Your Thread – June 9

Here’s Monday’s. Why so quiet everyone?

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to reportabuse@mysuburbanlife.com.

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “Your Thread – June 9

  1. I’ll be in and out a lot today … it will be in the mid 60s here … I feel for you people who are cranking the airconditioning! And those of you who have to watch out for tornados … yikes!

  2. Noway, I’m in both categories. A huge part of the state has been declared disaster areas. Those poor people who have no home and nothing to salvage!

  3. Here you go, a new rumour on legal pub!

    ” Anonymous said…
    Rumor has it that prosecutors found a bra believed to be Stacy’s by the dam. Any truth to the rumor?”

    I’m just wondering can this be the new Victoria Secret bra Fuzz was telling everybody Stacy wouldn’t leave behind?

  4. futatestalin are you asking this below and do you have a link?

    I’m just wondering can this be the new Victoria Secret bra Fuzz was telling everybody Stacy wouldn’t leave behind?

  5. *

    futatestalin // June 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Here you go, a new rumour on legal pub!

    ” Anonymous said…
    Rumor has it that prosecutors found a bra believed to be Stacy’s by the dam. Any truth to the rumor?”

    I’m just wondering can this be the new Victoria Secret bra Fuzz was telling everybody Stacy wouldn’t leave behind?
    *

    iknoweverythinglol // June 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    futatestalin are you asking this below and do you have a link?

    I’m just wondering can this be the new Victoria Secret bra Fuzz was telling everybody Stacy wouldn’t leave behind?
    ———————————-

    where is everyone talking of this rumor ??? what boards. I musta be out of the loop on finding out what is going on … do one of you have a link to where they are talking of this please…..

  6. Does anyone have the link to where it says Drew took off a couple of hours early the morning Stacy dissapeared?

  7. .. I think what the person who made that comment meant was that Mrs. Peterson wouldnt have left behind purchases she had just made if she had indeed left on her own…

    As for what has or has not been found.. I’m sure even if there is truth to that rumor that if the prosecution or LE wanted anyone to know they would have publically released it.. yes…

  8. Don’t know about Drew taking off early in the morning … he drove to Cushing but can’t find anything on the time. He may or may not have had some or all of the kids with him.

    As far as the bras, I read that Stacy had made a purchase of several VC bras, and would have taken those (new) with her.

    To determine that a bra found near the dam was Stacy’s is interesting … DNA on the bra?

    Unless she was prone to labeling her unmentionables. 😉

  9. I’ll wait and see if anything hits the papers about said bra.

    I’m not getting why there’s any significance to Stacy buying new bras and then not taking them with her when she left. According to Drew she didn’t take anything but a swimsuit, money and a passport. She didn’t even take panties so why assume it would be strange for her to leave the bras? She didn’t take any pictures of the kids either – wouldn’t that seem odd? Of all the things that you would think it strange for her to leave behind, I’m just not sure how the bras stand out?

    All moot, anyway of course, since she didn’t leave voluntarily.

  10. “Taking off early”

    You mean, taking of a few hours early from work? Arriving home a couple hours early? I haven’t seen anything about that.

  11. Anonymous on Legal Pub. . . Are the choices limited on Legal Pub … or can someone explain why it is that the posters on Legal Pub cannot even come up with some name other than Anonymous.

  12. To determine that a bra found near the dam was Stacy’s is interesting …
    *********************************

    If cass had gone shopping with her the day before, she might have been able to identify it – at least to saying that she had bought a bra identical to the one found.

    Still, I feel silly even discussing it until or unless we hear something more concrete.

    I bought an antique dresser on EBAY and when I got it home and pulled the drawers out I found three really nice bras that had been pushed behind one drawer. They were very fancy and probably expensive, and they were even my size…but I tossed them. Too weird.

  13. Because they met outside work once, they became a bit more talkative when Drew went the store. She had Drew’s phone numbers from work, and Drew told her, (as is his common practice – wait and read the whole post), that if she ever needed a hand that she should give him a call.
    _________________
    Joel A. Brodsky’s comment on Legal Pub. Me thinks they’ve met outside work more than once Joel …

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5166169592714997268&postID=9149613399932217491

  14. noway – LegalPub encourages anonymous posting (because its members supposedly include celebrity and hi-profile lawyers). I guess it’s easier to click ‘anonymous’ than make up a screen name?

