Your Thread – October 2

Thursday’s thread.

~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

63 thoughts on “Your Thread – October 2

  1. Good morning everyone.

    Go facs! I went to the Amazon UK site, and your review wasn’t posted there, so I took the liberty of copy/pasting. Now you are published in UK! It just may put someone off buying it. 🙂

  2. So Paula was a stripper according to drew. I wonder what she thinks of lenny posting Sandy’s pics on the blog?

  3. Paula got off easy if that’s “all” he wrote about her in the book, IMHO.

    No offense, IKELOL, but what Paula thinks about pics posted on a blog probably isn’t top on her list of priorities in the Drew Peterson saga.

  4. Ho hum. Same old, same old.

    Kathleen was a very violent person. Stacy always wanted a divorce. I don’t know why the answers came back deceptive on the polygraph test. I’m not going to go around and shake trees looking for Stacy because I know she’s not there. All the people pretending to be my friends were financially motivated.

    Mutt and Jeff are making the rounds, and apparently being given a forum, one that has been seen over and over. I don’t understand why these talking news heads continue to ask him the same questions over and over. Like, “would Stacy have left her kids?”

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/drew-peterson-i-spoke-truthfully.html

  5. Hey, Wonder. Yeah, will today be the day is always the question.

    Funny how the Hearsay Bill just fell off the radar and been mentioned in over a month.

    Not a word about GJ witnesses for weeks and weeks.

    Drew and Joel were on WGN this morning being interviewed and telling the same washed out story.

    Although, now Joel can say he doesn’t believe in lie detector exams, but Drew did get 70% of them right!

    Geesh.

  6. Hey Rescue, I wonder…what would DP (if he was still a cop ) say to a suspect that “passed” 70% of a polygraph. Gee your off the hook sir. 70 percent, that’s pretty good in my book ! LMAO

  7. Its a pass or fail test. I have taken one. They are nerve wracking. My favorite question I had to answer was….Have you ever had sex with an animal…and being the smartass I said…well no..but he thought he was. The examiner laughed. Yes I passed.

    sidenote-although I almost stole the guys pen as I was leaving. I was so embarrassed.

  8. Another way to look at it is that he showed deceptiveness in 50% of the questions about Stacy (3/6).

    There were four questions about Kathleen and he showed deceptiveness in none of them.

    There could be lots of reasons for both results. Still I’d say that the ‘deceptive’ responses are the most interesting, no matter what you think about polygraphs.

  9. If you listen to the WGN interview, Brodsky addresses the timeline, calls it complex, and gets very fidgety when it, once again, is brought up! There’s something in that timeline that is going to help sink Drew.

  10. Nice strategy on the part of the defense to make sure that the interview on WGN took place before the anchors had a chance to read the book.

    No time to get a real grasp of the contents and question it. All they could ask about was the polygraph, or a rehash of old questions.

    At least Robin asked the most sensible question of all, “If your wife is still alive why aren’t you doing everything possible to find her and clear your name?”

  11. It was funny to see Brodsky lose his cool and scramble to get the book open when they asked about the timeline. It was so obvious that he was terrified that Drew might say something that varied from what is written down. “It’s a very complicated…umm…ummm…”

    Their ‘official’ timeline is actually pretty sparse.

  12. Right, Facs, clear his name. Instead of trashing anyone who has passed through his life that is not favorable to him, why not point out the reasons he shouldn’t be looked at as a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance.

    He should give his naysayers a reason to have doubts. Parade out the alibi people who were with him during the crucial moments after Stacy was last heard from and then went missing. If the time line is so solid, what’s the problem?

    Looking for Stacy? He has EVERY reason to help look/search for her and find her. Alive, that is. In fact, he has more to gain than anyone.

    All he and his attorney are doing is not bringing forth “evidence” that will clear up some discrepancies and mysteries, but, once again, merely trashing the victims, their families, friends, supporters, searchers and anyone else that doesn’t speak fondly of Drew Peterson.

