Drew Peterson defense team arrives at the Will County courthouse. Photo - Warren Skalski
Hearsay law upheld in Peterson murder case
October 2, 2009 4:32 PMA Will County judge today upheld the state’s new hearsay law, which prosecutors plan to use in their murder trial against Drew Peterson.
Under the law, which took affect in December, prosecutors plans to submit as evidence letters and statements by Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, to friends and family before she was killed in 2004.
Peterson’s attorneys have argued that the so-called “Drew’s law” violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses; goes against state and federal constitutional provisions against retroactively applied laws; and “erodes the presumption of innocence” by asking a judge before the trial even starts to find that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.
But Judge Stephen White sided with prosecutors and allowed the law to stand.
Peterson’s attorneys said they would notify prosecutors whether they intend to introduce their own hearsay evidence by Oct. 29, their client’s next court date.
Peterson, in custody at the Will County Jail in Joliet, is also considered a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.
Eearlier, Peterson lost his bid to move his murder trial outside of Will County.
Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has argued that widespread publicity would make it difficult for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to get a fair trial in Will County.
The motion cited stories about Peterson that ran in the Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post and local television stations.
Some of the stories detailed the order of protection Savio took out against Peterson and the letters she mailed out before her death. The motion argued that they exposed jurors to “highly significant information which may not be admissible at trial.”
Peterson’s attorneys also objected to a 2008 press release from the Will County state’s attorney’s office that announced that results of an autopsy on Savio’s exhumed remains concluding her death was a homicide.
The complete autopsy was not released, only the manner of death, which his attorneys said “prejudiced the jury pool in regards to the most contested fact of the entire case — namely the manner of death.”
– Steven D. Schmadeke
Read the story at the Chicago Tribune
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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 tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>
Would love to have a picture of the Murderer’s Defense Team on the way out for a side-by-side with their smiling faces upon their arrival @ court.
Thanks so much to you, Facs, Rescue, Karen Conti & all the community who post here regularly. It always warms my heart to read what the strong, intelligent, compassionate women here have to say.
And, oh yeah – YAAAAAAAY!!
And the men, too, of course.
Coffee – believe me, that is the picture I was looking for…
And thanks for the kind words. Know that we rely on your level head, wit and wisdom as well!
Headline of the day at the Huffington Post:
Drew Peterson’s Bad Day: Judge Upholds Hearsay Law, Denies Motion To Move Trial
Kudos to Judge White! Just wonder if he was able to make his ruling with a straight face.
Snap, Coffee. As soon as I saw the photo I thought “I want to see the picture of them on the way out” ROFL
Did the defense really not hold their typical debriefing on the lawn after the hearing?
Thanks, Coffee, for the very nice words.
I think they’re not allowed. I may be mistaken but I think courthouse step press conferences are verboten, too.
It might’ve been ugly outside the courthouse today, everyone in tears…some because they were laughing so hard.
So Judge White did not think the Google search results were convincing enough either – LOL !!
As Joel himself has already mentioned Drew doesn’t mind sitting in jail, so the results of these hearings shouldn’t bother him in the slightest then !
Anyone notice Joel is stating he is now going to bring his own “hearsay” evidence into the case.
The innuendo, speculation and “over the fence” gossip he has on file (!!)
Peterson’s attorneys also objected to a 2008 press release from the Will County state’s attorney’s office that announced that results of an autopsy on Savio’s exhumed remains concluding her death was a homicide.
The complete autopsy was not released, only the manner of death, which his attorneys said “prejudiced the jury pool in regards to the most contested fact of the entire case — namely the manner of death.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Joel is saying Prosecutors should never be allowed to release an autopsy result stating someone was murdered as it prejudices the Jury Pool in regard to the manner of death (!!)
I did hear WBBM News Radio report that no date has been set yet for trial, and the attorneys are to meet to discuss what statements will be introduced at trial.
This is a pretty extensive article about today’s proceedings:
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=326036
So-called ‘Drew’ law upheld in Peterson case
By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
Drew Peterson’s defense was dealt a blow Friday when a Will County judge upheld a new law that allows prosecutors to use hearsay evidence against him in his upcoming murder trial.
His defense team, which argued the law is unconstitutional, sought to bar as evidence certain statements and letters Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, is said to have made before her 2004 slaying in the midst of their heated divorce.
Attorney Joel Brodsky argued the law, enacted in December, allows in unreliable rumor and innuendo and violates the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s 6th Amendment right to confront his accuser. Furthermore, Brodsky noted the law was passed after the crime was committed and, thus, should not be applied retroactively.
“It is disappointing,” Brodsky said. “It’s a bad law. I hate to even call hearsay evidence, evidence. You can’t rebut it. You can’t question it. Whatever you think about Drew Peterson, this law eventually will lead to wrongful convictions.”
Will Circuit Judge Stephen White disagreed. The law, which applies only to murders, requires a reliability hearing to be held in which the judge will decide which – if any – of the statements Savio’s family and friends said she made will be admissible.
Will State’s Attorney James Glasgow was joined by the Illinois attorney general’s office in defending the hearsay law, which the prosecutor said despite some controversy, affords criminal defendants more protection than that offered in other states with similar statutes.
It’s the second time Illinois’ hearsay law has withstood constitutional muster. A DuPage County judge also upheld it in the case of a young man accused of gunning down a Warrenville teen in 2004 shortly after she pursued battery charges against him.
On Friday, Judge White also denied Peterson’s change-of-venue request. His lawyers argued Peterson cannot get a fair trial in Will County due to all the media exposure and his 30-year local law enforcement career.
A trial date has not been set, but White in effect pre-empted the defense request Aug. 13 when he admonished about 240 potential jurors to avoid all Peterson media coverage.
White said he still could move the trial later after the potential jurors are individually questioned if a majority of them say they cannot be impartial.
Peterson is charged with murdering Savio, 40, who drowned in her bathtub in March 2004. He has remained in the Will County jail on a $20 million bond since his May 7 arrest. Prosecutors said Peterson killed Savio because he faced financial devastation from the couple’s ongoing divorce as he tried to begin a new life with his fourth wife, Stacy – with whom he had an extramarital affair – and their baby. They said Peterson even offered a state witness $25,000 to kill Savio months before her death.
The media fervor grew after Stacy vanished in October 2007 amid their marital troubles. Stacy has never been found. Peterson has not been charged with her disappearance, which sparked authorities to reinvestigate Savio’s death.
Peterson, who maintains his innocence, is due back in court Oct. 29.
Peterson loses twice on venue change, hearsay
October 2, 2009
By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com
JOLIET – The attorneys for Drew Peterson invoked the bible, Ancient Rome, McCarthyism and deceased comedian George Carlin, but still failed to convince a judge that the hearsay law passed less than a year ago is unconstitutional.
Not only that, but during the same Friday hearing, Peterson’s legal team lost its bid to have Peterson’s murder trial moved out of Will County. In short order, Judge Stephen White denied the motion by Peterson’s lawyers to have the case taken to another venue for the purpose of finding an unbiased jury. White then allowed Peterson¹s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, to argue against the constitutionality of the hearsay law prosecutors plan to use in the murder case against Peterson.
Kathleen and Stacy
Peterson was arrested for the March 2004 drowning of his third wife Kathleen Savio.
While the hearsay evidence prosecutors hope to enter remains under seal,another of Peterson’s attorneys, Andrew Abood, alluded to the possibility that prosecutors would try to use statements Savio made to family and friends, as well as to the state’s attorney¹s office, about Peterson.
Savio’s relatives have repeatedly said Savio claimed to be in fear for her life, and that if anything happened to her, it would be at the hands of Peterson.
Savio also wrote a letter to Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale in November 2002, in which she said that Peterson “knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”
During Friday’s hearing, Abood suggested prosecutors might also try to use statements from Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.
Stacy Peterson vanished in October 2007. State police believe she may have been killed and have focused on Drew Peterson as their sole suspect, but have yet to make an arrest in the case.
A pastor from Stacy Peterson’s church, Neil Schori, has said Stacy Peterson confided in him that Drew Peterson admitted to her that he killed Savio.
Brodsky said allowing hearsay statements into evidence would be “devastating to a defense.”
In an apparent attempt to prove his point, Brodsky quoted the comedian Carlin saying, “They’re talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we send them ours. It was written by some very smart guys, it’s worked for about 200 years, and we don’t seem to be using it right now.”
‘Not a new concept’
The new hearsay law runs counter to the principle of a defendant facing his accuser, Brodsky said.
“This is not a new concept,” he said. “It’s an idea that goes back almost 2,000 years in the Bible.”
Even the Ancient Romans accepted this tenet, he said, although he noted that in the ensuing two millenniums, this “basic bedrock American rule that no man can have his liberty taken away without the right to face his accused” was briefly interrupted during the Second Red Scare, when “people were being blacklisted because of innuendo, because of gossip.”
White’s ruling forced Peterson’s attorney to drop their demand for a speedy trial. They can make the demand at Peterson’s next court appearance Oct. 29.
In upholding the hearsay law, White said the legislation merely codified an existing principle. White also pointed out that the law can be applied after the alleged commission of a crime because it involves procedure instead of criminality.
Abood had attempted to argue against this idea even before White voiced it in his ruling, saying, “Let’s not kid anybody. They’re offering this testimony to make it easier to get a conviction.”
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/stcharlessun/news/1803313,Drew-Peterson-hearsay-upheld-JO100209.article?plckCurrentPage=1&sid=sitelife.suburbanchicagonews.com
Thanks to J Hosey for including argument details. Funny!
I am so happy about the yesterday news!
Thanks facs and rescue (and everyone) for providing all this information.
Now, is Drew going to show all the letters he had witten to his friends to share his fears about Kathleen wanting to kill him? LOL
What evidence does Brodsky have on his mind? Calling in fake persons providing alibi? Oh, I think it was a REALLY bad day for Brodsky Ltd yesterday!
Yeah, it really was a bad day.
Maybe the defense should quit making predictions and so much white noise about every upcoming hearing, and just quietly go on about defending their client and getting through those 40,000 pages of documents. That would seem better use of their time, rather than Brodsky appearing as a legal commentator on CNN or yapping it up on Dana Pretzer’s radio show, or either he or Abood spotlighting their every move on their respective websites.
It’s not working towards helping their client win rulings. It’s only giving us something to talk about.
I think yesterday was even worse for them than it looks at first. Think about it. All they have been able to do is shout and repeat the hearsay/moving the trial stuff. What now? They put a lot of effort into those issues. Must be feeling a bit let-down today. What next? They can surf the net to look for ideas.;)
Well, yeah, but…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-drew-peterson_03oct03,0,7989702.story
Maybe it’s just me, but how far can the defense make this so-called “vindictiveness” of Kathleen go, when she’s the one that’s dead by homicide, just as she predicted. Isn’t it just as easy to think that she was correct, judging by the way her ex-husband was boozin’ and cruzin’ in the years after her death, the ugly details of which we’ve all seen time and time again.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-drew-peterson_03oct03,0,7989702.story
Just what would they ask the dead Kathleen Savio what her motive or bias was in making the statements she did over all those months? (Shaking head)
Same with Stacy making her statements to Pastor Schori. Saying things to him is one thing, but providing him with details of the fateful discovery of Kathleen’s dead body is another.
I wonder if Stacy made statements to Attorney Harry Smith that we haven’t yet heard about? Are they going to slice and dice his integrity too?
Looks like Mark Fuhrman has a book out that makes some mention of the Peterson cases. Steph Watts does a quickie review in his blog.
Wonder how long that would delay the trial by doing that? Woo boy, things aren’t looking too good there. Does Drew take his chances and give the order to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, what with his lawyers’ track record so far, or does he take his chances and hit that GO TRIAL button and count on his lawyers to come through for him with his rock solid defense? Decisions, decisions. Maybe Brodsky can quote Forest Gump in this round. Stupid is as stupid does.
Do you know what the Oct 29th court date is for?
Oooo, that looks interesting, Facs! Thanks.
Bucket – The attorneys are supposed to discuss which statements they want to submit for the trial, so maybe that’s when Judge White will hear that and make his decisions on that. Also, I assume the defense is periodically asked about proceeding to trial, so maybe they’ll discuss that too.
Fuhrman has already had some interesting things to say, if I remember. Didn’t he tell us about the phone records not being checked?
cool thanks Facs. That’s wishiwasaflyonwall stuff, about the evidence.
LOL Go Trial button. I suppose it depends upon how he thinks “big boy school” compares with where he is at the moment!
Well fokes if a picture worth a thousand words I was there and the picture I have in my mine of the rejected look on Brodsky and Petersons faces will be there for a log time!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ha, that’s funny, Theo! Thanks for the insight.
This is the first time in all this that I’ve wished they were allowing cameras in the courtroom.
This is old stuff but worth taking a look at again, while we’re reviewing the inquest transcripts.
Mark Fuhrman discussing the cell phone records from the weekend Kathleen Savio was killed.
Thanks Facs! That’s pretty firm, huh.
