Your Thread – November 14

Sorry for missing Thursdays thread everyone but I came down with a plague-like illness. Soup and orange juice are truly wonderful things.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 14

  1. Our Current Wish list
    ___________________

    Items needed for the search teams ( for the volunteers)

    Waders ( thigh high and full length needed, various sizes)

    Gas cards to give the professional teams when they are here. We have teams coming from Ohio, Indiana, and sometimes farther so they are really in need of gas to assist them coming in time and time again to help.

    Hand-warmers
    Plastic totes ( the large tupperware kind that are used for storage normally)
    Flagging tape ( florescent colors, can be found at Menards, Home Depot, etc. We use Red, Green, and Orange)

    Disposable cameras ( all evidence is photographed and these would make it easier to just hand them over to ISP instead of using our digital and having to chance something happening to the photos)

    Gloves ( medical non-latex)
    Bandages ( We are getting low on our first aid items for the cuts and scrapes the searchers aquire)

    These are the most important items right now.

    If you are able to help with any of these items please feel free to email me at

    fuzzbuttmom@comcast.net

    There will be a small group of volunteers going out this Sun. Unfortunatly I will not be in attendance as I am working that day. If you are interested in attending please meet at the Shell Gas Station I-55 and Weber, 9am. The team will be heading out by 9:15.
    Please remember to wear sturdy foot-wear, warm clothes, gloves, and bring a light snack. Lunch will be provided. We ask that all volunteers on this search wear brightly colored clothing as the team will be in a heavily wooded area and will need to be able to be seen easily by the rest of the team.

    Thank you all , have a wonderful and blessed day!

  2. Since it was recently stated by Tom Morphey’s significant other that he has not appeared before the Grand Jury, I looked at a ABA site about the role of a Grand Jury.

    What is the purpose of the grand jury?

    “The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

    Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.

    The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness’s testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.

    So, it would seem that Morphey isn’t needed at this point insofar as being necessary for the GJ to hand down an indictment. Of course, it would seem he’ll be a witness if there is a trial concerning Stacy’s disappearance, but, at this point, there’s no GJ testimony of his on record to challenge if and when he does become a witness.

  3. Rescue, exactly how LONG has the grand jury been assigned to this case?? Any logical person can see there is enough evidence to say yes, there is probable cause to return an indictment. I just don’t understand the snails pace at which they move.

  4. great2bnorth – long, long time. Over a year.

    I was looking back through a lot of stuff yesterday, and there’s references by Sgt. Burek of the ISP, the one in charge of the Stacy investigation, and he said months ago that he was confident that there’d be an arrest, and that there was a lot of evidence.

    My reasoning for the long delay in the GJ handing down their indictment is they’re going to go ahead with one case at a time, but waited until the GJ was finished hearing evidence on both. That, and the fact that there’s probably an extensive investigation going on, a “third” prong, regarding the way Kathleen’s death was investigated in the first place.

    I don’t understand why many say “if they had enough evidence by now, he’d have been arrested.” Since he’s not going anywhere, and once he’s arrested the clock starts ticking down on them going to trial, why isn’t that being considered by these same people as a reason for LE continuing to get their ducks in a row? Doesn’t it make sense that if they are never able to find Stacy’s remains, and if they’re going to go ahead with all of the puzzle pieces they have to prove he did harm her, they’d make well sure they have him nailed? Besides, the more he yaps and makes statements on tv (like answering Dr. Phil as to why he was near the Canal the night of Stacy’s disappearance!), the more they have to discredit him, I think.

  5. In the unlikely event he’s not arrested and charged with any crimes, wouldn’t everyone expect his lawyer to publicly ask the prosecutors to issue a statement indicating that their investigation continues, but Drew Peterson is no longer considered the prime suspect in his wife’s disappearance? I can’t imagine Brodsky not doing that, since he’s always whining about everything else.

  6. Inside the Peterson and Savio investigations

    Posted: April 15, 2008 04:22 PM
    Updated: April 15, 2008 11:31 PM

    by Kristy Mergenthal

    EAST MOLINE, Illinois — It’s the case that’s hit airwaves across the nation since October. The disappearance of Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy and every little detail of the case is locked behind doors in East Moline.

    It’s the black folder every media outlet would love to get their hands on.

    “This has literally the entire timeline in it which is huge.”

    Illinois State Police Sergeant Tom Burek is normally stationed at police headquarters in East Moline, but these days he’s taking on the case of a lifetime, overseeing public information for both the Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson investigations.

    “I pretty much lived the Savio and Peterson investigation” said Sgt. Burek.

    Sergeant Burek says in the early stages of the investigation, the timeline was only the size of a flag posted on a wall. Now, after four months it’s more like a book.

    “Within weeks they would take it down. The sheet would get longer and longer, just massive” said Sgt. Burek.

