Stacy's sister, Cassandra Cales and Pam Bosco, family spokesperson
Drew Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, has followed up the airing of the Lifetime movie, Drew Peterson Untouchable, with a series of media appearances. Considering the record-breaking views the movie got, the intent of these interviews would appear to be damage control. Brodsky has been quick to describe the movie as inaccurate, laughable and possible grounds for requesting a change of venue when it comes time for Peterson’s murder trial.
Something that Brodsky has mentioned repeatedly (ostensibly to strengthen his case) is that the family of Stacy Peterson has also called it inaccurate. He’s even taken to his Facebook page to crow that “Stacy Peterson’s family and friends state that the made for TV movie “Drew Peterson: Untouchable” is misleading and inaccurate.”
While it’s true that the family has complained about discrepencies, and didn’t like the idea of the movie being made, one would be very wrong to assume that means they are in any kind of agreement with Joel Brodsky because that is far from the truth.
In a recent interview with Amy Jacobson, family spokesperson, Pamela Bosco detailed what she and Stacy’s sister, Cassandra Cales, felt Untouchable did not portray accurately. Besides the typical complaints about a movie adaptation; timeline discrepancies, the flora and fauna of a location, etc. their complaints appeared to be more that the movie didn’t do enough to convey the actual horror that a family deals with when a loved one goes missing and fear that she has been murdered.
The Television incident:
“There was a damaged TV but it was not…Cassandra was not told it was because of what happened in that scene. Things like that we would have never known happened because we weren’t told them. We didn’t experience that. Some things were told to Cassandra about what he was doing and we did know that he was tracking her left and right in the end.”
Note that Bosco doesn’t say that it never happened, only that there were things that Stacy didn’t always tell the family, or everyone in the family. Kerry Simmons, Stacy’s step-sister related the TV incident in an interview with Hoda Kotb. While Cassandra has stated to the press, “I have seen him, personally, throw my sister across the room.”
The day Stacy disappeared:
“There was more horror to the real details of this that if the public actually knew they would…feel the trauma that the family is now going through.”
“The whole scene about Cassandra trying to find Stacy from the day she left my house and throughout that evening. She didn’t confront him in the morning. She never ran into the house. (The original plan for that day was to get together and paint Yelton’s house but instead) Cassandra came to my house to drop off a puppy that day so there was a thing there where she didn’t–she changed her plans and so because of that there was a delay in her first following through and contacting Stacy.”
So the film did them a disservice by compressing the incidents of that day. Only Stacy’s family can know how it felt to realize that a loved one is missing, to suspect that she’s been hurt and to spend the day trying to contact her without success. I’m sure that for them no movie would be able to really convey the awfulness of that day.
Rob Lowe’s portrayal of Drew Peterson:
“Rob Lowe didn’t seem to put his heart into it–the sense of danger that this man, that you would feel when you were around him. He just smirked and I think tried to get through this movie as fast as he could.”
So yes, Brodsky. The family states that the film is inaccurate. Inaccurate because Lowe didn’t effectively convey the sheer creepiness of your client, Drew Peterson. Hey, she knows the man. Who are we to question her take on this?
However there was one aspect about Drew Peterson that Bosco thinks the film got right:
“One thing they got right in the movie was Drew’s controlling nature. He was very controlling, very suspicious, and poor Stacy could not fight against that. But she had these children that she absolutely adored. If you could only understand what a great mother she was, then you would know that she would never leave those children.”
And lastly from Pam Bosco:
“These kind of productions we aren’t in support of but we actually appreciate when the public is still interested in Stacy’s case.”
Listen to interview with Pam Bosco
Listen to interview with Joel Brodsky
~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.~
It is true that in these so called accurate portrayals that “artistic license” is used to either enforce or downplay a perpetrators participation in the acts committed…Incidences can be eliminated or made up…Just remember these ‘special’ movies are made for TV and written by playwriters…Take it for what it was…entertainment…I’m not surprised in the least that Brodsky would use it as a means to seek a change of venue…
Well said, Facs. As you have tried to convey, it’s just more of Brodsky’s blubbering. Of course, we know it’s his job to defend his client, but he is doing just as he did leading up to, at the time of, and after Peterson’s arrest. He throws things out there and assumes people are going to believe his version of events.
