Your Thread – July 23

And another one. Why so quiet lately?

~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

188 thoughts on “Your Thread – July 23

  1. I think the money thing was a ruse to start an argument with DP so they could cut off ties with him.

    Brodsky fell for it!!!
    His reply was about what we could expect!!!

  2. Luvpups, that’s what I thought too.

    A way to “get out” without tipping off Drew.

    And Joel’s response? Well, did it come through his Google Blog or Google login? Because that’s the only way it came from the Real Joel.

  3. I’m wide awake now.

    Am I reading the response right? Brodsky insinuates that Len & Paula need money, and instead of going to NE, they went to Hosey, so that their story would be out in the public, ready to make money?

    He doesn’t necessarily believe there are tapes, but if they are, they’ll prove his client is innocent. Innocent of making statements, I guess, because what else would he be talking about? Does he think Drew said on the tapes that he didn’t kill anyone and he’s being framed? Because that’s about the only way they’d prove he’s innocent.

  4. Brodsky said Sharon detained Drew’s son and went running to the police. Nothing.

    Brodsky said Cassandra peeled out and went to the police. Nothing.

    Brodsky said Sharon is obstructing justice because she didn’t allow access to her cameras. Nothing.

    Brodsky said MPhelps illegally recorded a conversation and went to the CT AG. Nothing.

    Brodsky said Peterson gets death threats and reported it to the FBI. Nothing.

    Brodsky said Stacy’s been spotted in Peoria, Kentucky, Thailand and some island. Nothing.

    Brodskly said Paula and Len are obstructing justice because they are being cooperative with a Sun Times reporter during an ongoing investigation. Hmm.

    He’s sooooooooooooo believable. What a great lawyer.

  5. Statement from Joel Brodsky on Alleged Wiretap of Drew Peterson by ‘Friends’
    ThePublicityAgency.com – July 23, 2008

    (PRNewsChannel) / Chicago, Ill. – The following is a statement from Joel A. Brodsky, criminal defense attorney for Drew Peterson, on this morning’s published report in the Chicago Sun-Times that former friends of Peterson wore a wiretap and secretly recorded conversations with Peterson for authorities.

    “The obvious questions are: Why would Paula Stark and Len Wawczak be sharing their story with the media? And if they were acting on behalf of authorities would the police allow these supposed undercover agents to reveal anything Drew said which would incriminate him?”

    “To answer the second question first, if Drew had made any incriminating statement to Wawczak and Stark when they were supposedly undercover agents, today’s news would include their arrest for obstruction of justice. The police would never allow the disclosure of any such information in an ongoing investigation. The fact is that Drew never made any of the statements Wawczak and Stark attribute to him, period”.

    “Secondly, the reason Wawczak and Stark and talking now can be attributed to the fact that they are about to be evicted from their home, and they are in a dire economic situation. A month ago they tried to borrow money from Drew and he refused. It seems obvious that they want to sell their story and they used a reporter to get the word out.”

    “If there truly are tapes Wawczak and Stark secretly recorded for authorities as they claim, Drew hopes the tapes are released soon because he knows that they will prove he is innocent.”

    Media Contacts:
    Joel A. Brodsky, Drew Peterson’s Attorney Phone: (312) 701-3000
    or
    Glenn Selig, publicist, ThePublicityAgency.com
    glenn@thepublicityagency.com
    (813) 948-7767

    Source Web Site: ThePublicityAgency.com
    _______________
    Just wanted to have the words of wisdom here too. 😀

  6. Does he really think that they would “claim” they recorded Drew for authorities if they did not?

    Drew hopes the tapes are released soon, not because he knows they will prove he is innocent but so his publicist will know what spin to add to it all.

    IMO

  7. Brodsky is in such a trickbag right now, because he has to solely rely on Peterson to tell him what could be on those tapes. I think Brodsky should be working on getting Peterson psychiatric help because he borders on insane. I know his job is to defend his client, but I never heard of a lawyer issuing statements through a PR agency. Has anyone else ever heard of that or seen that?

    There has to be zero public sympathy for 666. His public personal is in the toilet.

  8. Well I wondered myself why they would allow the news out, but maybe they only let out part of what was said. Could be more we haven’t heard and drew is thinking real hard what he may have said to them.

  9. Maybe what’s on those tapes isn’t something that can be used in any legal way, but maybe there’s a wealth of information on them that led LE to information and avenues they wouldn’t have knowledge of unless Peterson so openly blabbed. Maybe Brodsky’s assuming these tapes are going to be used for something other than information, so Paula and Len aren’t obstructing anything!

  10. Imagine trying to recall your conversations with any couple you know from the last 7 months.

    I’m sure Drew is thinking hard. Wondering.

    To have a client like this … where everything is cleaning up messes … and the trial hasn’t started yet … it must be getting to Joel.

  11. Brodsky says everyone is obstructing justice. Trouble is, he says it so much, it’s worthless. Peterson’s public image is so damaged and worthless right now, he can say anything he wants and no one gives a hoot.

    Boy, the things that may be going on that we don’t know about. But, it’s nice to know that Brodsky and Peterson don’t know either.

  12. You have to hand it to ISP for keeping things quiet all this time.

    Probably driving Brodsky nuts. 😉

    I’m going to try to get some sleep. “See” you tomorrow.

  13. “Remains”

    One word.

    Said by one man.

    Twice.

    Kathleen’s “remains”.

    Stacy’s “remains”.

    What love “remains” for the children who have been deliberately and permanently separated from their mothers by their murderous father?

    A bittersweet happy ending for them, that.

    My tiny hope that Stacy could/would possibly be found alive absolutely, and irrevocably, died today.

