Your Thread – September 29

Here’s a new one to start the week off.

~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

110 thoughts on “Your Thread – September 29

  1. I was still over there talking to myslef … so I pulled this over here.

    Yes, according to the report on the Early Show, Drew was deceptive in three areas.

    Was the last time you saw Stacy before you went to bed? Yes.
    Do you know where Stacy is? No.
    Did Stacy call you to tell you she was leaving? Yes.

    Drew says he has no idea why the test showed deception in these questions.

    noway406 // September 29, 2008 at 9:26 am

    He said there was confusion on his part and he thought Kathleen might have been giving him an extra day because it was a holiday.

    Easter was April 11 in 2004. Possibly he was talking about their spring break?

    But it would have been clearly indicated who had the children for spring break … IMO. And there is no way he would have assumed this, considering how stormy their relationship was as far as being even minutes late when returning children.

    I think Drew was semi-sedated during this interview.

  2. Yes, Joel was there too.

    He said “if you believe in polygraphs” and then went on to say that he did not believe in the accuracy of polygraphs and they they were not admissible in court.

    They were both so low key that I half-hoped the reporter would say “Joining us now is Len in Bolingbrook to tell us what he thinks of polygraphs” just to get a rise out of Joel and Drew … so that I knew they were actually alive and aware of what was going on. 😉

  3. The part that interests me is Drew being confused about what day he was supposed to return the boys.

    Sunday was the usual day, but it was a holiday weekend and he thought Kathleen might have been giving him an extra day.

    Highly unlikely IMO.

  4. Good morning everyone. I didn’t see the interview this morning.

    It sounds like the focus, then, wasn’t on other parts of the book that trash his wives, as he’s done in the past. I am a little confused as to why his attorney would allow him to go on national tv when attention is being directed at him being deceptive during a polygraph test. Nothing about all of this makes any sense.

    Obvious to me, it appears that Joel Brodsky has NO CONTROL over his client, and Peterson runs the show. Because, if that’s not the case, I can’t understand why an attorney would allow his client to admit he took a polygraph test, then allow his client to babble that he doesn’t know why it showed him being deceptive during crucial questions.

    Seems to me, the only questions that wouldn’t throw him off on a polygraph would be: are you trying to discredit and trash your wives?

    Amazing. Just amazing.

  5. Noway – I wondered about that long weekend thing too. March 1st, wasn’t it? Was he talking about President’s Day? No…too early. What holiday would that be? The holiday stuff was the only new thing I noticed him saying.

    Chen asked him why he thought he showed decpetion on those three questions and in every case he said he had no idea, that he was telling the truth.

    Brodsky first said that the good news was that Drew passed with flying colors on the rest of the test, and then he said again that he doesn’t believe in polygraphs and that they aren’t admissable in court. *eyeroll*

    Didn’t Drew seem almost as if he was on Xanax or something? Maybe they stayed out late the night before at the bars.

    Drew’s last statement was worded strangely:

    “I hope everyone sees that I’m innocent of everything that I’ve been…thought of doing.”

  6. iknowenough // September 29, 2008 at 10:01 am

    Ashlens is now open for business again HangDrew is in full swing
    ******************************

    Now…where are my goggles and eye sanitizer? 🙂

  7. BTW

    2004 Federal Holidays

    Thursday, January 1 New Year’s Day
    Monday, January 19 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
    Monday, February 16* Washington’s Birthday
    Monday, May 31 Memorial Day
    Monday, July 5** Independence Day
    Monday, September 6 Labor Day
    Monday, October 11 Columbus Day
    Thursday, November 11 Veterans Day
    Thursday, November 25 Thanksgiving Day
    Friday, December 24*** Christmas Day

  8. Oh, the other thing Drew said that was somewhat new:

    Chen asked if Stacy was close to her family and he said sometimes she was and sometimes she wasn’t and that they were planning to move to Arizona (first he said California) to get away from them.

