Your Thread – November 18

And Tuesday’s thread. To everyone that contacted me today, sorry for dropping off the planet while we worked  through a deadline. I’ll get through your comments later today.

~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

110 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 18

  1. 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 reinvestigating 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 one-year anniversary of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. Derek Armstrong, author of “Drew Peterson Exposed,” reported the meeting Monday.

    “I can confirm that he was in my office,” Leving said, but he declined to comment further.

    Peterson referred all questions to Brodsky. In the past, he has maintained that his wife, then 23, left him for someone else.

    He has also said that he wants to sell his house in Bolingbrook, which draws media and onlookers, and move away to protect his children. Recently, tensions between Peterson and his neighbors have also started to boil over.

    eslife@tribune.com

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

    Good morning everyone! The above not new, just Trib version.

  2. WBBM) – Could Drew Peterson be ready to divorce his fourth wife Stacy, who’s been missing for just over a year now?

    Peterson appears to be exploring his options.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WBBM’s Steve Miller reports:

    Drew Peterson may be ready to become an eligible bachelor again.

    One week ago, Peterson met with high-profile divorce lawyer Jeffery Leving, who specializes in fathers’ rights.

    “His attorney brought him to my office for a consultation, and I met with both of them and provided a legal consultation last Tuesday,” Leving told Newsradio 780.

    Attorney Leving says one spouse may divorce another and claim desertion if the other spouse goes missing for one year.

    Stacy Peterson has been missing now just over a year.

    Drew Peterson has been declared a suspect in her disappearance.

    As for any divorce plans Peterson may have, Leving told Newsradio 780 he hasn’t filed anything, and he says, “There’s a lot of issues that have to be resolved, and I guess we’ll see where it goes.”
    * * * * * * *

    JB went with him, Leving concedes “issues”

  3. DREW PETERSON PHONE INTERVIEW

    ARMSTRONG: Drew, on Wednesday I’m releasing a story that you are meeting a lawyer to divorce Stacy. Can you confirm this?

    PETERSON: No comment.

    ARMSTRONG: No denial either?

    PETERSON: No nothing.

    ARMSTRONG: When I interviewed you for “Drew Peterson Exposed” you mentioned that you would seek a divorce on the one year anniversary. You mentioned it was important to move out of Bolingbrook.

    PETERSON: I might have said that.

    ARMSTRONG: I have a confirmation that you have an appointment with a high profile lawyer (Jeff Leving).

    PETERSON: So?

    ARMSTRONG: He specializes in pre and post-divorce proceedings.

    PETERSON: Yes.

    ARMSTRONG: You’re seeing him about a divorce.

    PETERSON: I’m just getting information right now. I’m expoloring options.

    ARMSTRONG: On what basis? You’ve said that she’s a runaway. That she’s alive.

    PETERSON: A desertion. She deserted me. I’ve always said that I’m mad about that, but I’m looking into this for the kids. This neighborhood is not healthy for my kids because of Sharon Bychowski.

    ARMSTRONG: So it’s about selling the house and moving away?

    PETERSON: No comment.

    ARMSTRONG: Meaning you don’t expect her to return?

    PETERSON: Why would she return to all this?

    ARMSTRONG: So you’ll sell the house.

    PETERSON: No comment.

    ARMSTRONG: What about marital assets?

    PETERSON: No comment.

    ARMSTRONG: How far away would you move? You mentioned Kentucky and California in my previous interviews with you for “Drew Peterson Exposed”.

    PETERSON: Out of the neighborhood is important for the kids. Some of the people around here are nuts.

    ARMSTRONG: So Kentucky sounds good?

    PETERSON: Anywhere sounds good.

    ARMSTRONG: Do you expect a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict? I released some information to the media on your mock trial for the gun trial. Five found you guilty.

    PETERSON: Thirteen ‘Not Guilty’.

    ARMSTRONG: So then you’ll be free to move out of Illinois if you’re found ‘Not Guilty’.

    PETERSON: No comment.

    ARMSTRONG: Do you think the story of this divorce might encourage Stacy to contact you?

    PETERSON: I have nothing more to say.

    ARMSTRONG: What about rumors that the State’s Attorney is getting ready to indict for homicide on one of your wives?

    PETERSON: I told you, nothing to say.

  4. The jury breakdown from the mock trial was news to me. 13-5 not guilty and the jurors said they were not influenced by the situation with his wives. Each juror was paid $50.

    It’s interesting how much Drew says, considering how reluctant he seems to be throughout the interview.

