Your Thread – November 17

Good morning everyone!

~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.~

About these ads

129 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 17

  1. Drew Peterson talks with divorce lawyer
    November 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)
    Former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson has met with Jeffery Leving, a Chicago attorney who specializes in the rights of divorced fathers, to talk about a possible divorce from his fourth wife, Stacy, who has been missing since Oct. 28, 2007.

    “I’ll confirm that Drew Peterson did have a consultation with Jeff Leving,” said Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s criminal defense attorney.

    Peterson, 54, is a suspect in his wife’s disappearance, which police have labeled a “potential homicide.” Authorities are also re-investigating the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    In Illinois, willful desertion or abandonment for at least one year is grounds for a divorce. Brodsky said Peterson met with Leving after the year anniversary of her disappearance. Derek Armstrong, author of “Drew Peterson Exposed,” reported the meeting Monday.

  2. Report: Drew Peterson Seeking Divorce

    Suspected in the disappearance of his wife, ‘Crime Report USA’ reports that Drew Peterson intends to end his marriage to Stacy.

    http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=990&z=4

    (PRNewsChannel) / Chicago, Ill. / Drew Peterson, suspected in the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy, secretly met with high-profile attorney Jeffery Leving to consult on a possible divorce, ‘Crime Report USA’ reported today.

    Drew Peterson confirmed to the crime web publication that he met with Leving—famous as the champion of father’s rights—to determine if Stacy’s “desertion” of him would be sufficient cause for divorce action in Illinois.

    Reporter Derek Armstrong says he confronted Peterson by phone, asking for confirmation prior to releasing the story. He says Peterson repeatedly denied the meeting, until reminded he had disclosed his intention to divorce Stacy in an interview for the tell-all book ‘Drew Peterson Exposed,’ authored by Armstrong and published in October. Armstrong says Peterson told him: “I’m just getting information right now. I’m exploring options.”

    Divorce for Desertion?

    When asked how he could apply for a divorce in the circumstances, given he is a suspect in her disappearance, Armstrong says he replied, “Desertion. She deserted me. I’ve always said I’m mad about that. But I’m looking into this for the kids. This neighborhood is not healthy for my kids.”

    Pressed on whether he intended to sell the house and marital assets, Peterson offered no comment, but when asked if he would like to move away, he said, “(Getting) out of the neighborhood is important for the kids. Some of the people around here are nuts.”

    Pending Gun Trial May Limit a Move Out of Illinois

    Peterson may find moving away limited because of a pending trial where he faces felony gun charges for allegedly possessing a modified assault rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches and therefore a violation of Illinois law, the state has charged.

    Leving is known for championing father’s rights and is not afraid of controversy himself. He represented Elian Gonzales’ Cuban father who eventually won his battle for custody of Elian from Elian’s Miami-based family who were raising him and fought to keep him. Elian’s mother died fleeing Cuba; Elian survived the journey.

    Leving had no comment beyond confirming that Peterson came to his office.

    In several previous interviews with Armstrong, for the book Drew Peterson Exposed, Peterson indicated he felt persecuted by continual media coverage.

    When asked if he expected Stacy Peterson to ever return, Armstrong says Peterson replied, “Why would she return to all this?” Armstrong says Peterson declined to comment on whether he’d sell the house he shares with Stacy or dispose of any marital assets.

    Peterson, 54, is also as suspect in the alleged homicide of his third wife Kathleen Savio.

  3. “Desertion. She deserted me. I’ve always said I’m mad about that. But I’m looking into this for the kids.”

    So is something keeping him from changing neighborhoods? As far as I know, he’s only supposed to remain in the state of Illinois. Anyone know different?

  4. I wonder if he has to meet certain legal requirements to prove that Stacy deserted him? It would seem he’d have to be forthcoming with a lot of information – like the trail of that $25,000 he says she took, some kind of foll0w-up information that he’s been able to have investigators track her down and watch her. I don’t see how he can do this without some exposure to himself.

    But, as with everything else, there’s nothing common about anything involved with Peterson.

  5. Funny to think of Armstrong sitting in his farmhouse in Toronto, and doing all this “investigate reporting” on the crime situation in the US.

    Can someone tell us what news agency Armstrong work for?

    Hey, if sitting at home,in front of your computer and writing stuff up to appear on blogs makes you a reporter, then I’m a reporter too!! We’re all reporters just like Derek!!

  6. Ooops – upthread I cut off the quote too soon. I meant to include the part about the neighborhood being bad for his kids.

    Sorry – it made no sense the way I copied it.

  7. By that trail of the $25,000, I mean, didn’t he not know she took that money out of some funds of theirs to pay off an equity loan, but then, when he claims she took off, he said she took $25,000 with her from the safe? That is how it happened, right?

  8. Rescue, I was just talking to someone about this and we aren’t sure, but the burden of proof may be on the missing spouse to prove that they didn’t abandon the family.

    Drew may just have to publish some notices in some newpapers or something.

    I’m not sure, though.

  9. LOL :D
    Armstrong should be reading blogboardforums. He would have known DP was planning to file for divorce at the one year and one day mark.\

    Had to laught at this statement: In several previous interviews with Armstrong, for the book Drew Peterson Exposed, Peterson indicated he felt persecuted by continual media coverage.