He wasn’t there with Stacy and Drew, and he’s not one of Drew’s poor wives. He did not experience anything. He’s merely reciting what his client has told him. I do know that he reacts to the victims’ family, friends and witnesses with disdain when he doesn’t like what he hears, and sharpens his teeth to reply, but it’s sickening to think that he is using something he thinks he heard to twist the truth of what was said.
Damage control is exactly what he is doing. I find it unusual that he’s standing alone in that regard. No team alliance, no meeting of the legal minds. Just him. It is laughable that he was all in favor of his white noise nonsense and using the media to generate publicity and sympathy, but he wants everyone to believe nothing in the movie is factual, and expects the public to separate fact from fiction. Huh, since when is what comes out of his mouth the truth? He only repeats what he has heard from his client. Drew Peterson has a very small fan base when it comes to supporting him.
No matter what you think of the movie it’s just gross of Brodsky to pretend that he has some kind of common ground with the families of Stacy or Kathleen.
He actually says that the Savios agree with him as well, which is complete BS since AFAIK the Savios didn’t even watch the movie, much less comment on it.
I just thought someone needed to call him on such a dirty move.
A good blog post reviewing Untouchable from the standpoint of someone who advocates for domestic abuse victims:
http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/drew-peterson-untouchable.html
The truth is, Brodsky is relying on a line written by Fox News staff member about the family agreeing with him specifically. The line he is puffing his chest out about is the Fox News staff member’s, not a direct quote from Stacy’s family. However, I believe he is wishing it to be and makes it come across that way.
He wants people to turn into pumpkinheads and think this is the direct quote from the family:
Stacy Peterson’s family agrees with Brodsky and says the movie was completely inaccurate.
That is Fox News’ quote. I have not heard or seen either family spokesperson, Pam Bosco, nor Cassandra Cales, say they agreed with Brodsky about anything.
There have been some outrageous events that occurred during these years since Stacy’s been missing. Some may not be known nationally, like the chicken-wing hawking Brodsky had his client do to promote his bar, or the incident where the murder defendant was trying to put the moves on yet another 20-something woman named Kim, but I would have to say that almost everyone knows about the win-a-date-with-Drew fiasco. That is the most bizarre and ridiculous thing a lawyer could have gotten his client involved in, and it’s stuck in the minds of many. Oh, and according to Christina Raines, her engagement and love-in was staged as a publicity stunt. Until Brodsky stepped in and said she was nervous and confused and didn’t mean to say that. That was national news, and Martin Bashir covered it.
No wonder his two defense partners say they’re more worried about pre-trial stunts those two engaged in, not the movie.
Nobody deserves whatever terrible fate Stacy Peterson met. No matter what it is my opinion that this is aweful. The movie, however makes Stacy look like an angel. Lets not forget she was having sex with a married man in his house while his wife slept. I am the former wife of an arrogent cheating cop. Had she not been fooling around with someone else’s husband, she would probably be alive and well today. She had the morals of a dog in heat. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, odds are…..it’s a duck! Just saying. Some will post that it was his job to be faithful not Stacy’s. Wrong. If I knew a guy was married I did not get involved with him. Period. She was in the wrong just as much as him.
As far as the infidelity, maybe so. But he’s not missing. She is.
Joel confuses me. He says the movie is not a depiction of anybody’s life. It’s entertaiment, a Hollywood story, and should be taken as such.
Then he goes onto say “after Mr. Peterson is acquitted, then Lifetime is going to have to answer to what they did …”
If it’s all in the name of entertainment, if it’s not factual, and it’s not a depiction of anyone’s life, hysterical even, according to Drew himself … then what would Lifetime have to answer to?
I agree with you completely, Noway.