  9. I had a thought….if they seemed subdued (drug enhanced or not) might have read the book.Did they then attack Geraldo to try to set the stage to then say Armstrong was putting words in his mouth ? (yuk, sorry)

  10. Oh facs, when you go to ashley’s please tie a rope around your waist and tie the other end to a sturdy piece of furniture, please?

  11. It looks like greater opportunity to do his dirtywork when he knows the kids will not be home at Kathleen’s and in the way.

  12. I had just found that Easter (Catholic and Orthorox) was April 11th that year. but Facs beat me to finding the Casmir Pulaski holiday.

  13. Thanks, Facs … about the holiday information.

    It’s not like this was a recently-established holiday, right? How long have the folks in Illinois been celebrating it?

    IMO who had the kids on holidays would have been clearly established.

  14. Noway – Guess we’ve been celebrating Casmir Pulaski Day since 1977/1978.

    ***

    [QUOTE]Illinois enacted a law on June 20, 1977 to celebrate the birthday of Casimir Pulaski and held the first official Pulaski Day celebrations in 1978. The bill was introduced by Senator Leroy W. Lemke, a Democrat from Chicago. Chicago celebrates Pulaski Day on the first Monday in March with an annual parade. Cook County government (which includes Chicago) and the Chicago Public Library also close on this holiday.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski_Day

  15. OK – So the interview seemed pretty boring IMO. Anyway – I just want to know why they did this interview after Joel has stated that they only go on TV to respond to things that other people allege.

    But here they are dropping the bomb about his answers being considered deceptive on 3 very main points. Guess they figured it was best to do a pre-emptive strike as the book is to be released tomorrow. (Does this mean they did get hold of the book and have probably read it by now?)

  16. “Peterson’s publicist says he’s scheduled to appear Monday morning on CBS’ “The Early Show,” but the 54-year-old claims he’s already tired of the book buzz.

    Actually, I’m bored with it all,” he said in a telephone interview with the Tribune. ”
    ********************************

    He’s bored. Just like the kids are bored with reports about their moms’ being gone.

    I’m starting to think ‘bored’ is Drew’s code word for ‘extremely emotionally agitated’.

  17. Right now, the truth is, there’s deceptive answers by Peterson during the polygraph, and he tries to explain those away, but he wants everyone to know now, by taking this poly and answering some questions “truthfully,” we’re to believe in his innocence? He is just plain out of his frickin’ head. And so is his goof of a lawyer by following him around like a little puppy dog and trying to spin this whole thing.

    The thing this did accomplish, though, is it’s going to be fodder for conversations now, and it just might fire up the sale of this stupid book. Someone is going to make money from it. Maybe Peterson, knowing full well he’s guilty as can be, is throwing down his sword to make money for his kids by promoting this book, even though it’s garbage?

    Naw. He wouldn’t do anything honorable for his kids. He’s a loser.

  18. http://murphymilanojournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/circus-returns.html

    Susan Murphy Milano’s Journal
    A place to rant, rave and highlight the good, the bad and the evil.

    The Circus Returns

    Drew Peterson is resurfacing, this time he and he legal marshmallow roaster will appear on the CBS Early Show to discuss an upcoming book by a self-published Canadian businessman to be released later this week.

    The front cover of the book has 2 photo’s one of Peterson hooked up to a polygraph machine and the other is a family portrait with Stacy, Drew and all four children taken a couple years ago.

    Will County is no closer to charging and arresting Drew Peterson on either Stacy Peterson or Kathleen Savio. And as an important side note to this circus lets not forget Lisa Stebic.

    In this game of catch me if you can, with the one anniversary of Stacy’s vanishing act at the end of October one wonders if James Glascow’s Prosecutors have presented enough of a case for a grand jury to even indict Peterson?

    Too many questions and not enough answers in domestic violence,vanishing, murder, stalking, and felony cases not only in Illinois but across the Country.

    If nothing else this should be a wake-up call to the Department of Justice. This is your front row seat to real life tragedies within our legal system.

    Now, let’s get busy and fix the problem!

  19. Ignorance is bliss as it relates to the 2 younger children. Sadly, but expectedly they probably have “forgotten somwhat” about their mom, especially when there is not someone showing them pictures and talking about her everyday to keep it in the front of there very young minds.