    In December, Burek was assigned to handle the growing media interest in the highly publicized case.

    “It’s very dynamic as soon as something seemed to calm down something new would come up.”

    Until three weeks ago, Sgt. Burek lived out of a hotel in Chicago working at least fourteen hour days, learning intimate details of both cases.

    “I would attend briefing at eight in the morning for Peterson investigation which was long, soon as that concluded I would walk to another building and sit in on briefing for Savio investigation.”

    For hours, even from his desk at district seven State police headquarters, Burek constantly turns to the news, monitoring stations for wrong information.

    “I try to watch best I can.”

    Burek says investigators try to stay objective but it isn’t always easy.

    “Part of team is to formulate opinion based on information, no doubt I have opinion on what I know” said Sgt. Burek.

    On April sixth, a key piece of evidence washed up on Long Beach. In a matter of minutes news crews were on scene wanting the inside story.

    “As soon as people hear a blue barrel they think Stacy Peterson and it was my decision to refer them to jurisdiction rather than us make a statement.”

    With little evidence made public recently, most media have pushed this case to the back burner.

    But Sergeant Burek says that hasn’t stopped leads from coming in and police from investigating.

    “From all over the world we get tips from psychic and people who hear stuff, they literally follow up on everything.”

    Sergeant calls this the biggest challenge of his 21 year career and says the details he carries with him makes him feel as though he lived the two weeks prior to Stacy’s disappearance.

    “It was unbelievable amount of information that was gathered on this case, mindboggling what we know, how found out and amounts of data sorted out, he went on to say, “I definitely think this investigation team is going to bring to conclusion very confident arrest made some day.”

    Sergeant Burek has to have his bags packed, ready to head to Chicago at anytime and says he’s a part of this case until it goes from investigation to prosecution.

  7. I’ve always wondered about this report. Was it the barrel or not? Doesn’t actually say? I know the first sentence below is a voiceover, not Burek speaking, but…

    On April sixth, a key piece of evidence washed up on Long Beach. In a matter of minutes news crews were on scene wanting the inside story.

    “As soon as people hear a blue barrel they think Stacy Peterson and it was my decision to refer them to jurisdiction rather than us make a statement.”
    * * * * *
    Followed by:
    * * * * *
    For hours, even from his desk at district seven State police headquarters, Burek constantly turns to the news, monitoring stations for wrong information.

    “I try to watch best I can.”

  8. Hiya, Bucket. I’ve often wondered about that remark about the blue barrel also. It doesn’t seem clear and simple that he’s denying it’s “the” barrel, does it?

  9. I thought it was interesting that Drew thought ‘resolution’ might mean that there would be some official declaration of the case going cold and that he is no longer a suspect.

    I just can’t imagine a scenario in which that would happen. I’ll think DP will always be suspect #1 unless by some miracle Stacy shows up alive somewhere.

    LE would need to have some very compelling evidence to the contrary to publicly let him off the hook, don’t you think?

  10. Here’s a media story I haven’t seen posted here yet.

    NBChicago

    AP

    Hearsay statements might apply to missing Bolingbrook mother Stacy Peterson, the wife of retired Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson. State Police say he is a suspect in her “potential homicide.”

    The Illinois State Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved legislation that would allow the dead to testify from beyond the grave.
    A minister has said that Stacy Peterson told him that Drew Peterson killed a previous wife, Kathleen Savio.

    The law might also come into play in the Savio case. She sent a letter to a prosecutor that said, Peterson “knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead.”

    In Wisconsin last year, a judge allowed jurors to hear such statements in the trial of a man accused of poisoning his wife 10 years ago. In the weeks before the woman’s death, she wrote a letter to a neighbor indicating that she believed her husband was going to kill her.

    The man’s lawyers argued that such statements should be kept out of evidence because the Constitution granted him the right to cross-examine his accusers. However, the judge argued that he may have forfeited that constitutional right to cross-examine by rendering his wife unavailable, in this case, by killing her.

    The Illinois legislation would take effect immediately if approved next week by the House.

  11. BTW – I wonder what the resolution of that Wisconsin case was. Don’t know if the jurors considered the hearsay and used it against the man, or didn’t find it to be worthy. Just thought it was interesting that the judge allowed the hearsay evidence.

  12. BTW – I wonder what the resolution of that Wisconsin case was. Don’t know if the jurors considered the hearsay and used it against the man, or didn’t find it to be worthy. Just thought it was interesting that the judge allowed the hearsay evidence.