I keep wanting to ask him “So what are you saying?” The more he shouts to the rooftops that the thing is a fictional work of fantasy, the less he’s implying that it could possibly damage his client’s reputation.
Right?
Beth, IMO the movie creates two-dimensional caricatures of everyone. Kitty was a shrill harpy, Drew was evil incarnate, Stacy was simply sweet and young. It helped them squeeze a complicated story into 100 minutes.
Of course, the real people involved had all the dimensions that real people have. As I’ve said before, Drew Peterson may have murdered two women but that didn’t mean he walked down the street kicking a puppy in front of him. And neither Stacy nor Kathleen were perfect. They both slept with Drew while he was married to other people.
As for opinions about infidelity, Everyone has got one. For my part I believe that people shouldn’t cheat on their spouses and dating married people is a bad idea.
That said, my expectations of a 47-year old married man and father are higher than those I have of a 17-year-old girl. I’ll go even further and say that since Drew Peterson was technically in a position of power (police sergeant) when he started a sexual relationship with Stacy Cales, that he should have been prosecuted for statutory rape. If that had happened, perhaps Stacy would still be alive now.
Lastly, comparing someone to “a dog in heat” is unkind and very unfair. Especially since the person in question is almost certainly dead and has no way to defend herself from attack.
IMO he (Brodsky) had Drew watch it for the publicity doing so would give them both. Nothing else.
I can’t imagine ANY attorney not wanting respect for his abilities and actions when it comes to defending a client. I think we can all agree that Mr. Brodsky’s defense of Peterson has been unorthodox and against how most defense attorneys handle their clients’ cases. I think its undisputed that he went against the common practice of keeping his client quiet, out of the media and at least acting concerned and respectful about the fate of his two wives.
IMO, I think Brodsky’s star is falling fast, if not already crashed and burned. One minute he’s parading he and his client around to any media outlet that would have them, promoting the murder defendant’s version of “facts,” and the next he’s urging people not to believe every thing they see on tv.
We all know it appears he used his client to his benefit, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that. The icing on the cake was the latest comments by his co-defense counsel, Lopez and Greenberg, who didn’t mince words by saying they’re more concerned about what he and the murder defendant have already done in the media, not this Lifetime movie.
You reap what you sow.
Maybe Brodsky and Jose Baez could start a firm together and call it Unorthodox Law…They could even call in F.Lee Baily for consults…
Just a quick note on the movie: In my opinion it is not how people were portrayed but the fact that 1 woman is dead and 1 woman is missing, regardless of their personal character.
Looks like HLN got Tom Peterson on the phone for JVM’s show last Thursday. They had a bad phone connection (or that woman was just shouting too loud) but Tom did manage to make a brief statement:
On Facebook Tom said that:
Hardly the strongest defense of a dad from his son. Because in essence he’s admitting that his dad is somewhat sinister, somewhat of a badass and somewhat a jerk of a father.
And heavens, didn’t Joel Brodsky turn red and squirm when JVM asked him if he was excited about the possibility of Drew’s trial being televised because it would mean Joel would become more well-known.
Secret Lives of Women: Loved and Controlled. Remember when this aired in October 2009? I wonder if the full episode is available online.
You can download it via iTunes for $1.99.
http://www.tv.com/shows/secret-lives-of-women/watch/loved-and-controlled-1292055
Did Drew Peterson become “hysterical” when he saw this depicted in the Lifetime movie, where the characters are shown at Stacy’s sister’s funeral and he accuses her of having an affair with her late sister’s husband? He also told his lawyer that she was having an affair with Pastor Schori.
Minds may disagree about many aspects of this movie, but there sure is quite a bit in this movie that is based on actual events!
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-12-13/news/0712120990_1_drew-peterson-gun-search-warrants
No doubt about it Drew is/was an insecure, jealous demeaning and demanding husband…I’d be suspicious of his accusations of Stacy’s infidelity as so often it is the accuser that is guilty of the act…Stacy was an abused wife and wanted out of her marriage and Drew felt threatened…in more ways than one…
“In more ways than one”
No kidding, Estee. Imagine an already possessive controlling husband now also worried that his unhappy wife might spill the beans about the fact that he murdered his last wife. Peterson was extremely motivated to make sure Stacy either stayed under his control or was silenced.