    The 2 older boys, it’s old hat, this is not the first time they are dealing with a loss, and there father spends day in and day out with them, with hours and hours of being able to work on them to believing Stacy left on her own.

    My “it’s old hat” doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that these kids will suffer greatly in life.

  20. Facs, I think your right about Drew’s word of bored. Remember he also stated the kids were bored with the whole thing. I found the interview very boring too. I would like to know the other questions that were asked, I am thinking they were lame questions.

  21. teneleven // September 29, 2008 at 10:51 am

    It’s all about selling copies of the book.

    The polygraph results, the 3 areas of deception, are the teaser.

    *****

    Thanks for the kick back to reality. I bet you are right.

  22. Rescue – Of course you know we are only supposed to believe the questions that he tested truthful on. The ones he failed are certainly just a mistake by the person giving the tests. 😉

  23. thinkaboutit2 // September 29, 2008 at 11:00 am

    teneleven // September 29, 2008 at 10:51 am

    It’s all about selling copies of the book.

    The polygraph results, the 3 areas of deception, are the teaser.
    ************************

    It could backfire though. If those were the only three questions that showed decpetion then…why should we bother to read the book?

    We’ve all heard his story before…so we know the rest of it.

    Interesting that they didn’t try to push the book at all, at least not overtly. If this is their marketing strategy…it’s freakin’ weird.

  24. I’d like to know what other questions related to Stacy’s disappearance were asked.

    But I don’t want to buy the book or even read it. 😉

  25. Drew Peterson Denies Polygraph Results
    Ex-Cop Says 3 Answers About Disappearance Of Stacey Peterson That Test Called Deceptive Were True

    NEW YORK, Sept. 29, 2008

    (CBS) Drew Peterson says he told the truth during a recent polygraph test and has no idea why results showed he was being deceptive on three occasions.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook, Ill. Police sergeant, has been named a suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    His third wife, Kathleen Savio, was found dead in a bathtub in the couple’s home in 2004. Her death — at first ruled an accident — was recently ruled a homicide after her body was exhumed.

    When Stacy Peterson, 23, vanished, Bolingbrook residents searched in vain for the mother of two. And some in the community voiced suspicions. Sharon Bychowski, a friend of Stacy’s, said at the time, “She did say to many of us, not just to me in confidence, but many of us, that if anything happened to her, it was not an accident. He killed her.”

    Drew steadfastly maintained that Stacy had run off. But police doubted his story and elevated him from person of interest to official suspect.

    In May, Peterson took a lie detector test, at the request of author Derek Armstrong.

    The results, published in a new book by Armstrong, “Drew Peterson Exposed,” show Peterson as being deceptive on three occasions when asked about Stacy’s disappearance: when he was asked about the last time he saw her, if he knows her whereabouts, and about a supposed phone call from Stacy saying she was leaving him.

    On The Early Show Monday, co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez peppered Peterson with questions.

    “First off,” she began, “most of the responses to that polygraph indicate you were not involved in your wife’s disappearance. But I also want to give you the chance to respond to those that could be incriminating. You were asked if the last you saw Stacy was before you went to bed, you said, ‘Yes.’ The machine says you were deceptive. Why?”

    “I have no idea,” Peterson replied. “I answered the questions truthfully and why it showed up that I was deceptive, I have no idea.

    “When asked if you know where Stacy is, you said, ‘No.’ Do you know where she is?”

    “I have no idea.”

    “No idea?”

    “No idea.”

    “Did Stacy call you and tell you she was leaving? You said, ‘Yes,’ the machine says ‘deceptive.’ ”

    “Again,” Peterson answered, “that’s what happened, and why it came up deceptive, I just can’t answer for that.”

    “You said she called you the night she disappeared and said she had run off with another man?”

    “Correct.”

    “Do you feel she’s out there with another man, hasn’t called anyone, left her children behind? Dropped off the face of the planet, and no one’s has each seen her?”

    “I believe that a hundred percent without a doubt.”