    Saying Kaddish, and sitting Shiva as close as allowed…

  14. I just meant to post this:

    basherette // July 23, 2008 at 6:21 am

    “Remains”
    One word.
    Said by one man.
    Twice.
    Kathleen’s “remains”.
    Stacy’s “remains”.

    ************************
    Bash – remember, those aren’t quotes from Drew. Those are quotes from Len.

    But I certainly hope that Drew is saying ‘remains’ on those recordings.

    Anyone have a theory as to why they would go to the press before there was an arrest? Is LE hoping to get a confession?

  15. Facs …. 😀 Been there and done that!

    Brodsky before breakfast? Probably better than after … so off I go to read and watch.

  16. Oh, I think he is tied up in knots inside himself. Sure he will and JB will make jokes about it and wise off about it. I think he is afraid, very afraid. We’ve all agreed, I think, that DP is not stupid, nor is he insane (IMO). He is playing the game with whatever cards are delt to him and with each roll of the dice he is gambling that he may end up with a ‘Go Directly to Jail – Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.00’ card. Time is not on his side, but he could be singing that song very soon.

  17. Well, I guess we need to watch for Len & Paula to be arrested, because that’s what Brodsky says he expects to see. Says they’re felons and obstructing justice by making these tapes and divulging them. Oh, but there are no tapes either.

    I understand he has to defend his client, but why does he say there’s no pink elephant in the room when it can be proven there is?

  18. Grandma – LOL, I never agreed that Drew wasn’t stupid.

    I honestly believe he thinks he’s done nothing wrong. In the world he travels in, everything is hunky dory. I think he’s out of his mind, and people who aren’t mentally balanced make very unsound decisions and do unconventional things sometimes. I cannot, however, rationalize why Brodsky acts the way he does. He makes solid, absolute statements like “there is no tape,” when, in fact, it can be proven one way or another. Why not just say his client denies blah, blah, blah and be done with it? I think his lawyering is atrocious.

    Now, everyone will be subjected to the same bullcrap again when he makes the tv circuit rounds.

  19. “It’s all the same whether they get me or they don’t.”

    How do they ‘get you’ if you’re innocent?

    Maybe he means it as in ‘come and get me’. Still…

  20. Did you hear Brodsky saying first that there weren’t any tapes, and then that he doesn’t question that there’s a tape, just what’s on it?

    Grasping. Grasping.

  21. I wonder how much recording went on after Drew had a few rum and cokes in him. I’ll bet he’s wracking his brain today, going over 7 months of what he may have let slip…

  22. I wonder……morning all…..I wonder….If this was happening behind the scene for so long, imagine what else is going on that we don’t know YET !!! This just gets better and better and more incredible on the part of JB…someone needs to gag the man…lol j/k

  23. JB and DP should start thinking about, how many other friends have been working with ISP.
    Maybe M. Robinson, to save his butt.

  24. See – this comment was made AT THE TIME of Kathleen’s death, according to Paula. Not on the present tapes. So, in my mind, why was he mocking the police then? Because they wound up clearing him without him having to lift a finger to prove his non-involvement! Sounds like he got a gift handed to him at the time Kathleen died, and he knew it!

    Stark said at the time Peterson mocked the cops investigating the drowning, saying, “‘She was in a dry bathtub, what a bunch of f—— idiots.’”

  25. I don’t believe DP is insane; not for a minute. I believe he is cunning, sly and calculating. I believe he made mistakes but he doesn’t.

    He made the statement about ‘whether they get me or they don’t’ … and something about let them roll the dice and I’ll roll the dice … I may not be totally accurate on the dice statement so I didn’t put it in quotes.

  26. “Secondly, the reason Wawczak and Stark and talking now …”

    They didn’t take the time to even proofread that press release. Smells like panic.

  27. Peterson said he was surprised to learn that his friends said they were recording him but suggested the couple had motives beyond the investigation.

    “They stormed off mad one day when I wouldn’t lend them money,” Peterson told the Sun-Times. “They wanted some big money from me.”

    ****************

    Well, I would expect that the exchange regarding them wanting money will be on the tapes.

    But, what I find interesting is that Peterson didn’t mention that they tried to blackmail him. He said they wanted him to “lend them money.” That, I assume, will be on the tapes.

    It is not logical that they would be in this for money and be doing this to “sell their story,” as Brodsky is claiming. If they were in this strictly for the money, rather than trying to catch him in his lies and tales, would they have just as well tried to blackmail him? Instead, they ask him for a loan and then go away mad, only to pop up in the mainstream media to get attention for future money deals?

    Huh?

  28. It just occured to me that L &P couldn’t possibly be breaking any wiretap laws by speaking out.

    They aren’t revealing the content of the recordings. They are just repeating what Drew has said to them in conversation. How could that possibly be illegal?

  29. facsmiley // July 23, 2008 at 10:56 am

    It just occured to me that L &P couldn’t possibly be breaking any wiretap laws by speaking out.

    They aren’t revealing the content of the recordings. They are just repeating what Drew has said to them in conversation. How could that possibly be illegal?
    ————————————————————-

    Whether it is illegal or not, I don’t know.

    I just do not understand why people want to show their hands (those with something to show?) – the same people who are so concerned with him being brought to justice?

  30. Maybe LE doesn’t need those tapes as “evidence,” or admit them into any legal proceedings. Maybe they learned enough from listening to that blabber mouth to develop enough evidence to charge and convict him. I really don’t think that saying he should have cremated his ex-wife’s body is anything more than disgusting babble. But, maybe he did say something that led the cops to a place where they’re quite comfortable with!

  31. I seriously doubt that L&P spent 7 or 8 months working with the police, only to speak about it if they were not supposed to.