    Mike Robinson and Steve Carcerano are both supporters of Drew Peterson, and with all of their “legal baggage,” how kind of Peterson and Brodsky to give them a pass. Not so with the victims or anyone else, heh?

  13. Yes, I would say for an entire day, 3 things were mentioned that already had been mentioned from the get go. JB, reminds me of a kernel of popcorn, in a kettle of oil.

  14. Damn, Drew just looks older and more tired every time I see him. He didn’t even have the old cockiness this morning. He seemed cranky and irritable.

    It really must be wearing to lie so much, to have to remember the lies and stick to the script.

  15. I really really hope to see an interview with someone who actually has had a chance to read the freakin’ book.

    It’s such a shameless piece of propaganda and could so easily be picked apart. I’d love to see the author outed as the greedy opportunist he so obviously is.

    Please?

  16. Oh, how funny. Amazon has an updated introduction to the book, and even has a 5 star comment that is absolutely contrary to everything we’ve pointed out here on WP.

    How’s this for someone that is commenting on a book they’ve “read:

    Cathleen Savio

  17. “For example, he does a detailed comparison of Drew Peterson’s timeline for October 28th, 2007 against the public statements and timelines of Stacy’s family and friends.”

    Umm, is Joel Brodsky going to use public statements for his defense in a courtroom, comparing them to Drew’s published timeline, because if he is, damn, I wish they had cameras in the courtroom. I wouldn’t want to miss that!!!!!!!!!

  18. I am back, had to reboot. Actually Rescue, no, it was a serious question, looking into if I was partipating in criminal behavior, they asked if I had sex with, a child,animals and a dead body. They ask ALOT of stuff. I sure hope we hear something from the GJ today…..I wonder…How long they will actually deliberate on the evidence presented

  19. facsmiley // October 2, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Damn, Drew just looks older and more tired every time I see him. He didn’t even have the old cockiness this morning. He seemed cranky and irritable.

    It really must be wearing to lie so much, to have to remember the lies and stick to the script.

    ***

    Come on. He was just cranky because as he said:

    “I’m looking at it that they are pretty much focusing on the negative than on the positive.”

    He probably really thought the book would help his claim of being innocent. Instead he is having to defend himself. Next time he should make sure that he has the right to veto publishing the book if it doesn’t put him in a positive light.

    If they were excited about the book they would certainly be on this shows along with the author/publisher IMO.

  20. Oh, boy, wonder, it’s scary to think about things like that as being part of one’s behavior, heh?

    I’m watching every day the page that posts the Gov’s press releases, hoping and wondering if this Hearsay Law is going to move forward.

  21. I wonder…why the hold up on that bill, I know about the effective date etc, But come on how long does it take to erase something, put a new date on it, vote on it, stamp it with approval, yadda yadda yadda….I personally dont think that they are waiting for the bill to arrest DP, I think they are waiting for the GJ to wrap up. But that is just my unsolicited opinion.

  22. I think they may need the bill to assist in the prosecution in KS’s death. But I really think that the arrest is pending the outcome of the GJ.

  23. Wonder – I really hope that was some sort of high-security government job that you were interviewing for to have to answer questions like that!

  24. Yeah they also did an extensive background check, financial, talk to old school mates, friends, family, the whole enchilada ! It was an experience for sure.

  25. It’s getting ugly over at Lens, if anyone cares. The fighting over there and the filth just amazes me. Interesting bunch.

  26. Jail4Drew said…
    You want to talk about college? Why don’t you ask Drewsky why he is paying for Mikey Robinsons college right now? With what money is he using to do that? And why is he doing that? Go on ask him lmao

    October 2, 2008 1:13 PM

  27. I think Armstrong needs to rethink his claims of being impartial and of “drawing no conclusion” :

    page 286
    “Peterson, too, who I now believe to be innocent…”

    “Stacy is a mystery, although I’m now convinced the mystery has nothing to do with Peterson.”

    I guess all the hundreds of hours spent with the supsect and his lawyer made him feel a mite friendly-like with them. Didn’t that happen to Patty Hearst when she was abducted as well?