    Would that be the continual media coverage that Drew or his lawyer instigated? ;)

  10. Why is Derek Armstrong “exposing” all of this additional information? In all honesty, little tidbits of this same crap is what exlaw writes about after a court hearing. It’s as though Peterson and Brodsky spoon feed these people what they want disseminated, and then, wah lah, a few days later, there it crops up. Very strange. Except, that Armstrong is doing whatever he can to keep interest alive and, possibly, garner sales of his book.

    It’s been no secret that he was going to do this divorce tactic, because he was talked about itearlier. If he’s got another hottie lined up to consider wiping off the face of the earth some day, he can’t exactly complete his life with her, and that of his kids, unless he makes a move like this, so this is not exactly a big revelation.

    I must admit he is one bold, sarcastic, in-your-face, dude. Amazing.

  11. Hiya!

    Divorce seems a bit overkill.

    What is up with D’armstrong and the three stooges? Is he just leaking stuff for them? Looks like a DP/JB press release.

  12. Slightly off-topic but…

    I take a giddy schoolgirl’s delight in the fact that so much on Armstrong’s many websites is so completely effed up. Broken links, content that disappears depending on which browser you are using, etc.

    It’s an evil glee…but glee nonetheless.

  13. … the respondent has wilfully deserted or absented himself or herself from the petitioner for the space of one year, …

    How could Drew prove Stay wilfully deserted him?

    He’s had no contact with her other than the alleged phone call in which she said she was leaving him and the car was at the airport.

    Is there more evidence that we don’t know about, Drew?

  14. rescueapet // November 17, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Noway – I see we both remembered the divorce thing being “exposed” months ago.
    _______________
    If only we were crack investigators like Derek Armstrong. There’s no telling what we could find.
    ;)

  15. facsmiley // November 17, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Noway – Selig is servicing Armstrong as well now.
    _________________
    I know you didn’t mean this how I took it. But … :D

  16. # What if I or my spouse has committed adultery?
    If you are the one who has found someone else, honesty is the worst policy. Do not tell all. Decide if the marriage is over for you, and get a lawyer. Do not make overly generous offers of settlement out of guilt. If your spouse has found someone else and you think the marriage is over, consult an attorney before you confront your spouse so that you do not inadvertently condone your cheating spouse’s behavior or prejudice your ability to secure the evidence of adultery you may need to present in court if you decide to file for divorce based on adultery.
    # If I am separated from my spouse and I date other people, can I be charged with adultery?
    Yes. Either party can allege adultery at any time up until the divorce. Even if you have a valid separation agreement, it is still technically adultery if you engage in sexual relations with someone not your spouse while you are still married.
    # What is desertion?
    Desertion is intentionally leaving the marriage with the desire that separation be permanent, against the wishes of the other spouse; desertion is not merely taking a trip. Separation by mutual agreement is not desertion. To prove desertion one must prove an intent to end the marriage on the part of one spouse, prove that the spouse who was left did nothing to justify the other’s leaving, and prove that the leaving was against the wishes of the person who was left. To prove desertion by one spouse, the other spouse must be blameless. To keep your options open, if your spouse tells you he or she is contemplating leaving, don’t agree! If you are contemplating leaving the marital residence, consult an attorney first, if at all possible. Even if you are justified in leaving, removing yourself from the marital residence can have potentially negative impacts on a custody determination or prevent you from having access to important financial records and other documents kept in the home, to name just a couple of considerations you would want to first discuss with an attorney.
    # Can my or my spouse’s desertion be excused?
    You or your spouse can be justified in leaving the marriage if you are told to get out, if you are abused by your spouse, if the actions or conduct of your spouse is causing you to suffer health problems and your spouse refuses to change, or if the conditions you are living under in the marriage are what a court might otherwise find to be intolerable.
    # What is constructive desertion?
    You can charge your spouse with constructive desertion when your spouse has not, and perhaps will not, physically leave the marital residence, but through his or her actions has essentially already left or deserted the marriage. For example, when a spouse has been abusive or cruel and his or her behavior is so severe that the blameless spouse leaves the home to escape, the cruel spouse is said to be guilty of constructive desertion even though that spouse remains in the home. When your spouse is guilty of constructive desertion it can be a justification for your leaving the home. However, unless you are in imminent danger, you should always consult an attorney before removing yourself from the marital home.
    # What constitutes cruelty?
    Cruelty usually involves violence, or fear of violence; one must also prove reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, which can include harm to one’s mental state as well as one’s physical well being. Acts of cruelty are usually cumulative, augmented by each additional act, although at first they are condoned to a certain point. Proof of a single incident which is so vile as to shock a court may also be sufficient for cruelty.
    # How long does it take to get a divorce?
    For divorces based upon either desertion or cruelty, a one year period of physical separation is required to finalize the divorce; there is no waiting period required for adultery, and upon proof of adultery, the court can grant an immediate divorce. No fault divorces also require a separation period of one year (six months if there are no minor children and there is a written separation agreement).
    # What kind of proof is required to get a divorce?
    All grounds for divorce, including a no fault divorce, must be corroborated by an independent witness who knows of the situation by means other than your telling the witness what happened. The standard of proof for adultery is clear and convincing; usually a detective will be required to prove that your spouse had inclination and opportunity, to commit adultery. Inclination can be a single hug or a kiss in public, and opportunity is usually spending the night with someone in a room or residence without other people around. Even if your spouse admits adultery, you still need an independent witness in addition to you and your spouse. The standard of proof for desertion and cruelty as well as for a no fault divorce is a preponderance of the evidence standard; you must have an independent witness in addition to your own testimony to verify the facts.