I can remember this extract very well, facs. It is so sad.
I am sure that the phone records were taken by ISP now. I wonder how Drew is going to explain Stacy calling him? That they were talking on the phone while in bed?
What will the testimony of Peterson’s “new” alibi be? The Peterson son that can provide a rock-solid alibi. Is he going to be able to say that he was with his father every single hour of the day and night? That seems odd, since we know the phone records are going to show Stacy making calls to Drew while he was supposed to be home. If she couldn’t find him and he can’t account for that, is his son going to say that he was actually with him, driving around at the time, because neither one of them could sleep? None of this alibi stuff makes any sense.
Maybe it was the beginning of the father/son matching-ninja-outfit midnight excursions.
Don’t forget to add in Stephen Peterson’s phone records. He was also part of the phone record request. And was Ric Mims in charge of watching anyone that night?
Flashback:
Thanks, Brodsky & Company, for giving us so much to talk about!
I rather think this will be Stephen, not Thomas, who is going to provide alibi for Drew. If my memory serves me well, he was living with Drew at that time. However, it may be a little bit complicated because Stephen’s then-girlfriend was living there, too. She was testifying before the grand jury and who knows what she said.
Though it was Thomas who said he was with Drew all the time that night, I do not think his testimony would be taken seriously by any juror.
I wonder what Eric testified as well.
Poor children! I just hope they were treated as victims of the whole situations and provided with good help and protection by the court. I mean, that their testimonies will be only disclosed in court, to the jury and the judge only. Otherwise, they will lie, what is understandable to me.I cannot imagine how hard it must be to them , being aware of what happened, both to their Mom and to Stacy.
What can the boy say? That they were playing with Drew in the street?
Anyway, what I feel today is a BIG relief. LOL
Ditto!
Well, just before Peterson was arrested, it was Thomas who spoke out on tv on behalf of his father, so I just assumed he would be the one.
What would someone have to gain by covering for Drew Peterson that night? That’s where Stephen will find himself treading in deep water. Does the surfacing of a hand-written will giving a portion of Kathleen’s income to Stephen and Eric, add to the “reason” why Stephen would step forward? Stephen seems to be the one that Drew trusts with large sums of money. What a great dad, Drew is to involve his kids this way! (NOT)
Can’t wait to hear Eric’s testimony.
Rescue, I just guess it will not be Thomas, because he was a child then and it would be rather difficult to believe (even to a juror with imaginetiveness) he was staying with Drew at night and was not sleeping. Though the defense made so many stupid things that I do also take into account that it may be Thomas (or even Christina).
Did I miss something, or is Glenn Selig a bit on the quiet side lately? I haven’t seen a “new spin” on the current Drew defeats yet. Maybe Drew doesn’t need anyone to help with his public image right now while he’s sittingin Will County. (Abood & Glenn are working on new websites.)
Thank you Judge White for the ruling-
Mary Caliendo
Rescue, read the email from me, please! We have got the rest of the coroner’s inquest! I am going to read, beacuse I haven’t. LOL
Cyrhla – Yes, I saw your email and have been reading! You rock! So glad you were able to find the rest of it. I see now how the link needed to be completed!
Thanks!
You’re welcome
. I am very glad too. Curiosity is the way to hell, right 
LOL
It is still not complete.
. Sorry.
This is sure a lot more revealing than what we’ve seen so far! We’ll keep trying.
!!!?!!!
Cyrhla found pages 21-26 and I’ll get them up ASAP. Now, we just need pages 15-20. LOL.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20575195/Kathleen-Savio-Death-Inquest-Pages-2126
Who is Marley? Is that just a typo and it should be Mary? p 3 line 9 (I think)
Hardy testified it was “Marley” that found her when asked by a jury panel member who found her. Who the heck is “Marley?”
We’ve got the Inquest PDFs, Exhumation order and autopsy reports all on one page now:
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/kathleen-savio-death-inquest-exhumation-and-autopsy-reports/
Guess that should be Mary. Thanks facs!
The more I read Hardy’s testimony, the more upset I get. You can almost feel the bias coming off the page – everything is on the “up and up”, everything is accounted for, all is well, all is well, nothing to see here folks, let’s wrap this thing up and get out of here!
… and Drew stayed outside all the time!
Thanks cyrhla, facs
We’ve found it all now. We’re still reading it!
Lookie at this:
All I can say is — Holy you-know-what! What a sham!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is the last remaining part of the inquest transcript.
It’s all up now here.
Exactly, rescue. I wonder WHY Hardy did it and if he is still a policeman.
OMG, this is breaking my heart. It looks like Sue fought so hard to get the truth out at that inquest. She had to speak up and correct Hardy and even then O’Neil points out that the boys are the beneficiaries of the the life insurance…like Drew wouldn’t be able to get his hands on that? Where is it now???
He said that…at Kathleen’s wake.
Hey. According to Hardy, they figured she bashed her head in the tub, because she didn’t leave a trail of blood anywhere. Years of experience, seasoned investigators, and no one thought to look into the possibility that she could have met with foul play. Everything in that bathroom was in order, so they all assured themselves it was nothing more than an accident. Even with her sister having to tell these goofs at the inquest that she DID have large insurance policies, even though Hardy denied knowing of it.
You can’t read this whole transcript of the inquest and not be appalled!
Since when is it up to a relative of the deceased to do the homework for the Coroner’s Inquest?
Then the whole thing is dropped…
It’s just like a nightmare. God bless them.
Asked of Hardy:
Yeah, right.
It is heart wrenching and yet so typical of trying to get the truth out and no one wants to hear.
From all paperwork on show it is so blatantly obvious proper procedures were not followed on many levels in the investigation and Hardy was not even hiding that fact, he just says he doesn’t know as if it is the first time he heard of the investigation himself (!!)
It is also astounding to see how on paper they’ve managed to separate Drew the busy body policeman and Drew the “concerned husband and father” that night, even though Drew was acting both parts at the same time and that alone should have been cause for further scrutiny by investigators (!!)
October 3, 2009 at 6:46 pm | #76
Quote
Asked of Hardy:
Q. You’re familiar with the entire investigation, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Yeah, right.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, that is a classic, considering Hardy answers !!
“The laceration could have been related to a fall.” In all this bullcrap inquest, no one explained how that head gash occurred. Just that it did.
You can read this thing once, you can read it 5x. It doesn’t make any sense, no matter how many times you read it.
Sure as eggs the Insurance Companies are following this case with great interest as they have an aversion to paying out their policies to frauds and murderers (!!)
I have to say – as angry as Kathleen’s sister must have been, could have been, even when referring to Drew’s new wife, she never said anything unkind or derogatory about her. She kept her testimony on point and accurate, and never resorted to the awful kinds of things Drew has said about Kathleen, her family, Stacy, her family, and anyone else that doesn’t agree with him. Not so with Kathleen’s sister.
What a class act!
If you look at the photograph of Kathleens bathroom, there is no way she could have hit her head against tile edge of the shelf around the bathtub and did not leave blood on it. It seems that before she died she got up and cleaned everything very thoroughly.
After reading the testimony of Hardy I do not wonder Drew called his police buddies idiots. Whatever Drew had on his mind, Hardy had played an idiot before the jury. The jury could not decide otherwise because there was no evidence they could base their ‘guilty’ opinion on.
I still cannot believe.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: He wants the whole house, wanted to be named executor of the assets, which means he would have controlled the one million dollar policy, and plus he also took out a separate policy on himself on her, the one hundred thousand. He said he wanted to sell her house, pay off his, and open a bar. That’s what he said at the wake anyway.
He said that…at Kathleen’s wake.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah at Kathleens wake he was acting despicably, laughing and joking etc, so it’s not surprising he did reveal his grand plans while he was at it.
BTW – Just for the record, the above is true hearsay or even triple hearsay on my part, as I wasn’t at the wake or anywhere near Bolingbrook that day.
Autopsy shows struggle in Savio’s death
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1681906,Peterson-Savio-autopsy-struggle-JO072309.article
July 24, 2009
From Staff Reports
BOLINGBROOK – As part of the investigation into the 2004 death of Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, the latest autopsy revealed signs of a struggle.
The autopsy said there was a 1-inch blunt-force laceration on the back of her head, five scraping abrasions and six blunt-force, black-and-blue bruises on her extremities, abdomen and buttocks, CNN reported Thursday.
*********
Asked of Hardy:
If you read the jury member’s question, and then Hardy’s response, where does it make any sense? He was asked where on the tub did she hit her head to get that gash. Faucet? Did she leave any hair behind where she hit her head?
Even the jury member seems to be perplexed at how she gashed her head, if not on the faucet.
If an adult is in a small tub like the one at Kathleens house and has a backward fall, one wonders how she could hit her head on the edge of the tub “where you would normally rest your head”.
To hit her head on the edge of the tub in that position, she would have had to sit down and slouch at best, so she fell and cracked her head open whilst she was slouching in the tub.
hmmmm – how does that work ??
Unless of course she was in the middle of a 180 degree somersault as that’s the only way she could have hit the top back of her head on the edge of the tub !
This is just my speculation, but I think Drew killed Kathleen on Sunday and returned to her home to clean Sunday/Monday early morning.
One thing about the jurors. I would not blame them at all. Jurors cannot make decision basing on their feelings and personal suspicions. They must have based their judgement on the evidence provided.The evidence provided by ISP was at it was (we all know!). Katheen’s sister testimony is heartbreaking but in the light of the law then in force, I think, it must have been treated as a hearsay.
I still cannot believe in what I read. I will never believe it was just Drew’s manipulation of the system. Apparently, someone from the ‘system’ helped him and arranged all the things: halting of the investigation, Hardy testifying, another police oficer on the panel (who was there to have control over the verdict), and finally a new permanent death certificate which opened all the finacial ways to Drew. I am aware of only one person with so many connections who could have helped him … A person who similarly to Drew has been above the law for many years.
Drew will have a lot of information to sell on this person in exchange for lower sentence and I am sure he will take adventage of this option.
I think that comment speaks for itself. She’s dead.
I don’t think anyone would blame the jurors at the inquest. Remember, their hands were tied in that they had only three choices: natural, accident or homicide. They weren’t given the option to rule that the manner of death was “undetermined” and they felt that they weren’t qualified, as lay people, to rule that it was a homicide.
Of course, with Hardy downplaying anything suspicious, and a cop on the panel telling them what a good guy Drew was, they were easily intimidated.
Absolutely agreed that what happened wasn’t the fault of the jury panel. Well, I’ll leave out one particular member from that remark.
When Peterson goes to trial, of course, the jury is going to want to know, need to know, why the turn of events happened as they did at the fact-finding, investigative inquest. How it’s eventually going to be explained, we won’t know, I guess, until the trial. But it will have to come out.
Like Hardy’s answer to the jury panel member, who wanted to know where and what Kathleeen hit her head on in the tub. The faucet? He never did answer that question fully. He insinuated it was the end opposite the faucet – so, I assume he figured the questioning member/s would draw their own conclusions. Guess he left it up to them to figure it out in their own minds, rather than any of the officials there explaining a logical scenario.
I did not mean you blame the jurors.:)
I just read some comments on other forums and got upset a little bit.
I just wonder, what was the role of O’Neil in it. I do not like the way he run the inquest. I wonder if the coroner was in power to say “OK, boys, come back when you have these phone records and answers to other questions”. God, at the end he says Kathleen’s bruises were old! What did he want to suggest? There was nothing like that written in the autopsy report!
I guess we could spend a whole day just picking this thing apart, but there is instance after instance where Hardy testifies to things that are either presumptions, vague or simply innacurate:
Well, except for when he rushed into the room where he body was and took her pulse…
Come on!
….and Peterson trampled all over what was a “crime scene” at first, making sure he’d leave behind his own DNA in and around the room, and on Kathleen, so as to skew any potential evidence.
Oh, and yeah, what was all that baloney about her bruises being “old?” Huh?
You right, facs. And that is why I wonder why O’Neil – an experienced coroner, as he claims – did not just stop this farse asking Hardy to be prepared. If you come to testify on such a serious matter as someone’s death, answers like “I do not know”- “I have no idea”- from the police officer running the investigation make the things more suspicious (particularly, if aother police officer from the area was involved). I guess someone wanted to close the case as soon as possible. In fact, Drew started closing things on the day of Kathleen’s funeral. He did even have plans for future just 5 days after her death.
BTW, it was not Mary (Marley) who discovered Kathleen’s body… LOL
But you know, I sometimes think it must have taken so long and that is good he was not accused then (and aquitted, for instance).
“There are no new bruises noted to the decedent.” (page 26)
Now we can understand why the inquest report was kept secret.
About as bad as Hardy testifying to the conclusion that there were no signs of a struggle on her body.
What does he mean by “Everything should have been fine….?”
In fairness, it was not kept secret. It was released to the media in its entirety in November 2007. It’s just been hard to find since we started looking for it more recently.
That’s exactly the kind of thing that is making me crazy about Hardy’s testimony.
