Your Thread – September 30

A brand new one for Tuesday 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

133 thoughts on “Your Thread – September 30

  1. bucketoftea // September 30, 2008 at 4:27 am

    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.

    bucketoftea // September 30, 2008 at 4:34 am

    I think Rozek meant no red flags over 3rd wife.

    MUCH more negative than they’d like.

    bucketoftea // September 30, 2008 at 4:40 am

    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.

    bucketoftea // September 30, 2008 at 4:40 am

    I mean since he’s resigned from BPD.

  2. Good morning, Bucket.

    http://www.wbbm780.com/Peterson–New-Book-Misses-The-Positive-Drew/3056321
    Posted: Tuesday, 30 September 2008 8:04AM

    Peterson: New Book Misses The Positive Drew

    CHICAGO (WBBM) – Drew Peterson says a new book about him – due out this week – looks too much at the negative side of things.

    WBBM’s Steve Miller talked to Peterson.
    Listen to Steve Miller’s UN-CUT interview with Drew Peterson

    The book is “Drew Peterson: Exposed” by Derek Armstong, 320 pages, published by Kunati, Inc.. http://www.kunati.com/exposed

    Peterson says the book is too negative.

    He says the author should have focused more on the positive: He says he passed a polygraph test related to the death of his third wife Kathleen Savio. And mostly passed a polygraph test on Stacy’s disappearance – with three answers called “deceptive,” and Peterson says he can’t explain why.

    “Number one, I didn’t hurt these women. I didn’t cause any death to these women. I didn’t have nothing to do with removing them from my home. I had nothing to do with, really, either of these incidents.”

    Drew Peterson was named a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, and the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, was re-classified as a homicide.

    Drew Peterson knows that no matter what, some people will still hate him.

    But he is hopeful about this book, from which his attorney has said Peterson will not profit.

    Hopeful, because Peterson says, people will see a different side of him. See that he’s a good father, Peterson says.

    “Yeah, I think it might change some people’s opinion.”

    Other parts of the book don’t sit well with Peterson.

    “It makes me look like some kind of a character, with my womanizing days. I was probably wrong to share that with this author… I mean there’s even a picture of me in drag for a Halloween costume. I’m sure all my enemies are going to get that and have a field day with that.”

    Peterson says his 3-year-old daughter continues to ask if her mother is still on vacation.

    Peterson says if Stacy is “in her own little world and happy what’s she’s doing right now, why would you want to leave that to come home to this?”

    Peterson also talking about the two polygraph tests he took this summer – focusing on the death of his third wife Kathleen Savio and the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy.

    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.

  3. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-drew-peterson-interview-30-sep30,0,4824675.story

    bolingbrook

    Drew Peterson says he can’t explain lie-detector results
    Failed three questions on polygraph test ahead of book release

    Tribune staff report
    September 30, 2008

    Former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson said Monday that he couldn’t explain why a polygraph exam showed he was deceptive in answering questions about the Oct. 28 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Appearing on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Peterson said the test showed he was deceptive on the last time he saw his wife, if he knows where she is and if she had called to say she was leaving. Peterson said he passed all other questions on the test, which was part of an interview for a book, “Drew Peterson Exposed,” due out Wednesday.

  4. http://www.wscfm.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=4321717

    Peterson Can’t Explain Polygraph Results

    On a polygraph exam regarding Stacy Peterson, an answer regarding her whereabouts was determined to be deceptive.

    Tuesday, September 30, 2008

    (UPI) – Former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson says he can’t explain why a polygraph suggested he deceptively answered questions about his missing wife.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant, is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, in October 2007, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times have reported.

    Peterson, who has not been charged with a crime and has denied any wrongdoing, said Monday on the CBS “Early Show” that he passed a polygraph regarding the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in the bathtub in the couple’s home in 2004.

    Savio’s death was ruled accidental until this year, when her body was exhumed and her death determined to be homicide, police have said.