  17. To me it just looks like more attempts to boost the flagging sales of his not-very-interesting book.

    Wasn’t it last April that Drew was telling some poor woman that he was going to be able to divorce come November?

    Quelle Scoop, Derek!

    BTW, interesting that Drew knew a year ago that Stacy was not going to return alive.

  18. I remember it, too, and even better, that his talk of divorce surfaced after a blogger ridiculed him for not doing so sooner to support his claim that she’s still alive.

    Facs…times are hard, you gotta get your glee where you can ;-)

  19. I don’t know, it doesn’t exactly seem like this is going to sail through for Peterson. But, he is living and moving in his own world, and he seems oblivious to the rest of the world around him. Unless it’s a 20-something female that has attracted his attention for the moment.

  20. From Resue’s post above “desertion is not merely taking a trip. ”

    Um … better stop telling the kids she is on vacation, Drew!

  21. ResCue. The “C” requires pounding of the key (blaming the Anthony family on that one) on my laptop now. As does the “!” … it’s true. I post way too much.

  22. all the women i know who left their husbands, took their clothes and personal belongings. Stacy’s clothes are still hanging in her closet, according to Drew.
    —————————–

  23. facsmiley // November 17, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Wasn’t it last April that Drew was telling some poor woman that he was going to be able to divorce come November?

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

    Didn’t he tell Ashley he needed her to complete him back in March or April?

    Wasn’t he, himself, having extramarital affairs during this time period that Stacy’s been missing, while he’s still been married to her?

  24. Drew Peterson is ready for a divorce
    Published: Jan. 31, 2008 at 11:22 AM

    BOLINGBROOK, Ill., Jan. 31 (UPI) — Drew Peterson, a suspect in the more than three-month disappearance of his wife Stacy Peterson, reportedly wants to divorce her.

    Peterson is a suspect Illinois State Police have called in the case of Stacy Peterson, The Herald News in Joliet, Ill., reported Thursday.

    Peterson reportedly said his wife ran away with another man and he said he doesn’t want to wait for her any more.

    “She ran off with another guy. It’s that simple,” Peterson told the Herald News.

    Peterson said he may want to hire Corri Fetman, a Chicago divorce lawyer who posed naked for the February issue of Playboy.

    “If she wants to go out for drinks, give me a call,” Peterson said.

    Stacy Peterson was reported missing Oct. 29 by her sister. Drew Petersen said that Stacy Peterson told him the night of Oct. 28 that she was leaving him for another man.

    © 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  25. Drew Peterson Wants to Divorce Missing Wife

    Thursday, January 31, 2008

    Former Illinois Sgt. Drew Peterson wants to divorce his wife who vanished more than three months ago, The Herald News reported on Thursday.

    “Yeah, but I don’t think I can for a year or so,” Peterson told the newspaper about his divorce plans.

    Stacy Peterson disappeared in October and is believed to be dead. Peterson is a prime suspect but insists he is innocent.

    “She ran off with another guy,” Peterson said, according to the newspaper. “It’s that simple.”

    “First we have to see if she shows up,” he told The Herald News. “Then I think we have to wait for a year.”

    The ex-cop told the newspaper he would not mind getting legal advice from Chicago attorney Corri Fetman, who is expected to appear in Playboy magazine and has promoted her practice in racy billboard ads, according to the paper.

    “If she wants to go out for drinks, give me a call,” he told The Herald News.

    Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, died under mysterious circumstances in 2004, when she was found in a bathtub. Her body was exhumed for further forensic analysis, and officials have reclassified her death as a “homicide staged to look like an accident.”

  26. OK, so say Drew gets his divorce. What will he gain? He’ll be able to remarry, but won’t he need to divide their joint assets? Will her half be put in an account for her to retrieve?

    If he divorces her, he can’t keep all the assets, right?

  27. To prove desertion…one must prove that the spouse who was left did nothing to justify the other’s leaving, and prove that the leaving was against the wishes of the person who was left. To prove desertion by one spouse, the other spouse must be blameless

    LOL Nice try. Back to the drawing board…

  28. Good evening, Bucket.

    With all that is known about Drew Peterson and his relationship just prior to Stacy’s disappearance, and his actions almost immediately after up to the present, I think it would be sickening to think that it’s possible a divorce court judge would rule in his favor. But, with Peterson, anything is possible, I guess.

  29. http://www.illinois-family-law.com/adultery.php

    …In order to use Desertion as a ground for divorce, the deserting spouse must have willfully deserted or absented himself or herself from the other spouse for the space of one year, including any period during which litigation (for dissolution of marriage) may have pended between the spouses. The party claiming desertion must prove the absence of the other spouse for a minimum of a year and a day and must also prove, generally by testimony, that the desertion was not caused or provoked by the party left behind.

    Desertion may not be what you think it is.

    Illinois case law protects the innocent spouse in a situation where he or she is forced out of the home because of the other spouse’s behavior. The law will not allow the wrongdoer spouse, in this situation, to claim desertion against the innocent spouse.

  30. Looking at what a little Googling has turned up, I would say that Drew would have a very hard time proving that Stacy left him and that he had no part in forcing her to leave.

    Let him say that she took off – you’ve got half a dozen people ready to testify that she told them she was frightened of him and convinced that he might kill her.

  31. Good afternoon to you, Rescue!

    I hope his fiance is paying attention to this. She should be beginning to feel like she’s commenced a long walk off a rapidly shrinking pier.

