Drew Peterson hearing: Kathleen Savio’s attorney and Stacy Peterson’s pastor can testify

UPDATE 10:44 CST:

 •  Judge Burmila has ruled to waive Kathleen Savio‘s attorney-client privilege and that Harry Smith must testify about all conversation he had with Savio if he is going to testify at all. So that means he can testify that Savio told him she was afraid that Peterson would kill her and make it look like an accident but if he does, he will also need to testify to what Savio told him about her battery cases.

•  Some videos clips of interviews with Drew Peterson have been barred. Judge Burmila said that Peterson comes across as “cold-hearted” in one clip. Not only is the clip barred, but jurors will not even see a transcript of the exchange between Drew Peterson and reporter, Martin Bashir, from a segment filmed for ABC’s Nightline:

•  If prosecutors can lay a foundation, testimony from Stacy Peterson‘s Pastor, Neil Schori can be admitted. Schori will testify that Stacy told him that on the night Kathleen died, Drew Peterson left the house and returned dressed all in black and with a bag of women’s clothing that he put into a washing machine, telling her it was the “perfect crime” and then coaching her for hours on what to tell the police. The defense may object to Schori’s testimony if it is presented in court.

•  Next court date: 07/03/2012 9:30 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drew Peterson is in court today. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. CST.

We’ll update this post throughout the day as we receive news.

Make sure to check the comment thread for the latest updates.

~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.~

About these ads

38 thoughts on “Drew Peterson hearing: Kathleen Savio’s attorney and Stacy Peterson’s pastor can testify

  1. Meghann Mollerus ‏@meghannmollerus
    Judge to rule on “marital privilege” motion in Drew Peterson case this morning at Will Co. Courthouse; could be last hearing before trial

  2. Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
    Statements from Stacy Peterson’s pastor might also come into trial if prosecutors can lay foundation. #DrewPeterson

    Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
    The testimony deals with a conversation Savio had with a local prosecutor. #DrewPeterson

    Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
    #DrewPeterson judge will compel Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith to testify about talks he had with Savio he’s yet to share publicly.

    Jon Seidel ‏@SeidelContent
    TV interviews with #DrewPeterson prosecutors wanted to play are barred.

  3. Drew Peterson’s judge on Thursday said he will order the divorce attorney for Peterson’s late third wife to testify about a conversation Kathleen Savio allegedly had with a prosecutor before she died when Peterson stands trial for murder next month.

    Judge Edward Burmila met privately last week with attorney Harry Smith to discuss conversations Smith had with Savio before she died and to determine which of those conversations should be allowed as evidence at Peterson’s trial.

    Smith had claimed he shouldn’t have to testify about Savio’s conversation with the prosecutor, though Burmila ruled Thursday he will make him. Exactly what was said between Savio and the prosecutor was not disclosed, but Burmila said the conversation was incriminating.

    In previous hearings Smith has testified Savio often said she feared Peterson would kill her, and she purportedly told him she didn’t want her ex-husband to benefit from her death.

    Peterson’s attorneys argue Smith shouldn’t be allowed to testify about those conversations before a jury because he’s violating attorney-client privilege.

    Under questioning from Burmila, though, Smith admitted he’d had conversations with Savio he still considers privileged — talks he’s never shared with anyone. Burmila called the private meeting to find out what Smith knows and whether that knowledge could be helpful to Peterson.

    http://www.suntimes.com/13172055-418/judge-to-order-divorce-attorney-to-testify-in-drew-peterson-murder-trial.html

  4. By Steve Schmadeke
    12:06 p.m. CDT, June 14, 2012

    A pastor can testify at Drew Peterson’s trial in the drowning of his third wife about statements Peterson’s fourth wife made about Peterson’s actions at the time of the death, the judge in the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s case ruled today.

    Peterson is scheduled to go on trial next month in the murder of Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in her bathtub March 1, 2004, about five months after they had divorced.

    Will County Judge Edward Burmila ruled this morning that the Rev. Neil Schori will be allowed to testify for the prosecution that Peterson’s now-missing fourth wife, Stacy, told the pastor she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing shortly before Savio was found dead.

    Burmila also ruled that divorce attorney Harry Smith may testify about incriminating statements that Savio made to him about criminal cases she and Drew Peterson were involved in.

    Burmila earlier this month ruled that Smith’s attorney-client privilege regarding Savio had been waived but said he was concerned Smith hadn’t shared information that could be helpful to Peterson. Smith testified that he believed some information was still privileged.

