Your Thread – July 18

Here’s Friday’s thread. Have a great weekend 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


164 thoughts on “Your Thread – July 18

  1. I see we have a conflict of interest.
    A real attorney??!!

    But attorneys for Kathleen Savio’s estate said that a wrongful-death lawsuit against the former Bolingbrook police sergeant likely won’t be initiated until after the grand jury investigating Savio’s death was discharged.

    “That’s something we’ll have to look at,” said John Q. Kelly, a New York attorney representing the Savio family. Kelly was the lawyer for Nicole Brown Simpson’s family in a successful civil suit against O.J. Simpson.

    “We still have to wait for some finality from the current grand jury investigation,” Kelly said.

    What he said………,0,7679524.story

  2. Just want to thank you all for making my first experience of following a case and blogging about it very interesting. Some of you have been great fun, and I’ll really miss posting with you. Gatehouse, you’ve been a wonderful host for the past five months or so that I’ve been here, so thank you for that.

    Unfortunately, it seems to me that the personalities of the bloggers are becoming more of an issue than discussion of case details, so I feel the need to discontinue further participation at this time. Seems that some of us manage to offend others unintentionally, and I’d rather back away than hurt another blogger’s feelings.

    I wish all of you the best, and pray that all is well that ends well. Take care. 😀

  3. I hate to see you go CFS. I have always enjoyed your posts and have always thought you were one of the few who had her heart in the right place. I will miss seeing your posts. I hope you will reconsider and come back soon. WP wont be the same without you.

  4. It is not the same Ashley that was leaving notes in his mailbox at the start of the year.

    That much has been confirmed.

  5. It’s been confirmed by two sources, one of which was media, that the girl who put the notes in Drew’s mailbox denies being Ashley from the internet, or having anything to do with going on.

    Now I realize Ashley from the blog has lied in the past, so I suppose I can’t really say it’s for 100% certain, but I can say that if it is her, she’s denying it pretty heavily.

  6. ok, i asked her at her site this morning if she was the same person. Guess she’ll tell me the same thing.

  7. seppy said…
    It’s been confirmed by two sources, one of which was media, that the girl who put the notes in Drew’s mailbox denies being Ashley from the internet, or having anything to do with going on.


    I guess I missed it with the media, do you have a link or anything?

  8. It hasn’t been reported.


    Until Ashley reveals herself to be whoever she is, it’s hard to know what to think.

    I do know that I can see a couple of angles where she may have helped Drew and Brodsky rather than hurt them, but that would depend on who she was and how she obtained parts of her information, even if it wasn’t illegal, it could have helped him.

    But I’m of the minority I suppose that doesn’t have the same appreciation for the information as some do. I already knew all of this about Drew Peterson, so it feels kind of gossipy, which makes me feel kind of dirty in the midst of a MP case.

    I simply can’t find the ‘meat’, and think that with things at a stand still people are feeding on ‘candy’ to tide them over.

    If she has anything that can be used in court, why is it being posted on the internet, possibly tainting it, or giving Brodsky a chance to prepare for it (Remember how fast LE shut Mimms up on the internet?) If it’s not evidence, then what does it matter?

    Ashley feels her reveal will be big. I assume by big she means entertaining.

    She’s been clear that her motives are her own, and by the things said and done I don’t believe those include the children (Who are this point my only concern, leaving the search to the searchers and the investigation to the police) and that nothing and no one will stop her, so I suppose all we can do is wait and see.

  9. As we hypocrites sit and wait for “her” to show us the dirty stuff he said! …oooo baby…

    Yeah. I am honest with myself too.

    I surely agree with your assessment, seppy.

  10. I’m with you. Candy rots your teeth and makes you fat, but we all have a sweet tooth and I tend to snack when I’m bored.

  11. It’s thick, but smoothing out.

    Had a few chunks and bumps in it!

    You should know in a “Jiffy”.

    Haha, bad peanutbutter jokes kill me.