  13. I wonder if the prosecution has looked into the current hearsay exceptions.

    “The Federal Rules of Evidence, which outlines the admissibility of facts into evidence in federal trials, contains an entire section devoted to hearsay and lists 30 exceptions to the hearsay rules”

    There are 6 exceptions that are permitted if the declarant is unavailable to testify:

    http://research.lawyers.com/Hearsay-Exemptions-if-Witness-is-Unavailable.html

    And 24 exceptions that are permitted even if the declarant is available to testify:

    http://research.lawyers.com/Hearsay-Exemptions-if-Witness-is-Able-to-Testify.html

  14. Rescue, here’s a CNN article about the case:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/21/jensen.verdict/

    Husband guilty of murder in ‘letter from grave’ case
    By Ann O’Neill
    CNN

    (CNN) — A jury in Wisconsin found Mark Jensen guilty of first-degree murder Thursday in the 1998 poisoning death of his wife after a trial that included what prosecutors said was a haunting letter from the grave.

    Defense attorney Craig Albree advises Mark Jensen after the juryfinds him guilty.

    1 of 3 The jury of seven women and five men deliberated for nearly 32 hours over three days.

    Jensen sat stonefaced at the defense table as the jury was polled. He showed little emotion during the six-week trial.

    His bail was immediately revoked. Attorneys will return to court Friday to set a date for sentencing. Watch the drama in the courtroom »

    The conviction carries a mandatory life prison sentence. Whether Jensen may some day be eligible for parole will be decided at the sentencing hearing.

    The jury’s verdict came nearly a decade after Julie Jensen was found dead in her bed. The cause of death: Poisoning by ethylene glycol, the main ingredient in antifreeze…

  15. So according to that wouldn’t this exception make both Kathleen’s and Stacy’s statements about being afraid for their lives already admissable?

    “Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. “

  16. Thanks, Facs.

    The letter writings of the lady who’s husband poisoned her would be compelling, I would think, just as would the letters Kathleen wrote. Kathleen’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, had such types of letters in his file:

    RC: Had she . . . she had written you letters concerned that Drew was going to kill her or hurt her.

    HS: She had. I had a copy of a letter that she had sent to some other people and she’d written some letters to me generally that did talk about that.

    RC: OK, so there was . . . she was fearful and this was . . . was this in that period of time after they were divorced, but before she died?

    HS: No.

    RC: This was before she was divorced?

    HS: This was throughout the entire time period.

    RC: OK. And how many of these, ah, um, “letters from the grave” were there, would you say?

    HS: There’s a lot of them. I mean, it wasn’t always a letter saying “I, Kathy Savio state . . . ” That’s not how it went, but there were allusions to these fears in correspondences to my office. This is certainly in the letters. I think it was out there that this was sent to a couple of public officials, um . . .

    RC: And does it say he would make it look like an accident?

    HS: Yeah, that was sort of the tenor of it and, you know, it’s tough because there are many allegations that occur in the course of a divorce case. So it’s . . . sometimes you hear that and put it aside, but she did persistently make those claims, that’s, that is correct.

    I’m good with the letter and journal aspect of the Hearsay Law. As to what else gets to trial, I guess that’s up to the judge to decide, and/or the jury to figure out, depending on what they believe or not.

  17. “Statement under belief of impending death.”

    That would seem to apply in Kathleen’s death, what with all the letters she wrote, besides expressing her fear to others.

    As to Stacy – yes, her sister, Cass, and Sharon, did say she was fearful of Peterson, but I wonder if she did keep a journal of some kind, maybe on that mysterious missing laptop we’ve heard about.

  18. I wonder if the person that goes to the court hearings with Peterson is wearing a wire, because that person seems to be going waaaaaaaaay overboard in defending Peterson by spinning the truth, ala Drewpie and Brodsky, and make herself look overly concerned and caring.

    Quick get me my boots and a shovel. The muck is getting deeper and deeper.

    Cluck, cluck.

  19. Naw, Bucket, you’re right, but she likes to think she’s important. She’s figured out that the rest of the world is all wrong and her Drewpie is all right.

    Cluck, cluck.

  20. Bucket, I’m sure he and Joel recognize a fan-gurl when they see one. Drew will use her to spread gossip and such and to feed his ever-hungry ego, but they’d never trust a loon like that with any details of the actual case.

    It is funny when she talks about sneaking around to avoid detection. Is there anyone left who doesn’t know her name? No reporter is interested in her because they all know who she is now. I’ve said it before – no one is interested in interviewing the president of the fan club.

    In a way I feel bad for her. There’s going to come a point when they will no longer have a use for her. What will she do then? 😦

  21. Well, Facs, she can spread the gossip about him being vindictively and selectively prosecuted, he’s a great father, his kids are wonderful, but I think the line should be drawn at posting about the victim’s family and friends’ personal sex lives and who’s living with who.

    I can go back and find tons of posts where this woman was obsessed with the idea that Drew was dating a woman back in the early part of the year, to the extent she wanted her name and address.