    Burmila made the rulings in a short hearing today.

    sschmadeke@tribune.com

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-judge-in-drew-peterson-trial-pastor-may-testify-about-statements-stacy-peterson-made-20120614,0,6116299.story

  5. Judge Edward Burmila’s ruling Thursday comes after attorney Harry Smith testified at previous hearings that Kathleen Savio told him she feared Peterson would kill her.

    Attorneys for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant argued that allowing Smith to testify at trial would be a violation of attorney-client privilege. But they now say they’re pleased because the judge is allowing statements they believe raise questions about Savio’s credibility and may even prove she lied under oath.

    http://www.wrex.com/story/18789998/judge-rules-attorney-for-murder-victim-can-testify

    If these alleged lies are related to criminal cases that she and Drew were involved in, then doesn’t it call out Drew’s credibility as well?

    Plus, Drew’s still alive and Kathleen’s dead and HE’S the one on trial for murder. I say bring it on!

  6. CLTV is reporting that three more Motions were filed today.
    These Motions will be heard at next court hearing on July 3.

  7. I could only assume that Attorney Smith withheld information that would not put his client, Kathleen, in a favorable light. I don’t think it takes a leap to say that Kathleen and Stacy may have known about things that weren’t exactly on the up-and-up.

    Bring it on is right. It’s time for the facts, whatever they may be, and for this to be concluded once and for all.

  8. Drew Too ‘Cold-Hearted’ For Jury To See On Tape

    The Judge in the Drew Peterson murder case won’t let the jury see video interviews the accused killer gave before his arrest.

    By Joseph Hosey

    Accused wife-killer Drew Peterson comes off as so “cold-hearted” in a TV interview that the judge in his murder case won’t let the jury watch a video clip of the network appearance.

    Judge Edward Burmila ruled during a Thursday morning hearing that the jury cannot be exposed to the interview in any form, but that Peterson’s statements in six other video interviews can be transcribed and read in court.

    But even these apparently less “cold-hearted” interviews can’t be shown during Peterson’s trial, Burmila ruled, because the television reporters were “accusatory” and treated Peterson as if he was the subject of a “cross-examination.”

    The judge also questioned whether the jury might be turned off by the television reporters themselves.

    “I don’t know what the feelings of the jurors will be about those news reporters,” Burmila said.

    The completely forbidden video showed Peterson outside the home of his slain third wife, Kathleen Savio, Burmila said. The interviewer told Peterson to look at the house and asked how he feels about Savio, considering she is the mother of two of his children.

    “Well, life goes on,” Peterson responded, according to Burmila. The judge then said, “That shows the defendant to be cold-hearted.”

    During Thursday’s hearing, Burmila also ruled that the Rev. Neil Schori, a pastor who has said Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, told him that Drew Peterson killed Savio, will be allowed to take the witness stand.

    Drew Peterson’s attorneys tried to bar Schori’s testimony on the grounds that it violated spousal privilege.

    The judge also cleared the way for Wheaton attorney Harry Smith, who represented Savio while she was divorcing Peterson, to testify at the murder trial.

    Smith has said that Savio predicted Peterson would kill her and make her death appear accidental.

    The state police did in fact rule that Savio’s death was an accident after she was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. The state police were forced to reassess that conclusion and eventually arrest Peterson after his next wife—Stacy Peterson—mysteriously vanished in October 2007.

    Stacy Peterson remains missing. Smith said she visited him just days before she disappeared. Smith claims Stacy Peterson told him Drew Peterson killed Savio and asked if she could “get more money (in a divorce) if we threatened to tell the police how he killed Kathy?”

    Drew Peterson’s attorneys argued that Smith’s testimony violated attorney-client privilege. Burmila shot that down but said if Smith takes the stand he will compell him to spill about everything Savio told him, including facts that might make her look bad.

    Defense attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez suggested these incriminating facts may involve two battery cases Savio was charged with in 2002. The cases stemmed from disputes with Drew and Stacy Peterson. Savio was found not guilty in both instances.

    Defense attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez speculated that Savio lied when she was being tried for battering her husband and his new wife.

    Lopez theorized that Savio may have “admitted to some of the allegations she denied later.”

    “Which would lead us to believe she lied under oath,” Lopez said. “And if she lied under oath, her credibility’s shot.”

    http://joliet.patch.com/articles/drew-too-cold-blooded-for-jury-to-see-on-tape

    Her “credibility is shot?” Okay…..