    Seriously, should know by this evening.

  12. Amanda,

    You absolutely win today’s contest of bad hidden meaning peanut butter jokes.

    Seriously, if I had a trophy you would absolutely get my vote!

    You crack me up.

  13. *Struggling to come up with peanutbuttery puns*

    Ummm…..Jiff adds sugar but….ummm…I’m more the natural type….so ….it’ too bad I have to be stored in the fridge?….no….frequent stirring makes my consistancy better?…dang …something about chicken and nuts?

  14. I could make a joke about the peanutbutter sticking and not being able to open my mouth to talk.. but .. sometimes you gotta know when to fold them!

    On a different note, does anyone recall or happen to have copies of exactly what Ric Mimms said took place at ISP when he went to look at the two guns?

  15. Okay okay.. I was going to stop.. but just one more..

    You know the best drink to have with peanut butter?

    C’mon.. you know it..


    Haha. Okay. Done.

  16. I can’t find that but here’s a transcript from acandyrose of a 2/28/otr where Ric mentions Drew actually hiding the gun purposely so that the cops wouldn’t get all of his guns:

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: We have DP’s former friend Ric Mims with us. When LE seized DP’s belongings did they seize all his guns?

    RIC MIMS: No they didn’t. The night after they did the first search warrant DP pulled a folding gun out of his pocket and said “they didn’t get this one.” (Greta showed a photo of a folding gun.) There were also his old badges and IDs that he also hid.

    GRETA: Why do you think he showed this to you?

    MIMS: He was just trying to show me that they didn’t get those things and he’s still in control.

    GRETA: DP had the right to own guns up until the past day or so. So he was not in violations of anything to have that gun and didn’t have anything to be concerned about.

    MIMS: Now he does. Now that he doesn’t have a permit to carry a gun, it’s up to the police to handle that.

  17. acandyrose also had this from a tribune story 3/19:

    “A former friend of Drew Peterson said Wednesday [03/19/2008] that he was called into an Illinois State Police station and asked to identify a gun that Peterson allegedly still had after authorities seized his weapons.” – “Today, Illinois State Police recovered a pistol that they think was Drew’s. And it is his pistol,” Mims said. “It’s the same one that he pulled out when I was staying at his house. They’d already seized his other guns.”
    “Mims said Wednesday [03/19/2008] that police also showed him a .357-caliber pistol and asked whether he could identify it as Peterson’s. Mims said that he couldn’t say for sure.”

  18. Okay, so one gun he says -was- Drew’s and one he’s not sure.

    The one he says -was- Drew’s would be the one that got from Lenny and Paula?

    But Brodksy says that is not a folding gun, or anything close to what Ric described Drew as having had.

    Am I right?

  19. Brodsky doesn’t deny that Drew signed a gun over to them. He says that it is a .22 but that it doesn’t fold.

    The two guns seized from Paula and Len are a .22 and the .357. Paula says that the .22 is the gun that Ric mentioned seeing.

    “But other friends of Peterson, husband and wife Paula Stark and Len Wawczak, say the folding gun does exist and that Peterson signed it over to Stark the day after the state police pulled Peterson’s firearm owner’s identification card.
    Stark and Wawczak made the admission after being confronted with a state police evidence receipt for a Ruger .357 Magnum revolver and a North American Arms .22-caliber revolver seized from their home March 19. Stark’s name is on the receipt.

    The couple said the .22 is the folding gun Mims spoke of on “Nancy Grace.”

    “It was the same gun Ric Mims identified,” Stark said”

  20. Hope you girls aren’t using the meaning of peanut butter the same way Ashley used it. I mean not that there is anything wrong with that but……………………..

  21. From March 24, Nancy Grace show:

    CASAREZ: OK. We have a lot of issues here that I think are unanswered. Mr. Brodsky, did your client keep any guns once that search warrant was executed, do you know at all?