They “got up that weekend”? “All that was checked”? All WHAT was checked? What day was it that they “got up”? Who could learn anything from this testimony?
You are right, facs. I should have rather said it was not published and easily accessible. LOL
Guess years of experience as an investigator on a major police department can’t prepare one enough to come to the common sense conclusion that a woman in a tub full of water would have needed, at the very least, a dry bath mat to step out onto, a dry towel or two, and something to slip on afterwards. I guess they’d be right to assume, as they did, that the woman entered a bath tub full of water, surrounded by a clean, sterile environment, without a damn thing being out of place.
I know that didn’t or couldn’t have made sense to Mr. Hardy, if he was the experienced cop he was supposed to be, but he didn’t care jack squat how Kathleen died — he was just there to read his papers to the jury panel and get the hell out of there.
He sounds about as experienced as the cop, Drew Peterson, who, instead of calling 911 to begin a well-being check, calls in the neighbors and a locksmith to check on his missing ex-wife, while he stands around outside preparing his script. I wonder if anyone questioning him afterwards had enough sense to question why he didn’t call 911, like any other concerned relative would do, especially since he didn’t have a key to get in.
OMG, this is just sickening. I hope he doesn’t get away with this again!
At the conclusion/summary of the inquest, this is what O’Neill states:
I’ve been looking every which place I can, and I cannot find a statement in any report that leads O’Neill to this conclusion. Has anyone else found something written, outside of O’Neill’s statement, that implies this?
He called Kathleen’s sister to let her know Kathleen is death. Why didn’t he do it before entering the home? Why didn’t he call her to come to enter the house with him? The answer is simple: she knew Kathleen well and her habits, her home, and so on. He did not want her to see the crime scene for obvious reasons because she could discover anything unsual at hand (for instance missing bathroom carpet), she could start accusing him in front of his collegues, and so on. How could Drew have had control over it then? No way!
He did not call them or Steve to ask if they knew about Kathleen’s whereabouts because then they would be the first persons to call the emergency, call the locksmith and would not let him in.
It let him simply took control over the house. He could take away all the things from the house a few days later. I wonder why the police let him do it. They were already divorced and Kathleen had closer persons to take care of the house and her things.
I wonder what might be the thing Glasgow said that only the murder could have known about.
Cyrhla – I’m not familiar with that remark. Where did you see that?
Reascue, I read the autopsy report many times and it struck me how he could say something like that. It was a very direct suggestion hidden between the lines driving the jurors to the expected conclusion, right?
I cannot remember now but I will try to find it.
Yeah, Cyrhla, he acknowledges that she had bruises, in addition to the laceration, but he says they’re old, and I can’t find the references to that anywhere outside of his remark.
Thanks for checking on that other statement.
Rescue, do you have any tapescript to Glasgow press conference after Drew was arrested? I think he made this remark then. I cannot remember the exact words but he said something to this extent (then????) that Drew had the information only the murder could have had. Maybe someone except me can remember this as well, and help me to find the link ;(.
You are right, Cyrhla. The State did tell the court that Peterson knew things about the case only the killer would know. I need to find the exact tape of that, but it’s referred to and posted at Scared Monkeys:
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/05/23/prosecutors-claim-that-drew-peterson-tried-to-hire-a-hitman-to-kill-third-wife-kathleen-savio/
***********
Prosecutors gave a preview of their case today and said Savio’s death was staged to make it look like an accident.
The state also claims Peterson tried to solicit a hit on Savio in 2003, but did not elaborate. Prosecutors indicated they have evidence that would be presented in court.
In addition, the state told the court that Peterson knew fact of the case that only the killer would know.
Here is an actual abc news report that refers to what the court was told (Peterson knew facts about case ….)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7656456&page=1
Thanks, Rescue.
You’re welcome, Cyrhla. We hear so much over all these months, it’s hard to keep it all straight. This is something that is very important, I would think. Glad you brought it up.
Nobody really related to us that they saw anything unusual in the neighborhood those last few days.
Drew at the house would not have been unusual … since he picked up the boys every weekend, didn’t he?
I wonder what facts Drew knew? That she had drowned?
I mean as opposed to a head injury causing her death, or that she had suffered some medical trauma (stroke, aneurysm or heart attack).
“I have tried to reach you in effect to tell my story on corruption in Bolingbrook…[...] This goes from the Mayor to the Police Chief” wrote Kathleen Savio to Walter Jacobson from Fox Chicago News on Nov.14, 2002.
http://media.myfoxchicago.com/special/lettersfromkathleensavio.PDF (page 3)
These are links from right after the arrest. I don’t know if they are still good anymore:
Video of ISP press conference
Audio of press conference – Part I
Audio of press conference – Part II
Thanks, facs
Cyrhla, thanks for the link to the letter to Walter Jacobson. I hadn’t seen it before.
I added it to our documents page now.
You’re welcome, facs. I could see it for the first time as well.
Hmmm. Wonder what Peterson could have known about Kathleen’s death that no one else would have, and how come it was Glasgow that “noticed” it and not anyone else involved in the initial investigation. That’s interesting.
From Unanswered Cries, Chicago Magazine
JURY MEMBER: And the X-husband didn’t go into the house?
THE WITNESS: No, he stayed out just — just in case something was wrong.
Well, except for when he rushed into the room where he body was and took her pulse…
Come on!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s another most peculiar statement for it to even be considered NORMAL for Drew to stay outside in case something was wrong.
He sounds about as experienced as the cop, Drew Peterson, who, instead of calling 911 to begin a well-being check, calls in the neighbors and a locksmith to check on his missing ex-wife, while he stands around outside preparing his script. I wonder if anyone questioning him afterwards had enough sense to question why he didn’t call 911, like any other concerned relative would do, especially since he didn’t have a key to get in.
OMG, this is just sickening. I hope he doesn’t get away with this again!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He won’t – especially if he created this scenario when in uniform.
Herbert Hardy may not know if he was or wasn’t, but Drews good friend Steve Carcerano did as Drew “drove up to him in his patrol car”
Hmmmmm !!
In addition, the state told the court that Peterson knew fact of the case that only the killer would know.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s how most killers get caught and especially a blabbermouth like Drew.
In the days immediately following her death, records show that state police, who had been brought in to investigate because the matter involved a Bolingbrook policeman, presented the case to then State’s Attorney Tomczak as a potential homicide. The Chicago Tribune has reported that a state police investigator in this case also appeared before a grand jury at that time. A spokesman for the state’s attorney will not comment on the grand jury, but adds that when the current state’s attorney took office half a year later, in the fall of 2004, his administration received no indication that the case was ongoing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to mention Kathleens file ended up containing hardly any paperwork (!!)
This is what Steve (Carcerano) said:
Steve Carcerano: And Drew happened to come down the street. And pulled up next to me in his squad car. And he thinks something might be wrong because he’s gone trying to drop off the kids for the past day and a half. And that’s not like Kathy not to be there when the kids were being dropped off.
Here’s a link with Steve mentioning again about Drew pulling up in a Police car.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309917,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.675816:b25578626:z10
Maybe the locksmith thought the police had been called (if Drew was in uniform too)? The watch commander — is that what it’s called?
For those who follow this case closely, you know that a Dr. Dan Budenz is the “expert” that has helped counsel Drew’s kids in the aftermath of their mothers’ fates. I believe he’s the guy that went along with telling the kids mommy is on a permanent vacation.
He’s now blogging, or writing online, and is very opinionated about the latest ruling by Judge White. He is basically voicing his opinion on how things are likely to backfire against this prosecution, and how they’ve lost “other Peterson prosecutions.”
This is amazing that this guy, who clams to be so knowledgeable about Drew Peterson and the rulings, can be so wrong. He looks like a fool with all of his misinformation! He claims the judge ruled against them and for Drew in the gun charge case (wrong!), and he claims that the prosecutors were cited for withholding evidence and contempt of court. Whoah, boy, this guy is having delusions!
This is a Kodak moment. It’s hurting Drew that all of these misgivings against him are occurring. Yeah, he spent “30 years defending this nation, but he couldn’t protect Kathleen or Stacy.” Better all get your boots on for this muck!
Just another something for us to snicker about. Maybe Dr. Dan should read a newspaper now and then.
http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=28864&catid=105
This is OT, but I noticed it in the fine print on Dr. Dan’s site:
~snipped~
Daniel T. Budenz Ph.D. has been licensed as a Psychotherapist, Supervisory Addictions Counselor III, Forensic Therapist and International Addictions Specialist over a 30 year career. He is advocating worldwide licensing for Internet practice.
Does this mean he wants to be able to counsel someone via the Internet?
Too bad Drew doesn’t like to read. I’m sure he’d enjoy reading his bud asking if Judge White is a “corporate player.” What kind of “loss” does he think this is going to be for Judge White, I wonder?
More Dr. Dan. Drew’s “civil rights” are being violated?
Is this what Brodsky was talking about when he said they were deciding on whether or not to introduce their own hearsay into the trial?
Noway – I think he missed the class on research, so he’d better catch up with that first before he does Internet psycho counseling!
Ha, 40,000 pages of hearsay to respond to. Okay.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, the big deal is if Drew was in uniform and on duty (and he must have been if he was driving his squad car) he did not follow procedures one bit by letting his friends and neighbors into the house as this was then another “self assigned” investigation on his part !!
Next paramedics and ISP arrive at Kathleens house and “already find a Police Officer there” (Drew) running around the scene and being alone in the bathroom with Kathleens body who tells them “treat the scene with respect” etc, so here is Drew suddenly being a police officer, giving directions and orders.
That’s why Herbert Hardy had to say he “didn’t know” if Drew was in uniform (hello didn’t anybody check Drew was on duty or not ?) as either a yes or no answer would have cornered him badly !!
You can’t make this stuff up if you tried !
As it is Defense had 40,000 pages of hearsay to respond to plus sealed documents not yet revealed.
Ha, 40,000 pages of hearsay to respond to. Okay.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The big test for Joel Brodsky is to actually find ONE statement in those 40.000.00 pages, that isn’t considered hearsay – LOL !
ctober 4, 2009 at 9:15 pm | #131
Quote
Does the October 2nd ruling and handling of the “Drew Law” (Hearsay Law) indicate Judge Stephen White is a corporate player? Even staunch advocates of Peterson Guilt continue to fear the law’s violation of the constitution, ex post facto undermining and well, timing.
Keeping the Drew Peterson murder trial in Will County plus having it prosecuted by the creator of this highly controversial hot potato, Will County State Attorney James W. Glasgow may ultimately score another double loss for the prosecution and perhaps Judge White.
Too bad Drew doesn’t like to read. I’m sure he’d enjoy reading his bud asking if Judge White is a “corporate player.” What kind of “loss” does he think this is going to be for Judge White, I wonder?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’d think they (the Defense Team) be sensible and keep quiet instead of unleashing these sour grapes monologues and announcing what type of hearsay they could submit about the Prosecution, Judge, etc.
That sounds neither healthy nor professional !!
Wow, this seems like one of those situations where you might want to call your loyal friend (collect, as the case may be) and politely request, “Please stop “helping” me.
That Budenz story is just nutsy — farcical, petty and weird.
You know, Facs, funny you should say that — I was thinking the same thing. Someone should call him and tell him to go back to practicing addiction medicine and leave the lawyering to those that lost all the rulings so far.
A friend is a friend. Your counselor should not be your long-term friend for a simple reason that he/she must stay neutral during the therapy. Oh, I am sure Dr Dan is aware of it and all this circus is just to prove Drew is a good father. Who could prove it better than a friend?
Is that was the children are offered?
Was Bunz also a counselor for Drew and Stacy? It would be funny to learn “yes”. Internet therapy and anti-anxiety drug prescription?
BTW, we learnt from the coroner’s inquest (at least I did!) that Kathleen was taking Xanax. Why then her toxicology tests are negative?
… no information that she was actually still taking them. Also, the original autopsy drug tests were probably have been just a routine screen for opiates/tranqs.
Anyone else think that the LE rep present at the autopsy provided the pathologist with “helpful” information ala “This lady fell and drowned in her bathtub. Her husband says those are old bruises….” “OK, thanks.”
Budenz really is looking like a gold-plated charlatan here. Internet professional counselling??? He’s found a way to work without leaving the bar!
Has the defense called in a favour or have they got cash to pay for this kak? In any case Dr Dan has proved once and for all he’s a crooked jerk. Take it to the bank.
Bucket, Xanax is benzodiazepine. It was tested during the toxycology test and the result is negative. Positive result, IMO, could be in favor of Drew.
You are absolutely right, that we cannot be 100% sure if Kathleen was on Xanax then.
Anyway,it stays in blood for 24-36 hours and in urine up to one week.
As for Budenz … my granny used to say that you can devide people into human beings and stools.
Facs said Nov 25th 2008
There is a LOT suspect about “Dr.” Dan Budenz, Drew’s old friend in Wisconsin.