    “Do you realize how farfetched that sounds?”

    “It sounds farfetched, but it happens, so I really can’t answer for where she is or what she’s doing or anything like that.”

    Peterson said Stacy told him during that last phone call, “She found somebody else and she was leaving so told me where she left her car.”

    “She told you where she left her car?”

    “Right.”

    “Why would she do that?”

    “I guess — she didn’t want it. So, she wanted me to have it.”

    Peterson said Stacy wasn’t the kind of person who would just leave her kids like that, “which makes it kind of peculiar that all this is happening. She loved her children.”

    What about her family? Was she close to her family?

    “That was on and off. Sometimes, she actually — we were planning to move to California or Arizona to get away from her family because of the kind the trouble, some issues they were involved in. So, one minute she loved them and one minute, she wanted to get away from them, so I again can’t answer for what was going on in her head at the time.”

    That phone call wasn’t the first sign of trouble in the marriage, Peterson told Rodriguez: “She would indicate that she wanted a divorce sometimes and then, the next day, she was fine. So, it was kind of an emotional rollercoaster and this was all stemming from her sister dying of cancer. She took it really hard and we had her under psychiatric care and she was on medication, so, again, I can’t answer what was going on in her head the night she left.”

    “Can you understand,” Rodriguez pressed, “why people watching at home who hear you tell this story are shaking their heads and say, ‘He can’t be telling the truth. It doesn’t make sense.’ Do you understand that?”

    “I understand what people are thinking, of course. But it happens.”

    Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, interjected that, “If you look at the polygraph, I mean, if you believe in polygraphs, one thing they all confirm is that Drew had nothing to do with either Kathleen’s death or heeded no harm to Stacy. And he had no role in her leaving the house. So, if you like polygraphs or if you believe in them and that they are accurate, then those facts are confirmed.

    “I personally don’t find polygraphs,” Brodsky continued, “I’ve always said this, that I don’t find them to be reliable. I don’t believe that they’re reliable. They’re not admissible in court.”

    But Rodriguez said, “It’s not the polygraphs, it’s the things (Drew says that) don’t make sense, but are just (Drew claims) the way they are.”

    “Sure,” Peterson replied.

    “For example,” Rodriguez said, “in your third wife’s death, Kathleen’s death, you say that you had the kids that weekend. You were in the middle of a divorce and you dropped them off that night, she wasn’t there, she wasn’t answering, so you took them back home and it wasn’t until the following night that you asked the neighbors to go in. Why did you wait a long night?”

    “It was a long weekend,” Peterson explained, “so I was confused whether she was giving me an extra day or she had had plans. It was a holiday weekend, so I didn’t think that of much of it until the following day, and it was unlike her to not answer the phone or call me or complain that I wasn’t there on time. So, there was some confusion on my part whether she was giving me an extra day or not and she had plans for the following day.”

    Why not call investigators instead of anybody? Why not go in yourself where you finally reach the point where you were concerned about her?

    “I didn’t go in. I had the neighbors go in.”

    If you’re concerned and she is the mother of your kids, why not go in yourself?

    “I was there and, eventually, when I heard them screaming, I did go in, but Kathleen was the type that would have accused me of stealing something out of the house if I would’ve went in, so I stayed out just to try to keep an objective stance.”

    To sum up, Peterson told Rodriguez, “Now that this polygraph has come out, I hope everybody sees I’m innocent of everything that I’ve been thought of doing.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/earlyshow/main4486038.shtml

  26. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/earlyshow/main4486038.shtml

    Drew Peterson Denies Polygraph Results

    Snipped from above article:
    Joel Brodsky, interjected that, “If you look at the polygraph, I mean, if you believe in polygraphs, one thing they all confirm is that Drew had nothing to do with either Kathleen’s death or heeded no harm to Stacy. And he had no role in her leaving the house. So, if you like polygraphs or if you believe in them and that they are accurate, then those facts are confirmed.

    Now that’s an even bigger tease!!!!

    Noway, I would like to know what other questions too.

    I am buying the book.

