Stacy Peterson search returns to Knox County
Chris Minor
ReporterAugust 23, 2010
Galesburg, IL – Police investigators and dive teams spent much of Monday in a Knox County lake, following up on a tip in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.
”This is part of the Stacy Peterson investigation”, confirmed Illinois State Police spokesman Tom Burek.” We’re looking for evidence to follow up on a lead’.”
Several divers searched a stretch of shoreline in Lake Storey near Galesburg Monday. The small lake is just off Route 150. Burek says the search was connected to a previous one in Peoria back in June, and Lake Storey on August 3rd.
”The specifics of the lead, I can’t really discuss. It’s the same lead we’ve been working on since late spring”, Burek said after a police briefing on the search Monday in Galesburg.
Stacy Peterson was a 23-year old mother when she went missing in October of 2007.
Her husband, ex-police officer Drew Peterson is awaiting trial in connection with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Stacy Peterson was his fourth.
The Lake Storey search ended about five hours after it began, Burek telling News 8 that ”nothing of significance” was found in or near the lake.
”You don’t always hit a homerun”, Burek said. ”We’re going to stay moving forward with this.”
Also, Peterson appeared in court today for two matters. One was for a status hearing of the State’s appeal of admissible hearsay statements in the Kathleen Savio murder case. No further date was assigned, as Judge White indicated nothing more would happen until the Appellate Court issued its ruling.
The second matter was the pending charges relating to unlawful use of a weapon and possession of a rifle shorter than legal length. During that hearing, testimony was heard by both defense and State witnesses. Among the witnesses were a Bolingbrook sergeant who worked with Drew Peterson on the Swat team, Peterson’s son Steve, Teresa Peterson, and ISP Agent Hardy.
The defense is mounting a Second Amendment argument against the gun charges. The state statute that bans automatic weapons with barrels under a certain length is being challenged on claims that it violates the right to bear arms, following the McDonald v. Chicago ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court that forced the City of Chicago to toss its handgun ban.
Great on-the-scene updates from Joseph Hosey’s Twitter Feed
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email 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>
Justice Café 
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/article_8119891e-af19-11df-a406-0017a4a78c22.html
Didn’t realize that Steve was no longer with the Oak Brook police department. What’s he doing for income these days?
http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=082010&newsid=304
Google map of Lake Storey: http://tinyurl.com/23v3weh
Hi.
I never heard anything about him leaving the Oak Brook P.D. I know the Tribune said he was an Oak Brook police officer at the time of Stacy’s disappearance, and I was surprised to have read that, as though he’s no longer on the p.d. Not sure if that is meant to read he’s no longer a police officer.
Well, there is that small issue of the $200K…
Thank you all so much for the warm welcome back. You all make me proud to be a member here. (And Bucket, special wink for the excellent advice 😉 )
Grateful to all of you for the wonderful information posted here, but most of all for the fact that it is reliable and links are given.
Maybe he’s Mr. Mom now! (Once again, following in his father’s footsteps?)
He is living in his father’s house with his siblings. He’s supposedly in the process of a divorce, or is divorced, I don’t know.
I wouldn’t think, though, it’s a proud moment for him to testify to the fact that he took possession of his father’s guns, after he was told that the “police were coming to search his home and he didn’t want to lose them.”
I think it’s a crappy deal his father dumped his mess on him. But, that’s just my opinion.
Oh, I agree it’s a crappy deal for Steve. Even crappier for his wife.
But, most of all, it’s a crappy deal for those kids.
Just wanted to apologize to those of you who are long-time WordPress members. We are aware it’s a little harder to log in now. If you’ve been logged out and you would like to comment, you need to log back in near the top of the page, on the right where it says:
We wanted to make it easier for people to comment who do not have WordPress accounts, but it’s made it a little more difficult for those who do.
Another farce,,,Steve Peterson is up to his eyeballs in his fathers crap, the more he stirs it, the more it stinks.Steve give it up…for the sake of your brothers and sister.Maybe Steve is the informant…..just my opinion,,,he life is destroyed, thanks to his father.
Steve its time to give it up. Let your father pay for what he has done.He has destroyed your life, dontlet him destroy, Tommy’s Kris’s Anthony and Lacy’s
But Steve could have said, “No”. And maybe this is either the reason or part of the reason he is no longer with Oak Brook PD, if indeed that’s the case. Remember he was reprimanded by the OBPD in 2007for a ‘rude comment’ and for his dress and transportation when testifying at the grand jury-and he did come across today in court as a little smarty pants (to me, anyway, speaking of following in the old man’s footsteps).
Steve’s reprimands are discussed here, but the links cited are no longer active:
http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_s_peterson_files.htm
Sorry, meirish-I posted before I saw your posts. 😦
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/plainfieldsun/news/2629868,4_1_JO24_PETERSON_S1-100824.article
Transcript of his testimony = time travel machine
Small world….;)
my questions this morning are which gun was in the trumpet case, and who has the new nickname, STFU? Joel STFU Brodsky? Why didn’t we think of that!?
It was a suitcase as well as a trumpet case DP had Mims deliver. You could put a lot of evidence in those. Papers, electronic surveillance gear, weapons, money.
From the article above, it sounds like Stephen still is with Oak Brook PD.
In addition to Drew Peterson’s son, who is an Oak Brook police officer, and his daughter-in-law, Monday’s pretrial hearing featured testimony from a state police investigator and four members of the Bolingbrook Police Department, including Chief Kevin McCarthy.
Noway @ #20 – yes, I think the Trib just worded it in a way that gave the impression his employer is different than what it was at the time of Stacy’s disappearance.
I agree, I think Steve knows more than he speaks, even about the abuse Kathleen went thru during the marriage. Drew seems to have him under his wing, and his son seems to protect Drew at all costs. Eric seems to be the only one so far, who opened his eyes, and was smart enough to get away from Drew’s clutches.