    Too bad he didn’t spend an equal time with the many witnesses for the prosecution. He might have been able to maintain his objectivity and a semblance of professionalism.

  28. page 286
    “Peterson, too, who I now believe to be innocent…”

    *********

    Based on what? Why does he now believe Peterson to be innocent? What does he back that up with?

    It’s a news flash. I believe Drew Peterson to be guilty based on no more, no less, than what Armstrong knows. How’s that for a revelation?

  29. https:// antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1222236572/1

    Former police officer Drew Peterson, whose wife, Stacy, went missing last year, has submitted to polygraph “testing” regarding her disappearance as well as the death of his previous wife, Kathleen Savio. The polygraphs were arranged by Peterson’s lawyer in connection with a book about Peterson by author Derek Armstrong, the full title of which is Drew Peterson Exposed — Polygraphs reveal the shocking truth about Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio.

    Evidently, Drew Peterson’s polygraph results are a major theme of the book, and the publisher’s web page now features a press release parroting the American Polygraph Association’s spurious claim that polygraph results are 98% accurate:

    http://www.kunati.com/exposed/2008/9/24/drew-peterson-exposed-polygraphs-reveal-

    Contrary to what the polygraph profession would have the public believe, however, the consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis. The procedure is inherently biased against the truthful (the best field studies suggest that “if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone”) and yet easily thwarted through the use of simple countermeasures such as those detailed in AntiPolygraph.org’s free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

    https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

    Possibly complicating matters further — should it turn out that Mr. Peterson passed the polygraph — is that any polygraph examination performed under conditions of attorney-client privilege, as it would seem Drew Peterson’s could have been, can be kept secret if the result is unfavorable to the client. The attorney can shop his client from polygrapher to polygrapher until he eventually passes one and then proclaim the Good News, while any failed polygraphs remain under wraps.

  30. “The attorney can shop his client from polygrapher to polygrapher until he eventually passes one and then proclaim the Good News, while any failed polygraphs remain under wraps.”

    Can you imagine? The 50% deception rating might be the best result that they got out of numerous polygraphs.

  31. Another point of view on Derek’s book. 😉

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R4V3TAO8JW5O6/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R4V3TAO8JW5O6

    A Thorough Investigation, October 2, 2008
    By W. Ghuneim

    The author’s investigation is groundbreaking. For example, he does a detailed comparison of Drew Peterson’s timeline for October 28th, 2007 against the public statements and timelines of Stacy’s family and friends. Nobody has done this before and the results are eye openning. He also examines forensic evidence nobody has reviewed in detail before. The book is well researched with a detailed table of contents and citations to end notes. Anyone who says that this is Drew Peterson’s book, does not know what they are talking about, and probably has not read the book. The book has much evidence harmful to Mr. Peterson’s position. Anyone interested in gaining a full and complete understanding of the Stacy Peterson and Cathleen Savio cases should read this book.

    I don’t think anyone would gain a full and complete understanding of the Stacy Peterson “Cathleen” Savio cases … OMG … at least spell her name right!

  32. Yep, if that review wasn’t “helpful to you” I hope you let Amazon know by hitting that little button (I sure did…).

  33. I saw that review, Noway, and it made no sense to me. In fact, I think the “Cathleen” was quite special myself. Damn right, at least spell her name right!

  34. hmmm, let’s see. What grade did most of us learn how to spell the word “open,” ‘”opened,” and/or “opening?”

    Any fool knows it’s oppening. Right?

  35. Facs and Danya, do you feel that you’ve gained a full and complete understanding of the Stacy Peterson and Cathleen Savio cases after reading this book?

    Do any of the rest of you who’ve read the book feel that way?

    Please stop laughing hysterically before you post. Thank you. 😉

  36. The Table of Contents comment made me laugh out loud. That book has the most nonsensical table of contents ever. Want a sample? Here are the names of some chapters:

    * Guilty? Healthy adults don’t drown in bathtubs accidentally
    * Of sound body and mind
    * Do you mind that I’m forty-seven?
    * They’re a wacky cast of characters
    * These timelines are messed up
    * Did you physically harm your wife?

