Your Thread – September 19

Here’s a new thread for you all. Have a great weekend folks!

~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

202 thoughts on “Your Thread – September 19

  1. Hi everyone 😀

    Thank you Danya for ALL the good stuff. You rock, auntie.

    Danya do you know what’s up with Mike Robinson’s trial? Maybe they have a gag order….

    I’m also dying to know what JB’s argument was for disallowing the BPD rules n regs as evidence.

    IMO the guns charges aren’t trumped up in any way. I think there are probably other potential charges as well, but this one has good, hard chance of conviction.

    Will we ever hear about the folding gun again? I sure hope so, my pet theory being that DP deliberately misidentified it on the transpher.

    Never forget you, Stacy and Kathleen.

  2. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1172852,4_1_JO19_PETERSON_S1.article

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/44fv8j

    Judge: Peterson tapes ‘extensive’
    DREW PETERSON’S ATTORNEY QUESTIONS SECRET RECORDINGS THAT ALLEGEDLY INCRIMINATE HIS CLIENT.

    Recommend (4)

    Comments

    September 19, 2008
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    Drew Peterson leaves court
    More videos

    Drew Peterson’s attorney was smacked with a heavy revelation during a Thursday hearing for the embattled ex-cop’s felony gun case.

    » Click to enlarge image
    Drew Peterson leaves the Will County Courthouse on Thursday afternoon. Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, learned from Judge Richard Schoenstedt that the state possessed recordings of overhears performed on his client.
    (Michael R. Schmidt/Staff Photographer)

    Attorney Joel Brodsky called into question whether the state actually possessed recordings of overhears performed on his client, and learned from Judge Richard Schoenstedt that not only do they exist, but they are “extensive.”

    “Mr. Brodsky, you need to know that all these tapes, CDs DVDs, I have them,” Schoenstedt said.

    The judge explained he must review the recordings to see which are relevant to the gun case facing Peterson without jeopardizing any other ongoing police investigations.

    State police are looking into the Oct. 28 disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. They have called the case a “potential homicide” and named Peterson their sole suspect.

    State police also are investigating the March 2004 apparent bathtub drowning of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. They first found nothing suspicious about Savio’s death, but are getting another crack at it following the disappearance of Stacy.

    Two former friends of Peterson, Len Wawczak and Paula Stark, came forward in July to say they wore wires at the behest of the state police and recorded Peterson making incriminating statements about his involvement in one wife’s disappearance and the other’s death.

    Following the hearing, Brodsky conceded he was surprised by Schoenstedt’s revelation but insisted he was not concerned.

    Peterson faces no criminal charges in connection with the fate of either wife, but was arrested in May for allegedly possessing an assault weapon with a barrel shorter than the state-mandated length. Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky contended Peterson carried the weapon as part of his duties with the Bolingbrook Police Department’s SWAT team, and had permission to possess it.

    <b<Gag order

    During the same Thursday hearing on the gun charge, Brodsky succeeded in thwarting prosecutors’ efforts to shut him up.

    Assistant State’s Attorney Greg DeBord moved to impose a gag order on those involved in the case to prevent them from speaking to the media.

    “This case is a court case and should be argued in court and not in the press,” DeBord said. He also pointed out public statements might prejudice potential jurors.

    Another of Peterson’s attorneys, Andrew Abood, wrapped himself in the First Amendment and stressed the need of a free press.

    “I think it’s important that the press has a role in these public proceedings,” Abood said.

    Schoenstedt apparently agreed, as he denied the motion.

    The judge must have some concerns about finding an impartial jury, however, as he said he planned to call nearly triple the pool of the 35 potential jurors he usually summons. Peterson’s attorneys also submitted a draft of a juror questionnaire and prosecutors are to draw up their own.

    Peterson’s son

    Brodsky also tried to have Schoenstedt eliminate Peterson’s son, Stephen Peterson, as a potential witness in the gun case. Stephen Peterson is named in the criminal indictment against his father for allegedly possessing the weapon as well, but has not been charged.

    “Stephen Peterson has been named in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator, I guess, for lack of a better word,” Brodsky said.

    Brodsky and Abood said Stephen Peterson would invoke his right not to incriminate himself and refuse to testify if prosecutors called him as a witness. DeBord countered that the state could grant Stephen Peterson immunity to compel him to testify. Schoenstedt declined to eliminate Stephen Peterson as a witness for the time being.

    Brodsky said his client’s son would not pose a problem to Peterson’s defense.

    “I’m not worried about anything Stephen Peterson is going to say,” he said. “It doesn’t concern me at all.”

    RELATED STORIES
    • PHOTOS: Peterson back in court
    • SPECIAL SECTION: The Drew Peterson Investigation

  3. http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1172997,CST-NWS-boling19.article

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/3kezqx

    Judge confirms Drew taping
    PETERSON CASE | Secretly recorded conversations

    Recommend (1)
    Comments

    September 19, 2008

    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter/drozek@suntimes.com

    Drew Peterson’s own words may be used against him.

    Investigators have amassed an “extensive” collection of secretly recorded conversations involving Peterson, a Will County judge disclosed at a hearing Thursday.

    Drew Peterson arrives at the Will County Courthouse for a hearing in a felony weapons case Thursday.
    (Richard A. Chapman/Sun-Times)

    It’s the first independent verification that police investigating Peterson used electronic surveillance in an effort to collect evidence against the former Bolingbrook cop.

    In July, Len Wawczak and Paula Stark, former friends of Peterson, claimed they had secretly taped months of conversations with him for investigators probing the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, and the 2004 drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Authorities haven’t confirmed their claims, but on Thursday, Judge Richard Schoenstedt said investigators used court-approved electronic eavesdropping to compile tapes, CDs and DVDs focusing on Peterson.

    “It is extensive,” Schoenstedt said of the material. He didn’t disclose how the recordings were obtained.

    The information was disclosed when attorneys defending Peterson on a felony weapons charge asked for access to any police eavesdropping that could be related to that case. Peterson was hit with the gun charge after a November search of his home turned up what authorities allege was an illegally modified assault rifle.

    Schoenstedt deferred a ruling on whether defense attorneys can review any recordings before Peterson’s upcoming weapons trial.

    After the hearing, defense attorney Joel Brodsky downplayed the significance of any recordings, saying Peterson isn’t concerned.

    “He’s not afraid of anything he said,” Brodsky said after the hearing. “We have no fear of anything that could be contained in those tapes.”

    Peterson attended the hearing but left without commenting.

    Schoenstedt deferred a ruling on whether Peterson’s adult son, Steve, will be called to testify when Peterson stands trial on the weapons charge.