    On a polygraph exam regarding Stacy Peterson, an answer regarding her whereabouts was determined to be deceptive, said Drew Peterson, noting he took the polygraphs for a book he is writing.

    Peterson told CBS he was asked, “‘Do you know the whereabouts of your wife Stacy?’ I answered no, and the results showed that was deceptive,” Peterson said, adding that he could not explain the polygraph’s conclusion.

  5. Plainfield
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-lisa-craig-stebic-30-sep30,0,4883197.story

    Lisa Stebic’s family reaches visitation agreement

    Tribune staff report
    September 30, 2008

    The visitation case involving the children of a missing Plainfield woman ended Monday after both sides settled on an agreement.

    Lisa Stebic’s family took her husband to court last year requesting the right to visit Stebic’s two children, ages 11 and 13. The relationship between their father, Craig Stebic, and their mother’s family has been strained since police named him a “person of interest” in her April 30, 2007, disappearance.

    Stebic has not been charged and maintains that he is innocent.

    At Monday’s hearing, Craig Stebic’s attorney, Dion Davi, said the legal battle was costly for both parties and no longer necessary because an agreement had been reached.

    E-mailShare Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo PrintReprint
    Related topic galleries: Plainfield
    All topicsGet Chicago Tribune home delivery and save big.

    Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

    Type in your comments to post to the forum
    Name
    (appears on your post) You are currently logged in as . Not ?
    Name
    (appears on your post)
    Comments
    Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

    Please note by clicking on “Post Comment” you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

  6. If it’s true that Joel and Drew are unhappy with the book then it’s great news!

    I hope it isn’t just posturing to get more attention for the book.

  7. I mean, people are a lot more likely to pay for a book that makes Drew look like an a-hole than a victim, so Drew and Joel could just be playing that they are annoyed in order to get more sales.

    Although it is interesting to see how the quotes have shifted in tone…and dropping the interview with Armstrong on the Today show is very interesting. I would love to have heard some of those phone calls.

    My concern is still how ithe book talks about Stacy and Kathleen. If it smears them, then I am still not happy.

  8. Good morning Facs. Actually, if you listen to the radio interview I posted up screen, DP sounds like he’s very subdued and less than happy about the way the book portrays him. He focuses a lot on the fact that his early “womanizing” doesn’t shed him in a good light.

    I don’t know – maybe it isn’t what he expected. Maybe he thought people would read about his years of service, and his parenting abilities, as his ticket past GO.

    He wasn’t sounding too convincing that this book is what he thought it would be. That’s JMHO.

  9. Drew said ultimately that he did think people should read the book, and that they might come away from it with a more positive view of him so…meh.

  10. Complaining about the fact that the book has a picture of him in drag for Halloween, is beyond absurd!

    If he gave it to the author to use in the book he has no one to blame for that but himself.

    Same with any complaints about the stories of his womanizing youth. Damn, if he didn’t want that disclosed all he had to do was not talk about it.

    I think this is why I’m having a hard time buying his “the book is too negative” spin.

    It was completely under his control what he disclosed during interviews and what photos he gave the author.

    I call. B.S.

  11. Hi Facs…I was just reading some of the blogs over at Lennie:s site and you posted the address for the Author Armstrong, and I can’t believe it but he is about 5 miles from where my farm is. His farm would be between the 20th and 30th sideroad because his address is RR #1 Sherburne. My farm is at the 8th line and I can easily check to see where he lives….OMG what a small world…..

  12. Hiya chaps

    Was the Today Show appearance cancelled?

    Oh, go on Q. We’re right behind you. LOL.It’s not like you’ll go through his rubbish (or would you?_ LOL

  13. My theory is when Joel and Drew got a look at the book, and they didn’t like the final product, they bailed on the interview with Armstrong and got booked on the CBS Early show instead. The Today show had no interest in Armstrong without Peterson and dropped the whole interview.

    I’d love to know what the actual story is.

  14. http:// today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/26954623#26954623

    No hard and fast evidence that Caylee is dead.