Apparently,despite the fact that they had been out of contact for years, it was to his house that Drew fled on his three-day head-clearing trip (Joel flubbed answers pertaining to this at SYM).
* * * * * * * * * *
Was this confirmed? Dr Dan may have reason to be blogging proactively….
Thanks, bucket, for asking about it. I also read this comment yesterday and forgot to.
That would explain a lot!
Has that ever been determined who was on the coroner’s panel apart from James Walter? I can see 6 jurors undersigned under the final decision but cannot recognize Pratl’s signature.
If you are interested how the first officer on the scene should behave, look here from page 29 down. As a trained officer, I am sure Drew knew it very well.
http://www.tinyurl.pl?bfclpODe
I hope it will work now : http://tiny.cc/ggEfH
Heh! More books. Here’s the link to watch the video on her on GMA.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/
Drew Peterson’s Stepdaughter Writing New Book About Years of Alleged Abuse
In a ‘GMA’ Exclusive, Lisa Ward Said ‘Anything is Possible With Him’
By SARAH NETTER and SANTINA LEUCI
Oct. 5, 2009—
The stepdaughter of Drew Peterson said the years of alleged abuse at the hands of a man now accused of killing his third wife had made her realize that “anything is possible with him.”
Lisa Ward, the daughter of Peterson’s second wife, Vicky Connolly, alleged that the 10 years she spent under Peterson’s roof were filled with physical, mental and emotional abuse that ended only when Connolly confronted him about his cheating on her.
“I always thought he was a jerk,” Ward told “Good Morning America” in an exclusive interview today.
When Ward heard about the 2004 death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, although she didn’t immediately suspect her former stepfather, “that thought kind of goes through your mind,” she said.
Peterson, 55, has been charged with Savio’s death and is a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.
Ward described Peterson, who married her mother when Ward was 8, as “very strict” and controlling. Although she did not learn about the threat until after Peterson was arrested, Ward said, her mother has said that he threatened to kill her.
Ward is now co-writing a book detailing the years of alleged abuse and bullying.
Co-author Michelle Lefort said the abuse of Ward’s mother started almost immediately.
“Within a month of being married, at that point he put a gun to her head after she informed him she would not love him more than she loved Lisa,” she said.
Peterson, a former cop, was also so jealous of her relationship with her biological father that he would try to thwart their visits, Ward said.
“Drew did not want me to have anything do to with my father,” she said. “He wanted to be my father. He would pull my father over when he was coming into town and delay his visitation with me.”
Ward said she’s speaking out now, for the first time, to tell other abuse victims that they need to get out of unhealthy relationships,
“I think that all these people, all these men and women that are being abused, need to stop that violence,” she said.
Peterson, who has gained about 20 pounds since entering prison, was in court Friday when a judge ruled that the statements Savio wrote before her death would be admissible in court.
Attorneys for Peterson, a former police officer in Bolingbrook, Ill., had sought to exclude from the trial Savio’s writings in which she expressed fear for herself or her children.
Peterson is being held on $20 million bail after being accused of murdering Savio, his third wife. The woman was found face-down in an empty bathtub in March 2004, her hair soaked with blood from an apparent head wound.
The medical examiner had initially ruled Savio’s death a drowning incident but after the October 2007 disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, Savio’s body was exhumed and reclassified a homicide after a new autopsy was performed.
Peterson was arrested in May and pled not guilty to the first-degree murder charge.
Stacy Peterson Is Still Missing
Peterson’s defense team has argued that he could not receive a fair trial in Will County because he is a 30-year local law enforcement veteran and because of the intense media exposure, according to the Chicago Daily Herald.
As Peterson sits in jail on murder charges for his third wife’s death, his stepbrother could provide important information regarding the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.
Thomas Morphey, his stepbrother, said he helped Peterson move a large blue barrel from Peterson’s home on the last day Stacy Peterson was seen alive.
The day before he helped move the barrel, Morphey said, Peterson confronted him. “He said, ‘How much do you love me?’” Morphey told “Good Morning America” in March. “I said, ‘I do.’ And he said, ‘Enough to kill for me?’”
Neither Stacy Peterson nor her body has ever been found, nor has the mysterious blue barrel.
The Associated Press contributed to this story
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
So, now, after all this time, Vicki Connelly’s daughter is going to write a book to help others who are in an abusive relationship.
Bring ‘em on – everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame and fortune. Too bad Facs and I don’t make anything for trying to maintain an informative and accurate blog!
IMHO, she is soooooo wrong to do this now!
In Hosey’s book, Fatal Vows, he fills in some of the gaps about Drew and Dr. Dan’s friendship:
So, Dr. Dan and Drew were out of touch for about 30 years but when Budenz saw Drew on TV, he saw a chance to jump on the “make a buck off this tragedy” bandwagon, eh?
I think that, as far as the inaccuracies in Dr. Dan’s online writing is concerned, he’s not doing Drew Peterson any favors, any good, or winning points for him.
Back in May of 2008 when Joel was doing Q&A, someone asked:
1. Where was Mr. Peterson for those 3 days he took off to clear his head?
and Joel answered:
(1) An old friends house near Madison Wisconsin.
I’ve always assumed this ‘old friend’ to be Dr. Dan.
I can understand an “old friend” supporting his bud, but this guy, who’s supposedly the one that counseled Drew’s vulnerable young children at a horrible time, is coming across as anything but professional or well-informed. There are so many inaccuracies in his writing, it’s almost as though he made it up as he went along. Really bad move on his part. He doesn’t look very credible to me. A PhD? Yikes!
Rescue, that’s what was somewhat shocking to me. Here is a man who apparently is intelligent and successful but evidently has no grasp at all of what the hearsay law is or how it applies and yet that doesn’t stop him from attempting to comment upon it in the role of some kind of legal expert.
His story had no more relevance or insight than a random comment on a newspaper site from someone who skimmed an article and now thinks they are an expert on the situation. His goofy assertions that Drew’s being somehow mistreated in jail and that “friendly” hearsay about him should be heard in court makes him just look like a nut.
Loyalty is to be respected, but if your friends are as ill-informed and kooky as that story was…again…”please stop helping me”.
It’s very very very weird.
Yeah, that was a “bad” thing to see if was meant to convey an accurate portrayal of what Dr. Dan knows to be the facts of the case. He’s entitled to his opinions, but mixing opinions with so-called facts that are plain incorrect is puzzling.
Drew has another court date this week:
http://tiny.cc/omDOB
http://tiny.cc/tV6OZ
And the last ones justifying Dr Dan’s hater to harrasement LOL
http://tiny.cc/I0Bzm
http://tiny.cc/7UzUE
State vs Daniel T Budenz
Dane County Case Number 2000CM004913
The defendant Daniel T Budenz was found guilty of the following charge(s) in this case. One or more other charges were dismissed. The dismissed charges were not proven and have no legal effect. Daniel T Budenz is presumed innocent of the dismissed charges.
* Daniel T Budenz was found guilty of Harassment. This is not a criminal offense and results only in a money penalty for this offense.
* Daniel T Budenz was found guilty of Resisting or Obstructing an Officer. This is not a criminal offense and results only in a money penalty for this offense.
Oh, my.
Unbelievable find on all of those documents ladies! It is so sad. I truly was thinking that maybe the Coroner’s Jury didn’t get to hear about some of those things. I just don’t understand how they were able to sweep them under the rug and rule the way they did.
Thanks, TAI.
Agreed – it’s incredible how it all turned out as it did. You just can’t believe it when you see it!
I saw the interview of Lisa Ward on GMA. Oddly, they are making it sound like they are the first interivew with her yet I recall her being on a show very early on where she stated the same kind of things about how she grew up with Drew as her stepfather.
The whole Dan Budenz thing is just so crazy. I personally think he’s an opportunist trying to make money off of his relationship with Drew.
Any doctor worth a grain of salt will be honest and tell their patients when they are outside of their own personal spectrum of knowledge. Dr. Budenz specialty does not appear to be children and he should have hooked Drew up with a good child psychologist near their home IMO.
We’re having trouble finding anything that shows he is licensed to practice at all in Wisconsin. Also, not locating a “Union University” that offers a Ph.D in psychology, which is where he claims to have gotten his.
I’m starting to even wonder if he can back up this claim?
http://www.drdancelebrityshrink.com/aboutdan.php
Yeah, and check this out:
http://www.psychologyinfo.com/directory/WI/
I’m missing his name in that list. Hmmmmmm.
If anyone can find verification that he is a licensed psychotherapist in the State of Wisconsin, I’d sure like to see it.
I think he’s choosing his title words very carefully, if you think about it. He’s a “counselor.” A “counselor” is quite different that being a licensed psychologist.
Also calls himself “clinical social worker” Never heard of the same. In fact, it’s sort of an oxymoron, certainly by UK definitions. Very very very weird. I have specific substance suspicions, but it’s OMHO, and only a sniff of suspicion.
I take that back… there is such a thing, and they will be psychologists or counsellors. (I feel self conscious every time I use British spelling where the double ‘L’s appear. It may look like I had the same spelling book as DP)Generally, anyone can call themselves a counsellor or therapist.
I did find a Union University that offers Psychology degrees in TN – http://www.uu.edu/academics/coas/psychology/
Dr. Dan is claiming to have a PhD from a Union University. Facs has not found one Union University yet that offers a doctorate in psychology.
Dr. Dan has, to my knowledge, not suggested he is a licensed psychologist. He merely says he’s a counselor specializing in addictions, I believe. Offers these services to “celebrities.” If anyone can find a reference to him being a licensed psychologist in ANY state, please post it.
He advocates sobriety. His only specialty that we’ve been able to find deals with addictions Yet, weren’t we led to believe he is trained in psychology and is the one that has counseled the Peterson kids?
Now, he is zooming the judge, the prosecutors, and the legislatures these days over the treatment he thinks his buddy, Drew is getting.
He should just go away. He knows not what he’s talking about.
No graduate programs in Psych though – undergraduate only.
http://www.uu.edu/academics/graduate/
Ahhh… Missed that on that one. Of course, some colleges change their offerings over the years so it is possible they used to offer it but stopped.
I found another one though: http://www.myunion.edu/academics/psyd/index.html
Hmmm – not a Ph.D though. Here’s what Dr Dan’s web site states:
That is so long ago that it’s true this school (the mysterious Union University) may no longer have the degree program. Still it’s interesting that there is no mention of the Master’s degree which would proceed the doctorate. Where and when did he receive that one? The thing is, most credentialed and degreed people would have a curriculm vitae available to assure patients and clients that they are in good hands. It’s odd that he does not post the details of his acomplishments.
That said, he could be a first-rate addictions specialist. But his actions as they relate to Drew Peterson and the children, make him suspect in my eyes.
IDK though – this school seems to have changed its name a few times.
I see conflicting information about doctorates versus masters degrees.
http://gradschool.about.com/od/admissionsadvice/a/masterphd.htm
http://www.counselorlink.com/faqs/md-vs-phd-etc/
Either way, I’d think he’d have to be licensed where he practices. He seems to have moved around a bit though. Is he now living in Florida or Wisconosin??
He lives in Wisconsin on a horse farm (kind of creepily reminiscent of Armstrong) and would appear to have always lived in Illinois/Wisconsin. I know he vacationed with Drew and Selig in FL at Disneyworld.
http://www.drdancelebrityshrink.com/gallery/gallery.php
I think he may not be licensed to practice as a psychologist but is only credentialed to counsel in various areas.
SFC 20.02 (13) Failing to avoid dual relationships or relationships that may impair the credentialed person’s objectivity or create a conflict of interest. Dual relationships prohibited to credentialed persons include the credentialed person treating the credentialed person’s employers, employes, supervisors, supervisees, close friends or relatives, and any other person with whom the credentialied person shares any important continuing relationship.
He has a very nice swimming pool but in his place I would thoroughly check the woods behind it.
http://www.drdancelebrityshrink.com/gallery/viewImage.php?imagename=image/SVS09_231.jpg&task=Image&typeImage=1&scaleImage=700
Drew likes digging different things down. It seems to be much bigger garden than Paula’s.
Well, folks, whatever he calls himself, whatever education he says he has, whatever his affiliations, I guess now he’s switched over from addiction and substance abuse issues to civil rights issues as they relate to Drew. Not to mention he “thinks” the prosecution lost on two counts to Brodsky and Odeh, and he calls Judge White and the prosecutors part of the “corporation.”
There you have it. An expert speaks.
OK, this is a completely low blow, and pure grammar/spelling police, but it’s making me laugh out loud:
Heavens, what did he do before the Segway was invented? Did he roller blade between the various stages of his life? LOL!
Ha, what took you so long to post that!!!!! Segways. LOL, LOL.
Every so often, we need a little laugh in our lives. This will probably work for you as it did for us.
http://www.drdancelebrityshrink.com/gallery/viewImage.php?imagename=image/img2.jpg&task=Image&typeImage=1&scaleImage=700
The “guy” on the left looks like he spent too much time in Wine Country. Must be why he called in for Dr. Dan………..