    And, yes, everyone does know who she is. Even the flirty reporters.

  22. Just a little comment before I go to bed….

    JB insists that The Gun was only ever used to protect the people of Bolligbrook? I’ve got photographic evidence that it was also used as a photographic prop.

    Goodnight. 🙂

  23. rescueapet // November 14, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Well, Facs, she can spread the gossip about him being vindictively and selectively prosecuted, he’s a great father, his kids are wonderful, but I think the line should be drawn at posting about the victim’s family and friends’ personal sex lives and who’s living with who.

    I can go back and find tons of posts where this woman was obsessed with the idea that Drew was dating a woman back in the early part of the year, to the extent she wanted her name and address.

    And, yes, everyone does know who she is. Even the flirty reporters.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Yes that’s right.

    The woman went into a flap (excuse the pun) about who Drew was dating.

    She wanted this womans address so badly in order to “warn her how dangerous Drew is”.

    When reminded of these posts she said she was doing this whilst working “under cover”

    Hahahahah, cacking myself here !

  24. / April 20, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Where is lake wood falls ? I believe you, theres no problem there. I just want as much info as possible at this point in time. Also to Concerned For Stacy: I have been a fool and I am sorry that I fell for alot of things. I was trying so hard to have faith that he was telling the truth and give the benefit of the doubt, but after this coming out I am not so sure anymore. Like I said he can date but why lie about it? Theres no point to that at all.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/the-search-for-stacy-week-in-review-17/#comments

  25. exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    I was on the internet last night trying to figure out where she lived in the area. I found a name and address that matched in Lemont. I wanted to make sure I was right. This lady is in danger. There has got to be a way to alert people around her and help in that effort. John already said that she was not smart when it came to men. If Drew is lying about them dating on national tv what else is going on? After being in law enforcement you do ask alot of questions, its just my nature. If you do not ask you never get the info you need. I just worry that since john does not want to reveal who he is if he will go to ISP ? He has to be careful and I am thinking of anything I can do to help with anything I have raed on here. I even e mailed Stacys family. I am serious about this.

  26. So worried about Drew having a girlfriend who was in danger:

    Who is harassing or stalking ? No one ! Trying to save another life is more like it. AS far as the law goes, hopefully they will be watching over her and her kids.When a relationship is based on lies theres only trobule looming ahead. Just remember that he lied once again on national tv, not dating my foot.There is not one person on here that is not concerned.

  27. exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    John: I am at XXXXXXXXX88@yahoo.com, sorry I forgot the 88. its been a long day for me. I have e mailed Danya hooker on this site,steve dahl at 104.3, kristy Mergenthal, the newsroom and regular news line, . Another friend with Pd posted on Fox news blogs. I will do so later. I also used the email to contact Stacys family too. I will let you know what else I have come up with tomorrow, I worked 11 hours today and have a long day tomorrow. Hang in there with all of us on here we can and will help you. If any of you have other ideas please say so, John needs our help. This may save someones life.

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

    So…ex-law used to be all about identifying, tracking down and outing Drew’s girlfriends. Wonder what changed?

  28. Man, she really does fit the crazy stalker profile.

    I sincerely hope that those “other doors” she uses at the courthouse have metal detectors.

  29. LOL, and Brodsky uses her to keep Drew away from the press and entertained.

    I never thought I’d say this, but

    watch out Drew.

  30. exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    I was on the internet last night trying to figure out where she lived in the area. I found a name and address that matched in Lemont. I wanted to make sure I was right. This lady is in danger.

    ******

    Yes this ex-law person has been obsessed with Drews dating from day one, like he is some sort of prize !

  31. Yup, if you look at the link from 4/18, she was so desperate to help keep Drew’s date safe, she posted her email address for the blogger to contact her with all the information she wanted to track the woman down.

    Hens don’t do that. Just stalkers.

  32. Yeah, his the boo-bee prize. He should enjoy his time now, cause his time is running out quickly.

    Hoping for some action before thanksgiving.

  33. My feathers are a bit ruffled right now as I can’t work out why my hen avatar is so small in comparison to recue’s dog and facsmileys face.

    What is this hen supposed to do to make her avatar appear bigger ??

  34. “Sergeant calls this the biggest challenge of his 21 year career and says the details he carries with him makes him feel as though he lived the two weeks prior to Stacy’s disappearance.”

    I just picked up on something in this Sergeant Bureks statement.

    It says it feels like he “lived the two weeks prior to Stacys disappearance”

    Does this mean there is an indication Stacy’s murder was planned two weeks prior to her disappearance as to why specifically mention “two weeks prior” ??

  35. “Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. “

    ****

    Kathleen certainly did that.

    She left a lot of written evidence she feared for her life.