    So, she can’t be given the benefit of the doubt that she died at the hands of her ex-husband because she lied about something else? But the jury will believe Drew Peterson as to everything he says, regardless of what others testify to?

    That’s a stretch, but I guess the defense lawyers have it all figured out for the jury already.

  9. If I am not mistaken, Judge Burmila ruled some of the videos can be shown at the last hearing. Now, he’s changed his mind and doesn’t want Peterson to look “cold-hearted” to the jury in the videos? OMG, I can’t believe I am reading this.

    I sure hope the prosecution uses the last two interview pieces that were published in the Sun Times that Sneed wrote, where he blames ALL of his wives for his failed marriages. I didn’t need to see a video of that — just reading it made me sick.

    So, even if Judge Burmila is trying to watch Drew Peterson’s back, he can’t make him a choir boy after all. He’s a manipulative, conniving, controling, evil person, IMO, no matter what Judge Burmila says.

    Rules one way, then changes his mind and rules another way? WTH?

  10. What I don’t understand, Rescue, is that those video clips were all from interviews arranged by Drew Peterson’s PR people (PublicityAgency). Drew Peterson could have chosen to say nothing at all about his wives and instead he chose to speak out in the media. He got to choose exactly what he wanted to say and to present exactly as he wanted it to be seen.

    Is it Judge Burmila’s job to try to prevent Peterson from being seen in a light that Peterson himself (and his legal team) were happy to present him?

    IMO, if Peterson and his team were fine with that video being made and presented to the public, then the jurors should see it as well.

  11. Maybe this is a reach, but IMO, to think that the potential jury hasn’t seen this idiot of a murder defendant flash his stupid, SINISTER grin, or make some ignorant, disgusting comment on tv at one time or another, that would be missing that elusive pink elephant that Joel Brodsky says exists. :-)

    There are many negative-opinions about Peterson, and they all come from what many have seen of him in the media, thank you Drew and Joel.

    So, as I said, Judge Burmila can pretend he’s being fair in his assessments of what effect these videos might have on the jury, but I don’t think he’s got an eraser that big. It’s out there, it’s not going away.

  12. Good point, Rescue. The public would be hard pressed to erase five years of Peterson-Produced media coverage.

    I’d still love to see those clips shown in court. I hate the idea that by suppressing this evidence Judge Burmila seems biased for the defense to the point that he is protecting Drew from himself.

  13. Actually, I think it is a very good thing that Sneed ran that fluff on Peterson that Brodsky orchestrated after all. Even the most ardent supporters of Peterson would have to shake their heads at how absolutely heartless, cold and awful he came across. That two-day piece did nothing to make Peterson look good, or have one change their mind and become sympathetic towards him. It’s fresh in many readers’ minds, since we’re fast approaching the trial. It was that schmuck’s mug on the front page, with a stupid look on his face that stands out. Could any of the potential jurors have missed that??????

    And, there’s no video of it! Two days of wife bashing muck. So, as puzzled and uncomfortable as I am about Judge Burmila cutting out the videos of Peterson, I’m reminded of how self-serving Peterson and Brodsky are when they think they are accomplishing something with their moronic media events after all.

    So, by way of the judge’s admission, he took Peterson to be a cold-hearted ass in the video(s), but heaven forbid he should allow the jury to come to that conclusion on their very own after watching the video(s). He’s decided it for them already.

    It’s all good. It’ll be okay. The murder defendant just might self-destruct after all.

  14. Pastor, attorney testimony might be in, TV interviews out in Drew Peterson trial
    BY JON SEIDEL AND DAN ROZEK Sun-Times Media jseidel@suntimes.com June 14, 2012 10:52AM

    Updated: June 14, 2012 4:10PM

    Drew Peterson’s jurors might hear what Stacy Peterson allegedly told her pastor.

    And they might hear from Kathleen Savio’s divorce attorney — if they do he’ll tell them more than he planned.

    But they will not see Peterson in a collection of nationally broadcast TV interviews, Will County Judge Edward Burmila ruled Thursday. The judge said Peterson’s conversations with well-known reporters come across like cross-examinations.

    He said Peterson also comes across as cold-hearted in one.

    “The interviews were done in an accusatory manner,” said Joseph Lopez, a Peterson defense attorney, as he praised Burmila’s decision.