It’s still very very weird. On the one hand you have his little snit in support of Drew, but promoting his book you’d think he’s numbering Drew among his “monsters”. Who would have done that sober and straight?
SFC 20.02 (13) Failing to avoid dual relationships or relationships that may impair the credentialed person’s objectivity or create a conflict of interest. Dual relationships prohibited to credentialed persons include the credentialed person treating the credentialed person’s employers, employes, supervisors, supervisees, close friends or relatives, and any other person with whom the credentialied person shares any important continuing relationship.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
Harry S. Truman said that !
LOL !!
Why can’t they just say it isn’t right to counsel anyone you have personal connections with or it could look questionable??
Well, the point with Dan Budenz (I’m dropping the “Dr” for now on) is he has made some strange comments and inaccurate statements, no matter what he is or does.
Just to let you guys know – we attempted to see if we’d be able to see Judge White’s written decision regarding the hearsay decision. He did not issue a written decision.
So, now, after all this time, Vicki Connelly’s daughter is going to write a book to help others who are in an abusive relationship.
Bring ‘em on – everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame and fortune. Too bad Facs and I don’t make anything for trying to maintain an informative and accurate blog!
IMHO, she is soooooo wrong to do this now!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree, that’s very tacky !
All these people need to just be quiet instead of prematurely running to publishers and t.v. stations with their tales of woe !
Might it be he is certified but not licenced?
.
I mean he has a Doctorate degree (Philosophy Doctor =Ph.D., not a Pychology Doctor = Psych.D.) in Counseling but has not applied for the licence which requires passing exams and a particular number of hours of supervision (+ a fee). Licence is not obligatory but if you take a councellor without a licence you must take into account that such a person is not controlled by any oraganization and so on. Your therapy may be run not professionally (we have a good example of it above LOL).
At least that is what my friend told me and I hope I explained it clearly to you
What my friend also told me is that lots of so called councellors put different initials at their names. And it works!
Daniel Butzen, Ph.D. compared to Dr. Daniel Butzen …
Looks like everyone has moved on to Dr-Dan-The-Psychologist-Man, but I am still grappling with the bathtub at Kathleens home and from photos of their tub it looks like only a small child could have hit their head on the rim of the tub by slipping, but it would be impossible for an adult to do so.
The tub is just too small to accommodate such a fall by an adult.
Drew Peterson’s Stepdaughter Claims Abuse, Peterson’s Lawyer Says ‘He Did a Good Job With Her’
Drew Peterson’s Attorney Claims Stepdaughter Lisa Ward’s Decade-Long Abuse Claims ‘Absolutely’ Wrong
By SARAH NETTER, LEE FERRAN and SANTINA LEUCI
Oct. 5, 2009
The stepdaughter of Drew Peterson said today that she endured years of abuse at the hands of a man accused of killing his third wife, but hours later Peterson denied that he abused his stepdaughter and said instead he raised a “nice well adjusted woman.”
Peterson spoke up after Lisa Ward, the daughter of Peterson’s second wife, Vicky Connolly, told “Good Morning America” today that the near decade she spent under Peterson’s roof were filled with physical, mental and emotional abuse that ended only when Connolly confronted him about his cheating.
Ward said that the years of alleged abuse at the hands of a man now accused of killing his third wife had made her realize that “anything is possible with him.”
“I always thought he was a jerk,” Ward said.
When Ward heard about the 2004 death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, although she didn’t immediately suspect her former stepfather, said, “That thought kind of goes through your mind.”
Hours later, ABC News was contacted by Peterson’s lawyer to deny any wrongdoing in the nearly 10 years he raised the girl.
“His reaction [to Ward's allegations] was that he raised this girl. He gave her a moral basis. He was a strict father,” Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky told ABC News after consulting with Peterson. “There were no black eyes, no broken bones, no guns, no knives, no physical abuse absolutely… He thinks he did a good job with her. She seems to be a nice, well adjusted woman now.”
Brodsky said that Peterson categorically denied Ward’s allegations of abuse, but said corporal punishment was not unheard of when Ward was a child, including spankings. He said it is suspicous the abuse claims only came out after Ward landed a book deal for a story that reportedly will detail the years of alleged abuse and bullying under Peterson.
“This has nothing to do with the truth. This is all about money, all about the book deal. There’d be no money if they came out and said that Drew [Peterson] was a good dad… that wouldn’t make a story,” Brodsky said. “Suffice it to say, if Vicki Connolly or Lisa Ward took the stand and said the things they’re saying now, I would have a field day cross examining them.”
Peterson, 55, has been charged in Savio’s death and is a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.
Ward described Peterson, who married her mother when Ward was 8, as “very strict” and controlling. Although she did not learn about the threat until after Peterson was arrested, Ward said her mother had said that he’d threatened to kill her.
Co-author Michelle Lefort said Peterson’s abuse of Ward’s mother had started almost immediately.
“Within a month of being married, at that point he put a gun to her head after she informed him she would not love him more than she loved Lisa,” she said.
Brodsky claimed Lefort’s involvement is suspect as well, saying she recently broke up a deal to write a book that cast a “fairly positive” light on Peterson, and says that the incident with the gun “absolutely did not happen.”
Peterson, a former cop, was also so jealous of Ward’s relationship with her biological father that he would try to thwart their visits, Ward said.
“Drew did not want me to have anything do to with my father,” she said. “He wanted to be my father. He would pull my father over when he was coming into town and delay his visitation with me.”
Ward said she’s speaking out now, for the first time to let other abuse victims know that they need to get out of unhealthy relationships.
“I think that all these people, all these men and women that are being abused, need to stop that violence,” she said.
Peterson, who has gained about 20 pounds since entering prison, was in court Friday when a judge ruled that the statements Savio wrote before her death would be admissible in court.
Attorneys for Peterson, a former police officer in Bolingbrook, Ill., had sought to exclude from the trial Savio’s writings in which she expressed fear for herself and her children.
Peterson is being held on $20 million bail after he was accused of murdering Savio, his third wife. The woman was found face-down in an empty bathtub in March 2004, her hair soaked with blood from an apparent head wound.
The medical examiner had initially ruled Savio’s death a drowning incident but after the October 2007 disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, Savio’s body was exhumed and reclassified a homicide after a new autopsy was performed.
Peterson was arrested in May and pleaded not guilty to the first degree murder charge.
Stacy Peterson Is Still Missing
Peterson’s defense team has argued that he could not receive a fair trial in Will County because he is a 30-year local law enforcement veteran and because of the intense media exposure, according to the Chicago Daily Herald.
As Peterson sits in jail on murder charges for his third wife’s death, his stepbrother could provide important information regarding the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.
Thomas Morphey, his stepbrother, said he helped Peterson move a large blue barrel from Peterson’s home on the last day Stacy Peterson was seen alive.
The day before he helped move the barrel, Morphey said, Peterson confronted him. “He said, ‘How much do you love me?’” Morphey told “Good Morning America” in March. “I said, ‘I do.’ And he said, ‘Enough to kill for me?’”
Neither Stacy Peterson nor her body has ever been found, nor has the mysterious blue barrel.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/drew-petersons-stepdaughter-lisa-ward-reveals-home-personality/story?id=8733359
Doesn’t he mean he did a good job on her?
… and too smooth to cause abrasions on her buttocks.
Don’t you think that it could have been Dr Dan who trained Drew on emotion control (on these 3 days of ‘venting’)?
So is LeFort one of the people they approached to write “Drew’s Book”? before Armie landed it?
I’d love to hear her and M. William Phelps compare notes.
After I saw this again, it made me think — what was found the evening Kathleen was discovered that made someone think it was suspicious enough to present it to the SA at the time as a potential homicide? It sounds like from that point on, it went sour. Well, more sour.
I’m pretty sure this LeFort is the anonymous author from Lavanda’s chat … I wouldn’t say she “recently” broke up a deal to write a book about Drew. She was out of that deal in August 2008 if it’s the same person. I’m not sure I’m precise on the date, that’s just one date that we talked with her.
IIRC, Brodsky tried to sue her. But her lawyer prevailed.
Interesting, Noway…
Ha, that’s funny, Noway. Brodsky lost another round with someone?
I’d venture JB’s history with LeFort instigated the whining, not Lisa Ward’s book. He’s such a big baby for someone who flirts with danger and courts derision.
October 5, 2009 at 7:51 pm | #202
Quote
I’d venture JB’s history with LeFort instigated the whining, not Lisa Ward’s book. He’s such a big baby for someone who flirts with danger and courts derision.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL !!
Joel Brodsky may have a bone to pick with Lefort, but there’s really not much point in Lisa’s book either !!
Not a lot of point perhaps, but she has a right to tell her scary story and the timing, etc will be down to the publisher. (Looks like they want to get in there quick) I’m glad DP never hit me with a belt.
Could be. If he did really go to Dr Dan’s there must be something else up with him/that trip. It doesn’t seem to make sense he’d call on someone he hasn’t seen since Burger King days…especially under those circumstances! They may have had some business since then? It is a puzzle.
Bucket, Dr. Dan told Joe Hosey that he saw Drew on TV when Stacy disappeared and then he called him up, joking about his having “problems with his relationship” and then offered to help him out with the kids.
To me it makes a lot of sense that someone who is trying to promote himself as a “celebrity shrink” saw an opportunity to inject himself into a high-profile situation and to profit from it.
Of course!
….but he didn’t take the kids….
That’s a good point, Bucket. Why didn’t he take his children to Dr Dan if was suppose to help them? That was too late for marriage counseling, right?
I do not believe in Dr Dan’s story.
I do not believe in Brodsky’s story.
I mean how they met Drew. They made it up. That’s all just a publicity stuff.
Noway was asking yesterday about page 28 of the Inquest Report. Well, what do you know, I had left it out.
Here is the very last part of the Inquest documentation, the court reporter’s testimony, and the jurors’ decision with all their signatures.
And while I’m eating crow, it looks like Mr. Budenz does have a house in Florida, because when Drew and family joined him at Disney World they reportedly stayed at his home there.
Was I? Asking you about page 28, I mean. Are you sure it was me? I had posted that you had 26/28 pages here … but I don’t think it was me asking you about page 28.
He has a house in Clermont.
LOL, never mind. I thought you meant I specifically asked you about page 28. I read what you had posted in response to my post at WhereisStacy.
BTW, did I somehow miss that Dr. Dan refers to himself as retired but then gives himself a couple of unofficial titles?
So, in which capacity did he evaluate and counsel Drew’s children? As a “Corporate Interventionist”, “media shrink” or “celebrity shrink”? Just despicable.
http://www.drdancelebrityshrink.com/aboutdan.php
Facs, I am personally much more worried about the fact that he is a forensic therapist. That’s a totally different field than a regular therapy with people who somehow got involved in legal problems. He may serve as an expert in the court, I think.
I was just wondering what a forensic therapist was.
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artAskexp01.php
From his description above, it looks as if he’s saying that he is currently retired from that. Plus, as a friend of the Defendant I doubt the judge would allow him to testify in that capacity.
Cyrhla, what do you think Dr. Dan will testify about (as an expert)?
The children’s well-being is not at issue, and that was his connection to Drew (other than old friend).
I went over the transcript of Lisa Ward when she gave an interview with Greta on 11/13/07.
Very weird. I guess I never realized that Connelly had sporadic contact with Peterson after their divorce, and he even called her after Kathleen died.
Anything that has to do with this man’s prior life is like being in the Twilight Zone!
Full transcript
Retirement has nothing to do with it, IMO, as he still can return to his profession at any time. The only problem – to which I absolutely agree with you – is that the Judge may not let him act as an expert because he is not licensed. As for the friedship, they have not seen each other for ages, right? I wonder if the Jugde is aware of the fact that an expert in psychology should have NO personal relationship of any king with his patient.
Can you remember a forensic ‘expert’ that testified in favor of Drew when he wanted his cars back? She said it was unsual to keep any seizured things for such a long time. It was only three months the police had had them and every forensic expert knew it was a short time. It sometime takes moths to determine DNA or so. But judge S. decided to return the vehicles to Drew.
Noway, I will learn more about it. That is what my friend told me between the lines yesterday. I was more concentrated on the initials and Dr Dan’s competency then. I will call her in a few hours (time difference!) and let you know.
If Connelly is divorced from Peterson, what in her mind makes her think she needed to fear Peterson, that he could hurt her?
I mean, if this were a scary book or a scary movie, I guess you could assume she feared him because she had knowledge that she had to keep silent about, or he’d send Vito and Mario to her house and attach her to a long rope and a rock. But since this is real life, it’s puzzling to me why an ex-wife should fear harm at the hands of her ex-husband, and feel the need to be decent to him to keep things right.
Well, I’m not going to get my undies in a bunch about the remote possibility of the defense trying to put Dr. Dan on the stand to testify to anything, because IMO there’s just no way it could happen. So far Judge White has shown himself to have a good grasp of the law and has done a fine job of checking Joel’s erratic and unconventional attempts at defense.