In other situations, especially concerning family, and friends what better way to keep someone quiet then to get them to do something, or get them involved with you so you have something to keep them quiet , or black mail them with.
Whatever the reason is, Steve sure seems to be behind his Father no matter no what, at all costs.
I have mixed feelings about Stephen. I wonder why he voluntarily returned the rifle to ISP. Drew did not want it to be seized so what happened? Did Teresa force him to do it or did he notice the gun had a sawed-off rifle and did not want to risk. Sometimes I think he cooperates with ISP.
BTW, I wonder what Stephen’s relation with Eric and his mother, Carol Brown, is like.
And that may well come back to haunt him. Teresa didn’t sign up to be the new Mommy to Drew’s four children and if Drew has manipulated the situation from the jail (who the kids can see, what they do, etc.), I can imagine that she’s fed up.
Now that it seems they’re getting a divorce, I suspect there is a goldmine of information that she will share about the manipulation of those children — by both Drew and Steve.
Hi Q4Y. I guess there’s a couple of ways to look at Drew’s son’s loyalty to his father. So long as the relationship was a good one between them, I could understand how and why their bond was strong enough that there would be no doubt one could depend on the other in some difficult situations. That being said, helping one human being cover up the murder of another just isn’t something many of us could endure. I would certainly hope that’s not the situation. But, I can understand that a devoted son would twist the facts and circumstances in his head to work for him, and continue to maintain a “loving” relationship with his parent.
On the other hand, Drew has an estranged son who couldn’t maintain a relationship between them because of their differences, whatever they were/are. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it, how there could be such differing opinions of a father?
JMO.
You could think Stephen is more a father to Drew now than Drew has ever been a father to Stephen. Someone said before that their relation has never been like between a father and a son but they were more like friends. Crazy.
That is I guess the reason Eric does not feel any respect to Drew. In fact, Drew has always been absent as a father in all his sons’ lives. He has been buying their love with gadets. I feel really sorry for them as they have to pay for it in their future life.
Now this is intriguing. Paperwork is missing? What would that mean? Missing how? I’m surprised there’s not more coming from the lawyers about this, since you would think they’d be jumping on this. On the other hand, guess it cuts both ways. Peterson was a watch supervisor, and worked inside at times. Maybe he had access to the paperwork too. IDK, but I would think his lawyers would get to the root of that revelation.
CNN
In Session
August 24, 2010
I wonder why Ray McGury did not testify in regard to the shortned barrell and the missing documents on police guns.
Could you help me to find the copy of Drew’s permission for this unfortunate rifle? I cannot find the link anywhere but can remember such a piece of document was shown by Brodsky.
Cyrhla, did you mean this document?
I guess the paperwork in question has part to do with things like range qualifications, administrative stuff, things of that nature. Which, I assume, would also include receipts for that particular weapon, permission to carry it as part of the job. Still, I’m not privy to what else this all refers to, and I think it is paperwork than spans years, but I believe Peterson was one that kept copies of everything. In that regard, if there is something that is as important to his case as they’d wish it or like it to be, I would think he’d have copies of that and other important paperwork. Even if it is not part of the BB PD file. Especially if it had to do with carrying a weapon that was outside of the permitted barrel length, size, etc. After all, this is a man that kept alibi receipts in a folder to back up his whereabouts during the weekend he had the Peterson boys and Kathleen died.
If he says there is a paper trail of evidence that backs up his claims, then one would think he has what he needs to help his case and clear this up in court.
I think it’s great the Illinois Attorney General’s office is involved again. No messing around.
Thanks a lot, facs. That is what I was looking for. 🙂
That’s the document that Joel Brodsky FAXed to Pauly to be shown on his blog. You can always tell them by the blue line running down the middle.
Yes, they are.
So that document is dated 5/14/2005. Does anyone know the date of when the photo of Stacy and Cassandra was taken with the weapon? All this document shows is that he was permitted to use the weapon – but it doesn’t indicate whether or not the weapon was modified in any way. So maybe this approval was before it was modified.
I still think I remember Brodsky talking on one of the shows saying something about when Drew had it altered or exactly what he had altered besides the barrel. Does anyone else remember that or have a link handy?
LOL Facs.
The document doesn’t really work as evidence for him because it can be established that he changed the barrel, and the piece of paper doesn’t describe or confirm one way or another the barrel length at the time it was written down there. I wonder if it would be possible for him to change the barrels back and forth.
I agree with you, rescue. With Drew’s tendency to collect all alibi-providing receipts and old wills, it would be something strange of him not having any permit for a sawed-off rifle if such one had ever been issued to him.
He would not have had any reason to conceal the rifle if it had been legal.
I still find it strange that Stephen transferred the rifle directly to Hardy. I wonder if he/or Drew called him or Hardy was assigned to Stacy’s case from the very beginning. Sorry, but something stinks here (IMO).
TAI and Bucket, agree with you you 100%. All it shows is that at one point the private AR-15 was approved for use on the job. No idea if this was pre- or post-modifications.
Would that be useful in a forensic ballistics kind of a way?
I hate to be the one to point it out, but the photo of the sisters with the rifles would appear to be taken prior to Stacy’s breast augmentation surgery. So, if anyone knows when that took place it might be pertinent.
And the photo of him in uniform (with John Travolta in 2000) shows the weapon over his shoulder but you cannot see the whole barrel to see if it was modified then or not. So that doesn’t prove the department permitted him to use a modified weapon either.
Link to photo: http://www.thepublicityagency.com/images/Drew-Travolta%20AR15.jpg
I suppose the prosecutors checked when the picture was taken and that it was after 2005. Otherwise they would not use it as evidence I guess.