  15. There is a difference between “a bra like one Stacy owned” and “Stacy’s bra” … but since it looks like that was a drive-by poster, we’ll have to wait!

    And my quote above from Joel is regarding Kim M.

  16. facs, I went to Legal Pub myself to see what the options were … yes, easier to use the Anonymous but funny when someone quotes “Anonymous at 12:14” 🙂

  17. Joel changed his story considerably once Kim M talked to the press. Once she gave up the goods he admitted to a much more intimate relationship between the two.

    It’s pretty entertaining to see the first spin he tried to rock, and then how it changed.

  18. but funny when someone quotes “Anonymous at 12:14″
    **************************************

    LOL. I guess it makes sense if everyone has the same assumed name.

  19. iknoweverythinglol // June 9, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Looks like it was a hit and run, typical Cybil fashion.
    $$$$$$$$$

    Hey , hey!No hit and run! We, the rest of the world have a life so I can’t check here every second. I thought you “knowing everything”, already know about legal pub…hmmm… doesn’t seem to be the case!
    Here is your link https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=9149613399932217491&blogID=5166169592714997268&isPopup=false&page=2

    Regarding your Sybil reference, he he he! That person entertained the entire kimmer’s forum … hmmm … not anymore! I heard she is on another forum and the fun is just the same… wished I had THAT link!

  20. facs, I hate when that happens to me … post a link and it’s four lines long!

    As far as Joel … he can’t claim that he was misquoted. It’s his post under his name, and Legal Pub has verified that he really is the Joel A. Brodsky who is the lawyer for Drew Peterson.

    I would like to hear his explanation for the lie.

  21. I meant that the entire thread at LegalPub is very long!

    I’ve given up on expecting Brodsky to respond to any of the contradictory statement’s he’s made. He hasn’t responded to any questions about them yet so I don’t think he will.

    Maybe that’s what is meant by being an ‘excellent’ criminal defense attorney. Oops, I mean a ‘creative’ criminal defense attorney.

    Even LegalPub does it!

  22. Here’s a bit from JB about the law he is trying to cite in defense of Drew carrying the modified AR-15. What I never see is how this law excuses carrying an “illegally” modified weapon. What am I missing there?:

    Joel A. Brodsky said…
    My further reasearch on the federal statute in question the “Law Enforcement Officer Saftey Act” (LEOSA) has revealed that congress intended it to cover concealable assault rilfes like the AR-15 in question (alleged short barrel and colapsable stock) During the house committee debates an amendement was offered (Scott Amendement) to have assault rifle type weapons to the those excluded from coverage under the statute (like machine guns and silencer equiped guns. The amendement was denied. Therefore, congress specifically intended LEOSA to apply to assault rifles like the AR-15. Further, there is a New York case now being reported on Westlaw (NY vs. Booth, 2008) where it was decided that even if it is against an officers department rules to own or carry a specific weapon, LEOSA still gives the officer imunity because LEOSA is intended to cover privately owned weapons, not just duty weapons.

    June 6, 2008 6:47 AM

  23. AND…what is his deal about what laws are ‘intended’ to apply to? Isn’t the whole point of a law to write down exactly what is what? If the law was intented to apply to assault rifles, why doesn’t it explicitly say so?

    If he needs to cite a law and then try to pull implications out of it, maybe he should look for a different law to cover his client’s ass.

  24. Love the smiley the 8 and ) caused in your quote above!

    Every time I think I understand the gun issue … I realize I don’t.

    I need the book for Dummies on this one too.

    😀

  25. I’m especially perplexed because the legal types at LegalPub didn’t call out the law as not being applicable. So what is it I’m not seeing?

  26. In the email Greta had from Chief McGury about the gun charge:

    “We believe Drew Peterson purchased that weapon, an AR15, from a third party. Drew Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon and it is not registered with the BBPD. No PO is authorized to carry such a weapon, however a SWAT team member is, but that weapon must be brought in and inspected by our firearms expert to make sure it doesn’t violate any state or federal laws. The serial number must be recorded and they must pass a qualifications test. Mr. Peterson did none of these. Because it was altered this weapon is a clear violation of any regulations and Mr. Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon. I challenge Mr. Brodsky to subpoena our records as he has threatened to do. He will find no record of this weapon.”
    ____________
    My understanding was that the gun was legal for SWAT (which Drew was) ONLY if the gun was inspected by the Bolingbrook PD and passed that inspection … and became registered.

