. All they have to do is sit back and smirk-and oh, hell’s bells, that’s what they do best-because the prosecution DOES have to prove that it WASN’T accidental!
    So I will keep the faith, baby, and cross my fingers and toes.
    Bring it on!
    ***
    And Rescue, if you get there first, save me a seat! Oooh. What a wish.

  139. Though I catch your point, cheryl, I do not agree with you that the defense and Drew just have to sit and wait for the prosecutors to prove Drew murdered Kathleen. If the prosecutors had not submitted convicing evidence to the court, the whole case would have not even started. What’s more, Drew wouldn’t have been given 25mln bond. It is very telling to me.
    So if the prosecutors managed to make the case and Drew is going just to see and have fun with it, he cannot count on convicing the jury he is innocent.
    Remember, that the jurors do not have to be 100% sure. They must ‘weigh’ the evidence they have ABOUT DREW and decide. Each (criminal) case is unique so Brodsky or Drew telling “things happen” and even giving examples, will not work. They must prove the prosecutors are wrong.

  140. Oh, I agree it’s not a matter of the defense just sitting back and letting the prosecutors do all the work. Sorry, Cheryljones, but I think it’s a little more complicated than that for the defense. If that were true, there wouldn’t be at least four, that I know of, defense attorneys working on Peterson’s behalf, plus, having Cyril Wecht waiting in the wings to contradict the current two autopsies. Let’s face it, if the State can place Peterson in and around Kathleen’s house at the time of her death, show that his alibi stinks, and among other things, produce credible and believable witnesses against Peterson, he’ll be kicking back all right. Kicking back in a long-term prison cell, reading a magazine on how to cut his nose hairs in three easy steps.

  141. I’d like to know how Drew is financing his ongoing Defense on a Police Sergeants pension and a household with four minor children (!!)

    Joel Brodsky has been blathering on his behalf for nearly two years,then there is “the team of Private Investigators” Joel Brodsky often claimed they have.

    Now Drew is in the slammer and things are getting serious, the Defense team has been increased, then there is Cyril Wecht, etc etc

    Does Drew pay all these people, are they on a Pro Bono basis, are they in it for the “book deals” or shares in the chicken wing project ???

    Drew is no O.J. with the deepest pockets for the fanciest Defense Team, so where does his money come from ???

  142. His attys DON’T have to convince anyone of anything. All they have to do is sit back and smirk

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

    I hope you’re right cheryljones that Drew and Joel are just sitting back and smirk as that is what they have been doing so far, but maybe Joel managed to lift the lid on one of the 6 boxes to see how much hearsay and double hearsay there is in these 9.400 documents and how weak the State’s Attorneys case really is, so the and Defense team can continue playing cards as that is always the best preparation for a major case !!

  143. Sorry about the comments being closed folks. There’s an automatic setting to close comments after seven days.

  144. So we acidently experienced a gag order. LOL
    Morning, and I am happy this was only a technical problem and facs and rescue still have their jobs ;).

  145. Heh, job. Heh, paycheck!

    FYI, Crimefile dude is in Chicago this week “working an investigation”. Of course, this could be anything but the fact that he flew in a few weeks ago from L.A. just to attend Peterson’s mock trial makes me think this could be Drew-related.

    Of course, we also know that Joel has made documents available to Nurse Pauline in the past to leak post on his blog and I think it was Hang Drew who posted that Pauly tried in the past to get hooked up with Joel to do some PI work for them.

    Shortly before announcing that he was headed Chicago way, Pauly posted this: “When cops find themselves wrongly in the courts, police boards, civil service commissions and such they are in a fight for their very lives. They need lawyers and investigators working on their side. I handle plenty of these types of cases and enjoy helping the wrongfully accused.”

  146. “When cops find themselves wrongly in the courts, police boards, civil service commissions and such they are in a fight for their very lives. They need lawyers and investigators working on their side. I handle plenty of these types of cases and enjoy helping the wrongfully accused.”