  32. If Peterson is going to have to prove desertion, how does he prove she’s alive?

    How does a spouse divorce the other without any legal representation of the spouse that is being accused of desertion? Being accused of desertion is one thing, but falling off the face of the earth suddenly is another.

    With Drew Peterson’s track record, I can’t believe his circumstances aren’t going to be scrutinized like no other.

    Otherwise, how would he be able to get away with “losing” his wife to desertion without being able to prove she’s off somewhere with someone. ATM records, credit card records, cell phone records, SS# records?

  33. The party claiming desertion must prove the absence of the other spouse for a minimum of a year and a day and must also prove, generally by testimony, that the desertion was not caused or provoked by the party left behind.

    By whose testimony is this proved?

    Testimony of friends and family of the missing party?

    Testimony of friends and family of the party claiming desertion?

    Drew Peterson’s mother, Betty Morphey, interviewed in the Chicago Sun-Times:

    “I would tell her I’m ashamed of her for putting the family through this,” Morphey said. “She knows where she is.”

    Yes, Drew, let your mother speak on your behalf. I’m sure her “almost Alzheimers” won’t work against you.

  34. …or my patented professional intervention I employ as a Reality Coach. Ask Me! for an instant reality check…it’s safe and convenient!

    and if that doesn’t work, my patented plan b, as it were, is to stun my client with a mallet and put them in the cupboard until they see sense, or are sedated and removed by a qualified physician.

  35. I think this whole thing is very, very complicated, and it’s not looking to good for Peterson, IMO. Too many questions, to many mysteries, too many adverse issues.

  36. I think this whole thing is very, very complicated, and it’s not looking to good for Peterson, IMO. Too many questions, to many mysteries, too many adverse issues.

  37. Wonder why Drew felt he had to seek out some Dad’s rights specialist attorney. It’s not like he has a hotly contested divorce on his hands. I don’t think he’s going to have to worry about Stacy trying to get sole custody or claiming that he was a bad father.

    Anyone know why he’s going that route when no one has heard of or seen his wife for a year?

  38. Bucket, to resuce DP’s girlfriend, first you would need a ticket to backwards-land where people vie for the hand of double murder suspects.

  39. Author and Chicago attorney Jeffery M. Leving is a nationally renowned attorney who defends fathers who are mistakenly viewed as secondary parents. He and his staff of experienced attorneys help fathers with litigation and negotiation strategies while always focusing on what is best for the child(ren) – a relationship with both parents!

    http://www.dadsrights.com/

    Is Drew mistakenly viewed as a secondary parent? Who would say that about his sons’ best friend?

    If a relationship with both parents is what Jeffrey focuses on … he may have a hard time with this one.

  40. This is all it was supposed to say (maybe someone can delete the other long one):

    ***

    facsmiley // November 17, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Anyone who thinks she wants to be Mrs. Peterson #5 needs a family intervention and a 72 hour observation.

    ***

    … and an invisible wire that can be concealed under her skin (kind of like those birth control things they implant in your arm)!

    I don’t know if he’s ready to move on to wife #5 but truth is that until he is proven guilty in a court of law he technically has the right to move on and there are many people that think he is completely innocent (not just legally innocent) including some females.

    I cannot imagine him being able to trust people after learning that his friends wore wires though. How can he really know that the other person loves him and isn’t looking to either catch him regarding a crime so they can be a hero or looking to get some information that they could use in the future to make money on a book.

  41. :D
    Did you copy the entire thread? Been there and done that!

    But don’t know how it happens … have almost done it a few times after that too.

  42. Drew Peterson meets with divorce attorney
    (Published November 17, 2008)

    CHICAGO — An attorney for Drew Peterson says the former Bolingbrook police sergeant whose wife disappeared a year ago has met with a prominent divorce attorney.

    Joel Brodsky says Peterson met with Jeffery Leving sometime after the one-year anniversary of the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.

    Drew Peterson has been named a suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his wife. But he has not been charged in the case and authorities say the investigation is ongoing.

    Brodsky says Peterson has not filed for divorce. But he says Peterson went to see the attorney to get information about his rights and obligations.

    Under Illinois law, willful abandonment or desertion for at least one year is grounds for divorce.

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

    Other than the racy text message, thanks for riDDing me like a bucking bronco, exchanging messages with Scott Rosetto, a missing bikini, I wish someone would explain to me how he can prove she left him willingly.

    So far, there’s only been unsubstantiated sightings and pictures, he’s not divulged any credit or debit card activities, or anything involved with her SS #, and he’s claiming she took $25,000 out of their household money, of which he’s not officially shown that that money has been withdrawn but not accounted for.

    Also, yes, many think he is innocent until proven guilty, and he has every right to move on. Many of us don’t. Since we are not going to be on his jury and deciding his guilt or innocence, we’ll just continue to make our point based on the massive amounts of information he’s allowed us to be a part of.

  43. Thinkaboutit, I’m perpetually suprised at how willing Drew is to hook up with people online and in person and how quickly he tries to advance the intimacy between them.

    I think he’s addicted to conquest and needs at all times to feel that he is admired and loved.

  44. Rescue, let’s not forget that there’s also an ongoing investigation into her disappearance AND her husband has been named as a suspect in that disappearance. I think that will work against any claims of being deserted.

