Your Thread – October 7

Here’s a new one 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

187 thoughts on “Your Thread – October 7

  1. Ewwww I hadn’t heard about the alligator pond.

    Thanks for the link, Noway.

    As for the hearsay bill, I’m afraid it looks like a long time coming. 😦 . But with a little luck Drewpy will be in prison in the new year, so he can wait on the bill there.

    I have a thought about those 3 LD questions and why he failed them. While a lot/most of what he answered were lies, these 3 are the ones he knows could bring him down. They may find Stacy yet, Tom Morphey and the phone, and the children hearing the argument. …and that’s just what we’re privy to. There may be more!

  2. I just can’t believe that the judge would grant Casey Anthony time to search for her daughter. This is unbelievable. Normally you tell the police what you know and then they search that’s their job. What makes her think she’s better at it them the authorities. Also the people that put up the bond for her might have something to say because once they remove house arrest she could become a flight risk…

  3. Mornin’ Q!

    I’m not surprised she and her lawyer are trying it on. They would be nuts to let her…..they said she’d probably have to have her lawyer with her at all times, but , gee, that sounds safe? I’ll be extremely surprised if they grant her anything “extra” because she has already proven she’s done nothing in good faith.

  4. ALL ABOUT THE BOOK……………..DREW PETERSON EXPOSED: my thoughts and views

    Because I have to leave for work shortly, I just want to point out a few thoughts since I completed the book. The only part I skipped was the autopsy report because I’ve already reviewed that in detail months ago.

    (Which I found it humorous for such a detective and mystery writer that Derek Armstrong did not even notice that the time of death for Kathleen Savio and the time of her autopsy was IN ERROR in the report. If it were as it read, that means she had her autopsy BEFORE she died. A mistake on the part of the coroner’s office.)

    Well, there was MUCH left out of the book. Quite honestly, I read it with an open mind. If I were anyone other than myself and knowing all the info about the case….I would honestly say this book would make any stranger think Drew Peterson is innocent. The way he portrayed Kathleen Savio was far worse than anything I’ve ever heard of anyone doing to a previous wife, let alone one that deceased with minor children. Awful. Just awful. Fact is, beyond awful. Even if it were true that Kathleen was as portrayed….it has not a hill of beans to do with this case , nor should it EVER have been put in print for the children to learn, know, or read. AWFUL is all I can say.

    Nothing mentioned about the ABUSE of his wives. Not a word. Not a word about the previous girlfriend whom he stalked. Not a word. Only on and on and on about how Drew Peterson was a (is a?) chick magnet. Barf. He owned up to all the cheating with wife 1, and 2. NOTHING about cheating on Kathleen. He made his view of meeting Stacy as he was her knight in shining armor to rescue her from wanting to be a stripper and no mention whatsoever of him bringing her into his home while Kathleen upstairs, etc.

    A TON of bashing on Stacy’s family. ALSO a ton of bashing on behalf of Stacy regarding her family. (Things she felt about them, etc.) Shame shame.

    Every single person….and I mean EVER SINGLE person in the book that he talked about he talked all bad of. All of others misgivings , mistakes, and whatever. Course he proudly showed the pic of Tom Morphey smoking a pipe of hash or pot or whatever. So what? What does that have to do with Drew Peterson and Drew Peterson Exposed? I recant the title of the book. It should be DREW PETERSON EXPOSES EVERYONE EXCEPT HIMSELF.

    There was actually on two spots in the book I had to laugh. one because it was so pathetic that it was actually funny. “Drew had to lie to his girlfriends so he could go home to his wife”. Imagine that?

    As for the “jokester” Drew, yes there was an incident when his coworker shot a bullet through a stopsign and they had to run around town to find another to replace it that I found somewhat funny. (you’ll have to read it)…however, jokester Drew….he is not. He certainly did not uphold his badge nor his respect of the position he had….in my opinion. My own father was the Police Chief and started out as a patrolman and I can assure you NEVER would he have done any of the stuff Drew did. My father was honored to be in a position to protect and serve. Not be a class cop clown. I don’t think it is funny one bit that Drew has absolutey NO RESPECT whatsoever for his positions, his coworkers, his wives, his in laws, the law, nothing. There is no honor anywhere.

    As for “father of the year” and him passing the DCF investigation of allegations into child neglect and abuse. Well, obviously Charles the DCF man walked through the beautiful home that Stacy created and designed (of which Drew took part of the credit…IN THE DECORATING. What? Did he hang a nail for her?) Did Charles the DCF see the awful sexual emails he was doing in IMs while his children were in the room? How about the total brainwashing he has done with the children? HOW ABOUT THE FACT THE WHOLE DEFENSE OF DREW PETERSON and the timelines are ALL LAID ON THE CHILDREN? Yes. You read that right. EVERYSINGLE timeline he has involved his children in to DEFEND HIM. He wasn’t with Tom Morphey. Tom made that all up, says Drew. Ask my kids. We were at McDonalds at the playland. They remember it well…playing at the playground. OMG. This man is USING HIS CHILDREN for his own Defense to counter all the testimonies of others. (Am I surprised? I have to tell you…………yes. I really was surprised that he would be beyond stooping so low as to brainwash those kids into being his alibi’s. OMG. I can’t get past those poor children and the hurt he has and will continue to do to them. Horrible!

    As for Lenny and Paula. Well, ya know…. I didn’t flutter an eyelash on all he had to say about them. Fact is, I almost think I do believe Brodsky and Drew and that there WAS NO wiretap initiated by the ISP. After seeing how they carried on following that “major news break”….I am going to say I am on the side of Drew and Brodsky on this one. I don’t believe they were wired up either. Fact is….if they were….I’ll be as surprised as Brodsky and Drew when all comes out. Drew didn’t hesitate to mention the “hot body” on Paula and the fact she was a previous stripper and he certainly didn’t hesitate to “tell all” about lenny. What gets me is that he even considered going into buying houses with “friends” that he knew filed bankruptcy six times? (unless that is a blatant lie? who knows? Possible, eh? I mean…it’s DREW PETERSON for gosh sakes.)

    Brodsky brought up a good point. Why wire them up when Drew’s house is bugged? Why go through all that? Both Brodsky and Drew remove their cell phone batteries every time they meet. Armstrong went on to explain LEGAL means in which one can activate a cell phone microphone and listen in on conversations…….with a court order, of course. So why bother with Len/Paula. Hmmmmmmmmm. makes me wonder if Brodsky is on top of this one.

    The book is packed with photo’s. Tons of them. I cannot begin to count. Nearly every page has a photographs. I will tell you there is a photo of Stacy as a baby that looks exactly like Laci. However………in my eyes….every single picture of Laci now looks exactly like her Auntie Cassandra. She looks more like Cass than Stacy. She is a beautiful child.

    As for Eric……the lost son that won’t come around. All that was said is that he could not accept Stacy and Drew and their age difference and they separated from each other. (Father and son) although Drew said he loves him and wants him in his life. (Eric obviously has his side and more than probably the truth.)

    Drew also bashed Stacy’s grandfather calling him a hypocrite saying he is 85 years old and has had a 30-year old girlfriend. Now that is a strange one. Wonder how he dates her from the nursing home????

    Other terrible things were said. Again, may be true…may not be. I’m not about to repeat them here. However, let me say that they have not a thing to do with Stacy missing and the death of Kathleen. Nothing.

    Derek Armstrong portrayed a ridiculous “possible” scenario of how Drew “could” have killed Kathleen and then turned around and showed how it’s impossible for him to have done it. Ha! Not a very creative man. I know many numerous ways that Drew could have and would have entered Kathleen’s home and never been found. Kathleen herself could have let him in. All he had to do was tell her that one of the children were hurt and he was coming to get her to go to the hospital. Trust me…Kathleen would have opened a door for that one.