The rifle still looks like it has a longer barrel on the picture with Stacy and Cassandra. And I cannot look at that picture without looking at Stacy’s face and it seems like she didn’t really want to take the photo. She looks so empty. Can you imagine how much it would kill Drew if this photo is a piece of evidence that helps a jury convict him on the gun charges?
I guess the thing that strikes me is that there doesn’t seem to be any cohesive defense here. Take a look at the WGN video above if you haven’t yet. Greenberg hauls out Vindictive Prosecution and the 2nd amendment, while Joel is still saying that Drew was allowed to carry the gun under LEOSA.
Geez, boys, what is it going to be?
Which ever one sticks?
Isn’t this how they got into trouble with the HELOC suit? They made so many arguments that eventually they were arguing against themselves. All Chase had to do was point out every contradiction in their briefs. The defense look like buffoons!
I’m thinking it’s time to pour a fountain drink and get a big bag of popcorn.
Can we have a little bit of butter on it??
I wouldn’t have it any other way. 🙂
To be honest with you, looking at the picture of Stacy, and Cass, it looks like neither of them were to happy taking that photo. They both have a blank, ticked off look to them. Although, maybe that was the look they were looking for lol.
As for the gun, I am trying to remember cause I didn’t pay to much attention about it, other than I wanted to see him get locked up for something so he couldn’t terrorize anyone else. But, didn’t he buy that gun from someone other than the police department itself? I could of swore I heard something about that? Then they allowed him to use it as a secondary weapon?
I believe the reason Steve turned in this gun (and if I read this correctly, this gun only) is that BBPD knew about it and knew it was missing. Unlike a personal weapon, which may have been unknown to anyone, this was the weapon Drew used on the job so it would have been well known. IMO, when it didn’t show up in the inventory of the LE-confiscated guns, they went looking for it. Whoopsies. And why did Steve not turn over the other ‘one or two’ that Drew gave to him?
Sorry, folks, but a gun enthusiast would have been able to describe and define in great detail exactly what guns were given to him, and exactlyhow many. This “one or two” and the “time machine” rub me the wrong way, big time.
I don’t think Steve turned over that one gun out of the goodness of his heart, and it really really makes me wonder what else he is hiding. Now I feel sad. I was hoping the kids were in good hands. Unfortunately, my rose-colored glasses have been removed.
#47, #48 & #49. Make sure it’s the largest bag you can get. Extra butter.
When I was reading acandyrose.com last night, http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_s_peterson_files.htm
Ric Mims was speaking of the checks that Drew had made out to Steve.
According to Ric, ” “I watched Drew write a check for a little over $200,000 from a home equity line…”
I’m confused-had Drew already received a HELOC and is now wanting another one, or was Ric incorrect, or what?
Cheryl, Drew did take the money out from the HELOC and then, on the advice of his lawyer, put it back in.
When he later wanted to draw on it, he had been arrested and detained and at that point, Chase said no.
This is how Joel Brodsky explained the money that was taken out and then returned:
#53 Cheryl, I guess the check was supposed to be used in case Drew would get arrested for a bail. As he wasn’t arrested, it was not used.
Then, when Drew needed money and wanted to make use of the equity line, his ‘account’ was blocked.
Brodsky’s explanation from post #55 is not convincing enough for me. LOL
C, I believe yours is a much more factual explanation of events than what Joel described. 😉
I believe he put the money back in when he was told that it made him look guilty to be withdrawing large sums and transferring them. JMO.
Thanks for the clarification. So in the meantime, Chase made it unavailable, due to Drew’s incarceration. Right? He and Stacy had already applied for it, is that right? Or is this something that is just there for the taking, if needed? Didn’t there have to be approval by Chase? Sorry. These are the last questions on this, I promise.
Brodsky’s brain seems to work from time to time. 😉
The line of credit was issued in 2005 and both Stacy or Drew could withdraw funds.
Chase didn’t make it unavailable until Drew tried to to draw on it after his arrest and during his detainment in May 2009. At that point, they denied his request and gave the reason as “imprisonment” which they said constituted a ” supposed significant and factually sound “material change” in his “financial condition”.
Here’s the original complaint if you want to read it:
Well here is something i just got to share in court yesterday BOOBSKI was just being him self he was standing up to object something when to judge told him to sit down that was number one. number two his partner in crime GREENBERG was arguing something when BOOBSKI was tring to tell him something and GREENBERG told BOOBSKI to shut up ILMAO when he told BOOBSKI that.
I was also wondering about the illegal weapon, If he was retired form the police dept. that would make him a regular citizen wright? if so why isn’t a federal weapon charge? If I got caught with a illegal weapon thay might lock me up and give me a long jail term but i guess once again the law is plaing favories and my name isn’t Drew Peatersom I guess. If I am wrong someone let me know
Heh, Theo. Joe Hosey tweeted that Greenberg told Brodsky to ST“F”U! Now that’s nice courtroom etiquette.
Still I’m glad someone said it.
Ugh. Too many egos for that group. Wonder how that’s all going to play out?
I would have paid money to see Greenberg tell brodsky to STFU. What a circus. What clowns!
Just to chime in with my two cents worth about Steve Peterson, I have not trusted him from the get-go. He seems very snakey and too much like his father. I wouldn’t be surprised if he knows exactly what happened to Stacy. I also share the hope that now his wife is estranged from him that she may be forthcoming with some information. Maybe SHE is the informant?
Has anyone ever raised the question as to what Drew Peterson was wearing the day Stacy disappeared? Did he change his clothes? Were any of his clothes tested? Did anyone see Stacy that day with a Red Jogging suit or is Drew the only person that day that saw Stacy at all, including Sharon, and the kids? Clearly seeing that he’s the only person ever suspected, that should be a red flag… I see blood written all over his clothes.