    Because there is no paperwork for that weapon (in any state), that is what makes it an illegal weapon … ?

    Off to Amazon to buy my Gun Law for Dummies book … 😀

  27. facsmiley // June 9, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    I’m especially perplexed because the legal types at LegalPub didn’t call out the law as not being applicable. So what is it I’m not seeing?
    ____________
    Why do all the legal types remain anonymous?

    Are they really legal types?

  28. I mean if Joel Brodsky makes his name public and the case we are discussing is that of his client … why wouldn’t other legal types post as Joe A. Brown or whoever?

    Is it because they don’t want their post and opinion to be held against them should they find themselves defending someone for the same thing?

    I just found it odd that all the lawyers would remain anonymous.

  29. Why do all the legal types remain anonymous?

    Are they really legal types?
    ***************************

    Good point. Who knows? A blog is a blog and Anonymous is an anonymous poster. I think I need to read that site just as I would any other Internet forum.

    Plus, I perceive some toadyism going on between LegalPub and Brodsky. LP seems a little too excited to have Brodsky participating openly on his blog. Kinda like….that other place.

  30. I think that LP may intend that the site be a place where lawyers can post anonymously, for the reason you just stated (and maybe others), but that also allows Joe or Jane Pretender to post whatever wanna-be ideas are going through his/her head.

    I’m also not convinced that people like JB wouldn’t use that forum to seed favorable comments about himself, just like he’s using…other places…to get favorable feedback and gather information.

  31. Well, I can see why anyone would want Joel posting on their blogforumboard. 🙂 It brings more people to the site … people who might stay even if Joel moved on …

  32. I’m just getting online, and there was this article on the Suburban News board:

    Authorities searching Kankakee River for body

    June 9, 2008
    Recommend (21)

    Wilmington ESDA personal, Illinois Department of Natural Resources police, Will County Sheriff’s Police and the Wilmington Fire Department make plans to recover a body from the Kankakee River at Werner Bridge Road Monday.

  33. LOL. I went to that site and had to laugh. Once someone here asked me if I was an avon lady. I thought because my name is sometimes lAVONda…when actually it is lAVAnda. ANyhow….I read the comment about the avon ladies in that link above…and whomever wrote it is wrong. (boy the things people come up with!) I for one did not bid on any avon basket but my good friend did and she won the basket….and believe me, we carried it to the car and to her home and enjoyed all the neat things in it. (It was not donated back) So much for that rumor about Sharon and the Avon baskets.

  34. Here’s the link for the above story:

    h
    ttp://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/996163,jo09_river_web.article

  35. Joel is a fool to be posting in any blog. At first I thought it could be anyone pretending to be Joel…however, after reading some of the dumb stuff posted….I realized…. it IS Joel.

  36. noway406 // June 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Well, I can see why anyone would want Joel posting on their blogforumboard. It brings more people to the site … people who might stay even if Joel moved on …
    *********************************

    I can see that, but I also think all members should be treated equally. If JB doesn’t get called out for BS or contradictory statements then there’s some pathetic kissing of butt going on. And that’s a shame.

  37. Good evening everyone.

    There were a bunch of storms yesterday, especially south, so that could have something to do with recovering a body in that area.

  38. It was in Wilmington at the Werner bridge, the tornado touched down very close to that bridge.

  39. Just to clear things up about mollymcgee’s post:

    Body of missing person pulled from river

    June 9, 2008
    Recommend (54)

    Staff reports

    CUSTER TOWNSHIP — A body was pulled from of the Kankakee River on Monday afternoon in the Kankakee River State Park about a half mile west of Warner Bridge Road.

    It is believed to be a male in his 40s from Kankakee, but police are withholding identification until the victim¹s family is notified.

  40. lol
    I remember being asked if I was an Avon lady.

    I thought they were calling me a ding dong because of my latest post (as in “ding! dong! Avon calling!). . .

    😀 😀

  41. I had to run some errands and fix dinner, so I’m just getting back here. I checked the news, and the body found in the Kankakee River was that of a man. It’s believed he drowned recently, sometime in the past few days.

    I wish they would find Stacy, but logic tells me it’s likely she won’t ever be found.

  42. I think she may never be found, but I think that time will tell. Something happened to her and too many people want to know the truth for the secret to stay a secret forever.

Comments are closed.