    Yes…the book is crap as far as I’m concerned. It was quite well summed up in the end when Derek Armstrong pointed the way for all to come to his 24 hour blog and leave posts. (Of which I left one that he did not approve. And you all know me…I was respectful in my disagreement. He didn’t post it.)………..course then one of his infamous other books that he wrote was how to make tons of money from having a blog. There ya go. Derek Armstrong’s motive. BINGO.

  5. heidi442 // October 6, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    facsmiley…I called my state rep’s office last week and asked them to find out about the Hearsay Bill. I received a call back explaining that they had the following info for me:

    It seems Wilhelmi has requested the Governor to do an amendatory veto because of the effective date. If this is considered it will go back to the house and senate where they will consider all amendatory vetoed bills in November.

    I was pretty upset when I heard this and didn’t take notes so I may be off on the info a little. I will be calling the Governor’s office again tomorrow for more info on the bill.

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

    I thought I’d bring this over to today’s thread.

    This is just unbelievable. Something that could have been signed, sealed and delivered, yet, a major element was overlooked and needs amendment. So, there it sits on the Gov’s desk for a month of contemplation. Is this somehow tied into the elections? November?

    No information on any Will County cases from the State’s Attorney’s Office. Merely a published newspaper account here and there. Bath tub being lassoed and corralled, extensive surveillance information uncovered. Grandparents fighting with son-in-law over visitation with grandchildren (Stebic). But, no explanations about progress from the investigating authorities about anything relating to Savio, Peterson or Stebic.

    Not questioning their abilities or evidence collecting, but sure don’t understand why the super secret mentality when all they need to do is assure people they’re tying up loose ends and moving towards closure. The way it looks and seems now, it’s all speculation and guessing.

    Grand Jury – is it done or not? That’s not going to make or break a case by divulging that, is it?

    Surveillance tapes, dvd’s, cd’s. Extensive. Okay. It’s out there. Not expecting, of course, to know all the details, but it sure would be enlightening to know it’s a wealth of information as to the possible fates of Drew Peterson’s ex-wife and current wife.

    Getting mighty skittish about what’s going on in that Will County!

  6. qhorses // October 7, 2008 at 7:04 am

    I just can’t believe that the judge would grant Casey Anthony time to search for her daughter. This is unbelievable. Normally you tell the police what you know and then they search that’s their job. What makes her think she’s better at it them the authorities. Also the people that put up the bond for her might have something to say because once they remove house arrest she could become a flight risk…

    ****

    To be honest with you if letting Casey drive her lawyer around town has any chance of helping find Caylee, I say thumbs up to it. Maybe she is trying to tell him where the baby is so they can start working on a plea deal to get her something less than life in jail.

  7. well if she knows where she put her she does’t have to personally go there all she has to do is tell her lawyer where she put her…..

  8. Casey is a sick you-know-what. I agree, if in her complicated, intricate, lying mind she is going to give-up the location of where that beautiful child may have been tossed, well, then I guess that is something that will benefit everyone involved.

    If it is just her way of playing her cat and mouse game, then, who knows. She’s a once-in-a-lifetime piece of work, I’ll say.

  9. Hi Lavanda 🙂
    Thanks for your considered notes above.
    Awful, awful, awful. I’m not surprised at all that the only suspect is using his children for his alibis. I’m afraid I wouldn’t find it difficult to believe that he would frame his mother if he thought he could to save himself.

    About the overhears with Lenny and Paula. I think they’re real. Very much so. The judge didn’t identify the sources/participants, but we know he has a huge amount of material both audio and video to review.

    A very good reason to use them…..DP went to their home often, wires there and cameras. Personal wires will be working outdoors, in cars, etc. But the best reason is Len and Paula’s ability to bring topics up, ask questions. D did complain, didn’t he that Len continually asked him “wadda ya think of this, an that”.

    Yeah, I think thw tapes and film are real.

  10. OK – So I may be cynical here but passing the Illinois DCFS test is easier than passing gas.

    My sister passed the DCFS test even after the counselor at my then 14-year-old nephew’s drug treatment facility told them about how she admitted to them during a family session (where I was present) that she and her boyfriend had provided drugs to my nephew, used drugs with him, and sometimes even bought them from him when he had extra. Oh yeah -by the way she had also admitted that she was still having problems stopping smoking crack, was living in a shady motel, and she was several months pregnant at the time.

    The DCFS team provided her several day’s notice for them to come over so she had ample time to tidy up her room, hide any drugs, and make sure she didn’t use the day before (or used one of those bags drug abusers tape to themself with “clean” urine) so she tested OK.

    So passing the DCFS test really doesn’t say much IMO. I guess that he puts that it there to show he’s a good dad but that doesn’t sell that to me. I’d rather read about how he is bypassing dating to really spend as much QUALITY time with his kids as possible instead.

    Now mind you – I don’t think he is abusing the children. In fact, he isn’t legally neglecting them either. He may not be paying enough attention to them and putting his needs ahead of theirs but that isn’t a crime.

  11. yes bucket I agree. Judging by her lifestyle before her arrest I would say she is probably going stir cracy about now with only her lawyer’s office to visit. Maybe she wan’t to visit some of her old watering holes and check under the bars for Caylee…

  12. qhorses // October 7, 2008 at 9:42 am

    well if she knows where she put her she does’t have to personally go there all she has to do is tell her lawyer where she put her…..

    ***

    Well if you put someone in the woods, it is sometimes hard to explain in words. Now mind you – I think it is entirely possible she’d just go on another wild goose chase. But maybe if she pisses Baez off a bit he’ll come down harder on her.

  13. Hi everyone! I’ve not posted here in awhile, but I do try to keep up with your postings. Regarding the Anthony case: I am on a ’secret’ forum, it is public and if any of you would like to go there it is the Cookies thread at Topix. Noway, are you there as Nobody, by chance? Just curious.

  14. Don’t McDonald’s have surveillance videos? I wonder if that information was provided to the police so they could get any tapes before they were overwritten.

    As a defense attorney – I would love to make sure there were videos showing my client at McD’s with the kiddies.

  15. Morning all.

    Qhorses, I forgot to say yesterday that I think that must be their farm that you passed. The farmhouse is a mustard Italian-y thing with a courtyard in front, and statues.

  16. I think that too much time has passed for her to try the types of searches she can do. If Caylee is alive her and her abductor would be long gone, and if she really has knowledge as to where she is why did she not do this in the beginning. I think this is her lawyers way of making her look like she has some feelings. Good Luck

  17. Hi Facs….yes the house was a mustard colour and it had statues on the front lawn although there are quite a lot of trees around it but you can still see it. The farm must be worth quite a lot of money and would cost a lot to operate no wonder he needed that book deal. But the strange thing is there is not a name on the property anywhere most of the horse farms have a sign advertising their name and farm, it was locked up tighter than a drum. The gates were even chained….

  18. Hi facs

    I couldn’t resist having a look at KD Farms website. ROFL at their suburban take on an Italian garden and the house “stuccoed in the style of Spain” LOL

    oh cruel, cruel taste police

  19. Thanks Lavanda for your insights into the book. I agree with most of your views as well.

    There are a few instances in which Armstrong re-creates a weak scenario involving Drew’s guilt only in order to pick it apart and say why it isn’t plossible. In each case they omit facts, or entail Drew going about something in a way that’s almost farcical. That’s when the bias towards Drew and the motive behind the book become very clear.

    Unlike you, I believe very much that Lenny and Paula wore wires for the ISP. Even Drew and Joel (at least in Armstrong’s book) claim to have had a hunch that it was going on at the time.

    Lavanda, if you haven’t written a review at Amazon, would you please do so? I think it’s important that people understand what is really going on in the book, before they buy it and are duped into believing the fiction of Drew’s innoncence.

  20. bucketoftea // October 7, 2008 at 10:11 am

    Hi facs

    I couldn’t resist having a look at KD Farms website. ROFL at their suburban take on an Italian garden and the house “stuccoed in the style of Spain” LOL

    oh cruel, cruel taste police
    *********************

    Heh, that was one of those “read out loud for the general entertainment of the room” moments for me!