  27. Joel Brodsky said it on tv. Period. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court. But, most of all, he admitted, in a roundabout way, that when his client shows deceptive, they’re worthless. If you do want to believe in lie detector tests, then they’re not worthless when his client appears to be answering correctly.

    Hmm. Why didn’t they just come out and say what the actual questions were that he supposedly answered truthfully to?

    Matt Phelps wanted DP to take a lie detector exam, but using his person, one that is well known and renowned.

    Not that the person who administered the test here is not worthy, but why did they find and pay for THEIR own guy? Maybe to present their questions the way they wanted them to be worded?

    “First off,” she began, “most of the responses to that polygraph indicate you were not involved in your wife’s disappearance.

    Perfect marketing ploy. Gotta buy the book if you want to know the “facts.”

  28. Hmm. Why didn’t they just come out and say what the actual questions were that he supposedly answered truthfully to?

    —————–

    Gotta buy the book Rescue 😉

  29. teneleven // September 29, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Hmm. Why didn’t they just come out and say what the actual questions were that he supposedly answered truthfully to?

    —————–

    Gotta buy the book Rescue 😉
    ***************

    Naw, teneleven. Once it hits the bookstores for release, it’ll be all over the place in a New York Minute. Right here on the Internet, with comments analysis galore.

    If someone who is not a blogger and following this stuff closely saw the interview on the Early Show this morning, and saw it pointed out that DP was deceptive on some crucial questions, they are probably shaking their heads and wondering why he’d go on tv like this and do something so stupid. They’re not going to run out and buy the book. If they haven’t followed him closely by now, they’re not about to start.

    I honestly believe that once the book is released and the actual “facts” are outted about what’s in it, that book will be on the $2.00 Bargain Table soon. Real soon.

  30. Thanks, gotoutandhappynow, and thanks to everyone who posted the transcript/video of this morning’s latest Drew Peterson PR event.

  31. Maybe somehow/someway the proceeds for the book will eventually end up in the hands of the family’s of the victims?????

  32. This is what Matt Phelps said about the money from the book when he was approached with the idea. But again, who knows what is believable, or what was said to Armstrong:

    “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. “

  33. Noway, I thought Facs was grammar/proper english police 😉

    Let me rephrase sorry.

    Maybe somehow/someway any money Peterson makes off the book sales will eventually end up in the hands of he victims family’s?

    Better?

  34. Assuming that there is going to be any proceeds from sales to speak of is a big leap, at least I hope so, and the victims’ families are never going to see a penny of that money.

  35. See, to me, this is the opposite of what Peterson should have wanted the main focus of this drewfest to be, not the way CBS News is promoting this morning’s latest adventure.

    The Early Show
    Drew Peterson Denies Polygraph Results
    Ex-Cop Says 3 Answers About Disappearance Of Stacey Peterson That Test Called Deceptive Were True

    NEW YORK, Sept. 29, 2008

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/earlyshow/main4486038.shtml

    Maybe he and the attorney were subdued because they didn’t anticipate that it was going to be focused on the deceptive answers. Obviously, pepperhead expected all of the viewing public to have a broad awakening of his professed innocence.

  36. I see it as more of a pre-emptive strike. They know those three questions/answers are the ones that are going to look bad so they drag themselves to New York so Drew can pubicly say that he doesn’t know why he got a ‘deceptive’ hit on those when he was telling the truth.

    It still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If there was more that they wanted to talk about beyond those questions, they didn’t go there.

    If they were doing it to promote the book you think they would have been more excited, pointed fingers at Armstrong and put on a big show about him not being professional or something. At first I thought that was why they were appearing on their own instead of with Armstrong – so they could appear at odds.

    Now, I don’t know.

  37. Do these people even talk to each other?

    This is from Selig’s 9/24 media alert (http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=862&z=4):

    Since the test and results are part of Mr. Armstrong’s investigative reporting effort, it would be unfair–indeed wrong–for us to reveal the results and our ‘spin’ on what they mean before he does.

    So, isn’t that exactly what they did today? The book doesn’t come out until Wednesday.and Armstrong has yet to reveal the ’embargoed’ contents.