  45. It reminds me…there are a lot of masons in police in this country….is it the same there? No? Too many catholics?

  46. I can’t wait to see what it is that is required of him to legally prove that his wife deserted him. Granted, Mr. Leving is a prominent divorce attorney, but I am sure with his reputation and his years of practicing law, he’s counseled Peterson wisely as to just what it is he needs to show, without any doubt, that Stacy willingly left him, through no fault of his own. Mr. Leving is an attorney, not an illusionist.

    Good luck with that!

  47. No matter what your belief may be about the man’s innocence or guilt, anyone who would willingly involve themselves in his life at this point has got to have a screw loose.

    It’s not like he’s a 95-year-old multi millionaire with no heirs. You’ve got a middle-aged unemployed man with major legal problems, three divorces under his belt (working on his fourth), a long history of infidelity, allegations of abuse from his past wives, six kids from three different moms, one of who won’t talk to him.

    Whatta catch! :)

  48. bucketoftea // November 17, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    It reminds me…there are a lot of masons in police in this country….is it the same there? No? Too many catholics?
    *******************

    Now that I don’t know!

  49. Wow, Facs, when you put it like that, all in one place, that sure does give one pause as to whether he’s the babe magnet of the year. The year after his young, beautiful 23 year old wife mysteriously disappeared after telling him she wanted a divorce, and told others she feared Drew Peterson would harm and/or kill her.

    Yup, mighty fine babe magnet material.

  50. I’m still puzzled by him consulting a dad’s rights lawyer. Maybe he thinks that Stacy’s family will try to get custody of the kids from him?

    We know he can’t possibly be worried about Stacy showing up and wanting them.

  51. Maybe he sought a dad’s rights attorney because he wants to have the say as to whom will be given guardianship of his minor children, who they can and cannot see, and where they live, should he be going to live away from them in the concrete suite that is awaiting him. Maybe he wants to know if he can control his kids from prison and decide who can be in their lives and who can’t. Hmmm?

    He’s like Stebic – the man won’t allow his kids to see his wife’s family either. Court battles are the only way the grandparents can get anywhere with him too.

  52. Good point. He knows he could be arrested at any time. It would make sense to talk to someone about what might happen in that case. A dad’s rights specialist would know how to work things in his favor…but I daresay Drew isn’t his typical client.

  53. Hey, I have a good idea. Maybe the court lady that knows so much can tell us. I’m up for a recent news update.

  54. The kids’ issues would make more sense as to him seeing a dad’s rights attorney, or getting counseling regarding a divorce. Obviously, he WANTS a divorce, but that doesn’t mean things are going to go in his favor.

    As to the kids, he’s still their father, and he wants every possible legal say as to what they can and can’t do in their lives, no matter where he is, so I suppose he would need legal counsel in that regard. Setting up the minor children up with a guardian is one thing, but who acts for them legally, or in a medical crisis, is another thing.

  55. I’s that old control thang. He will find kindred souls (but not necessarily muderers) in Leving’s waiting room. The kinda guy who looks for a dads’ rights specialist is the same kinda guy who would sue somebody for alienation of affection, use the kids to get back at his ex, demand his exactly half time with kids even it means disaster for their ability to settle, remember to bring school stuff, etc. etc. It’s all about them.

  56. noway406 // November 17, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    Did you copy the entire thread? Been there and done that!

    But don’t know how it happens … have almost done it a few times after that too.

    ***

    I think that is what happened. Maybe only I see it but I feel bad if others do because you have to keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling!

    It’s Monday… ya know!

  57. ” He knows how to manipulate the law”

    That has always been Drews strongest point and I’m sure he will explore every avenue no matter how ridiculous or unjust to make any law work in his favor.

  58. Okay, well,

    Peterson has spent a year (even though he’s the one that hired a PR agency to get him on as many media shows as he can) whining that he’s a victim of bad press, who portray him as sinister,

    he was married to a flirty woman that went dancing with the wolves,

    has in-laws that are druggies, drunks, liars and money grubbing, book writing wannabes,

    is a former member of a police department of officers that abandoned him,

    has a former friend that said he hid a gun, which he denied, which has proven to be true,

    has former friends that wire tapped him,

    has a book author that focused more on the bad than the good in his story,

    has an ex-wife whose relatives filed papers with the court to reopen her probate estate which left everything to him, because they’re out for money and want to also write a book,

    well, no, I’m having a real hard time seeing him as the victim, who’s been deserted. I’m trying, but it’s reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal hard.

  59. As far as PR goes, Jeffrey Leving is probably a better choice than his intial preference for a divorce lawyer, Corri Fetman:

    Pro-divorce ad gets Chicago talking
    By Dirk Johnson Published: May 13, 2007

    CHICAGO: In a section of the Rush Street nightclub district sometimes called “the Viagra triangle,” a huge billboard rose up recently with photographs of a sexy, scantily clad woman on one side and a buff, bare-chested man on the other.

    The text between the photos proclaimed: “Life’s short. Get a divorce.”

    The ad, sponsored by a Chicago divorce lawyer, Corri Fetman, was meant to remind unhappy, restless or bored spouses that they have other options, some quite attractive. “The message is, if you’re unhappy, do something about it,” Fetman said. “It’s really no different than a motivational book that says, ‘Live the best life you can – be happy.’ “

  60. LOL, yeah, and he had a jaw-dropping moment about wanting to chit-chat with her, and she kicked him in his sorry butt……

  61. Having Stacy officially adopt his children with Kathleen Savio, took any rights away from the Savio family.

    Now Stacy with Stacy gone too, Drew will explore avenues the Cales family is not going to have any say in what happens to any of these children (Savio or otherwise).