    Given the extensive publicity, Schoenstedt said he plans to elect a jury from a pool of about 100 potential jurors — three times the amount he typically calls in for a felony trial.

    RELATED STORIES
    Special section: Searching for Stacy

  4. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-peterson-both-19-sep19,0,6548034.story

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/3rnrwy

    Judge: Authorities have done electronic surveillance on Drew Peterson
    But what was recorded is still sealed; ex-cop’s lawyers had sought the information

    By Erika Slife | Chicago Tribune reporter
    September 19, 2008

    Another day in court for Drew Peterson

    Drew Peterson shows up for a pretrial hearing at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet. Peterson’s legal team sought to gain information regarding any electronic surveillance that police may have conducted on him. (Tribune photo by John Smierciak / September 18, 2008)

    A Will County judge on Thursday said he is in possession of an “extensive” number of CDs, DVDs and tapes related to the surveillance of former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, the suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt made the disclosure at a pretrial hearing where Peterson’s legal team sought to gain information regarding any electronic surveillance that police may have conducted on him.

    Peterson, 54, was in court facing felony gun charges for allegedly possessing a modified assault rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches in violation of state law. Authorities seized the rifle after search warrants were executed as part of the investigation into the Oct. 28 disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy. She was 23 at the time she vanished.

    Authorities are also re-examining the death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, who, at 40, was found dead in an empty bathtub in her Bolingbrook home in 2004.

    Peterson has not been charged in either case and maintains his innocence.

    On Thursday, Schoenstedt’s remarks confirmed for the first time that authorities have secretly recorded Peterson as part of their investigation.

    But what type of surveillance authorities carried out was not discussed in open court. The information is under seal, and Schoenstedt did not elaborate beyond saying the amount was extensive. Afterward, Peterson’s attorneys declined to comment further.

    “I really can’t get into the details of what’s printed in that list. But I would say that, if I’m police and I’m investigating a gun case like this, electronic surveillance is not going to play a big part in my investigation,” Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky said.

    In July, Peterson’s former friends, Len Wawczak and Paula Stark, went public with claims that they wore a wire and recorded conversations with Peterson about both cases regarding his wives. Law-enforcement officials had never confirmed their statements.

    In court, Brodsky and his fellow attorney, Andrew Abood, also argued a series of motions related to the gun charges. The Will County state’s attorney’s office had requested a gag order, which Peterson’s attorneys successfully blocked. They also won the right to interview Bolingbrook police about whether Peterson used the rifle as a secondary duty weapon, which he claims.

    But they were unsuccessful in their motion to bar the department’s rules and regulations from trial, although Schoenstedt said rulings on motions could be revisited. Another motion to be discussed at a later date is whether testimony from Peterson’s son, Stephen, will be excluded at trial. Peterson allegedly transferred the gun to his son, an Oak Brook police officer, according to the indictment.

    The next court hearing is scheduled for Oct. 23 to discuss jury selection. Peterson’s attorneys are considering requesting a change of venue, believing he may not get a fair trial in Will County.

    The trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 8.

    eslife@tribune.com

  5. Facsmiley // September 18, 2008 at 11:46 pm

    I’m very interested in what the surveillance is and how it relates to the gun charge.

    And how stupid do they think people are, trying to promote that book as an exposure of Drew when it was dictated to Armstrong over a rum and coke on the company yacht? I hope it comes to libraries with a notice letting them know to shelve it in the fiction section.

    _______________________

    I suggest and entire new section for filing that book (and others like it), using The Drewy Decimal System, it would be found under:

    813.LOL

    Section would be a sound-proof room due to the uncontrollable amount of explosive guffawing that would erupt when reading it.

    Additionally, copious amounts of red pens and White-Out would also be provided free of charge.

  6. Hiya noway

    Coffee helped? I called Danya Auntie because her first niece/nephew (it was a niece) has just been born, and Danya’s first twitter “tweets” were about that.

    I’m loving all this denial about the contents of the tapes (and cds and dvds!). DP must be scared. A fly on the wall as the judge rviews it all is what I’d like to be.

    I’m thinkin that if other officers can testify that DP used the illegal gun on duty, it will only prove that he used it…not whether or not it was duly approved by the department. Could look worse for him.

  7. On the video of DP leaving court yesterday, I can’t amke out what he’s saying in reply to a reporter’s question about the tapes. I can guess it’s along the lines of doesn’t matter because I didn’t ever say anything incriminating. Anybody hear it clearly?

  8. bucketoftea // September 19, 2008 at 10:00 am

    On the video of DP leaving court yesterday, I can’t amke out what he’s saying in reply to a reporter’s question about the tapes. I can guess it’s along the lines of doesn’t matter because I didn’t ever say anything incriminating. Anybody hear it clearly?

    ______________________

    [sic]

    When most people retire, they get a gold watch, I get an indictment.

  9. Thanks, bucket … I wasn’t so much twitterpated with the Twitter and didn’t sign up … which is why I can’t keep up!

    😉

    Congrats to Aunt Danya! I’m at 18 nieces/nephews and 1 great-niece, but the excitement never ends! And of course, I have my little NoWays to keep things exciting. 😀

  10. A description of the upcoming Armstrong book:

    Drawing on hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with Drew Peterson, and with Peterson’s family, friends, ex-wives, and relatives, this journalistic inquiry presents the arguments for and against Peterson’s involvement in these cases with an impartial eye. The facts and testimony assembled here shed new light on the details of the police investigations, the possible timelines, and the motives ascribed to Peterson. Conflicting witness accounts, false leads, widespread rumors, and red herrings that have dogged the case are analyzed and 140 photographs and documents (including many private family photos published here for the first time) go beyond the headlines to the heart of this sensational story. The frank and unvarnished portrait of Drew Peterson that emerges is bound to provoke further controversy.

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

    Maybe Mr. Armstrong’s s clandestine interviews and investigation can now be compared with LE’s, and we can see whether the written word is better than the spoken word, heh?

    “140 photographs (including private family photographs”). Oh what, pray tell, do we know have to look forward to in this never-ending slime fest?

    But, what the heck, you dragged your adult son into your escapades, and now he possibly must the Fifth at your trial. Way to go, Drew Peterson. What a fine, upstanding husband/father you are!

  11. 140 pics.

    Wasn’t there an issue with releasing a pic for Stacy for posters/media etc. ?

    I mean, I know LE uses stock DL pics but didn’t Drew give a hard time about releasing pics?

  12. Can anyone tell me how Stephen allegedly or otherwise possessed this weapon?

    From article above: Stephen Peterson is named in the criminal indictment against his father for allegedly possessing the weapon as well, but has not been charged.