    It appears to me that they have taken this matter very seriously. As they should.

  32. Isn’t it a possibility that LE has no intention of releasing anything on those tapes? That this is an “in your face, Peterson” kind of thing? Leaves Brodsky with the task of fighting the invisible monster right now.

    At this point, it’s up to LE to figure out whether they’re admissible or not. I’m just saying maybe there is a wealth of information they learned by what he said, and they used that information to gather evidence against him for later.

    In an actual trial, I believe Brodsky would finally get those tapes in discovery, and listen for himself as to what is and isn’t on there. If he thinks there’s words uttered by Peterson that will clear him, then he’ll use the tapes for his own benefit. Just seems like that might be playing with fire.

  33. In other words, I guess I mean it’s not what he said, which can be interpreted according to what side you’re on, but what was learned by what he said. Maybe he made a remark that may have helped LE zero in on a location where the body of Stacy might be, as an example.

  34. Woo – I feel like such a smarty-pants. I just watched a legal analyst on WGN say what I’ve been saying this morning.

    There’s nothing legally keeping L&P from speaking out publically (certainly nothing felonious). Brodsky, as usual is pulling charges out of his ass.

  35. Channel 9 legal analyst says – a judge would have had to approve the ease dropping. If it was done legally, Drew would have problems. Ease dropping is done when the involved party doesn’t know he’s being taped.

    If they did it on their own, they’d be in violation of the State Statute, a felony, punishable for up to 5 years.

    Brodsky saying it’s a felony or crime what Paula and Len did, going to the press – there’s nothing in the Code that says what they did is a crime. (So, he’s full of baloney.)

    Damaging to the prosecution by giving interview – analyst says they might not like it, but he sees nothing that they have said, including the remark about cremating Kathleen, that is troublesome for the prosecution by Paula and Len giving an interview.

    Should be available online later.

    http://wgntv.trb.com/

  36. Wow – Rescue, it’s like we were sitting together watching the news and then racing back to the puter to type.

    Great job on the run down, BTW!

  37. Thank you Facs. The legal analyst’s opinions will be available on the website soon, I’m sure. Very interesting. It’s nice to see what another lawyer thinks, and analyze it.

  38. Aw, I got a call and missed a good portion of it. I think Peterson is saying that they set him up, and they’re selling their story for money to the National Enquirer. He also said he may be on Fox tomorrow, but wouldn’t go on today.

    Did anyone else see it?

  39. I just read on Ashley’s blog someone “heard” that Len and Paula taped him on their own. Let the games begin, huh??????

  40. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-wire-web-jul24,0,5006.story

    Drew Peterson: Tapes would clear me

    Friends reportedly recorded talks with ex-cop after disappearance of Stacy Peterson

    By Erika Slife and Matt Walberg | Chicago Tribune reporters

    12:22 PM CDT, July 23, 2008

    Drew Peterson said Wednesday that he was feeling “numb” from what he saw as a back-stabbing by friends who said in a published report that they had secretly recorded conversations with him for police and believed that the former Bolingbrook police sergeant would be arrested.

    At the same time, Peterson said, any tapes would clear him of any complicity in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth, Stacy Peterson.

    In hindsight, Peterson said, he should have seen the latest episode coming. He said the friends, Len Wawczak and his wife, Paula Stark, were always trying to profit from his notoriety.

    “Lenny’s out of work. Paula’s not working,” Peterson said. “Both of these people are trying to capitalize on Drew Peterson’s grief…”

  41. L&P taped Drew on their own?

    “Wawczak and Stark recorded seven months of conversations with the former police officer, according to the Herald News of Joliet. Wawczak said they were contacted by state police in mid-November, the newspaper said.”

  42. He’s got himself so puffed up he might float away… nah! that would be a good thing, it ain’t gonna happen….

  43. “Peterson denied he ever voiced wishes Savio had been cremated.”

    Really? This isn’t the first time we’ve heard that he had wanted her cremated.

  44. Peterson comments that Paula & Len brought friends over to his house and had pictures taken with him……..

    Um, yeah, they were carrying on with him the way they normally would have. Duh. Did he think they were going to let him in on their little secret and act suspicious and stand-offish? Come on. Who does 666 think he’s convincing he’s the victim, once again? It’s getting to the point where the newscasters can’t keep a straight face anymore when they report on him.

    I wish he’d go slither away under a rock and shut up. He makes me sick.

  45. In hindsight, Peterson said, he should have seen the latest episode coming. He said the friends, Len Wawczak and his wife, Paula Stark, were always trying to profit from his notoriety.

    “Lenny’s out of work. Paula’s not working,” Peterson said. “Both of these people are trying to capitalize on Drew Peterson’s grief.”

    **********

    Yeah, funny, all the time wearing wires for LE. Hmmm. Yeah, I can see how they were trying to capitalize on Drew. Wow, it’s so obvious. I hope they got that all on tape how they were trying to screw him.

  46. You know what else is really striking. Brodsky and Peterson are saying these people are trying to capitalize on Drew’s grief, right?

    Aren’t they doing the same thing? They didn’t dispute talking to crime writer MPhelps. They only disputed the circumstances and the things said in the conversation.

    Is that not capitalizing on the grief of Drew Peterson – trying to sell themselves a book deal.

    Brodsky and Peterson – shut up. You look like morons.

  47. Facs, listen to what the reporter calls Brodsky at about 55 seconds on that video link you gave.

  48. “Peterson’s wife says neither the couple nor the report are credible.”

    As in, Peterson’s wife – Joel Brodsky.

    Priceless.

  49. February 27, 2008

    Brodsky has mounted an aggressive campaign for media coverage, including interviews with national TV shows.