    BRODSKY: No. My client, Drew Peterson, did not have any guns in his possession after that search warrant. Now, Drew has had a gun card since he was 17 years old. He`s had — he`s been a police officer for 32 years. He`s owned a lot of different guns over that period of time. There is a possibility that a gun that he has owned — that he`s the owner of was in somebody else`s possession. That may have been the case. But there is no missing gun. There was no hidden folded gun in his house. That just simply isn`t the case.

  22. Geez:

    MIMS: We were sitting on the couch and he was — this was Wednesday, December 31. This was right after the press and everybody left. We were sitting on the couch. And he was worried that the police were going to come in and make him go do what he called a “72-hour sweat time.” At that point, he says, I don`t want the children going to the Cales family, so I`m going to have to hold you hostage here until my son gets here, Steve, to pick up the kids. And I just looked at him like he was crazy and I says, That`s not going to work.

  23. Grandma, at that point I think he was just hanging out at Drew’s a lot – watching the kids when Drew went out, etc.

  24. BRODSKY: No. My client, Drew Peterson, did not have any guns in his possession after that search warrant. Now, Drew has had a gun card since he was 17 years old. He`s had — he`s been a police officer for 32 years. He`s owned a lot of different guns over that period of time. There is a possibility that a gun that he has owned — that he`s the owner of was in somebody else`s possession. That may have been the case. But there is no missing gun. There was no hidden folded gun in his house. That just simply isn`t the case.

    I don’t doubt that what JB says is the truth, but he is elaborating, so I’ve gotta wonder if it was in the garage stashed somewhere, or if he had someone else ‘hold’ it for him? He is choosing his words very cleverly, IMO.

  25. Thanks, facs! I thought he had been staying at Drew’s but I couldn’t remember if it was out of need or jsut to give Drew support.

  26. BRODSKY: No. My client, Drew Peterson, did not have any guns in his possession after that search warrant.

    Well, if he showed Mims after they left that he had a gun strapped to his leg, then Brodsky did not tell the truth. From all accounts (besides Brodsky) that gun was still in the house after the search warrant and only left the house once Drew’s FOID card was revoked.

  27. Afternoon All –

    First of all, Paul, you are flat out telling a lie, and you know it. I’m not here to fight with you. I was simply pointing out your blog, and that people might want to take a look at you as a whole before putting much weight into it.

    I disagree about Spector also, but this blog is not about that case.

    I apoligize if I stepped over the line in mentioning your blog.

    Does anyone remember in the very first days of Stacy disappearance Ric being the “talking head” for Drew?

  28. I’m so confused on the “foldup” gun and the “Paula and Lenny gun” … I’ve posted my question on SYM, Amanda’s and Where Is Stacy hoping to get a clear answer … but I see that I am not the only one who is confused!


  29. Noway, the other night I could barely keep it all straight. And I still don’t know that I know anything about it.

  30. What confuses me is that in MAY Joel answered a question about a “folding gun” and says that LE took it (a gun once owned by Drew) from its current owners.

    But in JULY he says that the folding gun and the gun taken from Lenny and Paula are two different guns.

    Does this mean that LE took the folding gun from owners who WERE NOT Lenny and Paula?

    Joel … you’re killin’ me here!

    😀 😉

  31. To me it just looks like typical Joel speak. Put lots of versions of the “truth” out there, and you’ll never have to stick to any of them.

  32. I think Joel is saying that the gun that Lenny and Paula had (That he said in May was taken from it’s owners) is NOT a folding gun as Ric Mimms described.

    I think Joel also was saying that the gun was not on the property at the time that the search warrant was executed.

    Heck, Drew wasn’t even on the property at the time the search warrant was executed, right? He was filling out a statement.

    It is not Drew’s responsibility to provide LE with ‘potential evidence’ or ‘non evidence’. The warrant said guns or weapons on the property of the address listed.

    If the gun was not there when the warrant and search were executed, Drew did nothing wrong.

    Once he lost his FOID he would have had to relinquish ownership of any guns to a valid FOID card holder.