As far as I know, Drew Peterson is the only person who claims to have seen Stacy on the morning of October 28, 2007.
I am afraid Drew’s clothes – if ever – have been tested too late. This is just my personal opinion but I think as some of the same ISP agents investigating Kathleen’s death (i.e. Collins and Hardy) were at least initially assigned to Stacy’s case, some of the evidence could have never been gather. IMO again, Drew was given enough time to get rid of any evidence. As we can all remember during the search warrant he concealed his folding gun by attaching it to his leg and left the house without any problems.
I will never understand why there must have been 4 search warrants instead of one involving all his property and why they were not issued earlier.
And that may be “true”, but the kids did say that Stacy went to the grandfathers… so did they get that from DREW or did Stacy actually confirm it?
More importantly, we need to get back to the question of what Drew was wearing the day of, and if he ever changed. Either way, where are those clothes, and were they ever tested? Why did we not ever hear about this being an issue? He was a suspect within 24 hours of her missing; this should have been extremely urgent, and (hopefully) not overlooked.
ISP agent
HardyHarsy is very much a direct link to Stacy Petersons case, to date.MOD EDIT/ Corrected name of officer.
Stacy did not confirm it. Her last conversation was to Bruze Z. that day. She told him that she felt lazy and didn’t think that she was going to make the date to paint Yelton’s house. There was no mention of her grandfather.
Not sure how this could possibly come into evidence. Drew was not officially considered a suspect until several days after Stacy was reported as missing by her sister (November 9, 2007 – twelve days later). Peterson would have had ample time to launder whatever clothes he was wearing before that time.
Herbert Hardy testified on behalf of the ISP in Kathleen’s death inquest. He also accepted the AR-15 from Stephen Peterson when it was turned over to authorities. Can you give more detail as to how exactly he is linked to the case of Stacy Peterson?
BTW, as a new poster you are welcome but please take the time to read over the rules of commenting for the blog. Assertions should be backed up with a link, otherwise should be stated as opinion. Opinion is fine, just make sure to state it as such.
As far as the red jogging suit is concerned, according to Stacy’s sister, Stacy didn’t possess such a thing. Funny, though, that that is what Lisa Stebic was wearing when she went “missing”.
Gee, folks, the questions regarding what Drew was wearing when Stacy disappeared is, indeed, interesting, but there has been no questionable activities against the ISP, or any other agency yet, AFAIK, regarding the Stacy Peterson investigation.
Cyrhla, with all due respect, unless you have inside information, why are you “afraid” things were done too late, if at all? I mean, isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? Do you have actual knowledge that LE doesn’t have the things you are referring to? IMO, I think it is wild speculation to assume the house of cards has come crashing down on the Stacy Peterson investigation when, in reality, he hasn’t even been charged or cleared of circumstances surrounding her disappearance.
Why would they have charged Drew Peterson yet for Stacy’s disappearance and presumed death? Isn’t it logical that they would continue to search for her remains and take in leads, etc., while he’s sitting in detention, awaiting the trial for the murder of Kathleen? In that regard, who is to say what or what not evidence they are holding?
Just saying – why create a firestorm of speculation and wild theory when there’s nothing to base it on?
I almost hate putting this on the blog because, personally, I think Sneed pulls half of what she writes out of her butt. JMHO. Nonetheless, it is placed here for others to form their own opinions.
One of her previous columns referred to “Tommy” as being very close to his father, and having graduated from high school at the top of his class. “Tommy,” AAMOF, is just beginning his senior year in high school.
***************
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2634360,CST-NWS-SNEED25.article
I, or anyone else, for that matter, could have made that statement and been called her “source.” Hell, Brodsky could have said it, or Maksym. I’m just saying, it doesn’t prove one way or the other that this “source” is involved in the actual search. Only that the source opinionates on the recent searches and thinks they’re wild goose chases (which they may very well be).
Rescue, I meant Drew’s property was searched too late because the first one took place 3 days after Cass fillled a missing person report. It took another day to search the swimming pool area and the motorhome.
As I said above, this is my personal opinion and in Cassandra’s shoes I would have lost my mind. She did not fill an odrinary missing person report at the local police station but she must have gone higher and she clearly stated to the police she strongly believed Stacy had been killed by Drew; that is why I would expect the police to act faster.
The other thing I find really strange is that two of the ISP agents formerly running Kathleen’s case appeared here from the very beginning. That was the same agent, Patrick Collins, who asked the judge for the first search warrant so he must have been assigned to Stacy’s case from the beginning. That was the same Herber Hardy who lied at the coroner’s inquest who then picked up the rifle from Stephen. Are there only these two agents working for ISP? I would look for excuses for these two men if I had not read what they testified about Kathleen’s case (then and now).
What a coincidence! How not to get suspicious? To me it looks as if the story was planned to end as Kathleen’s case did in 2004. IMO.
Aren’t you personally surprised, rescue, that the same two key persons in Kathleen’s case came up here again?
Well, Cyrhla, I’m not sure what you mean by Herbert Hardy “lied” at Kathleen’s inquest. To my knowledge, he was conveying “facts” as they were told to him. So I have a clearer picture from you as to what you mean by “lied,” what lies did he tell? I agree that it was stupid to send an ISP agent to testify at an inquest where the agent didn’t even attend the autopsy, but, again, I am curious to know what, in particular you think he personally lied about.
Patrick Collins, you say, asked the judge for the first search warrant. If you say so, I trust your information. Do you think it is possible that, once it came to his head Peterson had yet another wife involved in mysterious circumstances, he figured out that this was a little too strange to be considered coincidental? I’m certainly not trying to defend his handling of Kathleen’s case. In fact, it sucked. But, I think that the Stacy Peterson disappearance cleared the cobwebs in his head and he started thinking like he should have in the first place.