    He may want to get married again in a hurry in order for wife no 5 to adopt all of them.

    I guarantee you there is a method in his madness !

  62. 2many – there is, yes, undoubtedly, a method to his madness. As much as I hate to admit this, he’s not out of line seeking counsel from an attorney that can advise him on what legal rights he has as far as his childrens’ futures are concerned, if he had a lucid moment and finally figured out he may be going away for a while. He’d want to know if he can make all the decisions regarding their visitations with family. That would make sense, especially, if he’s set up something with his adult son, Steve, to take the kids, but not burden him with the responsibility of deciding who and when they can visit.

    One thing is for sure – it’s a mess.

  63. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Steven Peterson, no matter which way you look at it, his future is pretty well stuffed because of his father !

  64. 2many – the responsibility of an under 30-something, newly married, expectant father, taking in four minor children is a massive undertaking, by any means, and he’s not in a position anyone would envy! I hope he’s got his head on straight, he’s not mixed up in any of this, and he is up for what is going to be a monumental task if he’s required to take in those kids. I really do. If they’re fond of him and he is of them, I hope it all works out, because those kids need somebody.

  65. guess who posted this on WP?????

    // April 9, 2008 at 9:17 am

    When you get a degree in law enforcement let me know. Drew is at home with his children.not in bars picking up ladies. He has been very careful in that reguard.I have been accused of many things, no again I do not know him, no I am not dating him.And yes I do think the family and freinds of stacy do everything in their power to upset him and his children.The photo in his daughters bedroom was not staged, Stacy herself put that sign there for her daughter.The trees were in his yard, not on the parkway. And yes sharon called his son over there while he was riding his bike and he did not know better. Peeling out normally gets a ticket. If stacys family ever wants to see those kids in the future its not going to happen in this lifetime. They have dug themselves in pretty good.If Drew gets his way sharon will be charged with a felony, which she deserves and she is not family !

    How does someone who doesn’t “know” Drew Peterson “know” all of these things?

  66. Does anyone know when is the next full moon, because someone very special uses it to “see” things:

    exlawenforcement // April 16, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    This is to lola: I do believe in the sixth sense. People do have it and use it alot. It is used in law enforcement. Anything is possible. I get mine thru dreams and I have not been sleeping very well thinking about all of this. Last night I had one that I am still mulling over. It had alot to do with this mess. Hopefully its just my gut kicking in and telling me things I already know or think. Its not a full moon yet and that really cranks things up. i will be interested to seeif anything happens.Thanks for your input, but you know I am still supporting drew .

    Exie – Last I heard, Lenny doesn’t howl at the moon. He’s been brave enough to wiretap a suspect in a missing woman/potential homicide case, and laugh off slurs and digs like yours.

  67. “This is to lola: I do believe in the sixth sense. People do have it and use it alot. It is used in law enforcement. Anything is possible. ”

    ****

    That’s probably why she is called EX-law enforcement.

    Her sixth sense and profiling obviously haven’t been working too well for her.

  68. exlawenforcement // April 21, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    John does denise work ? What is her brothers las name? What age is the other child she has ?
    *************************

    Scary, scary stuff…

  69. No, she calls herself exlawenforcement because she’s divorced from a cop. I’d be happy to find and post that, in her own words, if you’d like.

  70. Her words, not mine. Just sharing.

    exlawenforcement // April 14, 2008 at 7:11 am

    I left the state I was living in after a divorce from my cop husband. My family still lived here in the Chicago area and wanted me to come home. My mom was in her last years and my daughter needed help with her three kids. So home I came. I always missed Chicago and the timing was good. Thats why I am back here now. I resigned from the city and the school board I was on. I still go back several times a year to see all my friends in the police dept. and other people i care about.I changed careers once I moved back and got a real good offer to work close to home.

  71. I’d be very leery and careful about telling this woman anything, especially if it’s not helpful to Drew Peterson.

    (((hugs to all the WP Hens)))

  72. For those who haven’t seen yet…

    Body found near Lebanon was unidentified woman
    by Chad Plein, KY3 News

    LEBANON, Mo. — An autopsy on Monday revealed a body found northwest of Lebanon belonged to a white woman. The body was in concrete in a black plastic tote/tool box that was next to a fence on the right-of-way along Highway AA.
    The Laclede County Sheriff’s Department said the woman was 5-foot-5 to 5-foot-8, likely between 30 and 40 years of age, possibly weighed about 135 pounds, had medium brown hair that was 7 – 10 inches long, and piercings in both ears. She was wearing sleep attire, had had a laparoscopic gallbladder surgery and a full hysterectomy, and had no tattoos. Examiners think she might have had children.

    http://www.ky3.com/news/local/34608884.html

  73. rescueapet // November 17, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    No, she calls herself exlawenforcement because she’s divorced from a cop. I’d be happy to find and post that, in her own words, if you’d like.

    *****
    There’s also volumes written by her to say she herself is/was in LE.

  74. Very interesting video from Zenaida Gonzalez’s lawyer regarding Casey Anthony filing a countersuit:

    http://www.wftv.com/video/17996563/index.html

    Looks like he says that when you counter-sue (and state that you have been truthful and forthcoming with law enforcement) you HAVE to testify and that testimony can be used against you in a criminal case.