    Asked whether she discussed those issues with Brodsky, Odeh said, “Absolutely. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

  50. “capitalize on his grief?”

    What grief – online dating, the dating game, etc. – is that grief?

    This moron hasn’t grieved one day since Stacy went missing (murdered).

  51. facsmiley // July 23, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    “Peterson’s wife says neither the couple nor the report are credible.”

    As in, Peterson’s wife – Joel Brodsky.

    Priceless.
    ________________
    Now we know who #5 is … 😉

  52. noway406 // July 23, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    facsmiley // July 23, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    “Peterson’s wife says neither the couple nor the report are credible.”

    As in, Peterson’s wife – Joel Brodsky.

    Priceless.
    ________________
    Now we know who #5 is …

    ………………………………………………………….

    Bet it was a shotgun wedding…………LOL

  53. “Peterson’s wife says neither the couple nor the report are credible.”

    As in, Peterson’s wife – Joel Brodsky.

    ____________

    Neither is the couple of Peterson and Brodsky…

  54. It all makes sense now, at least to me, Lenny and Paula are Ashley. I hope that they, LE, was successful in gaining knowledge as to where Stacys remains may be.

  55. Rescue – I saw the Fox thing. Yes, Drew told the lady that they are just looking to sell their story to the NE. Funny thing though – This story was in the Sun-Times. Not NE. I wouldn’t think that the Sun-Times paid for this story.

    Golly Drew, sure does suck to be a “Celebrity” huh?

    This is reminding me of Scott Peterson. I still remember hearing those conversations with Amber. Especially the one where he was at a vigil for Lacy and talking to Amber saying he was out of the country. I was stunned.

    I wonder if we will hear any of those precious gems.

  56. Mainstream newspapers don’t “buy” stories. Peterson likes to point his finger and spew his crap about everybody else, but neglects to explain away why he does it. Book deal – sell a story? Duh, isn’t that what Phelps said?

  57. Just Thinkin’ posted this on SYM.

    It’s long but it’s worth a read.

    For those interested in reading law:

    Check out 720 ILCS 5/14-2(3). Unauthorized disclosure of any information learned from a eavesdropping devise is a Class 4 Felony. Authorized disclosures are law enforcement related only.

    Illinois – PART B. OFFENSES DIRECTED AGAINST THE PERSON
    ARTICLE 14. EAVESDROPPING (2006)
    720 ILCS 5/14-2 (2006)
    § 720 ILCS 5/14-2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense

    Sec. 14-2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense. (a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:

    (1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the “Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963”, approved August 14, 1963, as amended [725 ILCS 5/108A-1 et seq. or 725 ILCS 5/108B-1 et seq.]; or

    (2) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious hearing or recording of oral conversations or the interception, retention, or transcription of electronic communications and the intended or actual use of the device is contrary to the provisions of this Article; or

    (3) Uses or divulges, except as authorized by this Article or by Article 108A or 108B of the “Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963”, approved August 14, 1963, as amended [725 ILCS 5/108A-1 et seq. or 725 ILCS 5/108B-1 et seq.], any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device.

    (b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge brought under this Article relating to the interception of a privileged communication that the person charged:

    1. was a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to an order of interception, entered pursuant to Section 108A-1 or 108B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 [725 ILCS 5/108A-1 et seq. or 725 ILCS 5/108B-1 et seq.]; and

    2. at the time the communication was intercepted, the officer was unaware that the communication was privileged; and

    3. stopped the interception within a reasonable time after discovering that the communication was privileged; and

    4. did not disclose the contents of the communication.

    (c) It is not unlawful for a manufacturer or a supplier of eavesdropping devices, or a provider of wire or electronic communication services, their agents, employees, contractors, or venders to manufacture, assemble, sell, or possess an eavesdropping device within the normal course of their business for purposes not contrary to this Article or for law enforcement officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections to manufacture, assemble, purchase, or possess an eavesdropping device in preparation for or within the course of their official duties.

    (d) The interception, recording, or transcription of an electronic communication by an employee of a penal institution is not prohibited under this Act, provided that the interception, recording, or transcription is:

    (1) otherwise legally permissible under Illinois law;

    (2) conducted with the approval of the penal institution for the purpose of investigating or enforcing a State criminal law or a penal institution rule or regulation with respect to inmates in the institution; and

    (3) within the scope of the employee’s official duties.

    For the purposes of this subsection (d), “penal institution” has the meaning ascribed to it in clause (c)(1) of Section 31A-1.1.

  58. I was just thinking – wouldn’t it be awful if Paula and Len came forward because they wanted to put a stop to all the trashy things that were being said about Len, based on the IM conversations Drew had with Ashley?

    Imagine going 7 months undercover only to have people laughing about Paula watching the kids while Len goes on a road trip and is farked to death by Ashley’s friend.

    I really hope that wasn’t their motivation. I don’t know why they chose to speak out. I think it would have been better if they hadn’t yet. But they did and there must have been a reason. What is it?

  59. “Check out 720 ILCS 5/14-2(3). Unauthorized disclosure of any information learned from a eavesdropping devise is a Class 4 Felony. Authorized disclosures are law enforcement related only. “

    AFAIK, neither Paula nor Len has disclosed any of what was recorded during their eavesdropping surveillance for the ISP. No one has played the tape, nor quoted from it.

  60. Sorry there was no actual website link posted with this.

    This might be close.

    2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30110&SeqStart=41400&SeqEnd=44400&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963%

    Oh carp. It’s a long one (link). 😀

  61. Unauthorized disclosure of any information learned from a eavesdropping devise is a Class 4 felony. Authorized disclosures are law enforcement only.
    ____________
    Maybe they have not disclosed specifics but is their contact with the media enough? Since they are not “law enforcement”?