    Burmila’s order to bar the video of the interviews — prosecutors might still get to use transcripts of all but one — came in a hearing called to resolve three issues as Peterson’s July 23 trial nears. He’s charged in the 2004 drowning death of Savio, his third wife.

    Peterson is also a prime suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Burmila said testimony about conversations Stacy had with the Rev. Neil Schori won’t be barred from Peterson’s trial. But the judge said prosecutors will have to first show the conversations are relevant.

    They won’t meet that standard, predicted Peterson defense attorney Joel Brodsky.

    “After all the fighting that’s been done about Rev. Schori’s testimony,” Brodsky said, “it still may not get in.”

    Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow only said he’s “very pleased” with the ruling.

    Peterson’s attorneys guessed Glasgow might not be quite so pleased with the judge’s third ruling, though. Burmila said Savio divorce attorney Harry Smith, if he gets on the stand, must testify about a conversation he had with Savio when he represented her in a criminal case.

    Burmila heard about that conversation in a private meeting with Smith. He said it’s incriminating, but he didn’t say for whom.

    Smith contends Savio repeatedly told him to make sure Peterson didn’t get away with her murder if she turned up dead. But Lopez inferred from Burmila’s ruling that Savio might have lied under oath during a misdemeanor battery case.

    Calling Smith to testify, Lopez said, might come with a price.

    “If she lied under oath, her credibility is shot,” Lopez said.

    Peterson and his attorneys are expected back in the courtroom July 3.http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/13172055-418/pastor-attorney-testimony-might-be-in-tv-interviews-out-in-drew-peterson-trial.html

  15. CHICAGO (FOX Chicago News) –
    Drew Peterson judge permits third party statements in trial

    Drew Peterson’s judge on Thursday said he will order the divorce attorney for Peterson’s late third wife to testify – about a conversation Kathleen Savio allegedly had with a prosecutor before her 2004 drowning death – during Peterson’s trial for murder next month.

    Judge Edward Burmila met privately last week with attorney Harry Smith to discuss conversations Smith had with Savio before she died, and to determine which of those conversations should be allowed as evidence at Peterson’s trial.

    Defense attorneys said this ruling could help them even though they had fought against allowing the testimony. They acknowledged that the judge did not say specifically what the attorney would be ordered to testify to. But they said Will County Judge Edward Burmila’s comment that Smith must testify about “inculpatory” statements that Savio made suggests to them Savio lied under oath.

    “This is a home run for us,” attorney Joe Lopez said after Burmila issued his ruling in a Joliet courtroom. “If this pans out it looks to us like she lied under oath and if that’s so we will be free to argue she is a perjurer and a liar.”

    The former Bolingbrook cop has been in custody for three years, awaiting trial for the murder of Savio.

    Smith had claimed he shouldn’t have to testify about Savio’s conversation with the prosecutor, though Burmila ruled Thursday he will force him. Exactly what was said between Savio and the prosecutor was not disclosed, but Burmila said the conversation was incriminating.

    In previous hearings, Smith has testified Savio often said she feared Peterson would kill her and make it look like an accident. She purportedly told him she didn’t want her ex-husband to benefit from her death.

    Peterson’s attorneys argue Smith shouldn’t be allowed to testify about those conversations before a jury because he’s violating attorney-client privilege.

    Under questioning from Burmila, though, Smith admitted he’d had conversations with Savio he still considers privileged — talks he’s never shared with anyone. Burmila called the private meeting to find out what Smith knows and whether that knowledge could be helpful to Peterson.

    In another ruling before next month’s scheduled trial of Peterson, Burmila told attorneys that a pastor of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, might be allowed to testify. At a pretrial hearing more than two years ago, the pastor, Neil Schori testified that before Stacy Peterson disappeared in 2007, she told him of seeing Drew Peterson, dressed all in black, dumping his clothes and women’s clothing that did not belong to Stacy into their washing machine the night before Savio’s body was found. Peterson is a suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance but has not been charged.

    A spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office declined to discuss the rulings.

    Without knowing exactly what Smith’s testimony might entail, Drew Peterson’s attorneys had argued against allowing him to testify. Based on comments made by the judge, Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky now said he thinks Smith’s statements are tied to Savio’s battery arrest after an incident involving Stacy Peterson, whose disappearance triggered a new investigation into Savio’s death, the exhumation of her body and ultimately the arrest of Drew Peterson.

    Savio was subsequently acquitted, and Brodsky said that the judge’s ruling suggests to him that she said one thing on the witness stand and something else to Smith.