    Sent this with a long comment that I don’t want to repeat. Must have gone to spam …

  15. Hi Facs….had a look at the KD farms site. Quite the facility. He probably has a farm manager and a stable manager on a facility that big. He may not even live on the farm. I have lived in the Shelburne area since 1987 and I didn’t know the farm existed, mind you I don’t really follow Islandic horses I have quarter horses, but I am going to find it on the weekend just to have a look….

  16. Qhorses, they could have other homes. His bio said something about getting up every morning at 5:30 to take care of the horses, but that doesn’t mean it’s every day!

    A story about Kunati did show the farm as if it were the headquarters of the publishling business tho…

  17. I can’t believe that Drew was still obsessing over Geraldo in the WBBM interview.

    He needs to let it go. He’s got bigger problems.

  18. facsmiley // September 30, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    I can’t believe that Drew was still obsessing over Geraldo in the WBBM interview.

    He needs to let it go. He’s got bigger problems.
    _____________

    Obsessions are tricky things. You try and try to stay away from that topic, and yet … there it is … over and over again.

    I guess I shouldn’t point fingers, since some would say that I am obsessed with Stacy’s case and Caylee’s case … 🙄

  19. In Drew’s case you’d just think it would make more sense to be obsessed with your missing wife than with a tabloid journalist who made you feel like a boob.

    Yay, SOX!

    First time in 102 years both Chicago teams go to the playoffs.

  20. Yes but who will have staying power?

    Sox already been there, done that, brought back the shirt, the rings oh and the trophy 😎

    Good luck tomorrow night Cubs fans!

    Feel free to obsess over the White Sox!

    Remember, there’s only one October 😉

    Okay back to post game…

  21. http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/09/hmmmmust-be-som.html

    Originally posted: September 30, 2008

    Hmmm…must be something wrong with this machine
    Drew Peterson says he can’t explain lie-detector results

    Former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson said Monday that he couldn’t explain why a polygraph exam showed he was deceptive in answering questions about the Oct. 28 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Appearing on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Peterson said the test showed he was deceptive on the last time he saw his wife, if he knows where she is and if she had called to say she was leaving.

    Darn technology!

  22. Hey, hedidit!

    Well, I don’t know what is or is not in that book. But, at this point, in all honesty, I think Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky did a very, very stupid thing by this.

    After almost a year of taunting LE to come and get him, acting like a raging hormone addict, trashing his wives on every news show that would have him, trying to set up a date game on a radio show, and whatever else he’s done, is not going to be negated by an insane idea of writing a book that is supposed to show Drew Peterson as a good person and loving father!

    In fact, as I see it, the last few days have shown headlines, although short and sweet, that focused on his deceptive answers during polygraph exams. I cannot believe that Peterson thinks he’s going to sway his naysayers by anything he divulged in this book. Either way, trashing his wives even more, or putting His Highness Self in the Shining Light, isn’t going to mean jack squat.

    Hopefully, the news has been right – HE IS NOT going to profit from this book. Although, having the money go to his children as compensation for him murdering their mothers isn’t exactly the wish of anyone with morals.

    And a note to his attorney – going around and promoting your first thought that polygraphs aren’t sound evidence is just as insane as the remarks following that say, well, if you DO believe in polygraphs, he DID answer correctly to other questions.

    All this White Noise is going to backfire. In fact, it already has.

  23. So, can anyone who may have gotten a copy of the book say the author uncovered anything that hasn’t already been done right here in WP?

    Since there’s no earth shattering revelations yet to be found, we can only assume that it was all the pre-hype that sold the book. The masked cover, thus, the poly taunts.

    DP and JB were supposed to be on The Today Show. Never happened, I guess, because the Boopsie Twins probably didn’t want to appear with the author.

    Wonder where the author got his “background” information about the investigation? Obviously, he interviewed Peterson, but he certainly didn’t find anything LE doesn’t already know about because we’d have heard it by now. Of course, he would have found it here first anyway!