  38. I’m pulling this bit out (yes Joel – out of context!) as a reminder that the book was written in cooperation with Drew.

    “…various authors were talking with us about their interest in writing a book with Mr. Peterson’s cooperation…”

  39. teneleven // September 29, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Noway, I thought Facs was grammar/proper english police

    Let me rephrase sorry.

    Maybe somehow/someway any money Peterson makes off the book sales will eventually end up in the hands of he victims family’s?

    Better?
    ______________
    I meant “Proceeds?” as in “You think there will be any?” not as in there being anything wrong grammar-wise.
    😀

  40. As a member of the spelling and grammar police, the only one I ever have to arrest is myself. 🙄 Quite often, as a matter of fact.

  41. Sorry for the little poke Noway.

    The don’t you get the joke police should arrest me, well them or the man are you paranoid police 🙂

  42. 😀

    No problem. I like the two new branches of “law enforcement”!

    Don’t you get the joke police
    Man are you paranoid police

  43. Facsmiley posted:
    From Selig’s 9/24 media alert (http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=862&z=4):

    “Since the test and results are part of Mr. Armstrong’s investigative reporting effort, it would be unfair–indeed wrong–for us to reveal the results and our ’spin’ on what they mean before he does.

    Facs, I guess Joel and Drew didn’t mind being unfair or wrong … or maybe they didn’t consider what they did “giving their spin” on it.

  44. I’ve been cited often by the “you thought you were saying something but you were just typing too quickly and therefore really unclear and easily misinterpreted” police.

  45. Do not pass Go, do not collect any proceeds!

    Wouldn’t that be the ideal? One or two could buy the book to get the gory details, then send it around to about 500 of their closest friends/relatives/bloggers……

    In fact, Drew owing the author/publisher money would be just peachy keen!

  46. Rescue funny you should say that, I was just going to ask if it’s against some sort of copyright type law if someone were to copy and scan in?

  47. bucketoftea // September 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    It is very strange, facs. That must have been before the cbs appt appeared. Weird. They changed their minds?

    ****

    Maybe they changed their minds because they discovered that he failed some questions and figured a pre-emptive strike was better. If they aren’t trying hard to sell the book I’m starting to wonder if it came out with a different ending than Drew and Joel thought it would. We’ll know soon enough I guess.

  48. Yeah think, I thought reading the book is what put them in a funk, noticeable from the radio appearance. Apart from what JB says about polygraphs, I wonder i those 3 deceptive answers gave him pause….nah, he knows he did it.

  49. Not only the pre-emptive strike matter, and nipping the deceptive parts in the bud on national tv, but where are Crime File Dude, Dana whatever his face is that sucks up to Peterson and Brodsky, and why no Legal Pub responses and dissertations from Brodsky?

    CBS zeroing in their headline on the fact that he flunked at least 3 questions is not my idea of good marketing for a murder suspect’s defense!

    Since he was deceptive in some parts and “truthful” in others, this whole thing is a farce. No wonder Peterson looked like he was on Extra Strength Valium!

    As soon as this book is out, the pundits will be all over it, and the Bargain Table will be a’waitin’ that piece of garbage! Right?

  50. I could be wrong of course, but the impression I’m getting is that there is no strong tie between anyone Drew Peterson Support Society.

    Isn’t it possible that they all feel that Drew is a murderer and are in it for the money? All of them? Drew took the polygraph against Joel’s advice. Joel doesn’t fight it because he’s working on his own book and here’s another chapter. Glenn Selig doesn’t worry about the accuracy of his New Alerts (I.E. there is no such entity as the Illinois Polygraph Examiner’s Association). Drew and Joel don’t honor their agreement with Derek Armstrong to keep mum on the polygraph findings. Armstrong admits to the polygraph sessions before his embargo is up. Armstrong and Drew are supposed to appear on the Today Show on Tuesday but instead Drew and Joel appear on the Early Show on Monday…

    Everyone believes Drew is a murderer, and everyone who gets close to him is trying to find a way to profit from that and they don’t care whose toes they step on in order to do that.