In the movie, Drew Peterson’s character had a partner, who was prominently portrayed in the movie.
In reality:
I just saw this message from Stacy Peterson Facebook page. I wonder what’s up? I hope they get some cadaver dogs!
Hey song4sky, I know that Cassandra still does regular searches. I’d bet that the recent attention that the movie has generated has gotten her more help in that area. I certainly hope so!
Cass added:
(We’ve received offers of help and even $ since the movie aired and have tried to send people in the right direction.)
BTW, if the Lifetime movie has made anyone curious to see and hear more factual accounts, this clip from the Biography channel with Susan Murphy Milano and Joe Hosey also contains a fair amount of video and photos of both Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson and is worth a look.
Yea, it said new leads since the movie! So, who knows? In the meantime, thinking positive thoughts and sending wishes that she will finally be found soon!
So glad to hear that the movie is drawing attention in a good way, new interest in helping, especially since there has been so much opposition to the movie.
I hope the tips coming in aren’t from more of the phony psychics. I hate to see people’s lives messed with over some one’s hunch, dream or “vision”.
Those psychics need a kick in the ass! They make me sick with their visions and dreams, using victims’ families at their most vulnerable to either make a buck, or get recognition. If there were, indeed, a legitimate psychic around, Stacy, and all of the other poor missing souls, would have been found long ago.
Just my opinion….
I see that Sue says someone (a distant relative) is writing an unauthorized biography of Kathleen. There’s no way to stop that from happening, but I can’t imagine what it would be like to see a loved one being portrayed in a movie or book, vulnerable to bias or inaccuracies. It’s got to be hard.
Just like with the Lifetime movie, I guess all you can hope is that it raises awareness about the issues of domestic violence, the blue wall and shoddy investigations.
I missed that…will have to backtrack later to get caught up…places to go and people to see…
Yeah, it sorta seems likely that any new leads would be from psychics, real or fake. Hopefully some of the sources are genuine. I recall psychic talk being frowned up here, so enough on that one. Either way, new attention and interest because of the movie is a good thing!
There’s always hope that someone knows something. Maybe Peterson had help or even mentioned something to someone, knowingly or even unknowingly.
Maybe Peterson has been out of circulation long enough to make some people feel comfortable enough to come forward with information.
I would think, though, that if someone did have information, they would alert the ISP and convince them that they have good reason to believe Stacy’s remains are in a certain location. That would be the logical way to handle this.
My guess is the only way they find her by now will be either by pure accident, or else someone who knows where she is says something.
For once it could be advantageous that Drew liked to surround himself with gutter rats – maybe someone will have a lucid moment while under the influence of some stimulant or other.
Or maybe someone will think about the reward money (AFAIK it’s still there) and decide they could really use it.
That said, I would never discourage anyone from continuing to search. If it were my sister I’d be searching too.
I just hope she’s not unduly influenced by a fame-seeking fake (as Sue Savio points out “anything for fame”), or even worse some person who thinks they have some kind of gift and then imposes themselves on a desperate family when they really are just emotionally unfulfilled people who’ve been convinced by TV shows that they are a ‘ghost whisperer’ or something. Shame on them.
I hope there is someone involved in this who knows something, anything, that would shine a light on this mystery of Stacy’s disappearance once and for all, and bring this to a conclusion. If Peterson was willing to drag Tom Morphey into this, there’s no telling who else knows something, and it just shows how stupid and moronic Peterson was to involve others. He dragged Carcerano and the Pontarellis into his scheme to find Kathleen. Maybe after he figured out that Kathleen’s boyfriend, Steve, wasn’t going to be the one.
With Stacy, he admitted to looking for a storage locker with Tom Morphey just prior to Stacy’s disappearance. Mike Robinson was called by him to help him acquire a cell phone he could talk on without the cops taping him. He used his son, Steve, to store guns he didn’t want confiscated in a search by the cops.