    “This may mean she said something (to Smith) that implicated her in a crime,” he said.

    Whether or not the ruling will help or hurt the prosecution remains to be seen. But in a case in which prosecutors have not talked about any physical evidence linking Peterson to the crime — ruled an accidental drowning until Savio’s body was exhumed three years after she died — Savio’s statements are crucial.

    From the time Peterson was arrested in 2009 when Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow talked about allowing Savio to “testify from the grave” it has been clear that much of the prosecution depends on exactly that.

    In 2010, at a hearing to determine which hearsay evidence a jury should be allowed to hear, one witness after another testified about how Savio told them about threats Peterson made and how she feared he would kill her and make it look like an accident. Smith testified that shortly before she disappeared, Stacy Peterson contacted him and told him that Drew Peterson was angry because he suspected she’d told someone that he’d killed Savio.

    The former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys initially argued that Smith should not be allowed to testify because his statements would be hearsay. The later argued that it would be a violation of the attorney-client privilege.

    Last week, Burmila said that the privilege had been waived but added that he was concerned Smith had not shared information that might help Peterson.

    Then, after meeting privately with Smith, he announced Thursday, according to Brodsky, that Savio had “said something that was inculputory.”

    Fellow defense attorney Steven Greenberg said that he now wonders if prosecutors will even call Smith to testify.

    “If they don’t, we might,” he said.

    Attorneys are trying to settle a number of motions before Peterson’s trial begins on July 23.

    Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/18786338/hearing-thursday-in-drew-peterson-case#ixzz1xoFKsSZJ

  16. Fellow defense attorney Steven Greenberg said that he now wonders if prosecutors will even call Smith to testify.

    “If they don’t, we might,” he said.

    Oh, so now Smith’s testimony is worth something to them.

  17. Wait…if you go out and make yourself look “cold-hearted” with your attorney by your side its not admissable?? I think their actions should be called into play. This is who Drew Peterson is, jokester extraordinaire. Maybe Joel will be called as a character witness, emphasis on character.

  18. …Prosecutors want to call the Rev. Neil Schori to testify that Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy, told the pastor during a counseling session that she saw Peterson return home late, dressed in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing not long before Savio was found dead.

    Peterson has not been charged in his fourth wife’s disappearance.

    Judge Edward Burmila ruled that marital privilege did not apply to the statement because Stacy was relaying what she saw, not what she heard. Peterson’s attorneys had sought to throw it out.

    The statement is the only piece of evidence prosecutors have introduced so far that might show Peterson behaved suspiciously the weekend Savio died. No physical evidence or eyewitness account ties him to the alleged murder, which a coroner’s jury initially ruled was an accident.

    But whether it can be heard at trial remains an open question, the judge said.

    “I am not ruling yet today that that testimony is relevant,” Burmila said.

    Also Thursday, Burmila said he would order Savio’s former attorney Harry Smith to testify about statements Savio made incriminating herself during two misdemeanor domestic battery cases Peterson brought against her. She was acquitted on both.

    Burmila previously ruled that Smith could testify that Savio confided to him that she thought Peterson would kill her.

    Smith, a Wheaton family law attorney, could decline to testify, which defense attorney Joseph Lopez said might bring the highly publicized trial to a halt while an appeals court decided whether Smith could be held in contempt of court.

    Also Thursday, Burmila said prosecutors could show jurors transcripts of Peterson media interviews, except for one in which Peterson said, “Well, life goes on,” when asked about Savio’s death.

    The judge said that interview “shows (Peterson) to be coldhearted” and saw no benefit for jurors to hear it “other than to present him as that kind of person.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-hearing-0615-20120615,0,2148821.story

  19. The judge said that interview “shows (Peterson) to be coldhearted” and saw no benefit for jurors to hear it “other than to present him as that kind of person.”

    Well, it’s a good thing that a judge is in place that has Peterson’s back and isn’t letting him screw himself with the jury after his past actions!

    Maybe he can send a note to Sneed and let her know he wants Drew to feel warm and fuzzy and agrees with him that he doesn’t want him to appear sinister either. Guess we know now that it’s important to have someone decide that the jury should feel good about the murder defendant, even if it’s not of their own thinking. After all, why should they think that Drew is coldhearted and sinister if that’s what the court rules?

  20. so its important that we see Drew in a good light, but on the other hand we should see the dead woman as a liar?