    Hey, is that a Stating the Obvious Police officer coming towards me and pulling out his pad?

  51. Noway – funny, the court docket doesn’t show any dates for the domestic battery cases.

    Maybe they were settled??????? Wouldn’t that mean a deal was struck?

  52. Rodriguez on The Early Show said:

    “First off,” she began, “most of the responses to that polygraph indicate you were not involved in your wife’s disappearance. But I also want to give you the chance to respond to those that could be incriminating.

    ++++++++++

    I wonder (sorry, Wonder) if this was a remark that was scripted and given to her to read, or if she, in fact, had knowledge of the questions. This is so strange, since the current PR release and the author’s website continues to stress that everything about the poly is embargoed.

    So, how do we get to this place, then:

    To sum up, Peterson told Rodriguez, “Now that this polygraph has come out, I hope everybody sees I’m innocent of everything that I’ve been thought of doing.”

    It might be reaching here, but aren’t the three questions he was lying about pretty much the gist of the whole Stacy Peterson disappearance? When he last saw her, does he know/not know where she is, and if that phone call was the real deal? What am I missing?

  53. “There’s some pretty stinging indictments of him, but I think the book does tell the whole story,” Armstrong said. “It’s very much an investigation of what I think everyone missed.”

    +++++++++++

    And this means what for the tapes?

  54. rescueapet // September 29, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Noway – funny, the court docket doesn’t show any dates for the domestic battery cases.

    Maybe they were settled??????? Wouldn’t that mean a deal was struck?
    ___________________
    I don’t know … sounds like that is a distinct possibility other than the charges were dropped, which was my fear. 😦

  55. One question deceptive, two versions of a response:

    1) CBS – The Early Show: “When asked if you know where Stacy is, you said, ‘No.’ Do you know where she is?”

    “I have no idea.”

    “No idea?”

    “No idea.”

    2) WBBM News Radio
    http://www.wbbm780.com/Peterson-Lie-Test-Deceptive–AUDIO-VIDEO/3050482

    Drew Peterson says he passed the polygraph test on his third wife Kathleen Savio. That there were no deceptive answers, as determined by the polygraph operator.

    But on the polygraph exam about Stacy Peterson: three answers determined to be deceptive. One about the last time he saw Stacy, another about whether he got a phone call from her after she disappeared. And a third.

    “‘Do you know the whereabouts of your wife Stacy?’ I answered no, and the results showed that was deceptive.”

    WBBM: What do you think the reason is they called it deceptive?

    “No idea. I mean, I could’ve been responding to having thoughts in my head about… I think she’s with some other man, or I’d been thinking she’s with her family somewhere. We’ve got sightings of her in Thailand. So I don’t know. I could’ve been thinking about that at the time.”

    The polygraph operator, Lee McCord of McCord and Associates in the Loop, confirmed that he’d given Peterson the tests this summer, but declined to comment on the results.

  56. I was just about to post that…heh.

    Not a huge deal, but Selig’s Press Releases say that the polygraphs were taken ‘over the spring’ while the operater says ther were taken this summer.

  57. McCord & Associates
    (312)984-0404
    25 E Washington St Ste 1333
    Chicago, IL 60602

    I wonder if someone could find out if he is a member of the Illinois Polygraph Society, the American Polygraph Association, or the Polygraph Examiners of America.

  58. CBS reported that the polygraphs were taken in May. There is something very weird about this. I wonder if something has gone on behind the scenes?

  59. Didn’t he take more than one polygraph? I thought Joel said “all the polygraphs showed” … so maybe spring and summer until he got it right?

    🙄

    Bucket, I don’t know. I’m hoping for the scenario Rescue described. Deal made in exchange for testimony against Drew Peterson.

  60. Seriously, try Googling “Lee McCord” and any polygraph terms. Nada.

    Most polygraph operators have web sites, advertise their credentials and testimonials, belong to organizations.

    Is this guy retired or what?