    “He also examines forensic evidence nobody has reviewed in detail before.”

    He re-examines the same forensic evidence that everyone else has examined before. The difference is that when you heard it before it was a forensics expert like a medical examiner ofr a coroner giving their opinion. In this case, it’s the opinion of a novelist.

    Color me unimpressed.

  37. Facs reported Armstrong wrote::

    page 286
    “Peterson, too, who I now believe to be innocent…”

    Amazon.com author description:

    “this journalistic inquiry presents the arguments for and against Peterson’s involvement in these cases with an impartial eye.”

    Oh, yeah, like that’s an impartial eye openning remark.

  38. Hey Facs – why do you suppose Armstrong left out WordPress from his “impartial eye openning” investigations, even though he quoted from SYM? Who posts on SYM again? Oh, yeah, Brodsky!

  39. Noway – Fort the record I do not feel that I’ve gained a full and complete understanding of the Stacy Peterson and Cathleen Savio cases after reading this book.

    I do think that I may have come up with a fuller and more complete example of a sell-out, though.

  40. Wouldn’t you just imagine that LE must be laughing themselves sick reading this crap, when they probably have half of it on tape, or have heard this crap from the tapes Phelps may have had to turn over!

  41. “He also examines forensic evidence nobody has reviewed in detail before.”

    Ah, that would be the forensic evidence REPORTS we’re talking about, right? The ones that Brodsky provided to him? Unless he got his hands on some forensic evidence never before seen, in which case, he’s withholding evidence from LE or, in the alternative, causing valuable evidence that would exculpate Peterson to be withheld.

  42. What a repulsive moron. What value or lack of it that adds to Peterson’s description of his missing wife’s sister is beyond me. No, wait. It’s not. It’s meant to be hurtful, spiteful and unflattering. Only, he dug himself into a hole with that kind of garbage.

    But, lest we not let anyone forget, Armstrong was wined and dined by Brodsky, and has a fondness for him, in fact.

  43. Hi everyone,
    We just took down the comment regarding the personal information of one of Stacy’s relatives. We understand the reasoning behind posting it and understand the people involved in this case can be considered public figures, but that particular reference should not be discussed here.

  44. facsmiley // October 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    “Fort the record” oops. well that was just silly.
    ______________
    And just human. 😉

    But it didn’t really detract from your statement. I got what you meant.

    And I am relieved to know that you’ve not gained a full and complete understanding of the Stacy Peterson and Cathleen Savio cases after reading this book.

  45. Geez, didn’t mean to stop discussion! We’re not mad, promise 🙂 We actually assumed that subject would be broached at some point and have been keeping an eye out for it. It’s just part of our policy to remove content regarding that information.

    And in reality, this blog has been running more smoothly in the last few weeks than it ever has. Keep up the great work folks!

  46. LOL
    Gatehouse, I had to stop and think for a minute: Was I the one who posted it? No, I don’t think so.

    What is she talking about? Have no idea.

    And now I realize I missed it and need it posted again, just for a second so I can know what not to bring up. 😉

  47. Well, I for one know where Facs is coming from, and what she wanted to point out in that regard. Peterson is using personal knowledge, or what he thinks is his personal knowledge, to hurt Stacy’s family in any way he can, only he went way over the line by trying to do so with personal information.

    It makes me sick, and I know it makes Facs sick, to know that anyone is going to profit from a falsely promoted book that teases potential readers into believing that the author’s description is accurate and truthful, only to find out it’s mere cutting, pasting and using information already gleaned from public and media statements, along with whatever Brodsky could scamp around to find and fax him.

    Truthfully, this is about the only place where the real facts are pointed out about the book!!

  48. I’m not mad Gatehouse. I just had to run out to store.

    Can I still say that Mr. Armstrong delivered a slap to the face of his own community, without going into particulars?

    He should be ashamed.

Comments are closed.