  24. I’ve had a little look…isn’t today publication day? I’ve had a look and there aren’t any announcements of any kind. Neither news nor commercial. Are there any actually on the shelf anywhere? Supposed to be…..but not here, of course.

  25. I’ve got the book…now I just have to read it.

    So far just noticed a list of ‘discrepeancies’ in timeline info, but they are all according to Drew of course.

    Also a timeline of his whereabouts as promised, but there’s no mention of his trip to Cushing Field to replace the sticker on his ultralight. Did he forget that?

  26. sorry all,
    danya here. i’m not ignoring you all, i got caught up with work today. as far as the book goes…apart from the polygraph and Drew’s timeline, i don’t think there’s much in there you don’t know already except maybe some details about his younger years as an MP. for much of the book, amrstrong presents different scenarios for what could have happened to kathleen and stacy based on various witness accounts and what drew told him.

  27. And here comes the smearing of Kathleen, as we predicted.

    A whole section entitled “Kathy, the husband Beater”

  28. Yeah, from the little bits and pieces I’ve heard, it’s the same old, same old.

    I’d like to know if he has PROOF, pics, hospital ER visits, black eyes, bruises, that Kathleen beat him, as I believe he’s pointed out in the book.

    He’s a real pip. He dug himself if a way big hole this time, and I hope he never finds his way out!

  29. OK – i skimmed the thing end to end. There are a few new things (crap like fan mail and hate mail, some old photos), but nothing that matters.

    Ultimately it IS a pro-Drew book, as we expected it to be. It doesn’t smear Kathy and Stacy as much or as badly as I feared it would, but it is ugly towards them. Claims that Stacy was sexually abused by Yelton, general trashing of the Cales and Savio families. Still, it’s no more hateful than he’s always been or what we expected to see.

    I’m grateful for all the pictures of Stacy. They reminded me of what a child she was when he preyed upon her.

    I don’t think I’ll even bother to read the chapters about Drew’s past. I just don’t care.

  30. I can just see the headlines now!

    Drew Peterson served in the military.

    Drew Peterson’s wife sunbathed topless.

    Drew Peterson’s wife “changed” after she had a child.

    Drew Peterson’s wife hit him.

    Yeah, I can see it now. This all sheds a new light on Drew Peterson. How could anyone think he’s responsible for two dead wives? Especially, since he was “kind” enough to write about them in a book for profits???????

    Way to go.

  31. Sure, Facs, that would be good.

    Oh, by the way, was he sure to bash FSP and everyone involved with that too? Talk about the tax status, did he?

  32. There’s a mention of it…the tax status. There’s a lot of random pro-drew by way of bashing the searchers or anyone interested in the case.

    Much of the book smells strongly of Drew’s little defensive, pissed-off one-liners.

  33. Mention of it? Well, obviously, Peterson and Brodsky figured to reap profits from the adverse writings about the supporters, the searchers, the fund raisers, the family, friends, and, most of all, the two dead women, and gain from the highlights about himself and his military and police service?

    Ah, I get it now. Should really change the naysayers’ minds about him now, uh?

    Let’s see – Drew is good. Anything about his childrens’ mothers is bad and evil, and he’s the victim here. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  34. Hi guys

    Thanks for the info….I feel a bit queasy now. Yuck. He is so gonna be arrested. He sure has given LE a lot of data…one way and another 😉

  35. I wonder………When is the GJ going to wrap it up ? I wonder…..How much longer is this going to go on ? Hi Rescue,Facs,Bucket..how you been ?

  36. LOL I think I figured out why the deal with Armstrong…they had to hire someone to write a better narrative that would take account of established facts than poor old practiced but poor liar DrewP with his terminally subnormal language skills could ever.

  37. Hi Bucket.

    Ya know, a little tidbit for you. If you type in “Drew Peterson” in Google, then click on “Blogs,” almost every hit deals with his deceptive answers to three important questions during a polygraph examination.

    In other words, negative comments. For this, he pays a defense lawyer team and a PR agent? Damn.