    Unless they’ve been deputized. 🙂

  62. I heard a legal analyst say he couldn’t find anything in the Statute that these people committed a crime, if they taped DP legally.

  63. Noway – you need Apple Quick Time to hear it. I was able to hear it using Explorer, but would’ve had to download it using Mozilla.

  64. noway406 // July 23, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Unauthorized disclosure of any information learned from a eavesdropping devise is a Class 4 felony. Authorized disclosures are law enforcement only.
    ____________
    Maybe they have not disclosed specifics but is their contact with the media enough? Since they are not “law enforcement”?
    *******************

    Noway – the legal analyst on WGN today said it’s just like the Grand Jury. These people are witnesses and although the actual GJ (and eavesdropping) testimony is secret, they are free to discuss their testimony afterwards.

  65. Thanks, facs … yes, I listened to the legal analyst (Terry Sullivan) who said there was nothing in the statute and nothing he remembered that would make L&P not be able to talk to the media … just that the prosecution would not be happy with this leak.

    LOL
    IMO … that is who “leaked” this whole thing.

  66. Joel got a call last night when it hit the Internet.

    😀

    It sucks to be out of the loop, doesn’t it?

  67. LOL, that’s why Joel reads the Internet blogs and websites like we do. He knows nothing. LE doesn’t have to tell him jack squat. Once Peterson is charged, well, that’s a different story.

    Brodsky makes all of these wild charges, like saying he expects Paula & Len to be arrested by tonight, etc. How come he gets a pass when all this stuff comes and goes and his words are empty? I think he throws that stuff out there to see what kind of response he’ll get, because it’s the ONLY way he can get information. That, and what his lying client tells him.

  68. Did Joel say (quoting Drew):

    There is nothing on the tapes that is going to exonerate me?

    Or is it just me????

  69. exonerate

    Main Entry: ex·on·er·ate
    Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzä-nə-ˌrāt, eg-\
    Function: transitive verb
    Inflected Form(s): ex·on·er·at·ed; ex·on·er·at·ing
    Etymology: Middle English, from Latin exoneratus, past participle of exonerare to unburden, from ex- + oner-, onus load
    Date: 1524
    1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
    2 : to clear from accusation or blame
    ______________

    There is nothing on the tapes that is going to “clear from accusation or blame” Drew Peterson.

    Somebody else please listen to that.

    It’s near the part where Joel starts talking about various people selling their stories (Joe Hosey, Sandra).

  70. I think Joel just forgot to pause and ran two sentences together.

    “There’s nothing on the tapes. That’s going to exonerate Drew Peterson.”

    At first listen. I LOL’d though.

  71. Noway – when I look at Ashley’s blogs, I see Annie mentioned a lot. Do you know who that is? Someone said it is Duckyone. Just wondering.

    Thanks.

  72. But the phrase is:
    There’s nothing on the tapes that’s going to exonerate ME.

    JB is quoting what Drew said when JB told him about the wiretapping.

  73. I find it really interesting when JB rolls through multiple scenarios in a single interview and manages to address them all as if they are reality. Is it a gift or a curse?

    Within 30 seconds L&P are lying to make a buck, then they are legitimately working for ISP but Drew never said any of what they claim he said, then he might have said it but it was quoted out of context.

    The mind reels!

  74. noway406 // July 23, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    But the phrase is:
    There’s nothing on the tapes that’s going to exonerate ME.
    ***********************************

    I think he meant:

    “There’s nothing on the tapes. That’s going to exonerate me.”

    I heard what you heard, too. Then I decided he just can’t be that stupid. I mean…really…can he?

  75. Rescue, you are asking the wrong person!

    Everytime I see someone post that so and so is Blogger1 on SYM and Blogger2 on Ashley’s and Blogger3 on WordPress … I think I should write it all down so I can keep track of who I’m talking to … and then I never do. Or I scrawl it on a piece of paper that gets tossed. 😀

    There is an Annie54 on SYM if that helps at all.

  76. Thanks, Noway.

    I hope Geraldo does a segment on Fox today (whatever time that is). He always makes it colorful.

  77. Yes, facs, a Freudian slip if there ever was one. I think he meant implicate or something else … but who knows! 🙂

  78. You know, even if Peterson trusts, or did trust, MRobinson, and I’m betting he knows a lot, there’s no way he can trust anyone anymore. He’s got to be going nuts. He’s got to be wondering if he wore a wire too. Maybe he didn’t, but you’ve got to wonder if he’s reminiscing about what those two talked about!

  79. JB 1st says there are no tapes.

    Then he says if there are, they are fabricated.
    HUH? How could they be fabricated? Who exactly would be doing the fabrication?

    JB is really, really reaching.

  80. Honestly, is he really that dumb? They don’t exist, and if they do – Fabricated. If he has not heard them – How can he say that? What a Doofus.

  81. Yeah, HJ, no kidding? Too bad we’ll probably never get to hear what’s on those tapes, or at least, not for a long, long time. Joel either, LOL.

  82. If the Drew’s words on the tapes prove he is innocent all he has to do is say them now and he is cleared. LOL LOL

  83. Brodsky’s on Fox denying the tapes exist this hour. He’s saying they’ve committed a felony. I don’t know how if the tapes don’t exist.

  84. Rescue … who can keep up?

    The tapes do not exist.

    The tapes exist and Lenny and Paula have committed a felony.

    There is nothing on the tapes that will exonerate his client.

    😀

    Now HJ … I have to check it out!

  85. Joel’s (drew’s wife) song

    I said Shotgun shoot em for he runs now

    Do the jerk baby

    Do the jerk now

    Hey!