  61. There hasn’t been any clear indication of what, who, how many polygraphs, except 2 were mentioned.

    Of course what Mike Robinson knows is probably plenty, but if he’s in deep, it may be more than he feels he can bargain.

  62. There’s no member called McCord at the American Polygraph Association…lists members all over country incl. past and present police polygraphers.

  63. facsmiley // September 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Seriously, try Googling “Lee McCord” and any polygraph terms. Nada.

    Most polygraph operators have web sites, advertise their credentials and testimonials, belong to organizations.

    Is this guy retired or what?

    Add streetrat to your search. 😉

    Just kidding. I’m sure he is a fine, upstanding member of society.

  64. Mc Cord & Associates
    25 E Washington Street # 1333, Chicago, IL 60602
    (312) 984-0404
    (312) 853-0885 (fax)

    Tags: Security Consultants & Agencies, Lawyers, Lie Detection Services

    At least they’re in the Yellow Pages.

  65. bucketoftea // September 29, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    facs…you’re smart, but if you had all that in there….you’ve gotto have a big ass!
    ***********************

    I’m taking the fifth….

  66. Maybe one guy did one polygraph and the other guy did the other one.

    To give it more oomph, they made more fuss about the guy with the better credentials?

  67. Mondo bizarro. Whatever it was, it looks like it didn’t go to plan. I’m still preoccupied with their defeated demeanor. (bad news about m. robinson? we can only hope)

  68. gentlemanjack // September 29, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    Fuzzymouser, if you check in here, I just want to say, once again, very proud of you!
    __________
    Thanks dear! You were right , backlash has begun. It’s okay though.. they hit a low blow but I will bounce back.

    If any of you would like to join us in helping Stacy’s case in a positive manner please feel free to write letters or call any of the people on this list. Let’s harrass in a positive manner instead of just running in circles.

    http://www.willcountyillinois.com/ElectedOfficials/tabid/102/Default.aspx

    Together we can make a change and help people who are not here to speak for themselves be heard.

  69. Hello, contradiction!

    QUOTE #1:
    “This is not a true crime book,” Armstrong said, “in the sense that I take an investigative journalist’s approach and attempt to “solve” the crime—or at least to reveal important new information. In classical true crime, the case is often historical.”

    QUOTE#2:
    “I impartially present the evidence. I don’t draw conclusions. “

  70. Woo, Facs, good catch! Attempting to reveal important new information? I don’t think so.

    Hours and hours of surveillance evidence on dvd’s, cd’s and tapes works for me just fine.

  71. Ric Mims:

    Drew Peterson Exposed… What a JOKE !!
    September 29, 2008 Uncategorized No Comments

    I just want to say that on many occassions DP told me he was trained and knew how to beat a lie dectector test. I’m sure there are other people have heard him state that.

    RIC

  72. Chicago SunTimes September 30, 2008

    Drew Peterson was deceptive in answering three questions about his fourth wife’s disappearance, lie detector tests showed, but his attorney said Monday he believes the polygraph — not Peterson — was unreliable.

    “I don’t trust polygraphs,” lawyer Joel Brodsky said.

    Peterson took two lie-detector tests for a book due out this week on the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, and the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    In a TV appearance, the 54-year-old ex-Bolingbrook cop said he doesn’t know why the tests showed he was “deceptive” in answering questions about when he last saw Stacy Peterson, whether he knows where she is and whether she told him she was leaving him.

    Brodsky said Peterson was truthful, noting the test didn’t raise red flags about Peterson’s answers to similar questions about his fourth wife.

    Though Peterson cooperated with the author of Drew Peterson Exposed, that doesn’t mean he’s thrilled with the outcome. “It’s much more negative than we would have liked,” Brodsky said.

    Dan Rozek, AP

    *******************************************
    Yay. More negative than they’d like. That’s why they’re in the dumps. Hooray.

  73. on a little tangent here…..will ex-chief McGury be testifying at the gun trial? Just thinking that it may well be more “comfortable” for him to testify in this and future trials of DP.

    I sure hope the FBI aren’t going to leave this mess half-cleaned up.

Comments are closed.