  21. Question for anyone here that actually bought (or saw) the book. With all of the pictures that were in there – were there any of Drew with his kids? One thing that gets me is that with all of the pictures of Stacy cuddling with her kids and family – I’ve only seen one of Drew with the kids and that was the photo after Stacy went missing.

  22. Hi Bucket….KD farms is not my cup of tea it is too colourful and gaudy, but there is still a lot of money in there. No pun intended on cup of tea….

  23. Think – I count only four pictures that show Drew and his kids, and that includes pics that show another spouse as well.

    I think that there may be as many pictures of him pointing a gun.

  24. Qhorses, it’s always been my theory that the horse farm although lavish is not exactly raking in the bucks and that neither is the publishing venture…thus the moral lapse that made Armstrong agree to write the book.

  25. Hi Facs….I agree, that’s probably why he took this book to write. The breed of horses that he has is also not a popular breed in Canada as well so I can’t see a lot of sales going on there. I think he’s only been there about 3 years if I’m not mistaken.

  26. I want to chip in about family photos. There are almost no photographs of me with the children when they were small, because their dad too lazy/didn’t care. I was the one holding the camera. Funnily enough I have a friend who complained there were no pics of her kids’ father with the children because it was “his” camera and she deemed too stupid to use it.

  27. Qhorses, Icelandic horses are adorable though, aren’t they? I visited an actual Icelandic horse farm in Iceland (no Italian villa in front) and it was memorable.

    I think most North Americans are too big for one to carry!

  28. Facs….yes they are small. I saw a show with them performing the special gate that they do which is called the tolt. They can travel really fast at a trot, an the riders were big guys and it looked like there feet were touching the ground, but they are nice to watch..

  29. I kind of have to cede to your point Bucket, about the photos. It’s hard to draw conclusions from the absence of certain photos from the book.

    I remember at some point, someone trying to prove that Stacy couldn’t have been unhappy with her marriage because she was always smiling in photographs. Photographs don’t always tell the whole story…

  30. Facs and Bucket – Thanks for the info on the pics. My question was more out of curiousity than anything else. I guess I had figured that Drew would be able to get photos from his family members who may have done the snapping.

  31. yes Bucket they are small for a horse. They are under 14.2 hands which is the smallest for a horse any less than that is considered a pony, but the breeders of the Islandic is insulted if you refer to them as ponies. They can carry a lot of weight for their size. They probably are similar in height to some of the English ponies they are between 12 and 14 hands…..

  32. Just called the Governor’s Office and the Hearsay Bill is still on the Governor’s Desk. They told me to call back today, tomorrow, or Thursday after 4:30. Wonder what’s going on with this bill????

  33. Thinkaboutit – If there are many photos of Drew with the kids, they didn’t make it a priority to put them in Armstrong’s book. Lots more pages devoted to Drew in his younger undercover and narc days.

    Lots of photos of web sites on the author’s computer screen. That cracks me up. Do you even get to count those as photos?

  34. That’s the same question I ask myself facsmiley. Wish I lived closer to Springfield then I would ask him myself.

  35. grandma210 // October 7, 2008 at 9:57 am

    Hi everyone! I’ve not posted here in awhile, but I do try to keep up with your postings. Regarding the Anthony case: I am on a ’secret’ forum, it is public and if any of you would like to go there it is the Cookies thread at Topix. Noway, are you there as Nobody, by chance? Just curious.
    _______________
    I’m not Nobody, I’m just NoWay. 😉

    See I have some catching up to do reading-wise.

    Need to have something to eat and drink when I read Lavanda’s post. Lav, if you write a review, you might want to think short version, 😉

  36. Here’s an interesting re-visit to M Williams statements about the book as it was shopped to him and his proposal for a polygraph.

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

    So, how did this differ from what happened with Armstrong?

    1. Phelps asked Drew to go to a particular top polygrapher. He wouldn’t do it. When Drew finally did take the polygraph, Brodsky located and chose the examiner (and the exam was done in Brodsky’s offices).

    2. Phelps wanted to specify what questions would be asked. They said no. When Drew finally did take the polygraph, Brodsky told the examiner what he wanted to determine, and the examiner created the questions.

  37. I was just wondering about the length of time that Derek Armstrong tool to write that book. It doesn’t seem very long that he spent on it. I thought authors took longer than that to write because of all the research they are supposed to do on the subject. Doesn’t look like a lot of thought went into it.

  38. Wow – this is funny. I haven’t been to the Amazon site for the book in a few days but I just went there now and someone posted a negative review there as Facsmiley and added (badly writtten) comments to other people’s reviews as me…then there are responses trying to ‘out’ me as being an ’emotionally clouded’ poster at WordPress,etc.

    Well, I guess you can call yourself anything you want as a ‘pen name’ there. But if their strategy is to make me look like a cretin and get ‘me’ kicked off as a reviewer i guess that’s one convoluted way to go about it. If the imposter gets kicked off my one actual review will remain and that’s fine with me.

    Honestly, I was looking at the stuff under ‘Facsmiley’ and for a minute I wondered was I posting stuff in my sleep at 3 am?

  39. Q horses. Talks with M. Phelps broke down at the end of April.

    The first polygraph with Armstrong took place May 18th, and the first press release about the book was on September 1st.

    It looks as if most of the interviews with Drew were in June. An interview with Joel on about the 4th of July (unless the fireworks he mentions are the weekly fireworks at Navy Pier).

    To me, it looks like it took about four months for him to piece together the book. Honestly, he didn’t have to write very much. Most of the bullet points and factoids were probably provided by Joel. He only needed to transcribe Drew’s interviews, so no actual writing there.

  40. You don’t have to be a member, but they do ask that if you do join, that you select to keep your posts Private… it helps keep trolls down, they seem to think.

  41. I went back and read the comments. Seems like someone took your review personally. 😉

    And now the attacks are not about what you thought of the book but that you thought that about the book.

  42. jees facs I just read the reviews. Looks like a lot of Drews friends are protecting the book. They all seem to know a lot about you and this blog site…..

  43. I also thought the review for a book was peoples opinion on the book not peoples opinion on the reviewers…..every one is entitled to their own opinion. Even facs if you did write that review that would have been your opinio. Whats the point of having a review if you are only supposed to be positive about it….duh

  44. I did write one review but it isn’t under the name Facsmiley. I didn’t write any of the facs comments either.

    I don’t know what all that nonsense at Amazon is about. Someone’s just having fun I guess.

  45. Hi Facs, and all…
    I did send my review for the book early this am. Fact is, what I posted here is what I posted there. It has not been presented, as yet. It is under “avid reader of books” because that is my account name from 5 years ago. It’s possible the other Facs had that name from years back? I know it’s a coincidence but makes me wonder? If I recall from this morn that Facs that posted said the book was rubbish. And yes…that site is not to comment to or about other posters…but to comment about the book, however, I did notice there was now comment buttons that one can reply back regarding a post. Not even going there. Enough on my plate as is. lol

  46. I find it ironic I posted my review this morning at 8:00 am and it is still not on the site? maybe due to the length of it that they want to preview it? Anyhow…see ya all later. Back to work for me!

  47. It’s pretty clear they are up to some sort of shenanigans. It’s too bad they can’t actually defend the book on any factual basis, but instead create phony negative reviewers to attack.

  48. qhorses // October 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    jees facs I just read the reviews. Looks like a lot of Drews friends are protecting the book. They all seem to know a lot about you and this blog site…..
    *****************

    It’s nice to know they read here. I mean, we kind of already knew that when Rescue outed the book cover and they scrambled to write a press release about the polygraph, and when I challenged his claim of being a PI and he rushed to add an entry to his blog saying “I was TOO a P.I.”

    It’s just too bad that they had to create a fake ‘me’ at Amazon so they could take pot shots.