  38. Hi Wonder! Been good. Even better now that the book is out and Drew really has been exposed for the lowlife wife-sliming has- been that ever was!

    What a way to keep the memory of his childrens’ mothers alive, but finger pointing at them in a book that is meant to make profits.

  39. Armstrong includes a pic of the view of Millenium Park from Brodsky’s office window.

    In his pic the park is under construction.

    WTF?

  40. Nope Bucket, he’s been here with me , recovering from vacation. I just wish this GJ would conclude, seems like its taking so long.

  41. A picture of Sharon’s house points out the “24-hour camera” mounted on the house.

    I guess I just assumed that all cameras were 24-hour cameras. I wonder what they are during the hours whenthey aren’t being cameras…?

  42. Wonder – I truly believe that sometime in the past few weeks, or since it’s been quiet as far as the GJ is concerned, Tom Morphey got snuck in there somewhere. He’d have to be one of the GJ witnesses, because he is so crucial to an aspect of the investigation. Probably the last witness, but who knows. I really think they’re waiting for the Hearsay Law to get passed at this point.

    I don’t know what else or how much more there is not amass regarding Drew Peterson and the fate of Kathleen and Stacy, but I wish they’d get on with it by now!

  43. Wonder – I truly believe that sometime in the past few weeks, or since it’s been quiet as far as the GJ is concerned, Tom Morphey got snuck in there somewhere. He’d have to be one of the GJ witnesses, because he is so crucial to an aspect of the investigation. Probably the last witness, but who knows. I really think they’re waiting for the Hearsay Law to get passed at this point.

    I don’t know what else or how much more there is now to amass regarding Drew Peterson and the fate of Kathleen and Stacy, but I wish they’d get on with it by now!

  44. Your probably right Rescue, but it just irks me that the longer this goes on the more the circus continues. It’s too bad Illinois does not allow camera’s in the courtroom. I think it would be very interesting to see.

  45. So much for Armstrong’s claims that he draws no conclusion and only presents ‘the evidence”.

    He says this in response to the three ‘deceptive’ answers during the polygraph:

    “I propose this theory after having spent a lot of time with this enigmatic man. He strikes me as a misunderstood man, a good father, a moral enigma, but not a killer. Is he a liar? Perhaps in areas that might affect the opinion of his children.
    In Peterson’s world, his children are everything.”

  46. 1. On Sunday, October 28, 2007, did you last see your wife Stacy in your home before going to bed but after coming home frome work?

    ANSWER: YES
    RESULTS: DECEPTIVE

    2. Did you have any involvement in the physical removal of your wife Stacy from your home on Sunday, October 28, 2007?

    ANSWER: NO
    RESULTS: NO DECEPTION

    3. Did you in any way physically harm your wife Stacy during the time that she disappeared?

    ANSWER: NO
    RESULTS: NO DECEPTION

    4. Do you know the whereabouts of your wife Stacy?

    ANSWER: NO
    RESULTS: DECEPTIVE

    Then it would appear that these queestinos were asked at a different session

    1. Did you receive a phone call from your wife Stacy on the evening of October 28, 2007, telling you that she was leaving you?

    ANSWER: YES
    RESULTS: DECEPTIVE

    2. Did your wife Stacy call you on Sunday, October 28, 2007, and tell you that if you wanted the car it was parked at the Clow Airport?

    ANSWER: YES
    RESULTS: NO DECEPTIO

  47. Yeah – bucket. I was getting a little urpy after reading that.

    It’s prettymuch the tone of the whole book, Attempt to discredit all witnesses while painting Drew as a misunderstood victim.

  48. Sinister sells when it remains a mystery. Ceases to be so enthralling once it’s a sure thing. Yawn in your face, DP,JB.

  49. For those who have been following the tell-tale ‘blue line’ that runs through Brodksy’s FAX pages, an interesting side note that the photo of the polygraph results contains it.

    Doesn’t mean anything, just that it was FAXEed to Le Brodsque and then photographed by Armstrong. Just interesting.