    It was taken from Drew’s house, and didn’t LE have it this whole time? Other guns were transferred to Stephen, but I didn’t think this one was.

  13. “Cover image of book with black line through sensitive subtitle information. Embargo notice covers a too-revealing photo”

    Anyone think that the “too-revealing” photo from the cover of the book is the Cass/Stacy SWAT photo? If so I hope he knows Hosey beat him to it!

    Any guesses as to what the subtitle says?

  14. I may be remembering this all wrong, but wasn’t he busted for the gun after he signed it over to his son? grr. wish I could remember.

  15. A purely fictionalized account of the “…shocking truth about Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio.”

    This book will tell you anything but the “…shocking truth about Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio.”

    In which Drew details his intimate ass-waxing regimen and yet reveals not a speck of the “…shocking truth about Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio.”

  16. Facsmiley,

    The redacting and the suspenseful crescendo makes me think that it is highly salacious and would refer to sex; The one pic that Hosey has in his book tells me that it was one of a series. No one is going to have that elaborate set up for one pic.

    And then of course there will probably be drugs and all other sorts of items that say: “Look, but not at me.”

  17. “Cover image of book with black line through sensitive subtitle information. Embargo notice covers a too-revealing photo”
    _________________
    To counter the family picture on the other side?

    As long as it’s not too revealing of Drew Peterson, who cares?

  18. I wonder whether the GJ has been busy listening to overhears. Last few weeks nobody recognizable has been seen. Of course that doesn’t mean that nobody testified.

    Nothing reported by Danya today, unless she Twittered and I didn’t hear her. 😉

  19. hedidit // September 19, 2008 at 11:16 am

    And then of course there will probably be drugs and all other sorts of items that say: “Look, but not at me.”

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

    Sadly, I think you must be right. It’s not like Stacy or Kathy had a say in choosing the photos to appear or the statements being made. He’s got total control over what he wants to present through Armstrong (who obviously has no interest in protecting any sort of journalistic integrity).

    I hope Matt Lauer asks Armstrong how many other people he interviewed for his ‘expose’ of Peterson (among other things). I’m trying to take comfort in the knowledge that if we can see so easily through this scam, we can’t be alone. The Today Show researchers have to be looking at this book and seeing the same thing we are.

  20. Someone asked yesterday about how I’m getting the Twitter updates.

    I’m not receiving txts and I couldn’t find a way to get email updates, so I’m just checking the site (keep it open in one tab).

  21. KEE-Rikey!

    Madness at Ashley’s. Someone has posted the personal information of women consorting with 666. Am gobsmacked.

  22. Yeah, I saw that, and I’m certainly not in favor of that kind of stuff. Just wish certain women wouldn’t put themselves in harm’s way, let alone draw attention to themselves and then have to fight off this kind of stuff. Makes no sense. None of it makes any sense!

  23. I hope Len and Paula are removed from this. Funny thing is I haven’t been over there in yonks and yonks.

    I did think of a sub-title for the new book:

    Style on Trial.

    LOL. Maybe I will start blogging about the players’ fashions. I must say Joe Hosey has come a long way in that regard. Liking the way you’re now rocking the monotone, Dude. Hope that letterman-stylie jacket’s gonna take a bit of a rest in the back of your closet.Good move.

  24. Hiya rescue! Maybe Drewps would like a bit of assistance in time for the trial. Here I am just tryin’ to make a buck out of poor old Drew’s troubles, but….just think! I could give him a free makeover and then be able to promote myself as “Stylist to the Damned” I think I’ll give Selig a ring.

  25. Bucket – Maybe you can get Tim Gunn to do live fashion critiques at court appearances.

    Are you able to see “Project Runway over there”?

  26. Yo faxy

    We have our own version…I can’t tell you who presents it, though. Great idea. I think Joan Rivers would be pretty good.

  27. Hi ya, Bucket. How do you like the new Brodsky? Short speech and subdued. Eee gads, I’ve never seen him do that before!

  28. to be fair, he said long ago that they would be quiet once he was charged with anything. We know they didn’t keep strictly to that, but proceedings beginning has got to be a big reality check. I think he is really worried about the overhears…not Drew’s so much, but his. I also think they made a decision for Abood to do most of the talking at least at this point because it really did get too uncomfortably personal between JB and Len. Maybe Gle told him to shut up, too.

  29. from lennys blog on the fake phone numbers of the two girls.

    trintrin said…
    Just what I thought, the phone numbers are fake.

    I get the feeling Lenny sold this site and the chats to the same guy that is writing Drew’s book.

    September 19, 2008 5:37 PM

  30. Trin, I really doubt it. As far as I can tell Armstrong has talked to no one but Drew. I don’t know how you can write an expose by only interviewing the suspect but hey, I’m not a homosexual marketing guru, icelandic horse rancher, ex-private investigator, self-publishing, true-crime novelist.

    What phone numbers do you mean? The Flirty Strut’s? If it wasn’t her phone number, why was she clamouring to get it removed? Or was “Wrong Person” just some do-gooder who wanted the info removed and was posing as one of Drew’s gal-pals? Maybe that explains why she removed all her posts.

  31. Don’t-cha worry Facs, if Armstrong is a player in this pile of doo doo, he’s on the tapes too. Everybody’s probably on those tapes, ‘cept for us.

  32. I laughed to see the poll, too. (since confirmation of the overhears is drew sitting down trying to remember everything he said). The answer is no. He’s been doing that since July.

  33. You know, Bucket, there’s a saying that goes loose lips sink ships.

    Drew hasn’t been trying to remember everything he said. He’s damn near confident that these tapes are going to clear him. In his own words:

    Drew Peterson says ‘legitimate’ tapes would clear him
    2 friends of former Bolingbrook cop reportedly wore a wire to record his conversations

    By Matthew Walberg and Erika Slife | Chicago Tribune reporters
    8:05 PM CDT, July 23, 2008

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

    Drew Peterson said two friends who reportedly worked with police to secretly record him were only trying to profit on their relationship with him, and any recordings they made will only serve to bolster his claim that he had nothing to do with the death of his third wife or the disappearance of his current wife.

    Damn, somebody forgot to tell that to the Judge, and the poor guy is having to listen to tapes that will only serve to clear Peterson’s good name, heh?

  34. I truly no longer understand the purpose of Ashlen’s.

    I guess it’s good that the phone numbers are fake. But then, are the addresses and names fake too?

    🙄

    How does any of that lead toward justice for Kathleen or Stacy?

    If anyone gets it, please explain it to me.

  35. I’m with you there, noway. That’s why I hadn’t been for quite while, but popped over today to if any fallout/reaction since court yesterday. I don’t get it either.