    Put on your red dress

    And then you go downtown now
    I said buy yourself a shotgun now
    We’re gonna break it down baby now
    We’re gonna load it up baby now
    And then you shoot him for he runs now

    Put on your high heels shoes

    I said we’re goin’ down here listen to em play blues

    We’re gonna dig potatoes

    We’re gonna pick tomatoes

    I said,Shotgun shoot em for he runs now

    Do the jerk baby

    Do the jerk now

    Hey!

    I said it’s Twine Time
    I said it’s Twine Time
    I said it’s Twine Time

    Hey!

  86. Okay, well, Brodsky says Drew denies ever saying he wanted Len to torch the boat and doesn’t care about the boat. The interviewer then asked him if it comes out that this is on the tape, would he be “shocked,” and he answered YES, because he doesn’t believe there are tapes. He said, in a couple of days, it will come out that it’s a hoax.

    Hmmm. Stay tuned.

  87. Brodsky throws all that stuff out there because he’s on a fishing expedition. He probably thinks LE will make a statement and confirm one way or the other that these tapes exist. He’s so in the dark it’s funny.

    What does he care what he says on tv. He’ll come back and say he was just defending his client by all means. If he doesn’t hear a word out of LE’s mouth, he’ll come back in two days and say, “see, I told you it was a hoax.”

    Silly man.

  88. rescueapet // July 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Noway – when I look at Ashley’s blogs, I see Annie mentioned a lot. Do you know who that is? Someone said it is Duckyone. Just wondering.

    Thanks.
    ———————————————————
    Hey Rescue-you could ask me? What a complete idiot that said that! I am not Annie, I don’t have a boyfriend that drinks and beats me up. I don’t run her site, nor do I belong to it. In fact, Danya can confirm that I am NOT Annie.

    See what happens when you go away for an extended weekend. Some people have no lives! IMO! LOL 🙂

  89. Ducky … I thought Rescue was actually thinking that I was Annie.

    Which I’m not.

    Nor am I Ashley.

    😀

  90. noway406 // July 23, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Don’t know if Danya can confirm who I’m not or who I am … oh, well.
    ————————————————–
    She can certainly tell that I don’t live in Annie’s state-wherever they hold all the loons like Annie.

    People wonder why Cfs left this board? It’s just ridiculous that people continue to do this when there are more important things-like the STACY PETERSON case. Big news yesterday and the want to be detectives are trying find out who is who. They suck at their detective work 😉

  91. Oh, heavens, I didn’t want my question to mean anything other than what I asked.

    Sorry. That won’t happen again. Geesh.

  92. rescueapet // July 23, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Oh, heavens, I didn’t want my question to mean anything other than what I asked.

    Sorry. That won’t happen again. Geesh.
    ——————————————————-
    No worries. The who’s who game is ticking me off.

    Rescue-it’s ok. I really didn’t think that you thought that! 🙂 Those people really do suck at their detective work. lol Did you have a nice weekend? I seemed to have missed quite a bit. I heard about the Paula and Lenny thing last night-and I hope that they forgive anything that I have ever said about them! WOW!

  93. Yeah, ducky, I know it’s horrible over there. It’s a SOB kind of place. I didn’t see you on here lately, otherwise, I would’ve asked you.

    I don’t know who “Annie” is, anything about her, nor do I want to. I just saw a bunch of names lumped together, and sometimes people use different nics. I don’t know anyone personally to know anything about all of the controversy. I guess it’s better that I don’t know any of the people. How mean spirited some are. Oh, well. Time to move on and forget it. That ugly stuff can stay where it’s at!

  94. Hi Guys! HeyDucky, I haven’t left….at least not permanently. Just not participating in the comments for awhile. But Lord knows, I’ve been reading last night and today. Lotsa stuff going on! When/if Drew gets arrested, I’m sure I won’t be able to keep all my comments to myself, lol. Storming here, gotta go. Take care all. 😀

  95. Yeah, ducky, I know it’s horrible over there. It’s a SOB kind of place. I didn’t see you on here lately, otherwise, I would’ve asked you.
    ———————————————————
    I was gone for a little vacation-extended weekend. You must have missed me. LOL!

    For anyone else that has nothing to do but try to figure out posters real identity-stop it. It’s old. I see it constantly-this person must be ducky-this person must be Drew-this poster must be Joel and it goes on and on and on. It’s riduculous! WTF does someone’s real identity have to do with FINDING STACY? I hope that everyone from all boards see this and stop accusing everyone of being someone else. They REALLY need to do something else with their time. LOL 😉

    Now-if I found out who Noway was, I would proudly post it all over the Internet. JUST KIDDING NOWAY! I haven’t been able to pick on you for a few days. 😉

  96. cfs7360 // July 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Hi Guys! HeyDucky, I haven’t left….at least not permanently. Just not participating in the comments for awhile. But Lord knows, I’ve been reading last night and today. Lotsa stuff going on! When/if Drew gets arrested, I’m sure I won’t be able to keep all my comments to myself, lol. Storming here, gotta go. Take care all.
    ——————————————————
    You just made my DAY! I missed you. 🙂 🙂

  97. One more comment on the subject and then I am done. Annie thinks that STACY killed Kathleen. I just read that. OK-everyone here knows that I can’t stand people that don’t have a brain in their head. Obviously, Annie is brainless or pumped with drugs. LOL

    In my opinion, Drew Peterson killed his third and fourth wife!! JMO!

    Back to the topic: I applaud Lenny and Paula and really do apologize for anything that I may have said regarding them. They rock! I think that there may be an arrest by the end of the week. I will do a happy dance when that happens. I hope that the wires gave them enough info to find Stacy!