Heck, Cyrhla, maybe you are 100% right, maybe not. But, with all due respect, you are speculating and not referencing anything that shows you have a basis to make these assumptions. It’s not a “coincidence” that two prior ISP officers were assigned to the Stacy Peterson disappearance, since this is the district/area they are assigned to, and, if you recall, Kathleen’s death had still been classified as an accident, not a murder. Once the facts started to be uncovered, it appears LE moved quickly, along with the SA’s office, in securing permission to exhume Kathleen’s body to review her death, and search warrants started to be requested and issued.
Again, what information is available that indicates no credible or valuable evidence is not in the hands of the officials in which to charge and prosecute Peterson in the future for the disappearance and murder of Stacy?
I have to agree that it seemed they waited too long to search the house and cars, for whatever reason, and I have to agree that it smells as if more than incompetence was at play. There is so much that appears peculiar and with a wild cast from a mayor who maintains a second office in the golf club to smirking Collins They’re only my opinions, but there you are. I also have my doubts about Steve Peterson. I can’t help forming opinions based on what I know, even if I don’t know it all, but I’m certainly not saying I have any inside information. Just suffering from the stink around the place.
I’d just like to say that it ay be unfair to say that Steve P’s wife would leave him over responsibility for the children. She is a new mom and he may not exactly be helpful around the place, but I think it’s more likely to be Drew related, even if not directly, than the kids.
Rescue, just some excerpts from the coroner’s jury. Hardy said: “I was a part of the investigative team, yes.”. He said he was familiar with the whole investigation though the fact is he had never been present at the crime scene. He said he and agent Girten had canvased the area and talked to many people in the neighbourhood. “We spoke to all the neighbours in the general vicinity” (p.21). He lied about waiting for phone records.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2541366,CST-NWS-SNEED28.article
As I referenced a prior Sneed column in which she pulled her info out of someone else’s butt, I thought I’d repost it.
I did email Sneed to point out this error, and she responded by merely asking me if I thought the information about him being in the NHS was inaccurate as well. (Puzzling question, but I assumed she was going to follow up on the column’s info and correct it, which she did NOT.)
So, while her source in today’s column may very well be providing her with what she’s printed as accurate information, I’m just pointing out something that makes me wonder if she even bothers to get it right before she prints it.
Not to mention I question her attempts at providing useful information after the two-part Drew Peterson self-pity letter she is responsible for disseminating.
What I mean is that no one signs up for these little surprises in life, but most accept it and get on with it. They are adorable children and Theresa may be a very sensitive, caring woman, but a first child and then suddenly more responsibility and surrounded by the Peterson madness…well, people have limits to what they can endure for however long.
Well, Cyrhla, I think what I see here is mincing words, but you certainly have a right to your opinion. It’s just that it is best to provide references when accusing someone of being a liar, or accusing them as being part of a cover-up of some kind.
Otherwise, as I said, we can agree that we disagree on some aspects.
The Sneed report does not impress. Perhaps one of us should send her an anonymous tip and see what happens. LOL
If we let Hardy off the hook for merely *exaggerating* the number of neighbours he interviewed,I vote that waiting for the phone records was a lie. They were never requested, as uncovered by Mark Fuhrman.
In regard to Pat Collins:
http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_search_warrant103107.htm
“On this day, Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, Complainant-Affiant Sergeant Patrick Coliins of the Illinois State Police has signed and sworn to a complaint for search warrant before me.”
——-
My crystal ball is out of order now and I do not know what evidence the ISP collected but if it was taken after three days, taking under consideration that Drew managed to perfectly clean his kitchen during only one night and get rid of the part of his arsenal, it was (IMO) much too late. I wonder if anyone (as I hoped) followed him on those days. I guess if they had really done it and checked what means of transport Drew used, Stacy’s body (or some of the evidence) might have been already found.
With full respect to all the other investigators involved in Stacy’s and Kathleen’s case who put a lot of effort to investigate the case.
LOL
Yeah, like we heard from a “source” that he secretly wears a thong under his prison uniform, pink, no less, and refuses to take it off himself during strip searches.
🙂
Let’s leave it alone, rescue. I just wanted to show the sources I am basing my personal opinion on. I can accept that it may be interpreted in different way.
Just wait. If he was able to sneak 10 pages to the outside, I guess we should be prepared for his book soon. That was just a test. LOL.
Ha, ha. Well, let Sneed buy his book. Maksym will bring the cookies to eat while they all sit around and critique it.
I do have to read the rules here, that’s for sure. I know it’s difficult sometimes to allow a new person to enter a great conversation that is held here, and I joined because I have much to offer.
For example. Not sure what link you want me to create. I was on the phone with Hardy myself just yesterday in regard to the Peterson case. I hope that’s enough proof.
I am here for one reason and one reason only. To Find Stacy Peterson.
Gia, That’s interesting. What information did Herbert Hardy share with you?
He doesn’t share information facs… I do. He listens.
Has the question ever risen why Drew Peterson has not allowed the 2 Savio children to see or speak to the Savio’s? And why the Cales are not allowed to see or hear or speak to the Cales?
I’m sure we’ve all heard Drew’s poor excuse of Cassandra and her driving… But all 4 children are not allowed to see any family members outside of Drew’s immediate family.
The only logical answer to me (you couldn’t convince me otherwise) is that Drew has something to hide?? Young children talk?
I wrote earlier inquiring about Stacy the day she “disappeared” (I like to call this Drew’s Disappearing Act) – To be more clear… she was at that house alive until at least 10:15 A.M. – With that said… All 4 kids were home and so was Drew. Did she leave and the kids didn’t see her? Are the kids statements not public? … How did Stacy walk out of that house and no one saw her leave but Drew? Mom’s leave the house, and they say bye to their kids, with hugs and kisses… Except Stacy?