  75. just – I get confused. We merely repost what she’s said in the past, sometimes word-for-word. I wouldn’t (or couldn’t) make this stuff up. :)

  76. I know you don’t make this stuff up, but the LE person in question has a habit of contradicting herself on a regular basis.

  77. exlawenforcement // April 22, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Look at the new photos of Stacy and think about why we all are here.6 months of nothing, no answers. It could have been us.

  78. Back on track……..

    Is it tomorrow for the Hearsay legislation finality, or Wednesday? Thursday is the new court date. That should be very interesting.

  79. rescueapet // November 17, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Back on track……..

    Is it tomorrow for the Hearsay legislation finality, or Wednesday? Thursday is the new court date. That should be very interesting.
    ———

    It’s Wednesday!

  80. Hang’s has an interesting point over there. Exlaw’s comment about Len was that he and Paula were living with Sharon – that she took them in. Then, after Hang’s started a “rumor” that they were living in a van by the river, ex has now changed her story to that – they’re living in their van, and spending a couple of days a week over at Sharon’s.

    Living at Sharon’s and in the van. Can’t make this stuff up.

  81. I think the point has come to admit that the poor woman has baseless knowledge, she’s repeating things that are fed to her, and she just keeps digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole. In fact, I’m beginning to feel bad for her, since I think she has some deeply disturbing issues, and, in fact, Peterson and Brodsky may just be using her for spiteful reasons. That, or she’s taking it upon herself to do it. Either way, I guess it’s sad, in a way.

  82. I don’t know much about her, but am assuming she is not in the age category that DP prefers, you know, a child pretty much, but boy I bet he wishes she were.

    I don’t know her reason for her staunch support. Differnt strokes for different folks I guess.

    I personally am amazed by someone who does not entertain even slightly that he could be guilty of the death of 2 woman.

    I think she is the only one I’ve come across in following this thing for the past year.

  83. I just hope and pray that come Wednesday and the finality of the long awaited hearsay law, that his arrestfor Kathleen Savio’s murder is in quick time. Like real quick. This is what we’ve been led to believe is the hold up. If it is not so, then I am scared to death that it may never happen. That the state has nothing. That is a scary thought for me.

  84. Well, along with all of the many, many things this poor thing has posted that have been contradicted, back in April, in a desperate attempt to find out who DPeterson was dating after someone had posted here on WP that he was, she went into a frenzy trying to find out who she was, where she lived, how many children she had, and what her name was. On top of all that, if we dare call her out on all of this, she posts on SYM that we HENS don’t know what we’re talking about.

    Right. She’s in the know, and we’re all full of you-know-what. The funny thing is, we never used her “name” ourselves, and we were not the ones that posted her email to be contacted regarding Drew’s love interest.
    **********

    exlawenforcement
    IN THE END IS MY BEGINNING

    Re: Drew Peterson Kills Blog Discussion

    « Result #10 Today at 11:28am »

    So Hens: Its a fake e mail, I do not live in Coal City, my last name is not Patterson..guess again and flap away, your feathers are coming out daily. No arrest, nothing day 385…

    (um, why would someone draw attention to that name, when no one even mentioned it, but her?)

    *********
    Scott I agree with you. There are some good hearted souls out there, but the HENS on Word Press are NOT any of them.

  85. Rescue, I was just reading at the April 22 WP link you provided upthread.

    Does anyone know when, how her stance went from worrying about a girl he is dating being danger to he is a good man and could never have done any of what is being said?

    I am starting to wonder if Drew Peterson is aware of this whole situation? I sure hope he has more sense than to allow a stranger and basically a groupie around his children.

  86. Drew Peterson, without a doubt, shared online chats with a person he thought was “Ashley.” As we all know, Ashley was actually Lenny.

    In those chats, he was more than willing to meet Ashley, have her drive to his neck of the woods to his home, as a stranger, and be with him. He told her, without ever meeting her, that he needed her to complete him and his family. This is indisputable, and he has never denied chatting with “Ashley.”

    To say that he has “more sense than to allow a stranger….. around his children” is denying the obvious, since he doesn’t have the sense.

    Exlaw has as much right to blog as we do, and she can interject herself into his life from now until doomsday. The fact remains, if we here point out her ranting posts, she makes derogatory remarks about us and continues to spin herself into even more of a web of untruths and non-facts. We’re merely reading her spin and discussing it by posting responses in HER own words, and we’re doing a very good job of it, if I must say so myself.

  87. So, one of the lawyers says, on NG, that if DPeterson wants a divorce on desertion grounds, there’s going to be extensive investigation and discovery into whether Stacy is alive or not. Also, whether or not she had a Will. If not, the division of marital assets is another issue.

    Armstrong was on a phone interview, and he claims that it’s his understanding that Peterson is about to be charged with Kathleen’s murder, but it sounded as if he’s just speculating on that.

    They played a conversation between Armstrong and Peterson about his seeing Atty Leving, and Peterson sounded irritated at the questions being asked and evasive. He wants to move away because he says some of the neighbors are “nuts.” He had no comment about an impending arrest. His discussions with the attorney regarding a divorce were only preliminary.

  88. rescueapet // November 17, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    So, one of the lawyers says, on NG, that if DPeterson wants a divorce on desertion grounds, there’s going to be extensive investigation and discovery into whether Stacy is alive or not. Also, whether or not she had a Will. If not, the division of marital assets is another issue.