  49. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    October 7, 2008

    Governor Blagojevich Takes Action on Legislation that Allows Testimony of Witness who was Murdered by Defendant
    Provides assistance for prosecuting attorneys to get a conviction when the defendant has intentionally murdered a key witness in effort to silence them

    CHICAGO – Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today acted on legislation that will allow the courts to admit a statement from a witness who was intentionally murdered by the defendant if they determine the murder was to prevent the witness from testifying against the defendant. With support from the bill sponsors, advocates and prosecutors, the Governor used his amendatory veto power to give the act an immediate effective date.

    Governor Blagojevich took action at the request of the bill’s sponsors. Without the amendatory veto, the legislation would not take effect until June 1, 2009. The General Assembly will now need to act to accept the amendatory veto and so that the voices of the silenced victims can be heard immediately. The General Assembly is expected to act next month.

    “Too often, victims of domestic violence cry out for help, but those cries aren’t heard. In the most tragic cases, victims are murdered by their abusers when they reach out for help, and they are silenced forever. Now the voices of those victims will be heard in the courtroom and justice can be served,” Governor Blagojevich said.

    Senate Bill 2718, sponsored by Senator A. J. Wilhelmi (D – Crest Hill) and Representative Careen M. Gordon (D – Coal City), and initiated by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, is designed to eliminate the incentive for criminals in Illinois to kill witnesses in an attempt to prevent them from testifying at trial. The legislation allows prosecutors to enter into evidence the relevant statements from witnesses who were killed.

    “This legislation will clarify the rules of evidence in Illinois and will prevent defendants from escaping justice by murdering witnesses,” State’s Attorney James Glasgow said. “Prosecutors at the federal level, as well as in other states, have been using this rule of evidence for years to secure convictions against dangerous criminals.”

    The new law will allow a judge to decide at a pretrial hearing whether the court will consider a hearsay testimony. At the pretrial hearing, a judge will determine if the defendant murdered the witness and the murder was intended to make the witness unavailable for testimony, if the unavailable witness’ statements are reliable, and if justice is best served if the statements will be admitted into evidence.

    For the statement to be admissible, the trial court judge must make specific findings that each of the following criteria has been met:
    · Specific intent by the defendant to make the witness unavailable by murdering the declarant.
    · Reliability of the statement.
    · The interests of justice will be best served by the admission of the statement into evidence.

    “The ability for one to testify against a perpetrator of a crime is an instrumental element of our judicial system. Criminals should not benefit when they try to stifle our system of justice by murdering a key witness. I want to thank Governor Blagojevich for supporting this bill and giving those who can no longer be with us a voice,” said Senator A.J. Wilhelmi.

    This new law is supported by the recent Supreme Court decision of Giles v. California which upheld the common law doctrine called “the forfeiture of wrongdoing,” which states that the defendant forfeits his/her rights under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witness if the defendant has caused the witness to be unavailable. Senate Bill 2718 codifies the common law doctrine to make it enforceable in Illinois. This doctrine has been made into law in more than a dozen other states, including Maryland, California, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont and Hawaii.

    “I am proud to sponsor legislation that allows the court to hear testimony from those that criminals have tries to silence. This law will help bring a bit of peace to victims’ families and assist prosecuting attorneys in convicting those who would kill in order to prevent a witness from testifying against them,” said Representative Careen Gordon.

    “In order to bring justice, courts need to be able to hear the testimony of key witnesses. Unfortunately in Illinois, courts could not hear from many victims of domestic violence, because their spouse murdered them to keep quiet. I thank the Governor for standing up for these victims of domestic violence,” said Barbara Shaw, Director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority.

    http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=7198

  50. Could certainly be a technicality Facs, he veto’d with an amendment, therefore sending back to the legislation to be approved. Yes, does that mean it has to go back to the GOV again to be signed in it’s final form? Good question 😕

    GA meets again Nov 14th I believe.

  51. The session schedule.

    SENATE
    Not In Today
    Next: 11/12/2008

    HOUSE
    Not In Today
    Next: 11/12/2008

    The 12th is a Wednesday

  52. 10/07/08 – Governor Blagojevich Takes Action on Legislation that Allows Testimony of Witness who was Murdered by Defendant Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today acted on legislation that will allow the courts to admit a statement from a witness who was intentionally murdered by the defendant if they determine the murder was to prevent the witness from testifying against the defendant. With support from the bill sponsors, advocates and prosecutors, the Governor used his amendatory veto power to give the act an immediate effective date. Governor Blagojevich took action at the request of the bill’s sponsors. Without the amendatory veto, the legislation would not take effect until June 1, 2009. The General Assembly will now need to act to accept the amendatory veto and so that the voices of the silenced victims can be heard immediately. The General Assembly is expected to act next month.

  53. 1Tank and Heidi – thank you so much for the information. I usually keep the Gov’s website up on my screen, but just got back. Good news.

    It’s crawling forward about as slowly as it can, heh?

    Now, if they would just start issuing some official press releases, so people can get the updates in a concise, logical manner, maybe all those wild Amazon people could find it in their hearts to do the right thing and quit imitating bloggers from here, and sit back and hear the real facts as they’re presented. By law enforcement!

  54. I wish that the SA felt it had enough evidence to convict someone and not have to wait for the Hearsay bill to pass.

  55. No kidding thinkaboutit. I think the hearsay law will be challenged under the constitutional right to confront witnesses.

    I love the idea of the law, but it’s going to be facing a big battle.

  56. I’m not holding out for evidence though. I’m waiting for the day when one of Peterson’s street rat pals finally has a good reason to ‘rat’ on him.

    You just know he couldn’t have done all this without help. I’m sure that’s why he was able to answer ‘without deception’ to those questions about Kathleen.

    I don’t think Peterson is a criminal mastermind, but I do think he’s a master at manipulation and intimidation. But there always comes a point when somebody talks…

  57. Just remember, who will be fighting that battle for Drew Peterson, Joel Brodsky.

    The suspect/defendant should be very worried.

  58. 1tank, love your avatar!!

    Yes, this is at long last some good news. I do think we are looking at Wednesday Nov. 12th. So the slow wheels just keep going around. Turtle kinda slow….

    A huge thanks to Lav for your review…I actually could not finish my breakfast and was sent into a very blue mood. I thank you though and appreciate your words!

    A change of pace this coming weekend as we join forces with John Spira’s sister in her continued efforts to find some resolution. Stephanie, is a wonderful, gentle spirited women who needs answers. If you can help with any efforts…even passing out flyers I so encourage you to volunteer a few hours of a weekend and join search efforts for John Spira, missing since 2-23-2007. Let’s make some noise for John this weekend…hope I can borrow these words??

  59. Peterson doesn’t believe the tapes hurt him, ha, he doesn’t know the cooberating evidence they do have. Put the pieces together, physical evidence, witness evidence, overhears. 😀

  60. I’m also wondering how intricate this whole thing is, going back to the Kathleen Savio debacle.

    The sole reason her body had to be exhumed is because the death investigation was shoddy, at best.

    So, the Kathleen Savio mess unfolds. There’s a whole lot of finger pointing that can be done, but, all-in-all, someone, a few, screwed up big time. Do they get charged with crimes, perhaps, or was it just sloppy, non-caring police work? Who is going to be held responsible in the end, now knowing that Kathleen even wrote letters asking for help out of fear of Drew Peterson?

    So, did the Grand Jury hear from witnesses who screwed up the first Kathleen Savio investigation? Are they going to hand down an indictment for those individuals too, or is someone going to have to answer to a review board and face discipline, just like Drew Peterson’s son did for taking the company car to the Grand Jury proceedings?

    Why the secrecy about this part of it too? Drew Peterson and his gun charges are all out in the open, and his son’s suspension is out there. What about the personnel who investigated Kathleen’s manner of death? Did someone involved in that mess go before a hearing board and get handed a suspension????