Why anyone thinks he’s smart is beyond me. He couldn’t control his anger and hostility towards his wives when they weren’t attractive or attentive enough to him, so why believe he didn’t involve someone enough that they know more than they’re letting on? He doesn’t care about these people, he cares about saving his own butt when the heat’s on him. Then, and only then, does he pretend to backtrack and act like he cares that they’ve been dragged into his messes. Whether one believes he’s involved in the demise of either Kathleen or Stacy, doesn’t take away the fact that he used people close to him in the early hours and beyond to prop up his sorry self!
He also relied on Ric Mims in those first days when Stacy went missing, and Mims has testified that at one point he kept an eye on Kathleen in order for Drew to enter her house when she wasn’t home.
Peterson also approached Jeff Pachter in 2002 when he asked him to procure a hit-man to ‘take care of’ Kathleen.
He was friends with Lenny Wawczak and Paula Stark until he tried to pass off a gun to Paula and their undercover stint had to end.
It’s Drew’s MO to seek help from other people and involve them in his suspect acts. He doesn’t like to act alone. He even dragged one of his sons along with to cut down Stacy’s memorial ribbons on Pheasant Chase Court!
I really hope there is one more person out there who has not come forward yet, who knows something helpful and who is getting ready to tell what they know.
FYI
http://www.state.il.us/court/media/PressRel/2012/013112.pdf
Yippeeeee, we get to watch it…Know I’ll be glued to chair then…Wonder if Drew will preen for the cameras…Just when can we expect this to get underway???
Cameras – Not yet anyway — the county where Drew is rotting is “Will.” Outside of the camera trial area.
So far only the 14th district’s request has been approved.
Henry
Mercer
Rock Island
Whiteside
I’m guessing that the 12th will request permission, too. Will County is the 12th district.
Map to Circuit Courts by county
I believe most of the counties will have cameras. It’s a matter of applying for and getting approval. The court system wants transparency, and what better trial to do that but Drew Peterson’s.
The 12th Circuit court (Will County) is considering applying to take part.
Someone, somewhere knows something……….
There’s been a case in Atlanta GA where someone finally came forward with invaluable information after 10 years and the person in question was never even on the investigators radar……..
The question is more – what is the deciding factor for someone to come forward ??
HI JAH. Nice to “see” you.
There was a horrific murder at a Brown’s Chicken some years back here in a Chicago suburb. It took 7 years, I believe it was, but a woman who knew inside information about the murders finally came forward to solve the crimes and bring justice to the victims. The two murderers were found guilty.
So, it happens. And we wait….
It was 9 years, actually.
I agree with the editorial, especially the reaction to Judge Kinney’s position on cameras in the (Will County) courtrooms. “What?”
Snippet:
http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/opinions/10374852-474/open-courts-to-the-cameras-eye.html
The way I read the press release, Kinney wasn’t saying that they would wait months to apply, but that he thought it would take months to come up with protocols if and when they were approved for the program. I could be wrong though.
He does seem to indicate that they will move quickly though, which is heartening.
At any rate, I agree with both you and the editor that his time estimate is exaggerated and over-cautious. The protocols are pretty much already outlined in the Supreme Court’s policy, right down to the number of cameras and how to go about pooling media. If they need more guidance than that, just do what the other states do.
Here’s a handy guide!
http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/cameras-in-the-court-a-state-by-state-guide55.php
Hmm, kind of confusing. It would seem to me that Judge Kenney is talking about establishing protocol in the Will County Court system first, and then applying. But, since I don’t have any idea how that works, I can’t say.
A few counties have already been approved for cameras in the courtroom. That being said, I guess Judge Kenney can do whatever he pleases as far as allowing the cameras in his jurisdiction. Funny, the one county that will eventually be hosting a high profile trial, and we’re left wondering now when and if that will be during this camera experiment.