Gia, you’re writing a book aren’t you?
No offense, Gia, and you may not have been reading here long enough to be aware, but we like to stick with established facts on our blog (to the extent that we can).
We’ve asked in the past that discussions of a pyschic nature not take place here since they tend to polarize people and can’t be backed up with anything other than opinion.
There are other Peterson case forums that have entire threads devoted to psychic discussion. You might do better to take any psychic discussion to those forums.
Thank you for inquiring… I would love be be personal with my writings… My book is of my writings, not to be public.
Hello my name is Gia – I’m sorry that I did not come out and introduce myself; I simply wanted to stay with the flow of the conversation. I want to be clear that I am proposing questions. It’s important that questions are raised to help me understand what I may or may not have seen on your website, or entertain thoughts that I feel are truly important to the nature of the day of her disappearance. I truly feel that things were missed that day, or things that may “seem” as though they were missed, but not exactly – Why I am questioned of who I am or my intentions, I’m not sure… I am trying to stick to facts, so questions I ask are simply to get to the truth… I don’t want to seem like I’m here for any other reason that to find Stacy… I have written, and I have written alot… by my writings are of my visions, and my visions are being brought to raise these questions. I don’t and will not explain what I see, because that is not why I am here..
These clothes that Drew wore that day would be important. When you think about the facts… know that even if he washed these clothes and put them away, may still have blood evidence, which is why I raised this question about the clothes.
Gia, you are free to read and research the blog as much as you like to find the answers to your questions, but out of fairness to our commenters, we request that you not enlist them as your unpaid researchers while you work on your book.
At this point, most of your questions have been speculative in nature and the answers beyond the knowledge of anyone who is not personally involved in the investigation (or Drew Peterson himself). So although the questioning itself may be useful to yourself as a mental exercise or an aid to your pyschic process, it doesn’t contribute to our discussion. We ask that you respect the other participants and refrain from cluttering the threads with questions that can not possibly be answered here.
Thanks.
It’s been pointed out to me that in Fatal Vows Hosey writes:
So, that would date the pic of Stacy and Cassandra with the AR-15 as being taken prior to January 2005 (and probably more than 6 months prior since she isn’t visibly pregnant in that picture).
Which really just means that the alterations to the rifle were done at some point after mid-2004. The memo we have saying that the gun was OK’d for use by the BBPD is from May of 2005 but still no way of telling from that if the gun had been altered at that point or not.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I am confused as to why a close source to the investigation, if that is even the case, must report his opinions and/or findings to Sneed, a gossip columnist, rather than Sgt. Burek holding an official press conference and just admitting that this part of their investigation is over and that’s that.
I mean, puleeze, is Sgt. Burek going to be tarred and feathered if he issues a press release that says the investigation did not lead to a favorable conclusion, and we will continue to follow through on any other leads that we feel are credible or worth investigating?
We need Sneed to snitch?
Bah!
Sneed to snitch. Say that 3x fast. Take a picture while you’re doing it. Post the link. We all need a break from the insanity.
Gia, I would like to aks you why you called Herbert Hardy not another investigator?
BTW, the questions you asked are really important. I know ISP investigators are reading this site and are aware of them as we have been asking them from the very beginning (both connected to the children not seeing their close family and all the circumstances surrounding the case). Difficult to guess what they do with it further on. I am trying to stay optimistic.
Anyway, I am also concerned about all these things as the same questions will be asked during the trial and if the evidence had not been collected in a proper way, it will be much easier for the defense to win the case. Let’s hope everything was done properly.
As for the facts: the only thing we know for sure is that Drew was wearing his black jumper with a hood on Sunday afternoon/evening. We also know that he cleaned the kitchen and removed a few things from there before Sharon visited him on Monday morning. Then he rearranged the bedroom and removed a night table from there. ISP collected the bedlines.
Again, I have a book of my writings, and I am not trying to make a public source of it.
cyrhla – I spoke to Harsy, not Hardy. I just wanted to clear that up. Sorry for the confusion.
LOL!
Oooops…Seems strange that if swapping the barrel out for a shorter one is a simple procedure and can be done quick and easy in a matter of minutes, DP would have changed it back to its legal condition before giving it to his police officer son to hide.
Why is my B.S. Detector going off so crazy again?
Susan Murphy Milano has another blog post up today about Stacy/Kathleen:
Exclusive War Coverage: The Murders of Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio
Joy, are you saying that you don’t think it’s easy to swap out a rifle barrel?
No, I’m saying my B.S. Detector is flashing #93, #94, #95 & #107 in the digital screen.
I find that odd as well Judgin. If it only takes a couple minutes to swap out, why did he leave it that way? I don’t think if you shorten the gun barrell you can put it back. They usually have to cut it, make it shorter. Kind of like a sawed off shot gun. I can see a part to make it longer, but make it shorter? If he did have a part to make it longer, why wasn’t it on there? Something doesn’t jive about that story at all. You can’t just make the barrell shorter without cutting it, unless you had an extension put on to begin with then it usually comes apart like they are saying above. Either way, it shouldn’t of been illegally short to begin with, or allowed to be made that way by removing a part.
I agree with that also!!
My hubby is my go-to guy for all things firearms. This is his explanation-
Federal Law:
An AR-15 has an upper receiver and a lower receiver. The lower receiver has the serial # on it, and that makes the lower receiver the actual ‘gun’. You can buy upper receivers >16″ all day long w/out any permits, because that is not considered a firearm.
Now-there are 2 pins that connect the upper reciever and the lower receiver. These can just be pressed right out w/your thumb to change the upper receiver. (Thus the easy changeover).