    What’s the big secret?

  61. Just as an FYI, Amazon is not the only place that DP seems to have a paid group of bloggers”Searching for Stacy”. Seems they are doing this by taking on others names and words….so Drew like.
    Didn’t Joel and Drew state that exact thing?? Looking for Stacy through the internet??
    MORONS! IMO

  62. jeepers – it just shows how desperate they are. But, since we now know that they read here, they can read that we are aware of them stealing nics and writing posts they create to cause trouble. Just a bunch of lowlife cowards. Like the suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance/homicide.

  63. “Media Note: Broadcast quality audio recordings are available for download upon request.”

    Anyone gonna request them?

  64. I only saw the very end of the broadcast – the part about his lawyer being an idiot to let him give out hundreds of hours of taped interviews, Armstrong saying Drew isn’t getting money, and Drew not showing any remorse or concern over his missing and dead wives.

    Anything else worth note?

    You think this is in retaliation for Dre and Joel doing the Early show ahead of schedule and without him?

    Or just more marketing…

  65. So which is it?

    “I may have come around to the notion that Peterson is innocent – I’m at least 80 percent convinced of this based on the polygraphs…”

    or this?

    “Armstrong says one quote in particular stands out.

    ‘I spent my days working cons on people,’ Peterson tells Armstrong.

    I think it’s pretty important that he admits he can ‘work cons’ under pressure when you strap the man on to a polygraph machine,””

  66. I can’t figure him out either, Facs. On one hand, he said he doesn’t think Peterson is a killer in his book. On the other hand, he says “Can I make a call on his guilt or innocence? No, I cannot.”

    Is that confusing, or is it me?

  67. I am now beginning to think that Armie is changing his strategy and promoting his concern about Drew Peterson’s guilt based on his “cold” attitude during the tape recordings.

    On Nancy Grace, I believe he mentioned that he asked the poly examiner how he could have passed the questions he did, and the examiner said he didn’t know how he passed them.

    If anyone else saw that part, is that correct the way I’ve explained it?

  68. Kathleen Savio
    Rachael Mellon
    Stacy Peterson
    Lisa Stebic
    Riley Fox
    Lane Bryant Murders

    All Will County. All unsolved. Hmmmm.

  69. Rescue, he wasn’t very clear about a stance in the book either. Though he did state that he didn’t think Drew was a killer, and that he was 80% convinced that he’s innocent and misunderstood, at the very end he said he couldn’t make a call.

    Now in this press release (oddly sent out by Selig’s group) he seems to infer that Drew could make use of his con skills to fool the polygraph, and that he came off cold and unfeeling in person.

    Who knows. He’ll probably say whatever he thinks will sell better…

    BTW, Dude looks about twenty years older on TV than he does in his publicity photos, doesn’t he?

  70. So, anyone have any idea why Armstrong’s press releases are coming out through Selig, who represents Drew and Joel?

    Am I just dense and missing something obvious here? Because, it seems like the rather negative comments from Armstrong would not be what Selig would want circulated.

  71. facsmiley // October 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    I only saw the very end of the broadcast – the part about his lawyer being an idiot to let him give out hundreds of hours of taped interviews….

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

    How does Brodsky reconcile this with other law professionals? He allowed his client to give taped interviews and take a polygraph exam that HE set up, after moaning and groaning for months and months that he doesn’t believe in them, and he wouldn’t allow his client to do so.

    What it says is that Brodsky has NO control over Peterson. Peterson is running the defense, not Brodsky, not Abood. And he has a fool for a client!

  72. rescueapet // October 7, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Kathleen Savio
    Rachael Mellon
    Stacy Peterson
    Lisa Stebic
    Riley Fox
    Lane Bryant Murders

    All Will County. All unsolved. Hmmmm.
    ___________

    THANK YOU!!! All I can say is thank you Rescue for helping bring that again to people’s attention.

    Please let’s all work together and get some changes made in Will County.

    Some of us are writing Glascow’s opponent to see what her stance and plans are on how to handle these cases. If you are also interested in finding out please email her or give her a call. Please help us let them know we want a change, we want our families to be better cared for. Thank you!!

    Ms. Judy DeVriendt
    mailto:friendsforjudy@gmail.com
    Phone: 815-723-4179

  73. Hmm. I always thought Tinley Park was in in Cook County. I see now that a small parcel is in Will County. In reality though – it probably wouldn’t be solved yet if it was in Cook County either.

  74. facsmiley // October 7, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    So, anyone have any idea why Armstrong’s press releases are coming out through Selig, who represents Drew and Joel?

    Am I just dense and missing something obvious here? Because, it seems like the rather negative comments from Armstrong would not be what Selig would want circulated.
    _________________
    Could it be that Selig has Armstrong (or KD Farms) as a client and that is how Drew found him in the first place?

    Would a conflict of interest exist if they are both clients? 😀

  75. I watched the NG rerun.

    Surreal moment when Nancy asked Armstrong if Drew Peterson had shown deception on half of the Stacy questions and if he in fact flunked the Stacy polygraph and he said, “Yes he did.”

    We have come really far from his quote from three days ago, “Citing the reliability of polgygraphy tests, Armstrong concluded: “There is between an 86 percent and 98 percent likelihood Drew Peterson is not guilty.”

    I guess whatever will sell the most books…

  76. I do want to apologize for saying earlier that Armstrong looked very old. Now that I’ve seen a closeup of him I think he may have had some facial injuries or burns that account for his appearance.

    I wouldn’t want to seem to have mocked him on that account.

  77. Could it be that Selig has Armstrong (or KD Farms) as a client and that is how Drew found him in the first place?
    ************************

    It doesn’t seem likely. Armstrong owns his own image marketing company (Persona: http://personaco.com/) and operates out of Canada. Kunati books does have an office in Florida however.

    According to Armstrong on nancy Grace tonight, he heard that Drew was shopping his book around and couldn’t get an American author to write it, so Armstrong contacted him (I assume through Selig?).

    The farm is a very small venture in comparison to his publishing house and marketing business. I doubt it would need PR…

  78. Question; If the audio clips on Nancy Grace were of Derek Armstrong interviewing Drew, why does Drew call him ‘Mike’ a number of times?

    DEREK ARMSTRONG, AUTHOR OF “DREW PETERSON EXPOSED”: This probably all comes across to a lot of audiences as you’re trying to blame her for running away or whatever.

    DREW PETERSON, HUSBAND OF MISSING STACY PETERSON: Well, I look at it, Mike — you know, you sit by yourself sometimes and you try to think, what did I do wrong? You know, could I have been a better husband, could I have done this, could I have done in? I gave her everything.

  79. Good Morning!

    Is “Mike” the poly operator?

    Glen Selig only cares about appearing at the top of Google searches.

    D.A. is ambiguous on purpose. Ambiguity is the best JB can hope for because…well, DREW DID IT. (I wonder just how comfortable JB is feeling with Drewpy these days?)

    This Facs bashing is bizarre…but there you go, Facs. You and Rescue should know better than to go around overwhelming people with language!

    You got a license for that word ma’am? (er…sir?LOL)

  80. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-peterson_bill_amendedoct08,0,6796689.story

    Governor amends hearsay bill prompted by Stacy Peterson case
    Blagojevich seeks to make measure effective as soon as it is signed into law
    Tribune staff report
    October 8, 2008
    Gov. Rod Blagojevich sent a bill back to legislators Tuesday that could affect possible prosecution of former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson in the disappearance of his wife, Stacy, or the death of his former wife Kathleen Savio.

    Blagojevich’s amendatory veto, if accepted by the state legislature, would mean the measure takes effect upon signing. As written, the bill, which would allow hearsay evidence to be heard in first-degree murder cases if the prosecution proved that the defendant killed a witness to prevent his or her testimony, takes effect June 1.

    Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D-Joliet), a sponsor of the bill, has said he supports the governor’s move.