  36. I went there for the same reason, bucket. Thought there might be a “See, we told you so” post from Lenny.

    Didn’t expect what I saw . . . 🙄

    But I’m done trying to understand it. I guess it’s a good thing I don’t have a blog of my own. It would be so boring.

  37. Patting myself on the back for finally getting my codes right to italicize. I seem to be codely challenged and am always forgetting that dang / when I type it from scratch!

    😀

  38. Oh, by the way, this is the “embargoed” jacket cover on the book that is being promoted by Drew Peterson’s book author!!!!!!!

    Someone forgot to embargo this one!

  39. #

    rescueapet // September 20, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    Look what I found.

    http://bookshop.blackwell.com/jsp/display_large_jacket.jsp;jsessionid=8A61924E635D23C7E568280292783E66.bobcatp1?isbn=9781601641878
    #

    rescueapet // September 20, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Oh, by the way, this is the “embargoed” jacket cover on the book that is being promoted by Drew Peterson’s book author!!!!!!!

    Someone forgot to embargo this one!
    _______________________________

    Wow Rescue – good job thanks for that 🙂
    Interesting photo and words.

  40. Guess the cat is out of the bag now. He found the guy he wanted to write the book that would smear his wives, it looks like, and make him the “victim,” once again. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  41. I think this bears repeating:
    ***************************

    ‘“For months we’ve guarded the contents of Drew Peterson Exposed, working under strict non-disclosure agreements,” said author Derek Armstrong. Armstrong hopes the embargo will remain intact until the national broadcast and the broad release of the book on October 1, 2008.’

    Armstrong owns the publishing house and does the promotion for it. The only way the embargo would be breached would be if he breached it.

    Give me a fuh-reakin’ break.

  42. You know, what has go me perplexed here? Matt Phelps, when he did his radio interview, said he wanted DP to take a polygraph and he wouldn’t do it. Plus, Matt Phelps said he got the impression that DP wanted to get out the “dish” on his wives. Almost to the point where Phelps thought he wanted to make it sound like Stacy was responsible for Kathleen’s death.

    Now, this picture shows him hooked up to a polygraph machine. What changed? Are we supposed to believe that this shows he’s telling the truth regarding what’s in the book about his wives?

    I googled the title of this book, and every single site that had the cover showed the “embargoed” one. On p. 33 of the google search was this site, with the uncovered pic. I don’t know if this was meant to be found or not, but I guess it is what it is. The usual Drew Peterson slime.

  43. Rescue, do you think that is WHY they used this photo? They know that Phelps made it public that he wouldn’t write the book because Drew refused to do the polygraph.

    I can almost see them sitting around a table brainstorming how they could market the book.
    “WAIT. I’ve got it! What if we said that Drew TOOK that polygraph!?”

    Bah.

  44. Whatever they brainstormed is nothing but propaganda. Not many Kathleen and Stacy sympathizers would run out to buy this and help Drew make money by doing so.

    Why, again, wouldn’t he take a lie detector test with a reputable person Matt Phelps wanted him to, but they’ve got him hooked up in this picture as though we’re supposed to think he’s a truth-telling, law-abiding guy who just happened to lose two wives in spite of it all? Too bad he wasn’t hooked up to my blender – I’d have pureed him for sure!

    Makes me sick!

  45. You know, he can say that he took that polygraph but we’ll never really know if he did or not…or if what is written in that book was dictated under a polygraph.

    They can say whatever they want! He’s not under oath.

  46. Right, they can say whatever they want – which is poppycock. Unbelievable nonsense, idle prattle, whatever else means bunk!

  47. I googled the title of this book, and every single site that had the cover showed the “embargoed” one. On p. 33 of the google search was this site, with the uncovered pic. I don’t know if this was meant to be found or not, but I guess it is what it is. The usual Drew Peterson slime.

    _________________

    How did you ever find it? I would have given up long before page 33 … if I was wasting my time at all looking for Drew Peterson’s book.

    I mean … we know it is coming out. Yawn. 😉

  48. Noway – first of all, sometimes the best of what you’re looking for is further along in the search of google, yahoo, or whatever.

    Yawn if you will, scroll on by. Whatever.

  49. The yawn is for Drew Peterson’s book, not that fact that you found the cover with the picture revealed.

    But seriously … THIS is the photo that needed to be embargoed? 😀

    I’m just releaved everyone is clothed.

  50. I have no doubt that this is meant to be “uncovered” slowly until it’s big event. These guys are doing everything humanly possible to try their case in the public’s eye. This is no different than what they’ve been doing all along. Sliming the women in Drew’s life, whether it be the living ones or the deceased ones. What is disgusting is that he can make money doing it!!!!!!

  51. facsmiley // September 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Good researchers know not to stop at page 32. You rock, Rescue.
    __________

    Why is Rescue doing research for Drew Peterson’s book at all?

    You’re beginning to frighten me, Rescue!

  52. She’s just taking a break from sitting in that tree in Drew’s front yard and taking photos of the Flirty Strumpets that come and go.

  53. Rescue is responsible for Chemtrails. She’s an agent of evil (the government, I mean).

    Of course if you believe that, I’ve got a video for you.

  54. WTG Rescue.

    Don’t you know everyone but DP is a liar?

    Guess you’ll have to read the book, ‘cuz he ‘s been tryna tell us.

  55. Most likely it will help to foot some legal bills.

    JB been flying hither and yon for months now, he deserves some gelt. Heck, his speech impediment and stuttering are almost barely noticeable.

    Polished, baby.

  56. Of course, now how in the world is LE going to ‘plain all those cd’s, dvd’s and tapes they’ve got, and all that surveillance, they blindsided Brodsky with, when the truth is all “exposed” in that book????????????

  57. I hope they do come out with the box set in time for Christmas.

    Drew-Really Friggin’ Exposed- On The Reels

    (Pun intended, always.)

  58. rescueapet // September 20, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Of course, now how in the world is LE going to ‘plain all those cd’s, dvd’s and tapes they’ve got, and all that surveillance, they blindsided Brodsky with, when the truth is all “exposed” in that book????????????

    _____________

    Oh dear, you must not have heard the news.

    I read today where the tapes, CD’s, DVD’s, etc. may not be allowed in court because of a blog.

    So Drew’s Dreamers Team should fret not, what with Drew on a polygraph telling the truth and the blog which will nix the evidence.

  59. Let’s see.

    first question: did you kill either of your wives? Ooops, forgot, not supposed to ask that question.

    We’ll get back to you.

  60. What is the purpose of Drew taking a polygraph? How will Joel Brodsky change his statement that a polygraph is not proof of guilt or innocence?

  61. Exactly Noway.

    It all depends on which way the wind blows with Drew’s Dreamer’s team.