But-you may own an upper receiver under 16″ only with a Federal Tax Stamp, issued and approved only by the ATF. The price for this stamp is a flat $200. If you are LE, you may avoid the $200 fee by having your chief LE entity write a letter on department letterhead stating that you are LE and have the department’s permission to buy this shorter receiver. At the end of your career, or if you change agencies, you either have to pay the $200 through the ATF w/their approval, or you must return the short receiver. You are not allowed to keep it otherwise.
In any case, there will be a paper trail, not only through the LE department, but the company who sold it, and the ATF as well.
Here’s a link that covers a lot of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_barreled_rifle
Great info on the rifle barrel, Cheryl. Thank you.
Thank you Cheryl.
Further information on the AR-15 rifle is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_Rifle
Interesting stuff. Where is Drew’s paper trail?
Great research, Cheryl. Yes, expect to see the paper trail.
Oh, I get it… SP is going to come up with the paperwork from BBPD for this modified weapon he tried to hide with his police officer son. Yeah, it’s in that red folder labeled ‘Alibi’.
LOL, judgin. I have to laugh every time I see that term “Alibi” because that’s the name of a night club here. (Not to be confused with the one that burned down, called “It Again”. I always imagined some spouse calling and saying “Are you at it again?”)LOL
I’ve passed all of these comments on to hubby. It’s nice to be able to contribute.
Sure is good to have him contribute! 🙂
Thanks, cheryl. Great info.
LOL at the red folder, judgin.
Knowing the story with the power of attorney and the will, I would not be surprised if he actually came up with such documentation. ;).
Peterson’s former partner Alex Morelli testified that a number of officers had changed their gun barrels. “to make them more efficient” with the police chief’s permission.
I guess he did not mean oral permission.LOL
Wow, CherylJ. That gun information is fascinating…I hope you didn’t pull any stitches! Yessir, surprising NOT that DP’s records are “missing”. Be sure and tell your husband that we all think he’s terribly smart! (and handsome, if you like) LOL
Oh yeeeesss, the same Peterson’s former partner, Alex Morelli, who also testified to the authenticity of the Savio Will. and we all know how well that worked. I guess Morelli also has one of them AR-15’a too.
I read something saying that the primary reason for shortening the barrel would be to make the gun more easily concealable. Maybe that is why Joel keeps bringing up a LEOSA defense since it permits LE officers to carry concealed weapons.
It seems like a bit of a jump, though.
Oh, Bucket! Let’s not go hubby overboard, here. I think conveying appreciation for his input is plenty. After all, I do have to live with him. LOL!
Now-for the 2nd chapter…Hubby says if Drewpy had a 20″ AR 15, (and they do make them…16″, 20″ and 24″)he could have cut it down himself and missed it just enough to get himself into trouble. So if he didn’t have permission from his police chief, and permission from ATF prior to doing the cutting then it’s Drew’s bad.
BTW…Hubby says there are an awful lot of geegaws sticking in and out of an AR 15 to make any length easy to conceal. 😉
That IS the thing here. There is always a defense to the charge against Peterson, but what is it going to be? Is it, once again, going to be a division in the way the lawyers approach the defense, as it was with Lenard/Abood vs. Brodsky? It wouldn’t seem to be encouraging to the defendant to have seen one of his defense counsel telling the other, while questioning a witness, to STFU. It is mind boggling what goes on with the internal workings of this defense, and hard to imagine that they’ll all wind up on the same page one day.
One particular lawyer wouldn’t even sit with the others during a recent hearing. One tells the lead attorney to STFU loud enough for the onlookers to hear. Another has split the partnership with the lead attorney. Two attorneys have left the case.
WTH is going on with them? What difference does it make if the weapons charge against Drew is winnable or should be ruled on in his favor? His defense can’t even get along with each other long enough to figure out what their plan of action is.
LMAO.
You are right, cheryl, about the range of accessories. You can find all the instructions how to modify it in the following link LOL.
http://www.ar15pro.com/
The rifle was shorter than allowed 16″ by 5″ so I guess Peterson did not make any mistake while sawing-off the barrel. If he wanted to get rid of any traces of its use, cutting off the barrel was the only way out for him (except from saying he had lost it during John Travolta’s visit).
I meant “The barrel was shorter than allowed 16″ by 5″
I don’t think it was actually sawed off. He replaced one barrel for another.
You didn’t mean that literally did you? Am a little slow.lol
You are right, bucket. He could have simply changed the barrell for a shorter one. I took it a priori that modified meant sawed-off. In fact, they offer those barrels in 10 1/2, 14 1/2, and 16 inches so if they say it was 5″ shorter, it could have been replaced for 10 1/2. Sorry. My fault ;(.
Another important question…
What about AFTER the police officer retires?
Is/was special licensing/written permission still required for a ‘retired P.O.’ to carry a concealed weapon? … Or own that ‘modified AR-15’? … or clandestinely transfer ‘possession’ of that ‘modified AR-15’? This issue was an issue in the police news not too long ago and before the Chicago gun ban was declared unconstitutional.
Should anyone be taking seriously the notion that a retired PO needs to carry an illegal assault rifle?
It appears as if a retired officer can be covered by LEOSA but they need to be certified with their former department in order for that to be the case. It also looks as if that certification varies by State. There are a number of downloadable forms available on the Internet (google “LEOSA” +”retired”). No idea if Peterson was certified. Maybe I knew once…long ago…
But yes, Bucket, that’s the real question isn’t it? Why indeed.
If I’m not mistaken, Drewpy became “retired” very quickly — within a day or two of Stacy’s disappearance. He was due to retire in a few weeks, but moved the date up a bit when he found himself the Stay-At-Home-Dad.
NOT trying to give Drewpy any benefit of the doubt here, but I doubt he’d have time to get certified between the time he retired and when they confiscated his rifle.
That’s true and my point, Bucket.. Bingo Facs,
This issue is also something that a retiring P.O. must deal with when ending his career with his municipal employer. IIRC, I believe there was an issue with DP turning over his ‘equipment’ back to BB upon his retirement.