I didn’t post the Dan Budenz material to get into the specifics of what he is or isn’t going to testify to as a witness. Who cares? My only reason for posting his rant on the web was to point out how bizarre a character he is and what he’s supposedly so knowledgeable about as far as specifics in the Drew Peterson case. He’s written many inaccuracies and it shows.
I don’t know where the idea came up that he was going to be called by the defense, or anyone, as an expert witness, but I wish we’d just drop the whole thing.
Cyrhla – no need to make any phone calls. JMHO.
Facs, I absolutely trust Judge White and realize that the State Attorney has the things under control! I have never doubted about it but the judge cannot simply reject an expert’s opinion. Think about this forensic expert. The judge has no power to question someone’s qualifications unless it is justified by the lack of education, for instance.
I am sure Brodsky is going to try at least. I would not even wonder if he submitted Drew’s results with the lie detector. BTW, elaborated by another famous expert LOL
Maybe I got too suspicious about the whole thing. I simply do not buy anything Brodsky Co. are going to sell.
Maybe Vicki knows something incriminating about Drew and there was always that little reminder to her that he could hurt her if he wanted to (and get away with it)?
I’ve not been in an abusive relationship but I imagine the fear doesn’t leave because you’re no longer with that person.
And Rescue, we all know that the true expert in the Drew Peterson case is Derek Armstrong. And Dr. Dan is no Derek Armstrong. LOL
Isn’t the rumor that he once tried to kill Vicki (by cutting the brake lines on her car)? If she believes that to be the case, and if she also believes that he killed Kathleen in 2004, then I guess I can see her retaining some fear of Drew.
I find it creepy that he continues to contact her from time to time. If she is afraid of him, that must be really awful for her.
Though they were divorced and did not have a child together, he was still calling her.
That’s the rumor, yes. I believe I’ve even seen Susan Murphy-Milano mention it. That VC was involved in a horrific car accident, and the reasons for it were questionable.
As I said, I don’t recall or remember the information I just read that Lisa Ward told Greta — that being that VC periodically talked to Peterson.
Old video of Lisa Ward from her mother’s house back in 2007.
Vicky stayed in seclusion. There must have been a reason.
She surely seems to have stayed off camera – even with the new book being released. She did talk to the news back in 2007 though.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/nov/16/news/chi-peterson_16_nov16
http://murphymilanojournal.blogspot.com/2009/05/drew-peterson-continues-slapping.html
“This past week on Justice Interrupted Investigates we had on forma GMA and Greta Producer Steph Watts investigating this case from day along with Mark Furhman. We learned that wife #2 Vicky Connelly almost died in 1991 when Peterson came into the bar they owed one night and set Vicky home early. He had never done that before. Vicky thought it was strange.
She and a girlfriend headed home but they never made it to their destination. Instead, she and her passenger landed in the hospital, both with near death injuries. It seems someone tampered with the breaks on Vicky’s car and they went over an embankment. This was also around the time Peterson was dating Kathleen Savio.”
0:25 – The reporter says Vicky stays in seclusion.
http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/michelle-lefort-pens-book-second
Here’s the May, 2009 press release about VC co-authoring a book with the woman who is now working with Lisa Ward instead.
Michelle LeFort Pens Book with Second Wife
SALINA, KS- May 8, 2009- Michelle LeFort, author, is penning a book with the second wife of Drew Peterson, Victoria Connolly. Working the last year with Connolly, LeFort is now in process of obtaining a book deal for her project. The story quips Victoria’s life with Drew Peterson, telling of the horrendous abuse and punishment she …..
Ah… my brain is slow this morning. She is surely not out there like so many others. I hope she stays that way in case she is a witness at the trial and if she is staying in seclusion out of fear as well – I hope she relays that on the stand.
I’m curious. Drew seemed like an internet savvy guy after Stacy went missing yet I’ve heard nothing of emails proving his threats or showing his controlling side. I’ve not seen copies of written notes or text messages from him either. Not that it is anything but weird when you think about it. So many people these days get tripped up in the communications.
Hmmm… I don’t know rescue. This is her life and she has right to do it. Even to vent after so many years of keeping all of it in secret. It may be interesting, IMO, because she may provide more information on Drew for this period.
I have mixed feelings about the book issue but I do not think she is going to harm anyone by publishing it. It may also help the system belive that policemen are just like anyone else. Their wives rarely have opportunity to speak about it and make other belive in their stories.
Why are against this book? I would like to undestand your point of view.
Cyrhla-I know your question is to Rescue, but I wanted to add my two cents. I’m personally not against the book itself but I am against its timing. I worry that some of these people that may be called as witnesses will lower their credibility after the defense team shows they were paid for their story which could harm the case against him or against him getting the maximum sentence if he is convicted.
Oh, I see, TAI.
TAI, I’m with you: Everybody who is going to be a witness should keep quiet until after the trial.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/nov/16/news/chi-peterson_16_nov16
Dr. Dan seems to concur about the game-playing side of Drew Peterson.
Budenz quoted in Fatal Vows.
Cyrhla – I think you’re missing the fact that Vicki Connolly is NOT the one writing the book, it’s her daughter. Apparently, VC backed out and her daughter stepped in.
Rescue, thanks for the explanation.
My view stands no matter who the potential witness is – Lisa, Vicky, Pastor Neil, Rick, Lenny, Paula, Cassie, Sharon, etc… I wish none of them did interviews – especially any paid interviews until after everything was over.
Kathleen’s neighbors have kept very quiet. I know they have gone before the GJ and will find it interesting to hear what their testimony is at the trial since they were there when Kathleen was found. I’m wondering if there will be anything there as to Drew’s demeanor the night they went into the house together. Like what if he steered them up to the bedroom first somehow?? Or what if he said something that makes sense in hindsight. IDK – as much as I digest everything that comes out in the news – I’d like for anything of testimonial value to only come out at the time of the trial.
Hopefully, there will plenty of time after the trial to get the books published. They should be able to say more then, as well.
Well the Mayan’s did say the world would end in 2012 – so they should start jotting down some notes now to ensure there is enough time for us to read it!
This is why it is a bad idea for LISA to be writing a book.
Her MOTHER was the one married to Drew and then they write this:;
Co-author Michelle Lefort said the abuse of Ward’s mother started almost immediately.
“WITHIN A MONTH OF BEING MARRIED, at that point he put a gun to her head after she informed him she would not love him more than she loved Lisa,” she said.
and further “telling of the horrendous abuse and punishment ”
So here’s a mother with a very young daughter (!!)and Drew putting a gun to the mothers head within a month of being married and yet this marriage of “horrendous abuse and punishment” isn’t ended until ten years later because of Drews infidelities.
This is an early report/story that I found very interesting.
Expert calls Savio autopsy items “a bit suspicious”
http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1712&z=4
Thought so…
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/change-of-venue-denied-hearsay-law-upheld-in-peterson-case/#comment-53763
I wonder, once the book deal was off and Drew found himself a new author (Armstrong) how long was LeFort committed to uphold her part of the collaboration guidelines? Was there a “confidentiality clause” or some such thing? Usually those have a time limit. Did she and Drew ever actually meet or discuss any of the content which she is now including in her book?
Often (and Rescue and I have been witness to this) Joel’s first response is to bluster, puff himself up and try to intimidate those who he feels are a threat to his client. It will be interesting to see if LeFort backs down or instead consults the same lawyer she used to get out of that contract (thanks for the info, Noway).
Really, shouldn’t Joel be more concerned about his client’s court date tomorrow regarding the wrongful death suit?
And if anyone, anywhere, ever, in any way, doubted that Derek Armstrong was hired in the Spring of 2008 to write “Drew’s Book”, this press release should settle that issue for once and for all. Thanks, Joel.
Back to the topic of the inquest…
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/17/cnr.05.html
CNN NEWSROOM
Aired November 17, 2007 – 16:00 ET
The jurors initially voted 3-3, three for homicide and three for accidents, and one of those jurors for accident was a local police officer who knew the husband and spoke highly of the husband. And one of the people for homicide then switched over to accident.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So if the Police officer hadn’t been on the panel to begin with, the Jury would have voted 5-1 regardless of the omissions and half truths presented at the time.
“Therefore if such a book is written, shown, marketed, or published, this office will pursue vigorous legal action to protect and enforce our clients rights.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Looks like there is a nice cat fight on the horizon.
Next Joel will sue the State for Drew gaining 20 pounds in weight whilst sitting in his cell as it must surely violate Drews constitutional right to be over fed (!!)
The jurors initially voted 3-3, three for homicide and three for accidents, and one of those jurors for accident was a local police officer who knew the husband and spoke highly of the husband. And one of the people for homicide then switched over to accident.
—————————–
http://tiny.cc/en18b
I’m also being told for the first time today that the Illinois State Police visited the previous State’s Attorney Jeff Tomczak within days of Savio’s death in 2004 “seeking guidance”. I’ve also learned that Tomczak’s file on the case is slim…there is very little paperwork available on that meeting with police or whatever investigation previous State’s Attorney Jeff Tomczak conducted. Why is that? One source suggests Drew Peterson may have had “connections” that limited the scope but I see no concrete proof of that.
http://tiny.cc/FgpjK
“We know definitely that Illinois State Police sought the direction of the Will County state’s attorney’s office in this case within days of Kathleen Savio’s death,” Pelkie said. “We don’t know to what extent [the state police case] was reviewed by Tomczak’s people. There is documentation here in the office that the state police had consulted with Jeff Tomczak’s administration,but it’s very scant.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/642698,4_1_JO09_MISSING_S1.stng
“Any criminal charges that might have resulted against any individual would have been the responsibility of the former state’s attorney,” O’Neil said.
The former state’s attorney, Jeff Tomczak, shot back at O’Neil Thursday.
“Given the fact that Coroner O’Neil made a finding of an accidental death in this case, what crime would the state police request to be charged?” Tomczak said. “The answer is, none.”
Go figure.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Alt/alt.true-crime/2008-03/msg00879.pdf
After Pelkie told the Tribune on Oct. 31 that state police had
presented evidence to Tomczak’s office, Tomczak filed a Freedom of
Information Act request with Glasgow’s office the next day challenging
it to produce any documents that would “verify Mr. Pelkie’s public
statement.”
Glasgow’s office denied the request, citing investigative privilege.
Tomczak did not respond to requests to discuss whether he knew his
office brought the Savio case to the grand jury.
…
Doman said O’Neil’s office also was too willing to accept the
coroner’s jury’s ruling of an accidental death.
“When it was over, we asked the people in the coroner’s office if we
could contest [the jury's finding],” Doman said. “They told us that
unless there is some new evidence that comes up, it’s done. We were
fit to be tied.”
…
O’Neil, who called Lyons a disgruntled employee, said the protocol was
not followed because the state police told them not to use it.
“The Will County coroner’s office asked the state police if they
wanted us to follow the suspicious death protocol, and they said no,“,
O’Neil said. “I don’t know why they said that. The police that are in
control of the [death] scene, we have to follow their instructions.”
….
State Police Lt. Scott Compton said that Collins was on leave and
unavailable and that Hardy “had the knowledge necessary to appear
before the coroner’s inquest.” He said investigators followed agency
procedure.
Facs said: Often (and Rescue and I have been witness to this) Joel’s first response is to bluster, puff himself up and try to intimidate those who he feels are a threat to his client.”
Absolutely true about that. Makes a whole lot of noise and threats, issues press releases, and then it’s forgotten. Gets his mileage out of it this way, though. Their hands have been tied, what with the Judge’s gag order. This, at least, gives Brodsky something to have a hissy fit over in the press.
Makes me wonder now if there’s something in this book stuff that has struck a nerve.
Let the games begin.
Wonder if we’ll hear anything about Drew’s court date today?
PETERSON DREW 10 7 9 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Case
I wonder how many authors Drew went through before his story written by DA.
How many others, after meeting Drew Peterson, felt the need to shower (and had a HazMat crew on stand-by). How many others decided that the story that needed telling was that of the people who had been part of Drew Peterson’s life and had survived?
If she is telling the life story of Lisa Ward during Lisa’s years as Drew Peterson’s stepdaughter, is that a loophole? She’s not telling the Drew Peterson story during his years as Lisa’s stepfather.
I have the feeling, this author has a lawyer who has found a loophole, or she wouldn’t have spent the last year writing this book.
Noway406 said:
I have the feeling, this author has a lawyer who has found a loophole, or she wouldn’t have spent the last year writing this book.
——-
Good point. Non-disclosure agreement does not mean it can be against the law. There may be something about the one undersigned by LeFort.
Anyway, I do not think Brodsky is eager to reveal its content.
In January 2008, Stacy had only been missing about 3 months. What made Drew Peterson think his story was one worth telling at that point? She could have grown tired of life on the beach and come home and straightened out that whole mess about saying he had killed Kathleen …
Good point, NW! Why such a need for Peterson to “put his story out there” when all he really needed to do was wait for Stacy to surface, recant what she told Neil Schori and reiterate Drew’s alibi for the night of February 29, 2004?