    Oh I do believe JB may have mentioned that very thing on the LKL interview.

    I go fetch…

  62. (Snip)

    KING: We have an e-mail question, Drew, from Steven in Darien, Illinois: “Are you willing to take a polygraph test concerning Stacy’s disappearance? And if why, why not?”

    PETERSON: Well, that would pretty much be up to my attorney. If he tells me to take one, I’ll take one.

    BRODSKY: No, polygraphs in this type of circumstance are really — the data is that they’re 50-50. It’s as good as flipping a coin. And there’s really no validity to whether or not — it’s not going to tell you anything. It’s random chance. And so we don’t believe — that’s why they’re barred from courtrooms. That’s why they’re — they don’t use them for evidence, because they’re inaccurate.

    KING: But the public has kind of a belief in them, don’t they?

    BRODSKY: Well, they do, but it is a mistaken belief. When you really look at the statistics, they’re really no more accurate than the flip of a coin. So it’s — they’re really worthless.

    KING: Don’t the police use them a lot, though?

    PETERSON: Well, they use them as an investigative tool…

    BRODSKY: Yes.

    PETERSON: …to steer you maybe in a certain direction or things. But in something like this, I’d have to totally rely on what my attorney…

    BRODSKY: And what they use the polygraphs for is an investigative — kind of an investigative technique to try to get people to make statements, as opposed to really gather whether or not something is true.

  63. HI All,

    Should go to Lenny’s site to hear new Peterson song. It’s titled “Where is Stacy?” Tried posting the link but didn’t take.

    Its http/drewpeterson1.blogspot.com

  64. whitesoxfan // September 20, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    HI All,

    Should go to Lenny’s site to hear new Peterson song. It’s titled “Where is Stacy?” Tried posting the link but didn’t take.

    Its http/drewpeterson1.blogspot.com
    ________________
    Thanks, but I’m trying to quit. 😉

  65. Lyrics:

    Where is Stacy?
    Where is Stacy?
    Drew killed her,
    He’s a mur-der-er

    Haunted from his third wife,
    Makin’ sure he serves life,
    You can’t flee,
    Die Drew-py

    Where is serenity?
    Where is serenity?
    You cause pain,
    You’re nothing but insane

    Abuse is second nature
    Stopping it– we’ll make sure
    Go away, go away
    Where you’ll stay

    Where is justice?
    Where is justice?
    A psycho’s runnin’ free
    This shouldn’t be

    This is gone on long enough,
    Put the Killer in some cuffs,
    Soon to be,
    Life you’ll see

    Where is Stacy?
    Where is Stacy?
    Drew killed her,
    He’s a mur-der-er

    Haunted from his third wife,
    Makin’ sure he serves life,
    You can’t flee,
    Die Drew-py

    Where is justice?
    Where is justice?
    A psycho’s runnin’ free
    This shouldn’t be

    This is gone on long enough,
    Put the Killer in some cuffs,
    Soon to be,
    Life you’ll see

  66. Darn right, it’s gone on long enough. That lie detector machine should’ve had a short in it. You know, light him up like the guy in Home Alone 2!

  67. RESCUE:

    I would bet that wasn’t the only time he said that about the polygraph. That is just the one that comes to mind.

    He may have even posted about it at BigM’s. I will have to do some more foraging for others just in case.

  68. Try LegalPub … it has more punch than SYM … for legal eagles, I mean.

    And I don’t think JB can deny it was him posting there.

    😀

  69. I wonder if Steve will play it on Monday. He always does the Drew parody stuff.

    Funny thing is, Drew and Joel are too doltish to realize he is laughing at them not with them.

    He did the same thing with Gacy.

    Made parody songs, etc.

  70. I can’t even count the amount of parody photos, songs and what have you that I have bumped into on Casey, George, Cindy and Lee Anthony.

    Must be born out of frustration.

    Wasn’t the first Drew parody pic the cowardly lion thing? I don’t even remember who did that, but it has really made it around.

  71. Gawd, I hope Peterson doesn’t make any money from this book. That would make me sick.

    And if he intends to make money for his “kids,” what a horrible way to do it – by trashing their mothers. He’s heartless. There’s no soul in that man.

  72. 😀
    The book is on the first 32 pages, it’s just the cover with DP taking poly that was on p. 33.

    I thought Searching meant why are they talking about it at Ashlen’s. And I thought the same about here.

  73. Well *I think* because it is relevant to Drew Peterson.

    I can only speak for myself, but, I would venture a guess that anything he says or does is topical.

    People were also recently talking about the Casey Anthony case on both places and also other forums related to this case.

    Only if you play the Kevin Bacon game, are the two related by virtue of Glenn Selig.

    People also talk about the weather and wish happy birthdays.

    I myself have posted Lisa Stebic and Christopher Vaughn information.

    Is there a topic Nazi I am unaware of?

  74. I guess when you have a book for sale, any publicity is positive publicity … and certainly Lenny wouldn’t want to give that to Drew.

  75. I’m not about to stick my head in the sand and pretend this thing isn’t happening.

    I think truth is power, and I’d rather find out as much about this book as possible and reveal it, so we can be prepared for a fight if we see there’s something we can do.

    The book is coming out no matter what. I’m not content to sit back and wait for the glowing Amazon reviews written by the other authors in the Kunati stable.

    One thing we can do is use what we know to email Matt Lauer with information or questions prior to September 30th. I’m sure he’s got a team working on it already, but just in case there’s something they may not think of…

  76. noway406 // September 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Searching said…
    Uhhh…why all the PR for this book?

    September 20, 2008 10:15 PM

    From Ashlen’s. Good question. 😀
    ____________________

    Quitting is really hard isn’t it?

  77. Just a reminder from the Phelps situation:

    GREGG: What, what’s.. Is he doing this, was he
    doing it for money, or for revenge? Is he mad about the media the way the media was treating him? What’shis deal?

    MATT: He said he didn’t want the money, but he wanted a certain percentage to go to his 5 kids into a trust fund, of course. It’s the same, it’s OJ. It’s “If I Did It #2?.

    GREGG: Yeah.

    MATT: And I didn’t want to get involved in “If I did It #2?.

    GREGG: Oh… (Unintelligible)

    MATT: There, there was a lot of money involved.

    GREGG: (unintelligible) …a big phone deal.

    MATT: No, I’m a journalist.I mean I, I, what I,
    what I asked him to do, he wouldn’t do. I asked
    Drew Peterson to take a lie detector test. I would
    set it up. I would give him, uh, I would have my
    people, I know one of the top polygrapher’s in the state of New York. And I was gonna send Drew there, and have him take a polygraph, and I was gonna submit the questions, and, and he just wouldn’t do that, uh, so. Either way I wouldn’t have done it. But it was…

    GREGG: You were curious, you know, to kind of talk to him.