    Paula DID have a FOID at the time he signed the guns over. Her FOID was canceled AFTER that.

    I’m not putting a lot of thought into what Paula and Lenny said in regards to the gun being the one Ric was talking about because Ric was talking about a folding gun, and this one isn’t a folding gun (Supposedly) so maybe they were mistaken, misquoted, misunderstood, etc.

    Now if this gun folds.. guess that answers that.

    Still doesn’t mean Drew will get in trouble. If the gun was not in the home at the time of the warrant, and then returned to the home after the warrant, but was signed over when the FOID card was revoked, he’s still okay.

    As for the holding Ric hostage until his son got there for the little children, I believe that he said that 100%.

  33. Seppy – even the legal panel on Nancy’s were arguing over whether or not Drew was required to ‘turn over’ any guns or disclose there whereabouts when the warrant was served. Some say yes and others say no.

    I don’t think the gun issue is going to be a legal problem for Drew, but I do think it will make people look at Mim’s remarks a little more closely and give him a little more credibility.

  34. SUMMIT, Ill. — Illinois State Police are assisting on a body recovery call Friday in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

    The U.S. Coast Guard is conducting the search near Summit.

    It’s unclear what prompted the call. will update this story when more information becomes available.

  35. news

    Body Recovery Search Under Way In Ship Canal

    POSTED: 11:22 am CDT July 18, 2008
    UPDATED: 11:34 am CDT July 18, 2008

    SUMMIT, Ill. — Illinois State Police are assisting on a body recovery call Friday in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

    The U.S. Coast Guard is conducting the search near Summit.

    It’s unclear what prompted the call. will update this story when more information becomes available.

  36. OMG
    Thanks, let. That must give DP pause (except he doesn’t know what that means)

    I can’t stay just now, but want to tell cfs that I hope she will come back. I’ve enjoyed very much her thoughtful, intelligent posts and humour. Wish you very well indeed. X

  37. Even though I doubt it’s her (I don’t think her remains would qualify as a body any longer and Summit is quite a distance from Bolingbrook) I do hope that it makes his blood pressure rise just a bit whenever this happens.

  38. Facs, I’m with you.

    I’m been trying to find out more about it but right now the Eisenhower being closed down is what the news is focused on.

  39. letthetruthbefree // July 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    SUMMIT, Ill. — Illinois State Police are assisting on a body recovery call Friday in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

    The U.S. Coast Guard is conducting the search near Summit.

    It’s unclear what prompted the call. will update this story when more information becomes available.


    I’ve often wondered why they never looked down this way! I’ve said this a number of times – there’s plenty of places a person’s body could be dumped near here! Side roads, the Canal.

    I’m right near where this is going on!

  40. OT – I know this is off topic, but I’m sure you ALL heard about the beautiful 9 year old child that was killed and left for dead in the alley behind her dad’s house. Mya.

    They have a “person of interest” in custody. Thank heavens!!!!!!

  41. Rescue,

    Can you post a link? I actually haven’t heard of that.

    I have been watching the story of the 2 year old that has been missing for 5 weeks and was just reported missing.

    It looks like the mother killed her and buried her in the grandparents backyard. 😦

  42. Well they think she was, no body yet, and no proof, but a few good tips on her borrowing a shovel at the time the girl disappeared and the cadaver dogs hitting in the grandparents yard have led them to do a complete search.

    Besides, everything the mother has said is a lie.

    Her job, the babysitter, even the apartment where the babysitter lived.

  43. rescueapet // July 18, 2008 at 3:29 pm
    I’ve often wondered why they never looked down this way! I’ve said this a number of times – there’s plenty of places a person’s body could be dumped near here! Side roads, the Canal.

    I’m right near where this is going on!
    I also believe it wouldnt be hard to dispose of a body or evidence somewhere in the armpits of Chicago.. I have also thought of west side, and south side territories, where crime is normal.