I guess he was pretty sure (for some reason) that Stacy would never be seen alive again.
http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=862&z=4)
Sounds to me like Joel was spinning it that they chose Armstrong over any other authors. Wouldn’t you think that would release the rejected candidates from any contractual obligations?
To me, another shining example of Brodsky/Drewpy being totally out of control in the logic department of the sanity store-Brodsky says:
“His reaction [to Ward's allegations] was that he raised this girl. He gave her a moral basis. He was a strict father,” Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky told ABC News after consulting with Peterson. “There were no black eyes, no broken bones, no guns, no knives, no physical abuse absolutely… He thinks he did a good job with her. She seems to be a nice, well adjusted woman now.”
***
And yet he’s trying to convince us that Lisa is crazy and a liar! Which is it?
This is just my opinion. How ballsy of Brodsky to say “this is all about the money,” when he and his POS client did the same thing with the book they co-authored with Armstrong. It wasn’t about the truth! It was about the money. Do they really think people give any credit to anything they spew out these days? Brodsky is always shooting off his mouth, and he hasn’t been victorious yet in anything he’s hammered about. Can’t deny that!
As for him having a “field day cross examining” them, yeah, go for it. Ooooo, I’ll bet they’re shaking in their boots. However, considering that Vicki Connolly is still alive and breathing, I think she’s past the hard part of being intimidated by Peterson or anyone that speaks on his behalf. Being warned in a press release must really be scary, heh?
Joel’s favorite threat is that he’d love to get these people up on the stand. Like the ordeal of being cross-examined by his shoddy lawyership would be more than they could take. It’s too bad he doesn’t seem to realize that most of the witnesses have been waiting years now for the opportunity to tell what they know in a court of law.
Like you say, Rescue, what’s scarier? The stalking, threats and intimidation of a probable two-time-murderer, or standing up to tell the truth and being questioned by Picky McScratcherson and the Boob Squad?
I think this deserves one more encore.
LOL, Facs!!!!!!!
Answer to your question? Nothing is worse than they’ve already been through, all these people. They’ve already been trashed and victimized by the defense in the media. See, he’s made so many outlandish predictions so far, he’s about as reliable as that 8 ball I played with as a kid.
No, worse. At least my 8 ball got some of the questions right with a yes or no answer!
Is this anything to be proud of, as a lawyer, repeating on behalf of a client who’s sitting in jail awaiting trial for murder? Just what kind of “corporal punishment” did he use on another man’s daughter?
Caught in a lie…
From the Cease and Desist Order:
And from Nancy Grace in 3/2008:
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/20/ng.01.html
Oh, TAI, that is awesome to see again. Good find!
You can’t make this stuff up.
I always wonder why the heck Joel and Drew always say they hope Stacy will show herself and not that they hope she comes home. Joel tripped up so much on that whole “hopefully” thing that it is unbelievable. Who was he doing the interview with again??
Why didn’t Brodsky contact the author’s lawyer and relay his scary threat that way, rather than putting up another one of his goofy press releases on Selig’s PR site?
Just asking…..
I happened across something that I don’t recall seeing before from Derek Armstrong. He sometimes did have decent lead on things that were coming down the pipe:
“The more compelling evidence,” the source said, “were the transcripts of the property settlement for the Drew Peterson, Kathleen Savio divorce.”
Source: http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=25543
I wonder what could be in these transcripts, who took them, and if they are real indeed. Makes you wonder if Drew wasn’t pissed enough during a meeting with the lawyers to say something out of turn that could nip him in the rear. Are these things done in court or just an attorneys office and are they considered sworn testimony?? I’m not sure but I’m just thinking out loud.
Rescue-LOL! Well they probably have to pay the guy whether they have any press releases or not so you may as well put something out there. I wonder why they don’t put out press releases when their motions get knocked down by the judge…
He’s speaking Brodskese: There is nothing — Drew is not writing a book nor is one being written for him. Present tense: There IS nothing … Drew IS not writing nor IS one being written for him. Never addresses whether there WAS.
He doesn’t answer NG’s question about EVER entertaining it, discussing it, pitching it to anyone. By March 2008, ML had pulled out of the deal. So technically, at that moment MAYBE he was telling the truth.
Although it would be interesting to know the exact date Michelle pulled out and the exact date of that interview. And whether that interview was maybe delayed a day or two … IMO
**************************
Have to say I’m a little surprised at your question, Rescue. Sending a scary Lawyer Letter to another Lawyer is such a Lawyer-y thing to do. What ever made you think of Brodsky?!?
Coffee -ha! What was I thinking?
Don’t burst my bubble, Noway!! Anyway the NG show initially aired March 20, 2008. Now we just need someone to report what date Ms. LeFort stopped working on it. In the C&D order he speaks about co-writing and co-authoring the book. Would Drew be the other co-writer/co-author or could that mean there was someone else signed on to work with her??
Nice catch TAI. Joel got caught lying about the book deal back in the Summer of 2008 at the SYM forum, but he denied it then.
GRACE: Well, isn`t your client trying to sell a story, too?
BRODSKY: Not to “National Enquirer,” that`s for sure.
GRACE: But to who?
BRODSKY: Nobody right now. I mean.
GRACE: He wasn`t shopping a book about his experience as a cop before he got thrown off police force?
BRODSKY: No, not at all.
IMO Brodsky’s response “No, not at all.” refers to the question about the topic of the book (Drew’s experience as a cop before he got thrown off the police force) and this is how JB’s justifies his answers as being truthful.
*************
cheryljones – I think you’re completely right and noticed that, too. He says she has absolutely no credibility and no one should listen to her, because he “gave her a moral basis.” Such an awesome dad.
Pop quiz tomorrow!
TAI, since Lisa Ward is the co-author, I believe Drew was the co-author back in 2008.
I’m not bursting your bubble. I think Joel and his statements are going to work in favor of Michelle LeFort in any court battle. I think this is just how Joel justifies that he’s telling the truth.
LOL … Joel, if you believe that the story of Lisa Ward’s life during the years Drew Peterson was her stepfather means that Michelle LeFort violated her contract with you, your definition may be different than the judge’s.
I was just rereading all of Joel’s posts about the M. William Phelps debacle. Lordy, Joel can be a belligerant, antagonizing creep. To this day, I’m a bit surprised he wrote that stuff out in public.
Well, Facs, he didn’t have Drew Peterson there in his formative years. *eyeroll*
Joel is easy to figure out.
He’s out to convince you you didn’t see what you know you saw, or what you thought you saw. You didn’t see what he wanted you to see either. You saw what he thought he wanted you to see, but you really won’t later. Because you will figure it all out for yourselves.
Got all that? Confusing, isn’t it? That’s the idea.
I’m just ribbing you, Noway! I think that many people are very good at picking the particular words to get people to think you are saying one thing and be able to go back to it later to say you weren’t technically lying.
Looks like the Will County schedule was updated:
PETERSON DREW 101409 WCCA 900 09L000326 Case
PETERSON DREW 100709 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Case
PETERSON DREW W 102909 402 930 09CF001048 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Status
PETERSON DREW W 102909 402 930 09CF001048 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Status
ROBINSON MICHAEL 111809 900 04F000340 Payment
ROBINSON MICHAEL 110209 404 930 08CF000098 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Status
ROBINSON MICHAEL 110209 404 930 08CF000098 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Status
ROBINSON MICHAEL 110209 404 930 08CF000098 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Status
ROBINSON MICHAEL 120709 111 900 09SC008604 Alias Summons
Huh??? Say WHAT?? Umm – maybe Drew wanted to be the only father Ward had ever known… According to her, Drew tried to stop her biological father from seeing her.
.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ydptqoq
Source: http://tinyurl.com/yach6oa
The only license I could find for Dr Dan, expired in 2004. And it has nothing to do with psychology.LOL
https://www.myfloridalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=613AE2D71FEF743CB9C70AA1C48E54BE
JOEL BRODSKY: When various authors were talking with us about their interest in writing a book with Mr. Peterson’s cooperation, Mr. Peterson was most encouraged with Mr. Armstrong because he is from Canada and therefore has not been tainted by the tabloid media hype.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The same Joel Brodsky quoted worldwide Google search results as basis for a tainted Jury Pool in his motion presented to the Courts.
It was never stated by Joel the Google results did not include Canada – LOL !
I wonder if it was Dr Dan who recommended Internet therapy to Drew. As we could see on Lenny’s blog, Drew got involved in it very much. Great Dad, really. With his children behind his back. Changing women like gloves in the children’s environment is also a good pattern to follow.
Do not sit at home, Harpies. Call (and pay) Selig and you will also be famous tomorrow! LOL
“There were no black eyes, no broken bones, no guns, no knives, no physical abuse absolutely ….”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So far no one has mentioned black eyes, broken bones, knives in relation to Lisa or her mother, so why Joel Brodskys need to pre-emptive denial ?
JAH, as for Armstrong, they were simply looking for someone in (financial) troubles who would be desperate enough to agree to all their conditions. Maybe LeFort did not. Sorry, but I do not believe in Brodsky’s version (again). Can you imagine that Drew would ever admit anyone pissed him off? No way! We had examples of diffrent stories of scorned women and so on… It seems to me Selig elaborated his own version of events and that is why he has published it on his site.
I agree that there must be something about this agreement and if Brodsky sues her, we will learn it content. It may disclose some information as for Drew’s publicity. I do not think Brodsky is going to do it.
Brodsky forgot to add, there was NO water in the bathtub and NO barrel.
Brodsky must have had only Lisa on his mind. Drew used to spank her to fight a devil in her. Otherwise she wouldn’t be a well-mannered woman.
Drew may not ever admit that anyone pissed him off. He leaves that to Joel:
He’s really an emotional mess, isn’t he?
So – I guess when Joel said that as of May 2008 there was “no contract”, technically he could have been telling the truth (but only technically) because as of March 2008, the contract with LeFort had fallen through and the one with Phelps never solidified. It looks like he finally signed a contract with Armstrong in May of 2008. Bravo, Joel! A paragon of truth-telling!
I guess no one can really blame LeBrodsque for feeling particularly impotent after last Friday….
Joel Brodsky even called William Phelps a “Bar Mitzvah boy” in one of his rants !
With all the above examples of Joel Brodsky’s emotional outbursts, I can’t wait for his cross examinations in the Court room !!
The idiot author Matthew Phelps went on http://www.crimerant.com to make some fake poll to try to disrespect me by comparing me to Jonny Cochran and Robert Kardashian, both who are dead. Problem is that the so called true crime author mispelled Cochran’s name and added an extra “e” to the end of Cochran’s name. The idiot can’t even spell the name of the most famous lawyer of the last decade. And he calls himself a crime writer. What a joke he is.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This was definitely one of Joel Brodsky’s finer moments (!!) and from memory the poll concluded that two dead lawyers could do a better job than Joel Brodsky in defending his client – LOL !
That was actually Geraldo Rivera he was going after, in that instance. Joel has no “couth”. None.
Facs said:
I guess no one can really blame LeBrodsque for feeling particularly impotent after last Friday….
——
I love it! His new celebrity-name in particular! LOL
Was there anything to report from Drew’s court date yesterday (Savio wrongful death)?
Justanotherhen said
This was definitely one of Joel Brodsky’s finer moments (!!) and from memory the poll concluded that two dead lawyers could do a better job than Joel Brodsky in defending his client – LOL !
* * * *
You flatter him, Justie! I reckon it would only take one dead lawyer.
Noway, I haven’t seen anything yet. Maybe we’ll have to wait for the revised court schedule to look for a hint.
Hmm, this press release says that leFort is writing two books: One with Lisa Ward, and another with her mom, Vicky Connolly. Also, it would appear they do not have a publisher yet.
Quote
Almost two years after the disappearance of young Stacy Peterson, Ward and Connolly feel safe to tell their stories. Riddled with a decade of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, Lisa Ward comes forward to reveal what life was like behind closed doors in the Peterson household…
Whoa, there. Lisa was sexually abused? Or have they confused the context for sensation?
That makes sense that Vicky has to wait until after the trial.
Perhaps you could email pslevine@ix.netcom.com and ask for verification on the ‘physical, emotional, and sexual abuse’ part.
Press Contact:
Paul S. Levine, ESQ.
Ventura, CA
310-450-6711/310-877-0181
pslevine@ix.netcom.com
We’re in touch with Ms. Lefort at the moment. She may be answering some questions for us (but maybe not). If there’s something in particular you want to know, ask here or email us and we’ll see how it goes.
Whoa is right, Bucket. Hmmmm. I don’t know what to think anymore.
I once read a story (probably) on Topix when a poster confessed his sister was abused by Drew and though it happened many years ago, she still cannot forget.
That’s why I expected sexual abbuse of Lisa knowing Drew’s tendency toward young women/girls.Poor Lisa. I hope she could manage with it. Very sad.
Maybe other women sexually abused by Drew will step forward encouraged by Lisa. I think it is really hard to confess things like that, even for money.