    MATT: Why wouldn’t I talk with him? I..

    GREGG: Seriously- you would never have done the book, would you? (pause) I mean would you get involved with someone like that?

    MATT: It depends. It really, it really depends. I mean I had a tough time thinking about getting involved with it, but I wanted to see if I could get involved. Because I’m a journalist, that comes first- so if there was a story there, but the main thing here is there’s no story. There’s a middle of a story- there’s no beginning, there’s no ending, okay?

  78. THIS JUST IN:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/1176190,CST-NWS-sneed21.article

    The Peterson file . . .
    Who is the mystery woman who sits next to Drew Peterson, whose wife, Stacy, is missing, when he’s in court?

    • • Questions: Is she an author? Is she an adviser? Or . . . ? Peterson and his lawyers are mum about her identity.

    • • The backshot: Asked how Peterson planned to mark the anniversary of his third wife’s disappearance next month, Peterson replied, “What anniversary?” — prompting Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, to say Peterson will mark it by “staying free.”

  79. Ex troardinary verbage there:

    WHAT ANNIVERSARY?

    There now, some relevant FREE PUBLICITY for Drew and aw, it looks SO good on him 😉

  80. Ex cept that some people might no appreciate this kind of news, what with his trashy book coming out and him having an ex citing woman sitting next to him.

  81. Guess she doesn’t make him EX plode with excitement and is safe in public 😀

    Then there’s the one you don’t take home to mama 😛

  82. 1tank – if he took a poly, it sure wasn’t to ask him if he killed anybody? They could have asked him if he likes 22 year olds, for all we know. Of course, he could answer that honestly and correctly!

  83. It’s sort of cute though, isn’t it? Most cons have to wait until they’re actually incarcerated to have meet-ups with their prison pen-pals.

    Drew got a head start!

  84. “I am just back from court. Drew would agree, if it was not him this would not be happening. We spent a fair amount talking prior to court starting, as we did last time. He appears to be in good spirits with his usual sense of humor. Theres alot I can say, and ofcourse some I will not. My appearances ofcourse cause talk about who I am, which I refuse to comment on to anyone asking.

    Think how disappointed they’d be if they knew the truth.

  85. hedidit // September 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    noway406 // September 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Searching said…
    Uhhh…why all the PR for this book?

    September 20, 2008 10:15 PM

    From Ashlen’s. Good question.
    ____________________

    Quitting is really hard isn’t it?
    ___________________________

    Thankfully (?) other people post what is going on at Ashlen’s on other sites, so I can still avoid most of the carp on there. 😉

  86. Anon11, got PM that you’d been on Lavanda’s chat. Sorry I missed you … if you can make it there this week, I’ll see you then.

    Heard you were unusually quiet. 😉

  87. rescueapet // September 20, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    You know, what has go me perplexed here? Matt Phelps, when he did his radio interview, said he wanted DP to take a polygraph and he wouldn’t do it. Plus, Matt Phelps said he got the impression that DP wanted to get out the “dish” on his wives. Almost to the point where Phelps thought he wanted to make it sound like Stacy was responsible for Kathleen’s death.

    Now, this picture shows him hooked up to a polygraph machine. What changed? Are we supposed to believe that this shows he’s telling the truth regarding what’s in the book about his wives?
    __________________
    http://www.police-test.net/services.htm

    Maybe he hired himself an expert on how to pass a lie detector test. And there are a lot of them out there apparently.

    And now that I’ve hit the three in a row posts, I’d better sign off. 🙄

  88. Well done rescue!

    I just heard that they had to re-shoot the cover pic because the first one showed the polygraph not plugged in.

    He never took a polygraph. I’ll never believe it.

    Come on NG or Greta or Geraldo. If no one trashes this before DP’s launch on Today, I’ll be v v v disappointed.

  89. Just a thought….you can’t libel the dead, but DP and JB insist Stacy’s alive.

    I popped over to Ashlen’s to listen to the song. I found it quite charming, Len’s voice and tinkly music. LOL. I downloaded it. That doesn’t mean that I find the situation funny…at all. We haven’t forgotten your anniversary even if the dead man that killed you pretends he has. POS.

  90. • • The backshot: Asked how Peterson planned to mark the anniversary of his third wife’s disappearance next month, Peterson replied, “What anniversary?”

    ………………………………………………………………..

    hmmm, we know where his third wife is.

    ………………………………………………………………….

    Maybe we should help him out on the mysterious womans name and pictures just so he doesn’t get that wrong.

  91. Good morning everyone. Hey, bucket!

    Something thing to say – it doesn’t take much to figure out that this exposure crap is going to be very distasteful and very ugly against Kathleen and Stacy. With pictures and all. Very similar in style to what OJ Simpson and his dream team did to Nicole Simpson.

    This sick, poor excuse of a human being kept his wives in tow until he didn’t have use for them anymore, and then tossed them aside. Whatever he’s going to expose them for, and I’m sure he believes he has the goods, is on him as much as anything. If they were involved in something, he was too. Taking his ugly means of self-promoting to the press as he is doing, when he has young children who’ve lost their mothers, makes me hate the lunatic more than ever, no matter what he uncovers! His adult son, Stephen, must be as inhumane as he is to have not be able to stop this latest frenzy. Getting dragged right down with one of the poorest excuses of a father to walk this earth. A mentally and fatally destructive being that is, in fact, taking down his whole family as part of his horrific scheme he calls living.

    I hope he rots in hell, but starts his sentence here on earth, stuck inside a box of a cell with the spirts of his wive

  92. Thanks, IKELOL. I don’t know who I have more regret for. Kathleen and Stacy are gone, and no matter what comes of their reputations now, they can’t defend or change anything. But, the kids – that situation, to me, is heartbreaking.

    All of us, no matter what side of the fence we’re on, can’t dispute that. What can anyone say in defense of a man who is hellbent on so trashing his wives, that he’s consumed by it? How does he live with himself when he looks at the little people day in and day out? If he isn’t one that was sent down to this earth for evil, I don’t know who is!

  93. I am rather shocked that DP hasn’t tried to hook up with Casey Anthony! They would make the perfect couple…
    get tired of a wife…dispose of her…
    get tired of your child…
    dispose of her…
    think we should send Casey DP’s yahoo screen name?

  94. It is scary that there’s a clone of the heartless soul of Drew Peterson out there.

    But, for the matter at hand, there’s plenty of conflicting comments made on behalf of Peterson by Brodsky, and by Peterson himself, that will counterattack his aggressive smear tactics against Kathleen and Stacy. Those two women can’t even hide from them in death.