More art inspired by life…
http://www.theatreinchicago.com/playdetail.php?playID=4938
Ha. Change the names to Drew Peterson and Chrissy Raines, and what do you have? Another match made in hell.
Christopher Vaughn’s trial is finally set to start in August. He’s been in jail since the summer of 2007.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8529297
They’ve got the Drew Peterson smother-hug down in the photo;
http://www.goldstar.com/events/chicago-il/dating-walter-dante
I know it’s off-topic but horrible news. It’s been reported that there was an explosion at the home of Josh Powell, the husband of Susan Powell who went missing in 2009.
He was having a visitation with his two children at the time of the explosion and the two boys were killed.
No word yet if Powell also is dead.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Explosion-at-Puyallup-home-rescue-operation-at-Powell-residence-138746774.html
Now hearing that Powell is also dead.
It was a supervised visitation but the social worker was locked outside. The social worker called her supervisors to report that she could smell gas, and the home exploded.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53450136-78/powell-josh-sons-explosion.html.csp
Powell had just been denied custody of the boys last Wednesday and he was slated to take a psychosexual examination and undergo a polygraph test.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/judge-denies-custody-josh-powell-new-allegations-e/nHRb2/
Pictures of the scene in this guy’s twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/#!/starkeeey/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F8g8kbs
and after the fire was put out:
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2012/02/05/2-killed-in-graham-area-house-fire/
AP reports Josh Powell sent an email to his lawyer: “I’m sorry goodbye.”
Well, if you needed a good argument for keeping Drew Peterson in jail until trial…
Devastating. What else is there to say? This guy’s mother and a sister raved about what a fantastic father he was, how attentive to his boys he was, and how protective he was. They wrote letters to the judge in his custody case on his behalf. He has another sister who knew otherwise, and was of the mindset that he killed the boys’ mother and didn’t want to see him regain custody of the boys.
How this monster’s family could be at opposite ends of the spectrum as to his mental state is beyond me. It’s not going to bring those little boys back.
I see that Josh’s creepy father who is in jail awaiting trial for child porn and voyeurism has been put on suicide watch.
From what I’ve seen, he was obsessed with Susan to an unhealthy degree. If he knows anything about what happened to her I hope he talks before he opts out too.
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-fiery-explosion-believed-to-have-killed-josh-powell-and-his-2-young-sons-20120205,0,7485907.story
Get’s even worse Facs! He axed them in the throat before the explosion!
OMG. I didn’t think it could get worse.
Just heartbreaking. What’s there to say?
Was listening to the 911 calls from Sunday. Left with the impression that those who oversee that system need to look into a serious overhaul of the procedures, technology, protocol…everything. Incredibly frustrating to hear people repeating the same info over and over again, being asked silly extraneous questions, not being listened to, being patronized and lectured, all while the minutes tick by and two little boys are being murdered.
I don’t think anyone could have stopped Josh Powell from what he did once those kids were in his house, and I don’t blame anyone but him for their deaths. I’m just making an observation based on what I heard on those tapes. It’s a wonder anyone gets the help they need…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hu3YZxVj8ZLUP9ij_0IpIXhZ6GaA?docId=ffe38b8eec9b4d50810e9fd3d61b8973
REMINDER
Case Number: 2011MR000291
Next Court Date: 02-09-2012
File Date: 03-04-2011
Next Court Location: COURTROOM 2005
Case Title: STEPHEN PETERSON -VS- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ILLINOIS
Next Court Time: 09:00 AM
Count Description: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OTHER THAN A TAX COMMISSION
Great…Please keep us posted…I hope they don’t reverse their decision…I know the son should not be responsible for the sins of the father, but Steven knew better…Ignorance is no excuse…
Just when can we expect Drew to go to court?…I hope Bolingbrook allows cameras in the courtroom for this one…Why are they dragging their feet on their decision????
Estee, I think in the case of the appellate decision there is just a backlog of appeals ahead of the Peterson one.
I often visit the Appellate court page and look at the recent decisions. Reading the various opinions (while waiting for Drew’s to come up) I’m made aware that there really are a huge amount of appeals in the system to be heard and considered.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_appellate.asp
I check every day.