IIRC, Drewpy was also under investigation by his Chief at that particular time, too.
Oh if only his early resignation had to do with his children. As I recall, Drew rushed into his retirement when he realized he was being investigated for misuse of LE databases (the same offense his son was later charged with). Drew stood to completely lose his pension if he didn’t head off the investigation by ceasing his employment ahead of schedule.
November 22, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312546,00.html
facs, I hate getting old. I am thinking that this misconduct charge was a second thing he was being investigated for —- wasn’t there something that he was under suspicion for BEFORE Stacy disappeared that the Chief was very circumspect about?
I can’t remember the details, but I seem to remember that he was already under some cloud with the Chief and this checking out the database thing was just one more thing they were going to look into.
But I could certainly just be getting old….
Hmmm, Peterson was charged with some awful offenses well before Stacy disappeared. Are you possibly thinking of those?
http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_bindy_rock_files.htm
Yes, “several crimes.” I believe the Chief had been investigating him before Stacy disappeared. Using the database was just icing on the cake.
Judgin @#136
Illinois Retired Officer Concealed Carry (IROCC) Program
Under the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act” (HR-218) qualified active and retired law enforcement officers are permitted to carry concealed handguns nationwide. The law amends the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) to exempt qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms.
In accordance with the Federal Act, Illinois passed Public Act 94-103 (2005) that provides for the annual certification of retired law enforcement officers qualified under federal law to carry a concealed weapon.
http://www.irocc.org/
Regarding the Bindy Rock stuff, he had been charged 20 years earlier and the charges subsequently dropped. I don’t know of any investigations going on at the time Stacy disappeared, but I guess that is possible.
rescueapet @ #147
Thank you Rescue.
I guess I know what you are talking about, granny. Peterson was being investigated not only for improper use of the police database but also for selling such information.
I wonder why the investigation was not continued after Peterson retired.
Bolingbrook’s Police and Fire Commission accepted Drew’s resignation having no basis not to do so but I guess it was the decission that could have been changed if the department prooved Drew violated the policies. Drew’s police carreer was not so perfect as it is being presented by the defense. I think it is an important issue as courts take under consideration things like that. Formally Drew seems to have been a good police officer.
I think there was also a car chase Drew was in trouble for as well.
“Drew Peterson, 53, now suspended from his duties without pay, pending an investigation, is a prime suspect in her disappearance. The investigation is for an unrelated incident. It appears Illinois has a no-chase law. Peterson got in a chase that exceeded 100 miles per hour, and the other vehicle was involved in a crash putting the department in jeopardy for possible law suits.”
http://www.jurorthirteen.com/StacyPeterson/tabid/1202/Default.aspx
Thanks, bucket. That is new to me.
And the link to the article about selling database records
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=5817217
That is the same allegation that sources say Drew Peterson is facing in Bolingbrook – the sale of criminal records.
While I was looking around for the car chase, I came across this that I hadn’t read before:
TOWN OFFICIALS TAKE AIM AT PUB’S LIQUOR LICENSE [FOX VALLEY, DF Edition]
Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) – Chicago, Ill. Author: Hal Dardick, Date: Jul 11, 1996,
Section: METRO DU PAGE, Text Word Count: 241
“Village Atty. James R. Edwards has recommended revocation of the liquor license for Suds Pub, where a bartender allegedly awarded free drinks to a patron for winning at a video card-game machine. Mayor Gary Pregel, in his capacity as city liquor commissioner, recently found that Suds Pub proprietors violated the liquor code in three instances.
The alleged violation involving the video game occurred on Aug. 23, 1993. Pregel also ruled that Suds violated the liquor ordinance by not reporting an Oct. 25 alleged fight to police and by allegedly serving drinks to a 20-year-old on Jan. 10. But Suds owner Drew Peterson said that no one ever has been given free drinks for winning at the bar’s video games and that the bartender reported the Oct. 25 fight after he broke it up, but not soon enough to satisfy village police. He admitted that a minor was served on Jan. 10, but said the penalty for that should be minor. “(The bartender) screwed up, and subsequently she was terminated,” said Peterson.
Peterson said the previous mayor issued Suds a commendation for not getting caught in a Police Department sting in which police sent minors in bars asking to be served. Pregel said he would decide by Friday what action to take against Suds. Penalties could range from a fine to revocation of the liquor license. The bar can delay implementation of any penalty by appealing to the state Liquor Control Commission.”
http://www.acandyrose.com/drew_peterson_suds_pub.htm
Well, just fancy that. A bar owned by a BBpoliceman escapes trap set by BBpolice. and the mayor commends same!
I guess it was Montgomery police department’s trap, not of Boligbrook. Anyway, I still find it funny :).
Subsequently, Village President Gary Pregel, in his capacity as Montgomery liquor commissioner, has ordered a three-week suspension of the liquor license for Suds Pub.
http://casehelpers.6.forumer.com/a/drew-peterson-background-info-archive_post985.html
Oops my bad, but still. Extra commendation for not breaking the law? Sounds like Drew-BS.
That must have been something special for Drew. LOL
Someone let me know that the Third Appellate Court finally put up a PDF schedule for upcoming oral arguments:
3rd District Appellate Court Oral Argument Calendar
AUGUST 31, SEPTEMBER 1 & 2 COURT CALL
No mention of Drew Peterson.
Click to access 09-10.pdf
From:
http://www.state.il.us/court/AppellateCourt/OralCal/3rd_Dist.asp
The hold-out juror at Blago’s trial says that her inability to convict had nothing to do with pre-trial publicity. Are you listening, Joel Brodsky?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-blagojevich-jury-20100827,0,1393639.story
New post up.
https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/petersons-cop-son-suspended/