  44. Don’t you have to transfer ownership to someone with a VALID card?

    With an incorrect birthdate and address, would that be an INVALID card even if the authorities did not know that until later?

    I mean, if my drivers license has expired, I know it’s not a valid license even if I haven’t been pulled over and a police officer tells me. 😀

  45. If authorities did not know then the burden doesn’t rest on Drew to be any more knowledgeable than them.

  46. letthetruthbefree is mistake or a flat out liar when she (I suspect it’s a she) claimed I attended any portion of the Spector trial.

    I did come to that courtroom for a couple of post trial motions not broadcast. Of course I wore a suit!

    I never wear t-shirts or buttons to court because if I did no lawyer or news outlet would hire me. I always wear a suit to court even while writing for my own blog.

    I don’t care who may or may not agree with my opinion as a professional licensed private investigator. I call it the way I see it and belive there is huge reasonable doubt in thge Spector case. We will wait for trial #2 and a new jury to reach a verdict.

    Verdicts in these cases are always difficult to predict.

    The parade of Spector’s old girlfriends would never happen anywhere but a California court.

  47. Does the burden rest with Paula, as a FOID card holder to know that the incorrect birthdate and or address make the card invalid?

    What address was provided?

    Was it completely phony? Or was it one she had lived at when she first applied for her FOID and she just never updated her card info?

    Was the incorrect birthdate deliberate or was it an inadvertant error based on someone not being sure what she had written?

    What were the two guns that did not belong to Drew that were not turned over to Drew to transfer to Stephen? Were they Stacy’s? Where are they?

  48. Of the 2 guns not returned, I think at the time they said one belonged to someone else. I assumed that would be the Glock. They didn’t return the vexed short rifle, either.

  49. Peterson’s FOID card was revoked in violation of his civil rights. The Heller opinion by the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that right. Now that he is under a felony gun charge they can suspend it. He will walk quickly on the gun charge for two reasons.
    1. The federal law legal exemption.
    2. 2. The State police measured the gun improperly.

    Should Peterson lose the Motion to Dismiss his lawyer will have a right to hire an expert to measure the gun and a new motion will be filed. This won’t last more than 60 more days.

    They will either develop evidence and charge Peterson with some crime/s or they won’t.

    They can no longer invalidate cards except for false relevant statements on the application, felony convictions or mental illness.

    The woman who claims on the FOID application she weighs 120 lbs won’t be revokable because she really weighs 145 lbs.

    If she lies about that conviction for drug possession she’s toast/

  50. Re: #1)
    Under the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card Act, a card may only be revoked for specific reasons, such as a conviction for a felony or domestic battery within five years, admittance to a mental health facility, providing false information on an application for the card and being subject to an existing order of protection.

    A card also may be revoked if the cardholder’s mental condition is found to present a clear danger to the person or other people.

    Some denials or revocations occur automatically when a person is convicted of a crime or committed to a mental facility, but others can be granted at the request of law enforcement, a family member or doctor, said state police Master Sgt. Luis Gutierrez. Last year, the agency denied or revoked 26 FOID cards.

    Re: #2 – hasn’t Brodsky acquiesced to the fact that the weapon is shorter than the law allows, but contends that Peterson was not in violation of the law as a police officer?

    Why would he backtrack and hire someone to measure something he already knows is too short?

  51. A defense lawyer can only handle evidence during the discovery phase. He will need a court order and an expert witness to do the job.

    You are correct on the FOID card but for conflicts with the Heller case that have invalidated some of those “special requests”.

    Brodsky has only filed a motion that exempts Peterson no matter the actual barrel length of the rifle.

    If that wins why even bother with hiring an expert and measuring?

  52. crimefile said:
    Peterson’s FOID card was revoked in violation of his civil rights

    No it wasn’t.

    ABC news reporter -Do your guns pose a threat to police should they come to arrest you?

    DP- Sure, it’s a possibility.


    He also proposed to take Ric Mims hostage, using the foldie.