  95. exlawenforcement // April 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    I have no doubt that stacys family will write a book also. There will probally be several out there in time. Every side of this wants something from this, the 15 minutes of fame or what ever. All at someones expense.
    *****************

    Huh, still haven’t seen the book from Stacy’s family yet.

    I think it’s pretty clear what Stacy’s family wants…and it doesn’t have anything to do with 15 minutes of fame.

  96. http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/1736087-Police-investigating-Ill-ex-cop-used-electronic-surveillance/

    September 21, 2008

    Police investigating Ill. ex-cop used electronic surveillance

    By Dan Rozek
    The Chicago Sun-Times

    WILL COUNTY, Ill. — Drew Peterson’s own words may be used against him.

    Investigators have amassed an “extensive” collection of secretly recorded conversations involving Peterson, a Will County judge disclosed at a hearing Thursday.

    It’s the first independent verification that police investigating Peterson used electronic surveillance in an effort to collect evidence against the former Bolingbrook cop.

    In July, Len Wawczak and Paula Stark, former friends of Peterson, claimed they had secretly taped months of conversations with him for investigators probing the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, and the 2004 drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Authorities haven’t confirmed their claims, but on Thursday, Judge Richard Schoenstedt said investigators used court-approved electronic eavesdropping to compile tapes, CDs and DVDs focusing on Peterson.

    “It is extensive,” Schoenstedt said of the material. He didn’t disclose how the recordings were obtained.

    The information was disclosed when attorneys defending Peterson on a felony weapons charge asked for access to any police eavesdropping that could be related to that case. Peterson was hit with the gun charge after a November search of his home turned up what authorities allege was an illegally modified assault rifle.

    Schoenstedt deferred a ruling on whether defense attorneys can review any recordings before Peterson’s upcoming weapons trial.

    After the hearing, defense attorney Joel Brodsky downplayed the significance of any recordings, saying Peterson isn’t concerned.

    “He’s not afraid of anything he said,” Brodsky said after the hearing. “We have no fear of anything that could be contained in those tapes.”

    Peterson attended the hearing but left without commenting.

    Schoenstedt deferred a ruling on whether Peterson’s adult son, Steve, will be called to testify when Peterson stands trial on the weapons charge.

    Given the extensive publicity, Schoenstedt said he plans to elect a jury from a pool of about 100 potential jurors — three times the amount he typically calls in for a felony trial.

    Copyright 2008 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

    Copyright © 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

  97. Ah, Facs, the quote from that blogger must have inside knowledge the rest of us don’t, heh? Ya think that comes from sitting next to him in public places?

    I know she is including DP in that statement. Only, he wants more than 15 minutes of fame.

    ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CHILDREN HE FATHERED WITH KATHLEEN AND STACY.

  98. http://crimeweek.com/wordpress/?cat=73

    Drew Peterson Wants a Divorce, But Not a Polygraph
    Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
    Drew Peterson is seeking a divorce from his wife Stacy, who has been missing since late October and is widely presumed to be dead. This is being reported as “another bizarre twist in the Peterson case,” but… I’d say the bar has been set pretty high for “bizarre twists” in this case, and I don’t see anything all that odd about this report: It’s entirely consistent with Peterson’s claim that his wife ran off with another man.

    Meanwhile Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, is refuting a Fox News report that Peterson has agreed to appear on the Fox Network’s “Moment of Truth” program and submit to a lie detector test. Lie detectors, Brodsky insists, are about as accurate as “coin flips.”

  99. Terri // April 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    “exlawenforcement” must be either Drew or Brodsky.
    #

    exlawenforcement // April 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    thats were you are dead wrong, excuse the expression ! No I am female and no I am not dating drew or know him. So thats my story..

  100. It would seem that Peterson and camp have now done a 180 and do believe in the power of the polygraph.

    So, now I guess he’ll be submitting to one for LE? Maybe he can convince Mike Robinson to volunteer for one as well. I can’t wait!

  101. Now, this is precious, heh Facs?

    exlawenforcement // April 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm

    I did read and watch the articles. Not all of those things fit Drew. They fit alot of men in general. I guess it depends on where you want to draw the line. Whos to say that Stacy did not do this to get even with him or set him up. Like the runaway bride, look what she did and that was days before her big wedding. None of us really know for sure but the two people involved. Nobody knows the inside of their relationship. If you look at the photos you see two happy people in love with each other. I gather each case is different overall and we have to let it all play out to where ever its going. I will watch Larry King tomorrow night and see and hear what happens. I do not think for one moment Drew is happy or that hes dating anyone. The press would scare the hell out of anyone that wanted to.

  102. Of course, you can fully EX pect to see the questions that were asked of him hooked up to that lie detector, right?????

    Hmmm, like, are you responsible for Stacy’s disappearance, and Kathleen’s death?

    Did you threaten your wives at any time, physically, during your relationships with them?

    Did you intimidate them to participate in unsavory activites?

    That’s what was asked of him, right?

  103. Hey Rescue, she never said she wan’t working towards that goal though , did she? 😉

    All kidding aside, Exlaw misrepresented herself on more than one occasion. When confronted with it at Big M’s she first panicked and deleted her account and then came back and attempted to explain it all away.

    It was clear that she was infatuated with Drew and would draw the line at nothing in order to get close to him and prove her loyalty. She’s got to be like manna from heaven to Drew and Joel.

    I hope she has got some good support lined up for the inevitable moment when they throw her under the bus. Poor thing.

  104. Not to worry, Facs. As long as she doesn’t become a Mrs. Peterson, she’ll survive. I think. Cuz, there’s no future in being a Mrs. Peterson lately. Things happen. Faces get beaten, eyes are blackened, reputations are smeared, lives are earth are snuffed.

    Well, you get the idea….

  105. Come to think of if, I sure hope that that picture of Kathleen with a black eye is in Drew Peterson’s upcoming book. You don’t think he’d intentionally leave something like that out do you.

    Oh, my. Oh, dear.

  106. From” Unanswered Cries.

    http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2008/Unanswered-Cries/index.php?cp=1&si=0#artanc

    “But the marriage was fiery. During one altercation with Drew in 1993, she hit her head on the dining-room table, according to a Bolingbrook Medical Center report. Her sisters think Drew physically abused her, though they say Kathy didn’t want to talk about it. “But we saw the bruises,” says Anna. (Through his attorney, Joel Brodsky, Drew denies there was any physical abuse in the relationship.)”

    Do you think they approached this question during the polygraph test????