    Her sister also stated she had a case full of documentation re Drews abuse and letters Kathleen had written.

    Her Emergency room reports also attest she wasn’t making anything up just to make her husband look bad and here is Drew trying to make out Kathleen was a “hell cat” and was violent with him, so how come he didn’t end up dead instead ?

  36. whitesoxfan // November 14, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Hoping for some action before thanksgiving.

    I predict an indictment will be handed down on 11-20-08 😉

  37. iknow,

    At first I thought the 20th was too early by a day.., was thinking the 21st. Went back read Danya’s piece from last week, they are scheduled in court on the 20th. Thinking for security reason, they would hand it out with him in court.

    “Schoenstedt said he would rule on the motion at a final hearing scheduled for Nov. 20. Regardless of his ruling, he suggested the prosecution begin preparing the files the defense requested to speed up the process in the event he grants the motion.”

  38. I am basing my prediction on many things. I will list them in order of importance ( imo )

    #1 Hearsay bill will become Law
    #2 It’s a day he will be in court ( as white stated)
    #3 It’s a GJ day and I believe they will conclude
    #4 Intiution
    #5 ITS WAY PAST TIME

  39. I hate to get my hopes up. Just to stay cheery I’m assuming it will be years and trying to be fine with it. If anything happens sooner I’ll be pleasantly surprised!

  40. Well I have been wrong in my life many times, this time will probably be no exception.

    I am trying out this new age thing:

    Think it into existence.

    I’ll let you know if it works 😉

  41. Next week or the month after that, it’s still a day closer today. I feel he reached the absolute point of no return on Dr. Phil.

  42. I did find some of his comments interesting on Dr. Phil.

    1.)The red juice spilled on the bedroom rug.
    2.)Driving around by the I&M canal looking for Stacy.
    3.)Tom Morphey and interview.

    Almost seems like he was trying to discredit some things again.

  43. Just came across this on IL gov web se. House has amendatory veto on calendar for Nov 19th vote.

    Bill Status of SB2718 95th General Assembly

    ——————————————————————————–

    Full Text Votes View All Actions Printer-Friendly Version

    Short Description: CRIMINAL LAW-TECH

    Senate Sponsors
    Sen. A. J. Wilhelmi – James A. DeLeo

    House Sponsors
    (Rep. Careen M Gordon – Dennis M. Reboletti – Jim Durkin)

    Last Action
    Date Chamber Action
    11/13/2008 House Placed on Calendar Amendatory Veto November 19, 2008

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2718&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=37188&SessionID=51

  44. facsmiley // November 15, 2008 at 10:42 am

    I hate to get my hopes up. Just to stay cheery I’m assuming it will be years and trying to be fine with it. If anything happens sooner I’ll be pleasantly surprised!
    ************

    Facs – I think, IMHO, the years part of it will be what he spends in his new suite, the one with the cement walls, ceiling and floor. I don’t, however, think it’s going to be years before he’s charged with at least one of the crimes of homicide. I honestly don’t think the SA would put out press releases indicating they’re close to concluding at least one of the cases unless they had something behind that remark. Of course, whether he’s eventually found guilty is another thing, but that’s for another day. He must only hope that he’s accomplished what he’s wanted to by getting his side of the circumstances out to his future jury pool, heh? Me, I think he did a poor job of that, but he must know what he’s doing. 🙂

  45. 1/13/2008 – WBBM News Radio

    Pelkie reiterated State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s assertion that “resolution” of one of the cases in which Peterson is considered a suspect would occur soon.

    He’s officially only considered a “suspect” in Stacy’s disappearance/presumed homicide. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

  46. If bail is set, would he be able to pay? Is he a flight risk? How would the neighbors feel if he did make bail and was allowed to live there with the kids?

    If I was a neighbor, I may want to stay with some relatives if possible.

  47. Hi Whitesoxfan. Well, we’ll know soon enough what the prosecution is going to ask the judge to set the bail at, and the judge does have “extensive” surveillance tapes at his disposal. That should be interesting.

    Flight risk? I wouldn’t doubt that he’d try and blow out of town if and when the time comes that he’s arrested and allowed to be out on bail. But, with no passport, he’d have a hard time making it to Thailand to join Stacy, heh?

  48. They’re unlikely to bail someone who has threatened suicide by cop/posing threat of violence to arresting officers.Then there is the bad faith demonstrated when the judge granted him permission to leave the state when he implied that it would be t take the children on holiday…..not that the judge ruled that he had to, but still disingenuous bad faith. Suspect in 2 murders. I wouldn’t give him bail.

  49. This is very interesting reading. I vaguely remember the story about Dorsey Connor’s (a newspaper columnist) daughter. I’ve never seen this published article before.