    The bill is scheduled to be taken up in the November veto session.

  81. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1208310,4_1_JO08_LYONS_S1.article
    October 8, 2008

    By BRIAN STANLEY bstanley@scn1.com
    SHOREWOOD — Charles Lyons believes some changes should be made in the Will County coroner’s office.

    “The coroner should be an advocate for those who can no longer speak for themselves,” the Republican candidate said.

    » Click to enlarge image

    RELATED STORIES
    • Will Coroner O’Neil: Experience counts

    Charles Lyons
    Party: Republican

    Resident: Channahon

    Education: Minooka High School, bachelor’s in speech and theater from Blackburn College

    Family: widower with two adult daughters

    Experience: Diplomat with American Board of Medico-Legal Investigators, more than 20 years of experience as emergency medical technician and arson investigator, retired volunteer firefighter, former Channahon village trustee and school board member. Lyons, who works as an embalmer and funeral director at the Blackburn Giegerich Sonntag Funeral Home, worked as a deputy under Coroner Patrick K. O’Neil from 2001 to 2005.

    “The most satisfying part of working for the coroner’s office was helping people through the most difficult times after a family member dies,” he said. “But at the same time it’s also the toughest part, making those knocks on the door (telling someone) face to face someone is dead.”

    Lyons feels O’Neil rushes next-of-kin through the death process and has dismissed being held accountable for thorough investigation of suspicious deaths, such as the 2004 death of Kathleen Savio.

    Savio was found dead in a bathtub at her residence and an inquest ruled the death an accidental drowning. After Stacy Peterson, the wife of Savio’s ex-husband Drew Peterson, disappeared last year, her body was exhumed and the case was declared a homicide.

    “O’Neil has blamed everyone else, but that case was not investigated thoroughly,” Lyons said. “Those of us working other shifts didn’t hear about the Savio case, O’Neil has said he can’t tell the police what to do, but (the coroner) is the only one who can tell the police what to do.”

    Since 2007, the coroner can legally determine the manner of someone’s death without having to hold an inquest. Lyons would establish a “death review team” consisting of the coroner, deputies and other investigators to examine all suspicious cases within 48 hours.

    Lyons would also like to see more training for deputy coroners.

    “They’re sent to a weeklong 40 hour course, which is a great course, but (otherwise) they’ll just undertake free training, and I believe you get what you pay for. There are better training techniques available,” he said.

    As a former deputy, Lyons will also be more hands-on.

    “I would be a working coroner and go out in the field more. I don’t want to micromanage, I won’t be at every death, but I would go out on (routine) death investigations as well as major events,” he said.

    If elected, Lyons would like to serve two terms before stepping aside.

    “I believe in term limits. I think I’ll bring a fresh set of eyes. I think you should spend one term making sure you know what the office needs and then a second working to make that happen, then it’s time to go.”

  82. Morning all!

    The audio excerpts indicated that it was a conversation between the ‘author’ and Drew.

    So…huh?

    (The polygraph examiner’s name is Lee McCord)

  83. “O’Neil has blamed everyone else, but that case was not investigated thoroughly,” Lyons said. “Those of us working other shifts didn’t hear about the Savio case, O’Neil has said he can’t tell the police what to do, but (the coroner) is the only one who can tell the police what to do.”

    Le Sigh.

  84. Man – I fell asleep last night so I missed watching the late rerun of NG with Armstrong on it! I did record it though so maybe I’ll skim through it tonight.

  85. It will be interesting to see how quickly they push the hearsay bill through in the veto session. I still tink this could go on for a while.

    So my theory is still that once the Hearsay Bill is in effect they will charge Drew with murdering Kathleen Savio but they still will not charge him regarding Stacy until her body is found.

    My thoughts are that they basically could proceed in Kathleen’s case as a circumstantial case along with their new autopsy findings and attempt to bring Kathleen’s letter to the State’s Attorney and a couple other things in as evidence via the hearsay law. I do not believe there is any chance they can get any additional evidence in this case so this is probably the best shot they have although it is certainly not a “slam dunk” or guaranteed conviction. It is possible that the judge says the hearsay evidence isn’t able to be submitted. But I think the prosecutors have intentionally waited to have the hearsay evidence as potential “icing on the cake” of an otherwise circumstantial case. If the hearsay evidence is allowed, I’d put money on the case going through an appeals process.

    I still do not think they will charge him related to Stacy though until her body is found no matter what other evidence they have right now. I would think they would figure if they can get him behind bars for either the gun charge or on a circumstantial case for Kathleen that they would have time on their side. As BigM said – they will not risk the whole double jeopardy thing and having no DNA signs of death (like the decomposition findings in Casey Anthony’s trunk) or a body because the lack of that evidence certainly could lead jurors to think she could indeed have just gone into hiding.

  86. Was Derek Armstrong born Derek Armstrong or is that just a name he uses as an author?

    Maybe he is Derek Michael or Michael Derek?

    Or maybe (how embarassing!) Drew just called him by the wrong name over and over again. 😉

  87. noway406 // October 8, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Or maybe (how embarassing!) Drew just called him by the wrong name over and over again.
    *************************

    That’s what I was kind of thinking… 🙂

  88. I was reading the transcription from NG (the part about Caylee Anthony).

    This gave me chills but in a good way. It is Leonard Padilla speaking:

    … The night of the 26th, she parked the car there, at Amscot. The morning of the 27th, she went and picked the car back up, went to her mom, she called JCPenny`s and there`s a couple of signals down there in that area where she spent about 15 minutes.

    That`s where the body is going to be found, and I’m telling you, Tim Miller is going to get it done.

  89. GRACE: How did you meet Peterson to start with? Who contacted who?

    ARMSTRONG: I contacted Selig, his publicist, when I heard he was shopping a book. I`m in Canada, so the offer I made to him was, I`ll write an impartial book. But he had had no luck getting an author interested, and I came along, I suppose, at the right time.

    Armstrong claims that the book is ‘impartial’ and that he presented arguments for both guilt and innocence and then took them apart as part of his investigation.

    But, since he only consulted the suspect and his team of toadies, the arguments for innocence are based mostly on what Drew says happened while his arguments for guilt are infuriating in their misrpresenation of the facts and really show up his ignorance about the case.

    He also takes ridiculous stances in the book like using “lack of a body” as an argument for Drew’s innocence. It indicates a lack of evidence, but it in no way disproves Drew’s guilt. The same go for his random charts showing that “homicides cleared by arrest are dropping”, or that “less than 30 percent of female murder victims are killed by an intimate”. They have no relevance to the specifics of this case and come off as grasping at straws and totally expose a bias.

    A book like this might have worked if Armstrong had actually done the research, been impartial and talked to people from all sides of the case. Since he didn’t, it’s just lame and exposes Armstrong as the greedy opportunist he is.

  90. DP’s court dates
    PETERSON DREW W 10 23 8 405 130 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 1 Hearing
    PETERSON DREW W 10 23 8 405 130 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 2 Hearing
    PETERSON DREW W 11 20 8 405 130 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 1 Final
    PETERSON DREW W 11 20 8 405 130 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 2 Final
    PETERSON DREW W 12 8 8 405 1000 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 1 Jury Trial
    PETERSON DREW W 12 8 8 405 1000 08CF001169 0 RIFLE <16”/SHOTGUN 2 Jury Trial

  91. I took delivery of the book today. Secondhand. LOL must be someone’s free copy. Pristine. The layout makes me feel a bit seasick.

    I’m gonna check out that statistic of his about the percentage of female murder victims killed by an intimate.

  92. Thanks Grandma. That cheers me up. I can see me now in the kitchen by the open fire, making my annual gingerbread cookies, listening to carols on the radio, glass of sherry. Thrushes and robins on the feeder in the garden, Drew in a courtroom, and all’s right with the world. 🙂

  93. I think this one will get you Drew stuff. I just got NG and Casey on the other ones.

    And maybe they transcribed wrong. I don’t think Drew said “Mike” … I think he said “My … my …” but who knows.