  21. I think that ruling about not showing the video is so unfair. All of drewpy’s interviews were arranged by his attornery. He wanted to go on TV and show his ugly mug. Therefore, it should all be admissable.

    However, I think it’s true that most jurors are already familiar with these antics. Lets hope they have long memories.

  22. Greenberg said, if prosecutors don’t call Smith that they might. That might be a very good thing, I’m sure they’ll open a nice big door for the prosecution to go into some of DP’s prior bad acts.
    IMO

  23. Hi Aussie, long time no see!

    Good point, Grandam. If the defense wants to open the door for testimony about the day that Drew Peterson threw his ex-wife down on the lawn of her own front yard and had her arrested, let’s go! I’m sure Nick Pontarelli would love to testify about what he saw that day.

    I’m interested in the fact that Kathy was acquitted of the charges. If the defense wants to try to get Harry Smith to say that she lied in court, well OK, but as she was acquitted of the charge it’s not like they can try her again for anything, PLUS the woman is dead and she certainly wasn’t lying about the fact that she might be found dead in what looked like an accident. Try to convince a jury that she was lying about THAT.

    Also, if the defense intends to take on the (dead and unavailable) victim for lying in court about the events of that day, then does that open the door for the prosecution to put Tom and Kris up on the stand to talk about how they lied to get their mom acquitted? Drew says that they did.

    She punched Stacy once in the face in front of the kids and was arrested. But she was found not guilty because the kids said she didn’t do it.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/12959517-452/drew-peterson-jail-exclusive-im-sick-of-being-called-sinister.html

    According to a Facebook post by Brodsky today:

    Indications are that Kathy Savio took the stand and denied her guilt, and if that is the case, then she lied under oath in the battery case. If that is shown to be true then nothing Kathy Savio said can be believed or taken as reliable evidence in a court of law.

    So I assume the same holds true for Tom and Kris, no? If Drew Peterson’s sons lied under oath in the battery case then nothing they said can be believed or taken as reliable evidence in a court of law. And there goes Drew’s alibi for where he was on the night that Kathleen died.

    Ooops.

  24. Facs, you go girl! That’s what I’m talking about. It will definitely be a big ooops for defense.

  25. “Kathy,” as Brodsky liberally takes the opportunity to call the woman he’s never met but has bashed at every opportunity, denied her guilt under oath and, therefore, can’t be believed about anything she said.

    Who is this nitwit talking to? The jury pool? No, I guess not. Just the two who hang on his every word, Kris McPherson (may the pink elephants abound), and Paul “I cross-dress” Huebl.

    He can say what he wants–his client has been locked up for over 3 years now, and all he has done for him is make him look like an even bigger ass in the Sneed columns. There was no video attached to her last two-day column that purported to be the words of Drew Peterson, but I think it’s obvious most everyone is shaking their heads over what purpose that fiasco served. Bashed his wives and took no personal responsibility for his failures.

    I’m always reminded, whenever Peterson opens his trap via his attorney these days, how disrespectful, bashing and unkind he is when speaking of any of his four wives. He’s nothing but an ignorant, disgraceful, piece of garbage, whether he stays locked up for some more years, or is acquitted of the crime he’s been charged with. Only a woman who has no self-respect or self-worth would wind up with that creepy monster. Most of us know who’d like to have that (dis)honor.

  26. Drew Peterson’s motto: Honor thy father and love him, forget your mother.

    Heh, he wants to teach his daughter how to fish, according to his past interview with Sneed. I think his daughter needs an outside teacher to show her how to run as fast as she can from a leech like him when she’s about 17. Otherwise, she just might wind up being in the news as either a brainless twit, or the victim of a creep like him.

    He thinks of himself as the shining light in the lives of his children, even though he swooped down on young women like a sea vulture, and didn’t bother to stay home with them after Stacy disappeared. At least his son, Tom, called him out on it and admitted he’d tell his father to stay home and take care of his family, and quit bothering with the people he’s been known to schmooze with.

  27. Rescue, I hear that all prison interviews are recorded at the WCADF.

    I’ll bet it’s not too late for the State to subpoena the audio recordings of the latest Peterson-Sneed tête-à-tête. It would be fascinating if they decided to introduce Drew’s assertion that his boys lied to protect Kathleen.

  28. Yeah, another proud papa. I’m sure he does his family just as proud as the murder defendant does in this picture. Except, it didn’t seem to sit well with Tom, did it? No, no, no. Stay home with your family, dad.

Comments are closed.