    Originally posted: November 13, 2007

    You don’t need to find the corpse to convict the killer: 30-year-old case reminds us that `no body’ does not necessarily mean no justice

    The suburban wife and mother vanished suddenly and completely – simply left home one day, her husband said, and never came back. Their marriage was headed for divorce and she’d confided to others that she feared for her life. But during the massive, multi-agency manhunt that followed, the husband said, oh well, his wife had probably just run off with someone else.

    This was in 1977.

    Police and the public were very suspicious of the man, Edward Lyng of Palatine, even as today they’re very suspicious of Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson, whose wife Stacy disappeared Oct 28, three days after the 30th anniversary of the superficially similar disappearance of Stephanie Lyng.

    The Lyng story was huge, even without cable news channels to fuel the nation’s interest. Stephanie was the daughter of Sun-Times columnist Dorsey Connors (who died in September, 2007), and Edward was the wealthy owner of a vending machine company.

    As the search for Stephanie Lyng dragged on, the common fear — like the fear today in the Peterson case, the Lisa Stebic case in Plainfield and other ominous missing-spouse cases — was that if she had been murdered, there’d be no way, without a body, to prove it, much less convict anyone for the crime.

    The assumption sounds obvious. People do run away, after all — change their identities and disappear into the vastness of the world. Unless you find someone’s corpse you can never be 100 percent certain he or she is even dead, much less the victim of foul play.

    But the assumption is wrong.

    ….continued

    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/11/lyng.html#more

  50. Brodsky, in action again. 12/05/2007
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22114623/

    ABRAMS: That brings me to an interesting question. Joel, I want to ask you about this. You wrote a note to Fox News, an angry note, about an appearance you made on Fox News. And one of the things that you said is with regard to the timeline and whether you would talk about exactly what he was doing that night.

    You said, “The only way I will even consider addressing this issue is if the Illinois State Police release their report of the interview Mr. Peterson gave them shortly after Stacy‘s disappearance. Mr. Peterson will not repeat himself.”

    ABRAMS: Can you tell us what it is he said to the Illinois State Police about his whereabouts?

    BRODSKY: No. I mean, I haven‘t read the reports. He gave them a very full – it was a very long interview. It was a very complete interview, a very thorough interview. And I don‘t know all the details. I‘d like to get a copy of that report but they‘re not going to release it to me until and unless there‘s a charge.

    ABRAMS: So your concern would be, let‘s be honest here, your concern would be in saying what he was doing that night, you might say something that might be slightly inconsistent with what he said, intentionally or unintentionally?

    BRODSKY: Yes. Well, it wouldn‘t be intentionally. It would be unintentionally. And it would also be because what we‘re dealing with is human language and human memory and human recollection which is very imperfect. You say it once. You lay it out. You cooperate. You make your statement. You tell your story and that‘s it. You‘ve told it and you‘re not going to repeat yourself. And that‘s the way it is.

  51. The Brodsky stuff even more so. He still doesn’t know. I’ve always thought that’s going to be a big headache fr JB. DP is such a liar, he can’t rely on the versions matching up.

  52. KING: Do you talk to the D.A.? What do they say about the investigation? You are the lawyer, they are supposed to give you some information.

    BRODSKY: Since there’s been no charges, I’m not entitled to any discovery. But Jim Glasgow’s office and John Connor, who is the first assistant in charge of this case, are very professional, very courteous, very civil. They are doing their job, and they are going to do it in a professional manner. They are not going to bring charges if they don’t have proof.

    I assume — I don’t think they’ll ever have it, but if they do have proof, they will bring it. I talked to them in a professional manner quite often.

    Schoenstedt indicated that he intended to rule on the motion at a 1:30 p.m. hearing Nov. 20. Technically, the ruling itself would not terminate the case, but Brodsky said it would give him access to charging documents and other files not available to him now, and could be used as evidence to convince a jury to reject the charges.

    Will County State’s Attorney’s spokesman Charles Pelkie called the motion a “fishing expedition” that would provide Peterson’s defense team access to files that they otherwise would not be entitled to see.

    Ah, so make up a defense that the suspect is being unfairly targeted, ask for discovery that you’re not entitled to see, and hope you get a peek at the prosecution’s evidence?????

  53. Bucket – there’s soooooooo much out there – contradictory statements. Like Brodsky admitting he’s not entitled to discovery unless Peterson is charged, but then trying to get documents another way. I guess that would be well and fine for an attorney to try, but the guy makes admissions and statements all over the place, then contradicts them.

    Geesh.

  54. http://media.abcnews.com/US/WireStory?id=3901547&page=2
    (11/22/2007)

    Prosecutors also are listening, waiting for Peterson to slip and make a statement that doesn’t jibe with what he’s said before, defense attorneys say.

    “You should be very careful (because) the next time you watch, you could be sitting in the defendant’s chair,” said Mark Geragos, who represented Scott Peterson, the California man convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci.