  94. FYI: From Fox News. Some interesting comments by Brodsky, I’d say. It sounds like, if Brodsky is correct, his client is defying him and does as he pleases, which, once again, leads me to believe he’s out-of-control and can’t be reined it by Brodsky. Otherwise, common sense even a lay person could figure out is why would ANY defense attorney allow his client to give taped interviews of a time line that he’s already given to police, and submit to a polygraph exam when the defense attorney is against it?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434441,00.html

    Drew Peterson Failed Half a Polygraph Test on Missing Wife Stacy

    Wednesday, October 08, 2008
    By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

    FC1
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Former police officer Drew Peterson failed half a polygraph test about his missing fourth wife’s disappearance, according to his attorney and the author of a new book.

    Peterson, the prime suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance, agreed to be interviewed by writer Derek Armstrong and take a lie detector test for the book “Drew Peterson Exposed,” Armstrong said.

    “He failed half of six questions on the Stacy Peterson polygraph,” Armstrong told FOXNews.com. “The questions he failed were directly related to the timeline I had him create.”

    Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky said he doesn’t like lie detector tests.

    “I don’t think they’re reliable,” he said. “I advised him not to take one.” Brodsky said he doesn’t know what conclusions can be drawn, if any, on this polygraph.

    Peterson got a “deceptive” reading with responses about whether his wife called to say she was leaving him (which he answered “yes” to), whether he knew where she was (he answered “no”) and whether he had seen her the night before she vanished (he said “yes”).

    He got a “not deceptive” reading when he was asked if he physically harmed his wife during the time she disappeared (he said “no”), if he had any involvement in the physical removal of his wife from the home the day she vanished (he replied “no”) and whether Stacy Peterson had called him to tell him where the car was parked after she left (he said “yes”).

    The lie detector test was administered by a well-respected polygraph expert named Lee McCord, according to Armstrong and Brodsky.

    Stacy Peterson disappeared suddenly last October. Her body has never been found, and police say they believe she is dead.

    Drew Peterson, who is also being investigated in the mysterious bathtub death of his third wife Kathleen Savio, has not been charged in either case. He passed a polygraph he took on Savio.

    Armstrong says the ex-cop acted “cold” when he spoke about Stacy Peterson, and he has released some clips of the interview audio tapes to the media in the days since his book hit shelves Oct. 1.

    “He became very, very cold. He appeared to be emotionless,” Armstrong said. “Frankly, the only time I got him to warm up emotionally was when he talked about himself — and his kids.”

    In one of the excerpts, Peterson says he worries what will happen to him if his fourth wife turns out to have died.

    “She comes up dead or something, they’re going to be looking at me,” he tells Armstrong. “That’s got me a little concerned.”

    At another point, he says he “spent his days working cons on people” when he was a police officer.

    Brodsky said he and Peterson are unhappy about Armstrong’s decision to release some of the interview tapes.

    “I’m kind of upset about the release of the clips,” Brodsky told FOXNews.com. “We kind of look at it as a betrayal. He knows we’re disappointed.”

    As for whether he believes Peterson is guilty, the author is reluctant to say for sure. He said that parts of the interviews with the ex-Bolingbrook, Ill., police officer made him uneasy.

    “I don’t think there’s enough evidence either way, but I’m very uncomfortable,” he said. “That’s why I’m releasing the tapes.”

    He admitted he’s also making portions of his interviews available for publicity of his book.

    Brodsky said he suggested Peterson not speak to Armstrong, but his client wanted to try to “move on with his life” and “get his story told.”

    “We’re not thrilled about it,” said the attorney about the end result. “There are some things about that book that are positive. … He [Drew] has mixed feelings.”

    Peterson’s trial in a gun charges case begins Dec. 8.

  95. As for whether he believes Peterson is guilty, the author is reluctant to say for sure. He said that parts of the interviews with the ex-Bolingbrook, Ill., police officer made him uneasy.

    “I don’t think there’s enough evidence either way, but I’m very uncomfortable,” he said. “That’s why I’m releasing the tapes.”
    _________________
    Uncomfortable how?

  96. noway406 // October 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    _________________
    Uncomfortable how?

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

    Good point. Why wouldn’t he just explain that remark and be more in-depth? He drops lines here and there, draws conclusions, and is just now beginning to say more and more about all of this in interviews and his own blog posts. Why didn’t he do this in the first place?

    It seems like the Brodsky team and the Armstrong team are in the midst of a peeing contest right now. Neither side is flattering the other.

  97. Probably uncomfortable with all the hate mail he’s getting after selling out? Is he trying to appease the gods now?

    BTW, Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky said he doesn’t like lie detector tests.

    “I don’t think they’re reliable,” he said. “I advised him not to take one.

    Yet, he’s the one who arranged it and it was done in his office…

  98. What did they have to lose? Nothing IMO.

    If he failed, JB is already on record saying that they are unreliable and are not admissible in court.

    If he passed, JB appeals to that segment of the public who do believe in them and see them as proof of innocence even though they are not admissible in court.

    I have more thoughts in my head about the whole thinking behind it, but I can’t manage to put them into coherent sentences. And I’ve been trying to do so for some time. 🙄

  99. But, Noway, it’s all you hear on tv from legal pundits, over and over, do not submit your client to a polygraph. Even putting aside the scientific aspect of it, people are going to hang onto it’s outcome based on their own conclusions and feelings for the suspect.

    True, Brodsky can stake his claim to having professed his lack of belief in them, but, you must admit, when the news came out that Peterson answered some questions deceptively, he hopped on the “but, he passed many of the questions” bandwagon. That defies logic. Either the whole thing is bunk or it’s not. He shouldn’t get to pick and choose what he likes about it, after he’s said they’re worthless!

  100. Facs – uncomfortable, yes! I really don’t think that book was moving, especially when you look at it from a pro-Drew standpoint. There’s many, many more non-believers in Drew Peterson than not.

    What I am curious about is how Armie is able to release snippets of the tape recordings, when Phelps, presumably, was not. I remember hearing Phelps refer to a Non-Disclosure Agreement, or Brodsky brought that up when they were in the midst of a battle over the taped conversation/s. How is it that Derek Armstrong can do this?

  101. Oh, and by the way, is Drew Peterson so far up his own you-know-what that he, himself, is having the epiphany of his lifetime that he flunked (that’s the way Nancy Grace is portraying it on her website) the polygraph exam. Because, it sure is looking more and more now like he’s flabbergasted that some of his answers were “deceptive.”

    Other than using him to further his own career and latching onto him for name recognition, what in the world is Brodsky thinking hanging onto him for a client? What positive elements of this whole sorted mess has Peterson brought upon Brodsky up to this point? He claims he told Peterson not to take a lie detector test, yet, he then appeases him and even sets it up. He allows him to give tape recordings of relevant, important time lines that pertain to his missing wife, ones which can be compared to statements given to the police.

    That is effective, defensive, brilliant lawyering? Huh?

  102. Did Armie outsmart Le Brodsque and get full rights to the tapes in their contract?

    Obviously, he’s able to print as much of it as he wants so maybe the wording gave him freedom to disseminate them however he wanted…

  103. Facs – I’m with you here. After reading that Fox article I was thinking exactly the same thing.

    “”I’m kind of upset about the release of the clips,” Brodsky told FOXNews.com. “We kind of look at it as a betrayal. He knows we’re disappointed.””

    Come on – Why did they not have some sort of non-disclosure agreement BEFORE letting Drew open his mouth on tape. Disappointed??? No lawyer should ever be “disappointed” with the other person if they didn’t put that clause in the contract to stop the person from doing something they didn’t want done.

  104. Disappointed??? No lawyer should ever be “disappointed” with the other person if they didn’t put that clause in the contract to stop the person from doing something they didn’t want done.

    You just made me LOL.