  50. What kind of investigtaive journalist interviews only:

    1. The suspect
    2. His lawyer
    3. His PR man

    That’s it. That’s all he’s got.

    I’m torn between disgust and feeling totally vindicated in my month-long quest to out this guy as yet another greedy opportunist.

  51. I think Brodsky and Nurse Rene have been an item since Nurse Rene jumped to Drew’s defense over the gun charges. Another Internet romance.

    I swoon!

  52. Questions #1 and #2 are strange (second session), in that he answered one deceptively, and one is purported to be not deceptive. Yet,they both deal with Stacy’s alleged phone call.

    1. Did you receive a phone call from your wife Stacy on the evening of October 28, 2007, telling you that she was leaving you?

    ANSWER: YES
    RESULTS: DECEPTIVE
    ***************
    So, I’d take this to mean there was no phone call from Stacy.

    2. Did your wife Stacy call you on Sunday, October 28, 2007, and tell you that if you wanted the car it was parked at the Clow Airport?

    ANSWER: YES
    RESULTS: NO DECEPTION
    ********
    I’d take this to mean there was a phone call from Stacy. Odd there’d be conflicting results from one question worded differently.

  53. What’s with the weird peppering of bullet points throughout the book? I thought this guy was a writer.

    Wow, LOL I know where I’ve seen this before. I work in marketing. It’s all ad copy!

    We always are throwing in bullet points when we want to sell something because most people won’t read 7 paragraphs of persuasion, but they will skim the bullet points.

    The photos with the call-outs, the clustering of areas of text, bolded or in different fonts – this is all marketing technique.

    I wonder if he’s got this available as a PowerPoint presentation…

  54. Okay, and now my explanation for the reasons he answered ANY questions with no deception.

    The way the questions were presented to him were the way he answered them when asked by law enforcement. So, in other words, if the examiner said: I am going to ask you questions based on your answers to law enforcement; i.e., [did you tell law enforcement that you] did not have any involvement in the physical removal of Stacy from your home. Answer to law enforcement: No. Therefore, he’d be answering the examiner correctly!

    If most questions were presented to him that way and he answered with no deception, then he is, in fact, answering truthfully.

  55. Rescue , maybe he was able to beat the polygraph most of the time, but not always.

    He could have been lying on every question – the machine jsut didn’t always detect it.

    Remember what Joel says about polygraphs….

  56. I think there could be many reasons why he was shown to be deceptive or not on any of the questions. One thing is for sure: Armstrong’s book is not going to be the place to look for the truth of the matter.

  57. After reading what I said, I guess it kind of made sense to me, but may not make sense the way I wrote it.

    Examiner asked him if he was questioned by law enforcement about Stacy’s removal from the home.

    Examiner says, did you tell them you did? Peterson then answers examiner by telling him that when he answered law enforcement’s question, he said:

    no, I had no involvement in the removal of Stacy from our home.

    Hopefully, the way I meant it makes more sense now.

  58. Yes, Facs, and another point I meant to make is that questions are worded certain ways to get truthful answers. If we don’t know the whole gist of the conversation beforehand as to how the questions were going to be worded, then we’ll never know what the truth is or is not.

    If the questions were asked of him by an law enforcement official without sugar coating the questions, then maybe Peterson could do his so-called happy dance, but this is just white noise, smoke and mirrors and b.s. The book only shows what they want to be shown, otherwise, he wouldn’t have been sitting in some Brodsky/Peterson hired polygraph examiner’s office playing these silly trick sentences that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

  59. Besides, it’s a well-known fact OJ Simpson flunked a polygraph examination and was acquitted. It’s all what the jury decides it us.

  60. Facs – that’s very interesting about your take on the bullets and marketing ploys. It’s great to have firsthand explanations of these kinds of things.

    I’m working on getting a chance to talk to someone I know that is, in fact, an individual who renders polygraph exams. Hope I can talk to him and ask some questions, although I think this part of the book is baloney anyway and a waste of time.