    Three interviews Scott Peterson gave before he retained Geragos were played in open court.

    Scott Peterson’s own words in those taped interviews and taped conversations did him in, Geragos said.

    Defense attorney Gerry Spence agrees.

    “They never even proved a murder in that case,” Spence said of Scott Peterson. “The thing he did do was cheat on his wife. He got the death penalty for proof that he cheated on his wife.”

    Geragos said media interviews pose another hazard.

    “If they find (Stacy Peterson) and she’s dead and she was dead at the time the interview was done … those things look awful. Whether (Drew Peterson) had anything to do with it, it looks awful,” Geragos said.

    On Monday, it seemed that Peterson or at least the attorney he retained last week recognized that interviews are risky. During a brief interview on “Today,” Joel Brodsky would not let his client respond to most questions.

    “I think you will see his comments tailing off now,” Brodsky said Tuesday.

  55. BRODSKY: … Jim Glasgow’s office and John Connor, who is the first assistant in charge of this case, are very professional, very courteous, very civil. They are doing their job, and they are going to do it in a professional manner. They are not going to bring charges if they don’t have proof… I talked to them in a professional manner quite often.

    * * * *

    They’re good guys, they’re bad
    “Persecution!” scoundrels cry
    Vindictive defense

  56. 5/22/2008
    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/drew-peterson-faces-felony-weapons-charge/

    But Brodsky said his client broke no law by possessing the weapon because, as a police officer, Peterson was exempt from the law. Brodsky said Peterson registered the gun with the Bolingbrook Police Department and used it as one of his two SWAT team weapons. At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, state police spokesman Sgt. Tom Burek said Peterson had broken the law but declined to go into detail.

    “It’s illegal to have a barrel length less than [16 inches], there are exemptions in the law and I’m not going to debate those exemptions here today,” Burek said. “In certain circumstances, that possibility [of exemption] exists but that’s not the case in this situation.”

    Burek said the investigations into Savio’s and Stacy Peterson’s cases are moving forward methodically and that police continue to make progress on a daily basis.

    “We’re very confident an arrest will be made in this case,” Burek said.

  57. Do you remember JB saying that DP altered the barrel of the gun “about a year ago”? I’ll bet if he indeed registered it with BBPD it was before he changed the legal barrel to the 11″ one.

  58. Re the above about Drews time line:

    I am still totally amazed a time line appeared in the “Drew Peterson Exposed” book, considering Joel Brodsky has always insisted Drew gave his timeline to Illinois State Police and THAT’S IT.

    No questions, no debates, no official statements about Drews time line because if you “commit to a time line you have to stick to it” (Joels words not mine)

    Funny thing that – a timeline is the actual sequence of events and there is only ONE sequence and that is the order in which events took place.

    A timeline is not a sequence of events, depending on who’s asking !!

    Nevermind Joel !!

  59. Bucket – it would seem that way, wouldn’t it? But, the defense doesn’t appear to be swinging the way of barrels – it’s swinging the way of poor door, victim again.

  60. IMO, 2manymysteries, Armstrong may have insisted on some sort of timeline just as he insisted on the polygraph.

    If you notice, the official timeline in no way gives you Drew’s whereabouts and activities for the the whole period of time. There’s a good 5-6 hour chunk unaccounted for. You could easily insert the trip to Cushing field and back plus the trip to the coffeeshop with Tom Morphey and not have to rearrange a thing.

    More white noise.

  61. As far as Drews “official” timeline goes:

    If ISP already knows Drew killed Stacy sometime during the day and her body was removed from the house via a blue barrel, that automatically lumbers Drew with 3 hours of unaccounted time (between 9 pm and 12 pm of his own official timeline no less) when he said he was outside of his home “looking for Stacy” and gawking in the canal for her reflection or to see if her car was driving around somewhere by itself.

    It’s not what he omitted, it’s what he said he did.

  62. (11/22/2007)
    “I think you will see his comments tailing off now,” Brodsky said…

    By Matthew Walberg | Tribune reporter
    February 28, 2008
    Meanwhile, while Brodsky and Peterson flew to New York for his third appearance on the NBC show, Brodsky’s law partner, Reem Odeh, questioned the way the case was being managed.

    “I’m concerned that there’s more emphasis and more of an effort to cater to the media frenzy than there is to looking into the issues surrounding the investigations,” Odeh said. “It just seems to me that when there’s nothing going on with the investigation and things are quiet in the media, it seems like sometimes either Joel or Drew says something to start the media frenzy all over again.”

    Brodsky has mounted an aggressive campaign for media coverage.