Steve Peterson’s case was continued:
Case Number 2011MR000291
Next Court Date 06-12-2012
File Date 03-04-2011
Next Court Location COURTROOM 2005
Case Title STEPHEN PETERSON -VS- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ILLINOIS
Next Court Time 09:30 AM
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OTHER THAN A TAX COMMISSION
Boy o boy this is so redicaless that it should be continued just tell the POS to PAC YOUR BAGS AND MOVE ON TO SOMTHING ELES!!!!!!!!
Whee, doggies! I hope I never post anything like that, no matter what influence I may be under.
Review of the latest Peterson-inspired play:
http://www.chicagotheatrereview.com/2012/02/who-cares-whodunnit-when-youre-dating-walter-dante/
http://shorewood-il.patch.com/articles/celebrity-me-compares-whitney-houston-death-to-drew-peterson-case
******
Interesting, because Kathleen Savio was breathing-in water when she drowned. Sounds like Kathleen may have been held down under water until she did drown.
According to Anna Doman, while being interviewed by Greta Van Sustern:
http://www.acandyrose.com/kathleen_savio.htm
Of course, Kathleen had suffered a head injury which the defense will argue made her unconscious and that’s why she drowned (was not conscious and therefore couldn’t respond to brain stimuli to get her nose and mouth above water).
However, Dr. Blum already testified in the preliminary hearing that he didn’t think the head injury was serious enough to have knocked her unconscious. If that’s the case and she was awake then someone would have to have held her under the water while she drowned.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21769873/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/body-police-officers-third-ex-wife-exhumed/#.TzxTZFHSSq0
So far as I’ve seen, it will be only the defense that is prepared to take on the task of saying that head gash rendered her unconscious.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-06/news/1002050315_1_kathleen-savio-drew-peterson-tub
This high profile Whitney Houston case highlights the fact that her death, after being found dead in a bath tub, was as a result of booze and drugs. It is not unreasonable to believe her drinking and doping contributed to her death. Mixing of drugs and alcohol can be lethal. She could have lost her ability to gasp for air, thus, winding up with water in her lungs.
Kathleen Savio’s autopsy toxicology results indicate there was NO alcohol NOR drugs in her body. She was trying to breathe, since she had water in her sinuses.
Think people will sit up and take notice about Whitney Houston’s untimely death in a bath tub, and hear the facts and details over and over? That’s not good for the Peterson defense, IMO, is it?
AAMOF, Brodsky made a big hissy deal about the Lifetime movie being full of inaccuracies and Hollywood embellishments.
If I were him, I’d be sweating out this Whitney Houston fiasco now that the world is going to get a complete education about how a person could have drowned in a bath tub without gasping for air or trying to fight to live by getting one’s head out of the water in order to breathe. Tsk, tsk.
Also – Did you see pictures of the bathroom Whitney Houston died in ?
There was mess everywhere, clothes and junk on the floor, half eaten food, you name it, yet her death was very tidy in comparison to Kathleens horrible death in her sanitized bathroom with a head injury to boot……..
And don’t forget about the Ryan Widmer case…He’s still trying to get another trial…He had nothing to gain by his wife’s death…
When you mix Xanex with booze it puts you out in a deep sleep. You can pass out easy with that combination! I can see what happened to Whitney and no questions about it. She passed out in the tub, and drowned.
The comparison between Kathleen, and Whitney is a totally different situation as stated above. IMO If Kathleen fell backwards and hit the back of her head like they are trying to say, she would be on her back with her feet above the tub.
Their story doesn’t add up with the way she was found or laying on her side. If she was able to move, she would of been holding her head from pain. She would of been face down, or on her back end of story!
Think about it you bang your head, what’s your first instinct? You grab your head, and you bend forward. You fall backwards hit your head, your on your butt, or back. Joel’s version of accounts will never hold up to a jury, as to how she was found, or all the injuries on her body supposedly caused by a fall in a bathtub