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

    Well, this is exactly what we thought the issues would be when we saw the press release earlier.

  89. It’s interesting that we haven’t heard much from these taped interviews that Armstrong has made available. Does he have no buyers? Maybe they are just overpriced.

    I imagine the older they get the less interesting they will be…

  90. OMG, this is amazing. BigM claims Lenny was actually funneling information to Drew, not LE, and we’ve all been conned. Claims he’s been tipping off Drew all along as to what’s going on. Says Lenny got drunk on more than one occasion and let it slip to Drew what was going on. That’s why Joel is confident there’s nothing on those tapes.

    Okay….well, then, why did Brodsky claim he didn’t believe they wore wires or there were recordings in the beginning, but then switched to, according to BigM, not worrying about what’s on those overhears? The news was full of quotes from Brodsky that he didn’t believe they were taping Drew, but that Drew was confident the tapes would clear him.

    Ah, that explains it. Drew knew he was being recorded, so he played along with it and may have said things to poke fun at LE.

    Okay…well, I know I read numerous reports in the media that the Judge has “extensive” surveillance tapes in his possession, and Joel Brodsky was surprised to learn of it when in Court at the time. DVD’s, CD’s, tapes? Isn’t that overlooking the big pink elephant in the middle of the room by saying Lenny & Paula’s “cover was blown from the get go” and a “little birdie” told BigM all of this months ago? Why is Joel trying so hard to figure out a way to get those tapes through discovery in the gun case by saying LE is being selective and vindictive, and wants their tapes to make his case for him?

    Next, we’ll be hearing that the little men they hid in the microwave forgot to turn on their recorders. I hate when that happens.

  91. Oh, and by the way, don’t tell me that LE is doing it again? They’ve allowed investigative materials to be leaked out, through whatever source, to a dude that administers and posts on a blog, the same one Brodsky used for his own blogging entertainment? Wow, looks like Drew’s going to get a free pass again, and all this news we’re hearing is just “hearsay.”

  92. I read big m’s post over at hang drew’s and I guess I don’t really get what he’s trying to say.

    It looks like he’s saying that Drew put Lenny up to wearing the wire…but then he says that Lenny blew his cover while drunk and/or high.

    Not a lot of sense there.

  93. Thats right ladies he got high and drunk infact on more then one occasion in drews presence and the big mouth all but admitted to what he and paula was up to”

    Wasn’t Joel Brodsky given a printed list of what surveillance the Judge has? I’m sure I saw that in the newspaper. So, he knows what’s in the hands of LE. I need to find that.

  94. On Thursday, Schoenstedt’s remarks confirmed for the first time that authorities have secretly recorded Peterson as part of their investigation.

    But what type of surveillance authorities carried out was not discussed in open court. The information is under seal, and Schoenstedt did not elaborate beyond saying the amount was extensive. Afterward, Peterson’s attorneys declined to comment further.

    “I really can’t get into the details of what’s printed in that list. But I would say that, if I’m police and I’m investigating a gun case like this, electronic surveillance is not going to play a big part in my investigation,” Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky said.

    How is it that the cops found out about the little gun that Peterson “transphered” to Paula, and then turned around and “confiscated” it afterwards? You mean to tell me Peterson knew he was being recorded by Len, but went ahead and transferred over a gun to Paula that he knew was missed during a search warrant? Now I’m really confused.

  95. Hurm…

    It appears that it’s WP’s “Blast from the Past” week… presumably my invite was lost in the post?

    *****

    basherette // April 24, 2008 at 1:31 am

    My G*d- I just had the most horrific thought:

    With Stacy “out of the way”, and Kathleen’s death officially now a homicide, DiP could claim that Stacy was Kathleen’s murderer- and by doing such, at least in the mind of a sociopath, get away with a “perfect” crime.

    Think about it…

    My G*d…

    I’ve got goosebumps…

    *****

    Creepily prognostic, no?

  96. Hey Bash.

    I know that after hearing what Matt Phelps said he was asked to write about in Drew’s book pitch, I was totally expecting to see that angle in Armstrong’s book.

    But instead it was addressed and dismissed there…something about her not having the strength to take on Kitty.

    Did you see that scenario alledged somewhere recently?

  97. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4107524/Broadsky-Letter

    This is the letter that Joel Brodsky wrote accusing ISP of psychologically damaging Drew Peterson’s children by allowing Lenny & Paula to become close to the children, only to be working undercover for them.

    I don’t understand why Drew and his lawyer, if they knew, by Len’s drunken admission what he was really up to, would continue to play along with this, knowing the children were becoming close to them.

    No, what did happen is that after the news came out about Len & Paula, Brodsky wrote this letter admitting he was irate about ISP allowing them to get close to the children, all as a ruse to tape record Peterson. That makes no sense to do if someone is now saying that the cover was blown all along!

    Hmmm. Something smells fishy about BigM’s rendition of what he’s posting really happened.

    Figure it out for yourselves.

  98. So if Drew knew about L & P wearing the wires ‘from the get go’ and then still allowed them to get close to his kids, then Drew has no one but himself to blame for not protecting the psycological welfare of his children.

  99. Kind of makes them look like idiots for crying foul over something they knew was taking place, heh?

    Enough of this nonsense.

  100. At this point in time, nothing really surprises or shocks me anymore…

    And *THAT*, Ladies and Gentlemen, is not something I ever wanted to feel about anyone or anything.

Comments are closed.