    Asked whether she discussed those issues with Brodsky, Odeh said, “Absolutely. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

  63. “Asked whether she discussed those issues with Brodsky, Odeh said, “Absolutely. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it is in the client’s best interest to keep it quiet and focus on the case. But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.””

    I believe that was one of the articles Brodsky said Reem Odeh was misquoted and her statements were spliced and put together to give the article a completely diferent slant.

    You got to give it to Joel Brodsky, he can be very inventive.

  64. Facs, nice pied hen. As chance would have it I was shopping for a hen myself, I found one, but couldn’t get the avatar thingy to work.

  65. “The Big Story With John Gibson and Heather Nauert,” December 19, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    ………
    GIBSON: All right. But Joel, even if it’s a leak, these records evidently show that Drew was in a certain area where he says he wasn’t. That’s where his cell phone apparently pinged, and that’s why they conducted that search which has now being called off of that canal. Can explain where Drew was if his phone is pinging in an area where he says he wasn’t?

    BRODSKY: Well, like I say, I’m not going to get into time lines about where Drew said he was. He gave that to the state police, but anybody that’s ever had a problem with their cell phone bill knows that the cell phone records are not 100 percent reliable. They have millions upon millions of bits of data coming in almost an hourly basis and you know, while they are somewhat indicative of what can happen, they are not 100 percent reliable as we’ve just found out when the state police realized there are nothing there.

    NAUERT: Joel, you are his attorney, why can’t you tell us what his alibi is?

    BRODSKY: Well, because as any good lawyer will tell you, once you give a statement once and give it to the authorities — that’s where it ends. And we’re not going to go into the detail about that. Now, if the Illinois State Police wish to release the copy of Drew’s statement, that’s fine, but we’re not going to give another statement or another explanation about the timeline on that night. Remember, they said he’s a suspect. He’s the target of their investigation, so we have to be cautious.

  66. bucketoftea // November 15, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Facs, nice pied hen. As chance would have it I was shopping for a hen myself, I found one, but couldn’t get the avatar thingy to work.
    *******************

    It always takes me two tries. The first time when it tells me to crop, the handle are always up at the top of the page, nowhere near the photo. I just hit the back button, start over, and on my second try all goes well.

  67. That’s where his cell phone apparently pinged, and that’s why they conducted that search which has now being called off of that canal. Can explain where Drew was if his phone is pinging in an area where he says he wasn’t?
    **********************

    And now apparently he’s saying that he was near the canal.

    I think all this ‘white noise’ could badly backfire for them. Joel’s theory is that if you give enough different version, you won’t have to answer to any of them, but I think a jury might be very interested in why you have 12 versions of the facts.

    Everyone knows that telling the truth is easy because you don’t have to work at it, whereas lying is hard work. You have to think everytime you speak, and you may not always be able to keep your lies straight.

    When you give a lot of different versions all it does is make you look like a liar.

  68. Oke I’m back and found myself a nice plump battery hen that fills out the avatar nicely.

    I think I will stick with this colorful bit of plumage !

  69. How is anyone going to believe anything Drew and Joel say, when they have this “white noise” tactic.

    It is infantile and childish and it will sink them.

    A Jury is going to want to hear and seek the truth, not a million distortions of what it may possibly be.

  70. Drew is looking for Stacy for over 3 hours
    Drew isn’t looking for Stacy as she isn’t missing

    Drew is not at the Canal
    Drew is at the Canal

    Stacy left her car at the Airport
    Stacy didn’t leave her car at the Airport
    (Drew goes “looking for it” in an opposite direction)

    Stacy took $ 25,000
    Stacy didn’t take $ 25,000

    Stacy took the deeds to the house
    Stacy didn’t take the deeds to the house.

    Drew was asleep when Stacy “left”
    Drew was awake when Stacy “left” (the children heard them fighting).

    Stacy went to visit Grandpa
    Stacy didn’t visit Grandpa

    Stacy went to paint the house
    Stacy didn’t paint the house

    So much white noise, it’s deafening !

  71. Year After Stacy Peterson Vanished, Husband Calls It ‘Just Another Day’

    Tuesday, October 28, 2008
    By Sara Bonisteel

    Last week, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow issued a statement about the Savio and Stacy Peterson cases, indicating that a special grand jury is still weighing evidence in both.

    “I fully expect there to be a resolution in at least one of these investigations in the near future,” Glasgow said.

    ————————————————————

    Sure hope Mr. Glasgow makes good on this SOON!!!!!!!

    Hope it wasn’t some puffed up statement for political purposes.

  72. teneleven,

    Sure hope Mr. Glasgow makes good on this SOON!!!!!!!

    Hope it wasn’t some puffed up statement for political purposes.
    —————————–
    IMO, I don’t think so and as long as IL House signs the amendatory veto on Wed the 19th, may seen some action Thursday or Friday.

Comments are closed.