  105. gatehouse – the page is loading OK for me but I don’t usually have problems, even when there are lots of posts.

  106. rescueapet // October 8, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    But, Noway, it’s all you hear on tv from legal pundits, over and over, do not submit your client to a polygraph.
    ________________
    But JB isn’t following convention on this one. 😉 And he apparently did not submit his client; the client submitted himself.

    IMO it had to do with Drew’s ego to prove he could beat the polygraph.

    I’ve no doubt he was flabbergasted to find out he failed Stacy’s.

  107. rescueapet // October 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    What I am curious about is how Armie is able to release snippets of the tape recordings, when Phelps, presumably, was not. I remember hearing Phelps refer to a Non-Disclosure Agreement, or Brodsky brought that up when they were in the midst of a battle over the taped conversation/s. How is it that Derek Armstrong can do this?

    ***

    Rescue – I think they had an NDA for the discussions about writing the book but forgot to hand another one out for the actual interviews.

  108. Joel must have been too busy appearing on the the Morning Show with Mike and Juliet … and the Today Show … and blogging … and hanging out with Drew … and forgot to get that done.

    🙄

  109. From Think’s link:

    Female murder victims are substantially more likely than male murder victims to have been killed by an intimate
    In recent years –

    About one third of female murder victims were killed by an intimate.

    About 3% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate.

    Of all female murder victims, the proportion killed by an intimate has been increasing.

    Of male murder victims, the proportion killed by an intimate has dropped.

  110. Most intimate homicides involved spouses, although in recent years the number of deaths by boyfriends and girlfriends was about the same.

    Again, these stats end at 2005 …

    And I’ll ask for the new link. Things are just starting to get slow for me.

  111. thinkaboutit2 // October 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm says:

    I think they had an NDA for the discussions about writing the book but forgot to hand another one out for the actual interviews.

    **********

    Good observation! Oh, oh. Back to class for him!

  112. Good job Noway. Add this as well:

    For every age group female murder victims are more likely than male victims to have been killed by an intimate

    This is why Armstrong’s book shows bias. Did Brodsky feed him the crap that he wanted in there?

  113. My BF just gave me a wonderful line:

    You know what they say about statistics. Writers use statistics like a drunk uses a lightpost – more for support than illumination.

    In above post I should have said it was one of the ways the author’s bias is revealed.

    🙂

  114. This link is the latest “official” US Department of Justice statistics. I didn’t even look at the book so I’m curious to know what source was used.

  115. hmmm ill try one last time LMAO

    heres the link.. looks like little caylee is getting justice.

    http:/ /ww w.local6.com/news/17662297/detail.html

  116. np rescue i tried 3 times then had to put gaps between the addy 🙂 to post it. I also have caseys grocery list of what she bought.. you can see on the reciept her signature plus the date and stuff which all proves shes a theif .. grrrr

  117. Stacy’s body has never been found and police believe that she’s dead.

    Jeepers, that’s some plain speaking.

  118. thinkaboutit – Armstrong’s source was the same as we just mined. Only he picked out something that made a lame argument for Drew’s innoncence. We as easily picked out stats that worked to prove the opposite so…

  119. Sonia – there is no soul in that mother-from-hell.

    What bothers me a lot, though, is that this was no big secret. Her parents and her brother knew she was a liar and untrustworthy. Why all of this grandiosing on her behalf to defend her? I understand they don’t want to sell her down the river because she is their daughter/sister, but shut up already! They need to go inside their house and stay there, and quit spoon feeding us their crap.

    I am sorry for the Anthonys that they have lost not only their grandchild, but to know it was their own daughter has to be a horrible situation to be in. I just don’t care for the way they are handling it and making a true mockery of it.

  120. I wish Matt Phelps could come out not and start commenting on HIS tapes!

    I wonder if LE can obtain those tapes from him and compare them?

    Although, with the “extensive” surveillance that the Judge has alluded to, there are hours and hours of talk out there, and maybe law enforcement has them already. Heh, Drew?

  121. Hi chaps

    Those statisics. It’s easy to figure out what he did. Lied LOL There’s nothing wrong with the graph except that it doesn’t show what Armie says it does. LOfreakinL.

    What it shows is a decline in the % of perps who were intimates of women and men. It clearly shows the decline sharper in male victims, but the endpoint for women victims (2005) is still over 50%! He says “recent figures”, then references the same source as the graph! You could sorta stretch the drop over the last decade or so to about 30%, but that isn’t what he said.

    Probably doesn’t expect anyone to actually look at the graphs or check reference.Whew don’t even have to goanywhere else to see that it’s wrong according to his own source. Dummy.

  122. http://www.thepost.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1235518

    The Kawartha Lakes Haliburton-Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee (KLHDVCC) is warning area women to be cautious of signs of abuse.

    Made up of 43 agencies from the justice, health and social service sectors, the committee focuses on collaboration, leadership and action, according to a recent press release. It also works towards a seamless social service and social justice system to deal with violence, address its root causes, and alleviate its effects.

    Executive director Vicki Wallis said the KLHDCC works to towards bridging gap in services for residents.

    “It’s about finding a way to work together,” she said.

    In many cases of domestic homicide, there is not a previous history of abuse.

    Stats Can 2007 revealed that in nearly three-quarters of spousal abuses homicides or attempted spousal homicide, the perpetrator had no prior arrest history for spousal abuse during the study time frame (1995 to 2005).

    But there may be other signs of more subtle abuse taking place such as domineering, controlling, possessive and jealous behaviours. These signs should be taken seriously; a partner puts a woman down, does all the talking, dominates the conversation, and checks up on her all the time, even at work, he tries to suggest he is the victim and acts depressed, he tries to keep her away from family and friends, he acts if he owns her, he lies to make himself look good or exaggerates his good qualities, and acts like he is superior and of more value than others.

    Wallis said a important step for woman to avoid becoming a victim of further abuse or even escalated violence is to let someone know when they are planning on leaving a spouse or boyfriend. Unfortunately, many women may not do so until it’s too late.

    For more info about domestic violence or the KLHDCC, please visit their web-site at http://www.klhvdcc.ca or contact Wallis, coordinator at 878-4285 or e-mail to vwallis@womensources.ca.

    Another little interesting read, from Canada. Heck, most of you have never met DP? But how many of the listed things to watch for did Stacy encounter? I say, talk to everyone you know, love them enough to know they are safe.
    Crazy, when I last went to urgent care, I was ask “are you safe at home?” it really made me wonder if the nurse really cared or had to ask?>>>>>>sorry for long post!

    One more thing, a shout goes out to Senator AJ Wilhelmi for drafting the hearsay bill!! Could not be where we are today without awsome people.

  123. This place rocks! A point is made, research is done, and statistics are posted! Too bad Armie didn’t come here more often for facts and non-fiction, he would have had a decent book!

    You’re all great.

  124. Bucket – in all fairness, the graph that Armie used is up there, but it’s just one of many. He selected the one that best suited his purposes, but there are others that could be used to argue against Drew’s innocence as well and we found them.

    He (or Joel) just plucked out the one that supported his view.

  125. Nancy Grace’s show tonight is going to focus on the forthcoming homicide charges against Casey Anthony.

    Law enforcement threw everything out there to the public about this witch. Too bad we can’t have the same thing here with Peterson!

  126. I do love watching that relationship crumble though.

    First Amrstrong and Drew scheduled to appear together on Today show on September 30. Then for whatever reason (DP and Joel get a look at the book maybe) they freak and instead appear together on the Early show (sans Armstrong). Then Armstrong appears alone on Nancy Grace…

    I only wish had been Geraldo. We all know how much Drew and Joel adore him. 😉

  127. Facs – don’t forget that sometime today, it appears, Armstrong did an interview with Fox News. His spoken words the last few days don’t match the way he described Peterson in his book. I couldn’t stand the adjectives he used to describe “Mr. Mom.” Yuck.

Comments are closed.