    Sorry for the long @ss posts. I’m making up for lost time. LOL 🙂

  98. Shepherd Smith is going to do a piece on this next, after commercial, if anyone’s interested. Although, I think there’s not much more to say about it, LOL. It’s all been said, at least for today.

  99. Ah, Brodsky. Said Paula filed for bankruptcy 5x and Len 2x.

    That proves it. That proves that couldn’t have word wires and taped recorded anything, doesn’t it?

  100. Rescue-has it been on yet? Oh sure, they filed for bankruptcy-that proves that they aren’t credible. LMFAO! Brodsky is such a MORON…JMO

  101. Hi CFS, sorry I missed you!

    Yeah – I’m actually kind of exhausted today. I woke up too early because I couldn’t wait to read and see what was going on, but now I’ve got a headache.

    Time to sit back, breathe and see what happens next.

  102. What I did see on Channel 2 news is that prosecutors are probably not happy that they did an interview. A reporter from Channel 2 did an interview with Paula last week, but that was before it was known she was wearing a wire. She wouldn’t answer many questions about what her feelings were for Drew and what she thinks about what happened. This must have been an interview after the thing about the gun came out.

    Anyway, even though the prosecutors may not be happy with this interview, a prosecuting attorney they did interview did say that it does not taint the tapes. It’s just that what Paula & Len think might be slam dunk stuff may not necessarily be that way. He did say that the remark about getting tried and acquitted before Stacy’s remains are found is something he’d definitely be interested in.

    I still think that maybe there’s stuff on there that doesn’t necessarily cement his fate, it may be useful in gathering evidence and helping them further this along.

    I guess we’ll see.

  103. We all knew that Brodsky would say something is “wrong” with these people.

    He & DP have used “pms, mental problems, drugs, nosey, obsessed” and on & on. They are running out of things to be wrong with everyone! LOL

    Now, it’s bankruptcy. Well, gee, then half this country is not reliable, they better not pick any jurors who have filed bankruptcy!

    GEEEEZ!

  104. Now-if I found out who Noway was, I would proudly post it all over the Internet. JUST KIDDING NOWAY! I haven’t been able to pick on you for a few days.
    ______________
    😀

    Ordinary woman from an ordinary family living in an ordinary state.

    Gets pretty boring. 😉

    Rescue … I was just kidding about you thinking I was Annie … is that what the huh? was for? 😀

  105. I’ve been watching NG about this missing 2 year old baby, and I can’t imagine how anyone is going to sort that whole mess out. No one is communicating with anyone, and no one is giving a straight answer. Cadaver dogs hit on a car and a yard, and the parents said it was pizza left for days that rotted.

    Man, how sad for that poor child!

  106. Rescue … would rotten pizza confuse cadaver dogs?

    If so, criminals have a new weapon in their arsenal.

    P.S. I DO have a niece named Annie. Lives in the same state as me. State of confusion. 😉

  107. Apparently, the only ones that say rotting pizza confuses cadaver dogs are the grandparents of the missing child. But, the rotting pizza also shared the trunk with the child’s hair and dirt from somewhere. And, somehow that rotting pizza confused the cadaver dogs in a back yard area.

  108. Considering Drew had Paula and Lenny watching his kids, it’s nice that he said about Lenny “He *USED TO* have a drinking issue.”

    But seriously … does Drew know any upstanding citizens?

  109. noway406 // July 23, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Rescue … would rotten pizza confuse cadaver dogs?

    If so, criminals have a new weapon in their arsenal.

    P.S. I DO have a niece named Annie. Lives in the same state as me. State of confusion.
    ————————————————-
    Cadaver dogs do not hit on food. LOL
    The grandmother is giving me the creeps. I really don’t understand why the Grandma and the Mother are not cooperating if they believe that the 2 year old has been kidnapped. So frustrating to listen to the attorney on NG.

    Noway. LOL! State of confusion-we are neighbors! 😉

  110. They’re only upstanding until they mess with him, and then – look out. Whoever turns on him next better be prepared to have their whole life story laid out there.

    Of course, Drewpy’s own lawyer got suspended from the Bar, and was holed up in his house with a shotgun, so he’s got his own “past.” You don’t get to be a part of Drewpy’s life unless you have skeletons in your closet, it seems.

    Oh, and he has he the gall to say he let his kids get close to them, now with second thoughts? He was all hotted up for Ashley after a week and was willing to let her come into his home. Who does he think he’s kidding.

    Ashley needs to come out with more of her logs to shut this putz up.

  111. I wonder whether the woman who saw the little girl in the airport HAS met with the sketch artist.

    I just can’t figure out why these people who spot “missing persons” call that person’s relatives and leave voice messages instead of calling 9-1-1.

  112. Noway – the woman’s 14 year old son is working on the sketch. Hmmm.

    Very bazaar circumstances. Doesn’t sound like the little girl is alive, but hope is everything, and that would be a dream come true.

  113. The person at the airport has been discredited by LE. They couldn’t name a flight, destination etc. The attorney for Casey (Mom) said that they tried to call the tip line but it was always busy. Nancy Grace called a few times and not one time was it busy.

  114. I know ducky. I think the grandmother and mother are not credible, and they’re both lying. I don’t believe the little girl is alive either, but still hoping for a miracle.

  115. rescueapet // July 23, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    I know ducky. I think the grandmother and mother are not credible, and they’re both lying. I don’t believe the little girl is alive either, but still hoping for a miracle.
    —————————————————–
    Rescue-Right there with you! Although, I am still saying prayers and hoping for a miracle. So sad.

  116. I saw her when they were doing something outside their home, and I didn’t like the way she was soaking up the attention and smirking when hugged. I kept quiet about it. Usually, I don’t have feelings like that, but the Grandma gives me the creeps.