  61. I wasn’t sure I even wanted to read about Drew’s early days, but I am and actualy it’s kind of interesting. Most of drew’s ‘pranks’ come off as sadistic and end up showing us that he was a real bully – picking on weaker or less respected people, using other people with no regard or respect.

  62. facsmiley // October 1, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    I wasn’t sure I even wanted to read about Drew’s early days, but I am and actualy it’s kind of interesting. Most of drew’s ‘pranks’ come off as sadistic and end up showing us that he was a real bully – picking on weaker or less respected people, using other people with no regard or respect.

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

    You see it this way, but isn’t his objective in telling his self-story meant to be shown that he’s a good father, great guy and not a murderer?

    By the way you explained it, Facs, it’s the same situation that the move, A Few Good Men, was based on. A Code Red was called on to deal with a weakling in the unit, which was carried out by stronger individuals who, in fact, should have been protecting the weaker one.

  63. Anyone hear anything today regarding the mother-from-hell, Casey Anthony? There’s really some bazaar stuff coming out about her too. Boy, she and Peterson would make great cell mates.

  64. I think Drew thought that the public would be charmed by this stuff. I guess he’s used to 17-year-old girls who are interested in hanging out with a ‘bad boy’ so they can torture their parents.

    I look at his history and all I see is someone who feels inferior, someone who is angry and has to dominate in order to feel safe or whole.

    That’s just my amateur psych opinion, but he definitely comes off as a guy with a less-than-healthy mind.

  65. Huh – all this investigative work and all these photos but none of Kathleen with the black eye, no break-in to her home and threats to kill her, no letter to the D.A…

  66. Very perceptive, Facs. No “facts” presented contrary to what was written. Drew was hit by Kathleen, right, according to the novel you’re reading? But, did Armstrong get the picture in of Kathleen with a black eye?

  67. I’m going to keep an eye on the polygraph blogs over the next few days.

    Armstrong interviewed the polygrapher, and from this guy’s description of what was measured, the test was not the most up-to-date as far as the techonology goes.

  68. hey all,dont post here often but read alot here..thanks to you all for keeping me updated on this crazy case…i pray everyday i come here there is news drew will be arrested….as for the book….thanks facs for the updates on it…i went in barnes and noble today to check it out…had no intention of buying it was just gonna skim thru it there..the lady said they wouldnt be carrying it but i could order it…i politley said no thanks…as far as drew being ‘upset’ about the book…i think its all bs….anyway just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work!

  69. 3. Did you in any way physically harm your wife Stacy during the time that she disappeared?

    ANSWER: NO
    RESULTS: NO DECEPTION

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

    You know, I just re-read this question. Stupid, stupid question.

    He harmed her BEFORE she disappeared, of course.

    Why would the examiner pose a question that way? Why not just say:

    Did you in any way physically harm your wife Stacy prior to the time that she disappeared?

  70. Careful, Rescue! That’s 34 years of expertise asking those questions! LOL

    Perhaps it’s to clarify that even if Stacy initially ran off, Drew had nothing to do with any harm she may have come to after that?

    I have to agree that it’s a wonky way of putting it.

    I really can’t tell what they were trying to get at with this question.

  71. facsmiley // October 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Huh – all this investigative work and all these photos but none of Kathleen with the black eye, no break-in to her home and threats to kill her, no letter to the D.A…

    He said he was a PI … he didn’t say he was a good one. 😉

  72. I can’t even bring myself to start in with why some answers showed deception while other closely related questions did not.

    Polygraphs aren’t an exact science. They can be beaten and there’s a reason why they aren’t admissable in court.

    Drew’s answers could indicate that he is lying on all of them (but only got caught three times), that in his mind he’s deceptive just on those three answers, I don’t know. It’s interesting to discuss the possibilities but I don’t think we can really know what is up there.

    Ultimately, I don’t think the polygraph is going to figure one way or another in the case.

  73. Did the investigative author/PI ask Drew about, or address in the book, the obvious questions everyone has?

    Like, what do you think about the information that Pastor Schori shared about Stacy’s revelations regarding Kathleen’s death?