    I’m not about to get into a pissing contest with this guy over bull crap like this, as though he can lump together a group and consider them wrongfully accused or whatever, but, in the matter of Drew Peterson, Paulie better get it that Kathleen and Stacy were also in a fight for their very lives, but lost. Unless some astronomical miracle evidence happens that points away from the accused, maybe he better rethink which side of the law he used to be on. Peterson stands accused. He’s following the laws of the land, and his rights are being protected. He will get his chance to stand before a judge and/or jury and plead his case.

    His smart ass of a lawyer, along with the accused, should have realized he was in for the fight of his life months ago, and knocked it off with the media stunts and the jokes. It’s not so funny anymore, except when you think about who is standing up for the putz, hmmmmm? Now they’re getting serious? That’s just great.

  147. “When cops find themselves wrongly in the courts, police boards, civil service commissions and such they are in a fight for their very lives. They need lawyers and investigators working on their side. I handle plenty of these types of cases and enjoy helping the wrongfully accused.”

    ***

    Holy crapola, Batman, what happened here? The only ones I’ve seen hired by Peterson are doing anything but working on his side. They’ve been using him is what it looks like, not workin it, baby.

    Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  148. Okay, now wouldn’t you think, with the State having turned over at least six boxes of their evidence against Drew Peterson, his attorney, Joel Brodsky, would be busier than all hell? Nope. Guess not. What these guys must not know is that whatever Brodsky says, the opposite will happen!

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

    2 men accused in shooting death of officer appear in court
    Monday, June 22, 2009 | 4:48 PM

    June 22, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — Two men accused in the shooting death of Chicago police officer Alejandro Valadez appeared in court on Monday.

    Valadez, 27, was killed earlier this month while investigating reports of gunfire in the Englewood neighborhood.

    The case against Shawn Gaston and Kevin Walker was continued until Friday. The judge did grant the state’s request to have both men fingerprinted.

    “It’s way too early to know of anything specific even the state doesn’t have sufficient fingerprints to do the case so we are way to early to come to any conclusions,” said Joel Brodsky, Gaston’s attorney.

    Defense lawyers say neither Gaston nor Walker fired the fatal shots that killed officer Valadez.

    But police say both men have given statements admitting their involvement in the crime.
    (Copyright ©2009 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved

  149. It’s a case in the news, isn’t it? He’s got to keep his profile up! Cop killers, killers who are cops, it’s all the same to him. :-)

  150. Hiya Bucket.

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I thought too. He’s been so low profile, thank you Judge White, that I’ll bet he’s in a major state of media withdrawal.

    There he was again, as plain as could be, opening up his pie hole for the cameras.

    Oh, Drew, he’s forgotten ya already.

  151. Good find Rescue. I wonder if Gaston will stay with Brodsky and how long? IIRC the last high-profile defendent Joel represented (besides Drew) dropped him shortly after hiring him.

  152. Hey rescue!

    What do you think are the chances JB has been unethically telling Droopy all about Gaston and Walker? I think he would without even thinking about it.

  153. Well, then, maybe while Paulie is in town helping Peterson and Brodsky search and destroy witnesses against the “cop that killed,” maybe Paulie can switch into reverse mode for the guys that “killed the cop” (they confessed to the crime), and make sure they get warm blankets at night and hot coffee and toast in the morning, heh? Maybe figure out a way to discredit the young cop, even though he was sitting in a car, merely talking to someone, while he got shot in the head.

    I need to pop some corn and get settled in to watch this play out, for sure.

  154. Naw, don’t think so, Bucket. Seems he’s not spending much time with his client if he can take on a case so heart wrenching and high profile as this. Odds are Peterson is sitting around and watching Mr. Winky shrivel up these days, all by his lonesome, cuz nobody gives a rat’s butt who he is or what he does anymore.

    If he’s got a trial coming up in two months and his doofus lawyer has time to mug for the cameras on a completely different case, he probably doesn’t even know yesterday was Father’s Day.

Comments are closed.