    Did you see how they are soliciting donations? It’s oddly familiar.

  117. I hope she is alive and that this is some scam the mother and grandmother are pulling.

    Except for the hair color, this little girl looks a lot like my daughter. Creeping me out.

  118. The Chicago Tribune updated their article:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-wire-web-jul24,0,5006.story

    ……..”In a case of this magnitude, we’re going to use every available resource,” said Illinois State Police Capt. Ken Kaupas. “As to specifics about this case, I can’t comment, but we are still confident and this case is moving forward.”

    Kaupas would not comment on allegations by Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky that Wawczak and Stark are trying to capitalize on the case.

    “We say all the time [that] we don’t get to pick our witnesses,” Kaupas said. “We have to play the hand that we’re dealt.”

    A spokeswoman for Stacy Peterson’s relatives also declined to confirm whether the couple wore a wire for police, but said the couple’s claims did not surprise her.

    “It’s not a shock,” said Pam Bosco. “There are a lot of things going on in this investigation that we don’t hear.”

  119. I wonder…Does anyone know if ISP is allowed to arrest DP for the charges the GJ is investigating before the GJ ends. Dang I think I just confused myself…sigh

  120. NOWAY , facsmiley any one else want to chat , hope to see ya there…———————

    LET me see , UMM during the scott Peterson case , it was leaked that amber fry taped scott while the investagation was going on and the LE in cal said same thing that they would not comment . but amber did say something about her taping scott when he called her……………..

    SO joel is not correct…. THE LE will release tid bits but nothing that will tip there hand to those 2 idiots….. just like what AMBER FRY DID with them ….. DOES anyone remember what went on with that case in the begining … joel is a jidiot lol…. he is not a good lawyer at all.

    I think this is a scare tacktic to see what will drew do next …. ————-

    —————————

    WHAT would you do if this came out about you . be mad yes I would , and that screws you up doing things and that is what I think is why it was put out there……… I believe those 2 … and of course RIC.. drew is getting nerviouse and going to screw up…

  121. Hey Wonder. Saw no one answered you , so I’m going to try to explain what I know about it.

    Normally, when a person is arrested for a felony charge, the prosecutor must go to the GJ to get an indictment before they are allowed to try a defendant.

    Yes, he can be arrested, but even if he should be, he would still have to be indicted by the GJ, or in effect the GJ has to give permission to the prosecutor to take the felon to trial.

    Does this make any sense?? 😀

  122. Wonder, if Drew were to be arrested before the GJ handed down the indictment, the the defense would be allowed discovery and entitled to quick trial. It would NOT be beneficial to the prosecution for him to be arrested before the GJ concludes.

    Hope I’m explaining this correctly and in a way that isn’t too confusing. 😀

  123. Hey Lug. I was just about to head to bed, but I saw Wonderwoman’s question, and thought I would try to answer it for her as best I could since no one else seemed to be here.

    How are you? Been missing you guys, but trying to stay caught up with things. 😀

  124. I remember Amber Frey came forward, in fact, wasn’t at police headquarters or something official like that?

    I can’t remember total details, but do remember the LE allowed the news about her to break and possibly for the same reason ISP has let this out!

    Only time will tell, but I would say if they truly did wiretap DP for ISP, they would have had to have clearance from them to announce it.

    Maybe not legally, but just because they worked so closely with them, if it were me, I’d surely clear it with them before saying a word about it!

  125. In other words, if they went thru all this for 7 months, which must have been scary at times, they sure wouldn’t want to mess up the case for ISP at this point, by announcing something they were not supposed to.

  126. 1wonderwoman // July 23, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    I wonder…Does anyone know if ISP is allowed to arrest DP for the charges the GJ is investigating before the GJ ends. Dang I think I just confused myself…sigh
    _____________________

    This is my question to Joel and his response (from SYM).

    Question: Joel, can an arrest be made before the Grand Jury has heard all testimony, and if so, what reason would the State Attorney (or whoever makes that call) have for waiting?

    Answer: Yes, but then Drew would be entitled to a quick (within 30 days) probable cause hearing (called a prliminary hearing) where we would get to cross examination and subpoena witnesses. I don’t think the state would want that.

  127. cfs7360 // July 23, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Hey Wonder. Saw no one answered you , so I’m going to try to explain what I know about it.

    Normally, when a person is arrested for a felony charge, the prosecutor must go to the GJ to get an indictment before they are allowed to try a defendant.

    Yes, he can be arrested, but even if he should be, he would still have to be indicted by the GJ, or in effect the GJ has to give permission to the prosecutor to take the felon to trial.

    Does this make any sense??
    **************

    Yes it does cfs..Thank You so much..and do hurry back…I sure miss ya bunches. I do understand the need to step back at times as well…just want you to know that your missed here. Thanks again and take it easy and hope to chat soon.

  128. Thank You Noway…your much too kind. I still can’t believe all this is going on….what a big mess. Anyways thanks again !

  129. Well my fellow bloggers it’s time to turn in for the night….Hope you all have a pleasant night. Peace Out

  130. Hi everyone!

    YAY cfs! Nice to “see” you again.

    I’m just keepin’ the board warm for you all from this side of the Atlantic. I’ve kept up, but not much time for anything else.

    Wow.

    I thought there’d be no more tv appearances since he was actually charged with the gun stuff…but we’re not surprised, are we? (LOL remembering the multiple occasions JB was compelled to break his silence)

    Curioser and curioser.

    What will today bring?

    see yas later

  131. Hi again

    Just wonderin’ why everyone is calling it “wiretap”….they used concealed voice recorders, no wiretap?

Comments are closed.