  107. woo, boy, pretty nervy to say this, heh?

    http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/12/03/drew-peterson-crazies-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/

    Comment by exlawenforcement
    April 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    Okay. This is enough. Give Drew back everything including guns and let him live his life. Shes gone for good no matter how. The family needs to give it up. People disappear every day of our lives in this world, her mom did the same thing and no up roar. Her sister was there when she married drew, no complaints then. She fought constantly with kathleen so whos to say she did not murder her rival ? Think about it theres alot more to this than meets the eye.17 is legal age now.

    Ah, exlawenforcement – and you what us to think she murdered her rival why?

  108. Hon, I don’t even believe there was a polygraph. I can hook up my dog to a machine , take a picture and slap it on the dustcover of a book.

    Give me twenty minutes…

  109. I think I’ll amass all of these little tidbits, compile them in order, and send them along to Matt Lauer prior to Peterson’s big national appearance on tv to “uncover” the “embargoed” book he’s going to promote.

  110. What’s that Beach Boy Song: I get around……

    http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2008/02/petersons_third_wife_it_was_mu.html

    By exlawenforcement on March 30, 2008 1:20 PM

    This entire thing is a witch hunt. These searches are a waste of time and will find nothing. This is a family trying to blame someone else for whats really wrong. Stacys mother did the same thing. Let Drew get on with his life & his kids too.
    By exlawenforcement on April 5, 2008 10:46 AM

    Little by little Drew is winning his life back. Next he will get his guns and card back.If anything was proven he would have been arrested a long time ago. The sign that Sharon put up next door needs to be removed, the kids see it and its cruel & mean spirited. The exes have said their peace, there is little left to do.

    What the you-know-what do you call this book your bff has authorized? Mother Goose?

  111. Hey, ex, did you help write this book. Damn, you’re right on with this stuff, aren’t you?

    http://www.crimerant.com/?p=1491

    # exlawenforcement Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    After reading about stacy & kathleen and all the fights they had with each other I really wonder if Stacy had something to do with the drowning ? Teay were always at each others throats. There was alot of jealousy there. Stacys mom disappeared also, is this a family trait ? Maybe Drew really did not do either of them in. Theres no proof and no charges. His personal items need to be restored since plenty of time has gone by to look them over. He need personal protection because of the threats, so give his guns back.

  112. If anyone has any doubts about what the content of this book will be, just think back to what Matt Phelps described here:

    “MATT: Well, in a nutshell, Drew Peterson, his attorney and his people got ahold of me, uh, I don’t know, 6 or 7 weeks ago now, and I had a 2 hour pow, almost a 3 hour pow wow with Drew on the phone, and his attorney, and they wanted me to write a book from DP’s point of view and he would have absolutely no editorial control over it. And I thought it would be interesting, and so I listened. And the gist of I got from Drew Peterson, beyond the hair standing up on the back of my neck, as he spoke- the gist I got from him was that he wanted me to trash um his wife that’s missing and his dead wife. He wanted me to trash them. He had all this dish on them that he wanted to lay out there, or he wanted me to lay out there. Which..

    GREGG: Unbelieveable! I mean here’s…

    MATT: Which had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. And then he want too, and here’s the big one, uh, he told me: they wanted, they wanted to come out and lay the first, the wife who was murdered on the second wife who is missing. They want to put that on her saying she did it.

    GREGG: That stacy was the killer.

    MATT: That stacy was the killer of the first wife, that’s, that’s, that…

    GREGG: That’s absolutely disgusting.

    MATT: You know, I, I was sick my agent was sick.

    GREGG: The hair on the back of your neck…

    MATT: I had to take a shower”

    And when Joel Brodsky took Phelps to task for speaking up on the air about the conversation, Phelps indicated that another author had been found to do what he wouldn’t:

    “Look, I’m not about to get into the minutia of what was said, what was not said, etc … but I can release snips of the conversation on audio if need be. Notice what Joel Brodsky doesn’t deny. Also, during the radio show I specifically said I was very interested in pursuing the Drew Peterson book idea. Didn’t mean I wasn’t feeling dirty about the conversation or the potential book. In fact, my agent and I spoke right after–and I talked to him about my feelings. If they want me to start releasing emails, well, I can do that, too. I never signed a confidentiality agreement with them. I spoke to Joel Brodsky a few days after this call and told him–pointblank–that I was having trouble and struggling with some issues involved with the book. I said my journalistic integrity was more important. Drew Peterson would not take a lie detector test for me. That was of great concern. Now, this is the last time I speak about this. I’m done. I’ve moved on. They have an author, or so I’ve been told.”

  113. “He need personal protection because of the threats, so give his guns back.”

    Protection from who? The women that come traipsing in and out of his house, interviewing for a position as Mrs. Peterson, to complete his life and the life of his children?

    He needs guns for that?

  114. Thanks, Facs. We’ll keep that on the blog every, single day, so there’s no doubt what this book seems to be meant to do. Trash and burn.

  115. And since we’re talking about the book, can I repeat myself and point out the the author of this book, Derek Armstrong is also owner of its publisher, Kunati books?

    This is a self-published book.

    What that means is that there has been no other editorial or critical eye laid upon this work other than the author’s (and I presume Drew and Brodsky). That means no quality-control, no fact-checking, no need to explain Armstrong’s sudden interest in the true-crime genre, not need to show any credentials as an investigative journalist. It means complete freedom to write whatever he wants and to slap an ISBN on it.

    Joe Hosey has a career as a journalist riding on his book. He had to pass muster to a publisher and stand behind any and all assertions. He relied on months of interviews, footwork and investigation to put together his book. If his book is challenged or fails he has a lot to lose.

    Armstrong has nothing to lose but the cost of printing and marketing.

  116. “We know the tapes exist,” said Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky. “What we don’t know is the length and breadth of the tapes, whether they bugged him inside his house, they bugged him inside his car, whether anybody was wearing a wire. That we don’t know, and we didn’t find out.”

    Yep, those tapes could have been make any time…any place.

  117. well, the way I see it is Mr. Brodsky didn’t know any of this, because he’s reported as saying, prior to Thursday’s court date, that he believed Len & Paula are only out to make a buck, and there are no tapes. Therefore, he must have gotten the shock of all shocks to find out the Judge was in possession of “EXtensive” amounts of evidence; cd’s, dvd’s, tapes. A/K/A surveillance.

    So, it would seem to me no one knows who’s on those tapes, since the lawyer for the suspect had no clue, and, in fact, publicly said there were no tapes. Oh, oh.

  118. So, how come the suspect in a missing person/homicide matter and his defense attorney didn’t know about surveillance tapes, but a complete set of interviews was given for a book and no one seems to be worried that those interviews may, in fact, be on the overhears?

Comments are closed.