  53. Heller made it clear that owning a gun does not require a license like driving a car. You have a right to a gun and no right to a car. They did make it clear that felons and mental illness history ends that right.

    You can no longer be arrested for haviong a common andgun or rifle in your home. Law are still on the books in a lot of places but they are now invalid. Chicago and DC poloce risk being sued for violation of civil rights trying to enforce an invalid law.

    There are still anti-abortion laws on the books in some places but they too are invalid.

    Felons and mentally ill people can never be forced to register their firearms because it violates their right against self-incrimination. SCOTUS has rule twice on that issue.

  54. fugatzi
    me too 😦

    The Heller ruling smells of a way to control overpopulation. I’d LOL here except it’s not very funny. I think it’s all barking mad.

  55. CFS… I also am sorry to see you go. Not sure what happened to make you leave, but I have found that your posts were always respectful.

    I will miss reading them. 😦

  56. bucketoftea // July 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Of the 2 guns not returned, I think at the time they said one belonged to someone else. I assumed that would be the Glock. They didn’t return the vexed short rifle, either.
    Eleven firearms were seized. Eight were transferred to DP’s son. There were two which were the property of BPD and then, of course, the AR-15.


  57. Thanks,miz….so where’s the Glock? I’m sure LE said at the time that one of them wasn’t returned because it belonged to “another individual”. Can’t remember the source. Maybe I’m mizinformed.

  58. By revoking his FOID card I think they (the State police) were trying to goad Peterson into filing a civil lawsuit as a way to get him to waive his right against self-incrimination and answer questions at a deposition.

    Like 70% of all murders that go unsolved this one is bgeyond difficult. Remember you have no body or cause of death. For a suspect you have the husband.

    It ain’t CSI or Law & Order, it’s reality.

  59. Hi Rescue, Harley, Miz

    Just a pleasant thought…are they acting on information by searching the canal again? They didn’t say what prompted the search…it doesn’t like a body was just being recovered…coast Guard “searching”.

  60. Not Sure bucket. I do have to agree with Facs, that I would not think there would be a “body”.

    Rescue, did you see anything?

  61. bucket – I’ve been going back to NBC’s website about that search, and they haven’t updated it since 10:30am.

    It would be a great thing if ISP got a tip to look in that area in this case, but that’s reaching, I know. Just that it’s strange it was mentioned on the local website this morning, and on MSNBC, but nothing since.

  62. I was back and forth past that area a number of times today, but I didn’t see any activity, at least from the standpoint of LE cars going off the main street to the Canal access roads.

    I’ll get the link to show you that the access roads/Canal run parallel to I55. In the area of Summit, that’s 15 miles from DP’s BB location.

  63. Although, I found it interesting that it said “recovery” of a body. Usually, that means something.

  64. Thanks Rescue! Always nice to get a visual!

    I still don’t know what to make of these gun charges.

    I will say that i think the word of the day is ” acquiesced” 8)

  65. My opinion regarding the gun charges? I think LE is doing every possible thing available to them to drive him nuts. They don’t want him to have a minute of peace. Why would they? Any time they can get in his face, they can and will.


  66. Which, if that is so, only seems to reiterate their case is flimsy, at best. Those tactics are played out more on the silver/TV screen than in “real life.”

  67. Gatehouse – do you have any information regarding Channel 5’s morning report about recovering a body in the Canal near Summit?

  68. Evening All –

    Back from an Irish Fest, did it rain or what…ughhh.

    No news yet about the body they were trying to recover?

  69. Is this by Wilmington … or am I completely off … trying to get map up but I’m on the laptop and have hard time multi-tasking.

  70. I’m way late with this but I was hoping cfs would have reconsidered by now.

    cfs … please do continue to post. And I’m not just saying that because I agree with most of what you say. 😉

  71. To my armchair detectives here:
    When I was a young cop in the late 1960s homicides were cleared by arrest 80% (plus or minus a little) of the time. People were charged, tried and sent to prison or death row on evidence we presented.