    Did you carry out a blue barrel from your house, as has been reported by a neighbor AND Tom Morphey.

    What about the three-day head clearing trip? Is that in the book?

    I guess I mean, did Drew Peterson try to clear-up all of the mysteries surrounding him, or did he just pooh pooh that special part of all of this?

  74. I doubt ALL of these polygraph questions and find them to be bunk, but, in all reality, this is a major promotion involving the book. This is the one picture that Armstrong “embargoed” for so long – to get us to buy into this whole bunch of baloney by showing Drew Peterson hooked up to a machine!

    As to another one of those stupid questions about physically removing Stacy from the house on Sunday, October 28.

    Why not just ask him if he removed Stacy from the house. Period. Why that specific date? Why not ask:

    Did you have any involvement in the physical removal of your wife Stacy from your home on Sunday, October 28, 2007, or the early morning hours of Monday, October 29?

    Did you have any involvement in the physical removal of your wife Stacy from your home on any date after she was reported as being missing?

  75. Drew and Brodsky wrote the questions and gave them to the examiner. It is really funny he missed some. LOL

  76. I’m laughing out loud and I have to tell you why.

    There’s a chapter devoted to an evening Armstrong spends with Joel. It’s right before the fourth of July and he first meets with Joel at his office where Joel, the attorney for the suspect , educates Armstrong about Kathleen’s autopsy.

    Joel then ushers Armstrong down the street to a private club where he gives him the grand tour before buying him dinner and lecturing him about Kathleen’s death scene and the significance (or lack of) the evidence there. meanwhile fireworks are erupting and a thunderstorm approaches.

    I swear he describes it like a freakin’ first date. It’s just…the most unabashedly subjective interview I can imagine. I can’t even understand why it’s there? I mean, if he wanted to investigate Kathleen’s death, shouldn’t he be talking to a forensic’s expert, or a coroner?

    Instead he’s being wined and dined by the suspect’s attorney and recounting the conversation as if it is important or revealing in any way.

    It’s just laughable.

  77. Well, if you think about it, IKELOL, in order for Peterson and Brodsky to get Armstrong to write the book, he was to take a polygraph test.

    Brodsky gets on the record as saying they’re as reliable as a coin flip, therefore, they’re not useful in a defense, and not admissible in court.

    They write the questions and have sole control over them, since they bought and paid for this examiner. Knowing full well that he’d flunk the whole test, they do the best they can with certain questions in order to get a non-deceptive response. Questions meant to get the readers thinking favorably about him if they’re meaty enough to cause doubts.

    On the ones he answered deceptively to, he comes up with a “I don’t know why” answer, and says he answered ALL questions honestly. Then Brodsky comes out with a Howdy Dowdy kind of remark that says something like “well, but if you do give credit to polygraph exams, he did answer truthfully to important questions.

    Yeah, as long as they were worded in a way that was a sure thing.

  78. Someone has already pointed out the numerous typos in the book (and I mean aside from evidencial quotes) but this puppy really must have been hastily proofread:

    “Cassandra Cales loves to play with nieces Lacy and Anthony…”

  79. Funny, indeed, Facs! A first date? Wow, real objective fact finding. He goes out to dinner and gets wined and dined by the homicide suspect’s lawyer, and then draws his own conclusions as to how this all went down?

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to pick apart anything in this book. So far, I haven’t seen nor heard anything that is going to cause doubters of Drew’s innocence to shake in their boots!

    Where’s the interviews with Katheen’s family, copies and pictures of documents and letters she sent to various public officials about her impending feeling of doom by the hand of her ex-husband?

    What in this book would warrant this man to remove the battery from his cell phone to avoid giving off pings, or thinking he had to lose a car tailing him? Since when does an author slither around like a lizard while gathering “evidence” and “information” to write a true-crime story, only to write it from the homicide suspect’s perspective.

    OJ Simpson – If I Did It, resurrected!

Comments are closed.