Just ask her if she is Anon11.
I’m confused why even though they both testified before the Grand Jury that only Vicky has to remain silent.
Is she really writing that Drew sexually abused her??? I’m surprised that if all of this stuff happened that the prosection wouldn’t be asking her to remain silent as well until after the trial so they could use her testimony as part of the penalty phase if he is convicted.
I thought that there were no restrictions on speaking about one’s GJ testimony and that silence was voluntary. So has only Vicky chosen to wait?
I may be wrong, but it may be their isurance policy to let people know. Drew is in prison, but no one can guarantee he will stay there forever. [No one can also guarantee that with the book they are 100% safe].
I guess Lisa’s testimony has a lot to do with Drew’s life, but is of little importance with regard to Kathleen’s case. I mean for the court.
Connolly is bound by grand jury testimony to remain silent until the trial.
Maybe Vicky’s Grand Jury testimony led to something, and is going to be used in the criminal trial, and Lisa’s is not.
October 8, 2009 at 3:59 pm | #317
Quote
I thought that there were no restrictions on speaking about one’s GJ testimony and that silence was voluntary. So has only Vicky chosen to wait?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Methinks there are ongoing investigations into other things including the ten year Vickie Connolly/Lisa/Drew Peterson period and it wouldn’t be wise for them to start talking about it now.
If no one took any notice of threats against Kathleen during her life time, they certainly wouldn’t have taken any notice of anything Vickie Connolly had to say at the time either.
The disappearance of Stacy and investigation into Kathleens death changed all that for Vickie/Lisa and God knows who else, but now is not the time to go public about anything pertaining these dark periods in anyones life !!
Silence is golden.
But makes for quiet blogging.
AFAIK, we’ve all heard this before, anyone is free to discuss their GJ testimony. So, I don’t know what that means, about her being bound to silence, as we’re not a bunch of pumpkins that just fell off the truck. Rather, I would assume that her testimony is sensitive for some reason, and it’s best to remain quiet until it’s time for her to testify.
JMHO.
Does anyone know how and when Drew met Vickie Connolly and how long they dated before they got married ??
Well…I can tell you what Armstrong says in his book, but bear in mind it was all dictated by Drew.
They met after he and Carol divorced (1979?), during Vickie’s divorce from her “abusive alcoholic” husband, when Lisa was eight years old. They got married in 1982.
Thank you !
Oh no, not another “abusive alcoholic” husband and Drew-To-The-Rescue (!!).
Holy Crapole!! Someone has made a comic strip about “Stu Peterson”…
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/division-and-rush/2009/10/its-not-drew-peterson.html
I believe it’s “Stu Peterman” … this guy had 1 divorce and 3 wives die and another run off … but you get the picture.
Oops! I meant Stu Peterman…
LOL, don’t worry TAI … it will still show up in Drew Peterson’s Google count.
Facsmiley said:
October 7, 2009 at 6:49 PM | #299
The idiot author Matthew Phelps went on http://www.crimerant.com to make some fake poll to try to disrespect me by comparing me to Jonny Cochran and Robert Kardashian, both who are dead. Problem is that the so called true crime author mispelled Cochran’s name and added an extra “e” to the end of Cochran’s name. The idiot can’t even spell the name of the most famous lawyer of the last decade. And he calls himself a crime writer. What a joke he is.
***
Oh, my goodness, Hold on, Elizabeth,I’m coming! It’s the big one…
Brodsky talking about someone else’s spelling errors!
Ha, imagine that! Brodsky pointing out someone else’s spelling errors.
Seems that Vicky’s GJ testimony might enter a corroboration of Drewpy’s behavioral pattern, at least.
Drew divorced Carol in 1981. He was cheating on Carol with Kyle Piry. They were going to marry “but four months later, [Kyle] Piry called it off because she wasn’t ready to become step-mother to Peterson’s two young children from his first wife.[Carol]” – “Peterson appeared devastated, Piry said. She took pity on him, and ended up at his house one night about a week after the break-up. Piry said she found “long black hairs” in Peterson’s bed.” I guess it was Vicky’s.
Victoria Rutkiewicz and Peterson married in 1982 and divorced in 1992.
—–
another reminder from acandyrose on
GretaWire Blog, “Just in: Big Development in the Sgt Peterson / Stacy Peterson Story!!”
“Comment by Margaret from Bolingbrook, November 13th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“Greta- When I was in high school we lived next door to the Petersons on Seminole Ln in Bolingbrook. At the time, Drew was a K-9 officer. Our dog, a shepherd and his dog used to run side by side along our back fences. This used to piss Drew off so bad, because it wore away the grass that he would beat his dog. It was not uncommon for my mother to be yelling at him from the back window to stop beating his dog. On one occasion his wife appeared in the front of the house crying and with a black eye. She had two teenage sons and they both were very quiet and kept to themselves. My father (also a cop) gave Drew permission to “watch” me and if he saw me on the streets or with my friends to send me home, which he did on only one occasion. He was then as you see him now on TV, Sunglasses, No smiling or reactions. Just stone cold. Subsequently, I went on to do my internship with the Bolingbrook Police Dept. and became a Police Officer in Chicago. People knew this man was an abuser, but there is a Code when you are a cop to never tell on another cop. Police protect eachother. No one in my neighborhood, my parents included called the Police on Drew when he beat his wife or dog. Back then, you just kept quiet. Im sure that is why his wife’s death was called “accidental”
Folks – Let’s be reminded not to post speculative comments about what Drew Peterson did or didn’t do to his wife or others, when it can’t be substantiated or verified.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Do we know whether the comment by Margaret of Bolingbrook was ever verified? Or was she just an anonymous blogger? The info she gave (living next door to Drew on Seminole, doing an internship at Bolingbrook) certainly could narrow down who she is … but other than this comment and discussion about it on various forums, she stayed out of sight.
According to acandyrose, it was Drew and Vicky who lived on Seminole.
“The marriage lasted fewer than 10 years before the couple filed for a no-fault divorce. The dissolution was finalized on Feb. 18, 1992, and the couple’s assets were split equally. [Victoria] Rutkiewicz waived her right to Peterson’s police pension, according to court documents. The couple’s joint property on the 400 block of Seminole Lane [428 SEMINOLE LN, BOLINGBROOK, IL 60440] in Bolingbrook was to be sold with proceeds being divided equally, with Rutkiewicz maintaining the rights to a property in Montgomery and Peterson the rights to a second home in Bolingbrook on the 1000 block of Walden Court. [1040 WALDEN CT, BOLINGBROOK, IL 60440]”
http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_suds_pub.htm
I can’t find anything saying that Drew was a K-9 officer. Not even Armstrong’s book, which chronicles most of his law-enforcement career.
Maybe he wanted to be a K-9 officer but his dog did not love him enough. LOL
I think that post is bogus. Who did she claim she lived next door to? Vicki or Kathleen? Vicki did NOT have two teen sons, nor did her husband’s sons live with them. Vicki had one daughter, who was 18 when they split, who lived with them.
Anyway, supposedly, the “mother” would yell at Peterson to quit beating the dog (a K-9 dog, no less), but the “father” gave him permission to moderate “Margaret’s” street activities. Does that make sense?
Oh, and the “Code of Silence” remark. The neighbors knew he was an abuser, but they never reported him for abusing his wife or his dogs, but, in the same breath, the cops are the ones that held to their Code of Silence.
Give me a break! It doesn’t make logical sense to me, but that’s JMO.
I didn’t give much merit to the comment either, which is why I asked if anyone knew whether the info had been verified.
Vicky was stepmom to Eric and Stephen. Not everyone makes the distinction between “step” and “biological” and she might not have known that Vicky was a stepmom.
It was stated on acandyrose that Vicky and Drew lived on Seminole.
Rescue, I also have some doubts about this post. Kathleen never lived in this house.
If the story is true, it could have been Vicky and Drew’s sons – Stephen and Eric – teenagers then.
“Peterson regularly paid child support [$250 per month], and either he or his second wife, Connolly, would pick up the boys for regular weekend visits”
http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_recap.htm
~snipped~
It is possible that the teenage neighbor didn’t know the actual relationship.
I often refer to my sister and her husband as my nieces “parents” but technically, my sister is her stepmom.
I don’t doubt that Drew was a dick…to wives, to teenagers and to dogs.
She might have thought they were aliens that dropped down from Gork, for all we know.
I think some of you missed the post above which states that (according to acandyrose.com) it was Drew and Vicky who lived on Seminole.
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/change-of-venue-denied-hearsay-law-upheld-in-peterson-case/#comment-53910
Me, too Facs. I’m sure someone has said his dog cowered in his presence. I hope he’s having a really bad day today for the dog’s sake.
I realize that, Noway. I also realize that Vicki did not have teen sons, Drew did, which sons did NOT live with them. No mention was made of Vicki’s daughter either, and isn’t she about the same age as Peterson’s adult sons?
IMHO, this is one of the reasons why we take comments by anonymous posters from other blogs with the grain of salt they merit.
Drew and Carol married in 1974 and divorced in 1981.
Vicky was married to Drew from 1982-1992.
What year were Stephen and Eric born? Would it have been possible for them to have been teens during 1982-1992?
I’m searching candyrose and found a ? son born 1980 ? …
Seriously now, Stephen was born in 1979 and Eric in May, 1978.
Thanks, cyrhla. So they would have been about 3-13, 4-14 during the time Vicky was married to Drew.
If Margaret’s story is accurate, she lived next to them the last couple years of this marriage (she referred to the boys as teens).
Just trying to get the time frame set in my head …
IIRC, Lisa said she lived with Drew from the time she was 8 until she was 17.
I wonder if this teen neighbor was not around much during the week. If she saw Drew’s sons (who lived there on weekends according to acandyrose) and didn’t see Lisa (who I believe spent time with her dad on weekends), that might explain it.
I’m still leaning to the side of this person being confused about what police officer she lived next door to (don’t want to call Liar, Liar! Pants on fire! yet), but at the same time, I’m trying to get her story to “fit” …
Wish I could get a look at the witness list!
And OT but do we have access to smileys/plug-in for smileys here?
Fixed now. Sorry for the oversight.
Okay – here’s something to “think” about, although I really don’t know what to make of it.
*******
KING: Did your sister express to you fear of her husband?
DOMAN: Yes, she did. Larry, she told me all the time, “He’s going to kill me. It’s going to look like an accident, but it wasn’t. Take care of my kids.” And she was scared. She told everybody. She had — she was so afraid. But a very — yet a very strong person. Very determined to fight him, but she couldn’t fight him anymore.
KING: Who has those kids now?
DOMAN: Drew has the kids.
KING: So those kids were then living with his next wife?
DOMAN: Yes.
KING: So there were quite a bit of — there were a number of kids in that house?
DOMAN: Yes. And let me just tell you, Drew does have eight children, not six.
KING: Eight?
DOMAN: Yes. He’s got two boys from the second — a first marriage.
http://www.westwoodone.com/pg/jsp/larryking/transcript.jsp?pid=19086
Rescue, is the April Fools today?! I am in shock! I have never read it or missed it.
If that’s actually, “…second, uh, first marriage” then she means Steve and Eric, plus Tom and Kris (Kathleen), plus Lacy and Anthony (Stacy): that’s six. Wonder where she is finding two more?
She can’t be counting Lisa Ward, who certainly doesn’t consider Drew her “dad”…
IMO, she says clearly enough: eight not six. Maybe Kathleen knew more.
I can also remember that at the very beginning one of the reporters also said Drew had eight children. Wow! It adds up to me, but I do not want to suggest anything, of course…
Yeah, I am not reading anymore into it than what it says. She could have been confused, or she could have been saying something she had other knowledge about. In any case, I find it very unusual that it would be so “uncommon” knowledge, but, then again, Drew Peterson’s sister is practically non-existent and so is his son, Eric.
With Peterson, anything is possible, but I’m not going to feed the conspiracy frenzy!
With Drew’s history, he certainly could have fathered children out of wedlock and never married their mother.
Have you noticed that Kathleen got the anonymous letter in October 2001, not in December? If you have, sorry.
I personally haven’t noticed ‘October’ in Kathleen’s notes made under it.
The issue of children mentioned today made me read this letter again and IMO opinion it could have been written by a woman ‘scorned’ looking for the revenge on Drew.
DOMAN: Yes. And let me just tell you, Drew does have eight children, not six.
KING: Eight?
DOMAN: Yes. He’s got two boys from the second — a first marriage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh well, we can only see which way this is going to pan out as from the answer it is not quite clear where the extra two kids belong, but when someone says “let me tell you” that is usually to re-enforce a statement !
When I was in high school we lived next door to the Petersons on Seminole Ln in Bolingbrook.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this person was in High School at the time and the two boys were “teenagers”, that means the writer would have been more in Lisa’s age group, so wouldn’t she state to be more Lisa’s friend/neighbor than anything else, especially if she lived next door to them ?
New post is up!
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/lisa-ward-alleges-sexual-abuse-by-drew-peterson/