    Back then we had no DNA, or CSI super tools like Luminal. We had no wonderful things like credit and debit card transaction s or cell phones we could use to track potential suspects. There were no surveillance cameras like we have nearly everywhere. We relied exclusively on fingerprints and eye witness evidence.

    Today the homicide cases are cleared by arrest 30% (plus or minus a little) of the time. But folks we have these great new tools and we should be able to clear even more than we did 30 or 40 years ago, right?

    Instead the new tools exonerate the innocent more often than cause the arrest of the guilty. Thos cases where eyewitnesses identify suspects now get tossed really quickly when the innocent are not on the video at the crime scene but miles away perhaps using an ATM or at some Pizza Hut.

    Folks, our wonderful criminal justice system destroyed thousands of innocent people’s lives. This is something nobody ever wants to talk about.

    I do criminal defense investigation and news producing. I respect the Bill of Rights and would rather error on the side letting the guilty go free than risk destroying an innocent person’s life.

    I’m by no means a Liberal. I too want the guilty off our streets. We are so hungry for retribution we want to believe our wonderful cops always bags the right suspect just like on TV. I have learned one thing, we need to raise our standard of proof because beyond a reasonable doubt is not enough.

    In recent years we have changed laws and rules of evidence in our courts to make it easier than ever for prosecutors.

    You can take a man like music producer Phil Spector and judge him on his “creep factor” or stand back a take a long hard and objective look at the real evidence. He just like you deserves a fair day in court.

    I hope I have given you folks a little wisdom I gained over the last four decades working both the police and defense side of so many serious criminal cases.

  72. Thanks … I finally did get my maps to come up and saw where both were. And then the posts here popped up.

  73. Crime, seriously.

    Anyone that has been as “successful” as you claim to be, wouldn’t have to beg another blogger to try and form a show, a pro vs con Spector type deal.

    And Crime, what year was it you retired from the job? And what “serious” cases have you worked on for the defense?

  74. I don’t know Summit well enough, but would it have easy access on and off the expressway to the canal?

    What I’m picturing is the Cicero Ave exit, I believe it is, where you go over that scary bridge, would that be the route a person would take to get to the canal?

  75. crimefile – well, sir, that is the way of thinking in the perfect world, but this is not the perfect world. Most of us live as law abiding citizens, and don’t lose two spouses within 4 years from mysterious circumstances. Therefore, it is hard for many of us to remain clear and fair thinking when you have an individual, such as we discuss here, Drew Peterson, who acts nothing like we would expect an innocent man to act. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that his current wife did leave him, within days of her running off, he showed no emotion for losing her. Add to that mix, he’s in the fight of his life for his future freedom and the privilege of remaining with his children through their young lives, and, yet, he manages to bring out the worst feelings in just about all that lay eyes on him. Thanks to his obsession with himself and the lust for the limelight. He is not the first man to be in such a pickle, and others before him have, in fact, been convicted and sentenced. His day will come and he will have his day in court, I’m sure.

    Yes, he is afforded many privileges for being an American citizen, and the laws are written to protect the innocent. Drew Peterson included. That’s not to say many of us have to like it or remain silent ourselves if we choose not to.

    That, of course, is just my honest opinion.

  76. letthetruthbefree you are loose with the truth. I did not beg your friend I asked her on behalf of a friend at CNN. Once I saw she had no face for TV I understood we she did not respond to my e-mail.

    They wanted me to find a blogger usable for TV to take the prosecution side of trials like Spector while I take the defense in a battle of the bloggers.

  77. Crime, now that is hysterically funny, seriously.

    A face for TV, are you for real? That takes a lot of nerve of you to say that, did you really want to get into looks?

    Believe me, if CNN was interested in anything at all like that, they wouldn’t have you doing the brokering for them.

    Just answer the questions, Mr PI, what year did you retire, and what “serious” case have you worked on?

    If you were truly so good for “tv” and had some many connections with networks etc, you would be employed by them now, and not trying to sell “Zelda.”

    Just be honest with folks here that’s all that is asked. We may not always agree on this forum, and might see something completely different, but we don’t try to make yourselfs out to be something we arent.

  78. Paul…I’m serious, you need to run along now, I’m sure the networks are just dying to get your take on this case.

    And you really shouldn’t cast judgement on anyone’s looks….Just saying!!!!!

  79. Rescue, I must be thinking of a different area. I’m picturing coming off 294 southbound, right past Alsip….Does the canal go there?

  80. FYI
    There is always room in the corner for those who don’t behave themselves. 😉

    No face for TV either 😀

  81. Is it true that someone named “Sandra” is who the National Enquirer story is about … heard a bit about it on a chat but have not been brave enough to visit the blog or forum of Ashley …

  82. LTTBF – I’m not sure about the Canal and the Alsip area, but the area referred to today, near Summit, is near I55 and Harlem. Check out the link I posted earlier, and you can get a better idea of what I’m talking about.

  83. Let, she is the person in the NE article regarding Drew. She also chatted with him … along the same lines as Ashley … like I said, it was in a chat and I only caught the last few lines … I’m going over to her site …

  84. Rescue, I never, ever gave that area any thought. Not far from Bolingbrook, yet far enough away.


  85. letthetruthbefree GAFYS. I hope you’re smart enough to decode that little gem.

    You don’t tell the truth. You have no clue about the criminal justice system and are unable to learn. I’d say it’s been nice here but with you it has not. So long and I’m gone for good here.

  86. Well … it’s just in the comments.

    The “Anonymous” source (Gosh! Have you read the posts over there? Anonymous knows a lot of stuff!) says that there is a woman named Sandra/Sandy (does Drew not remember her name?) aka sb113 from Arizona had a online love affair with Drew.

    Anonymous says if we send a message to bdp85868, he will tell you just like he told Anonymous, that Drew (in true Drew style IMO) will retaliate by posting x-rated photos of her on the Internet.

    And these photos will show her face. (A face for the Internet?)

    That’s all I’m going to read … or post … on the subject.

  87. The guy has lost his sanity. Really. He’s got two teens to think about, and an adult son who still talks to him to think about, and he’s going to post raunchy pictures of a woman he captured on his webcam on the I-Net to, what, clear his name, prove a point, send a message?

    Yeah, that’s a plan.

  88. Rescue, I’m not in that area enough. But once you mentioned it I can see it as clear as day. There are many factory’s/plants in that area, isnt there?

  89. LTTBF – It is the CalSag Channel (aka Calumet Sag Channel) runs through Alsip and connects the Little Calument River with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal somewhere in Lemont.

    The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal goes north of Lemont (through Summit at one point) while the Cal-Sag runs northeast from Lemont.

  90. Think, sorry I’m the wrong one to ask. I get confused with them all. I can see all of them you are taking about, but I can’t tell you which one is which.

  91. Well … Anonymous says that Drew is going to post them … but I knew someone by that name once (Anonymous) and really … you couldn’t always believe what they said.

    I know it’s hard to believe but it’s true.


  92. 😀 I think the prescription drugs have kicked in. And contrary to what my doctor said, they are not making me sleepy at all. 😉

  93. Just to clarify my last post – the water in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal does not run north. So a body would have to enter the water at or north of Summit to be found in Summit. (Just in case people may think that something could flow from where the police were initially looking to this point.)

    NBC5 has never updated their page since around lunchtime and no one is picking the story up so I’m really wondering if there even was a body being recovered.

  94. The minute I saw the story I posted it here and then went to all the other news outlets, and nobody else mentioned it. I figured they were all covering the Eisenhower mess.

    Thing that make you go….hmmmmm!

  95. It could have been a worker that fell from a barge, or something of that nature. Just odd that they’d mention it and then not follow up on it.

Comments are closed.