    He says, ‘no comment’ and then he comments.

  5. Hi All…his reason for wanting to move is his neighbours are ‘NUTS’. As usual it’s not Drew that has a problem it is the rest of the world..

  6. Any word on the body found Mo?
    Why would someone take the time to in case a body in cement and then just dump it along side a road? Concrete could have slowed down the decomposition

  7. LOL grandam, sloppy killers. Far too heavy. Now, if I was going to do the concrete thing, I’d just put the concrete mix powder in it until the destination.

    Hi everybody!

  8. Grandam, did you see the post from Facs on yesterday’s thread? Not Stacy if that’s what you are asking.

    facsmiley // November 17, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    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

  9. Oh, leave Exlaw alone. She has every right to express herself. If you don’t like it, then don’t read it. Why is it when there isn’t anything to talk about, people dig up crap from April to talk about.

    And yes, I do think Drew is guilty, so don’t even throw that back at me.

  10. Well from what I skimmed over from yesterday, it seems like you all have a bad taste in your mouths for her. She is doing nothing different than what you all are doing here, except she is on the opposite court.

    Respectfully, I might add.

  11. As long as ex-law is in contact with Drew and Joel, appears publicly with them releases reports about the court proceedings as well as carrying messages from Joel and Drew, IMO she’s relevant and her participation is up for scrutiny.

    Lenny and Paula don’t post here but they are discusssed a lot. I’d put her at about that level of involvment.

  12. Ok, then if you believe everything you read on the internet…..

    I live across from Drew and I think it is awful that those kids have to see what they do.

    Believe that.

    Just because she says she speaks to Drew and Joel, does it really matter if she does? I’m not trying to start anything, I just don’t understand why you have to attack her because she posts things. If you want to involve her like you say she should be, then i guess that means that you believe her???

    For goodness sake, I could say I was Obama and had a little free time so i started blogging, would you believe that?

    Don’t attack her for what she post on a personal level, be an adult and just ignore.

    Board wars are just childish!

  13. Um, exlaw is putting herself out there as a close confidant of Drew Peterson and reports very intimate details about other people’s personal lives, so I think it’s fair game to pick apart her revelations, as we do with anyone.

    Drew Peterson or Joel Brodsky don’t blog here, that I know of anyway, and we do the same with them.

    How is that different, Noway and Georgia?

    Just asking.

  14. bucket, I have posted with exlaw before and we have always agreed to disagree. I have disagreed with many people, but i don’t like it when I see other boards bashing someone for what they think and express. She has every right to post anywhere and when she posts at SYM, she does to imform those members. It’s the people that like the drama that bring other posts from other boards and trash that poster.

    Im sticking up for Exlaw because she is not here to defend herself, if you want to bash me for that, then go ahead. I’m not here to start anything, it’s just fair is fair.

  15. Rescue, I’m not baiting anyone. when you read something someone else posts, you have your own decision to believe it or not. don’t attack someone for what they post, just attack what is posted. If you would like to find some of the examples, I can. Exlaw is a person, no matter is you agree with her or not, agree to disagree without name calling.

  16. Um, exlaw is putting herself out there as a close confidant of Drew Peterson and reports very intimate details about other people’s personal lives, so I think it’s fair game to pick apart her revelations, as we do with anyone.

    Drew Peterson or Joel Brodsky don’t blog here, that I know of anyway, and we do the same with them.

    How is that different, Noway and Georgia?

    * * * * * * *
    As long as ex-law is in contact with Drew and Joel, appears publicly with them releases reports about the court proceedings as well as carrying messages from Joel and Drew, IMO she’s relevant and her participation is up for scrutiny.

    Lenny and Paula don’t post here but they are discusssed a lot. I’d put her at about that level of involvment.

  17. I general I don’t have any personal feelings about ex-law. I do think that her behavior is stalker-ish and if I were Drew and Joel I would be concerned about her appearances at hearings, etc.

    There are lots of cases where someone’s obsession goes from being a ‘fan’ to ultimately doing violence to the object of their affection, or to themselves. I’m thinking of the most recent case with that poor girl from American Idol and her obsession with Paula Abdul. So, I think that her comments and behavior are up for discussion.

    Sometimes the comments do get too snarky and I apologize for that, but in my case, yesterday I was reacting a little too emotionally to some nasty things that she said about us here.

    Still, for teneleven to completely go off the deep end, violate the rules and post personal and insulting things about my family is inexcusable. My family members do not post here and have nothing to do with this case or the discussion.

    She also attempted to intimidate by using my boyfriend’s first name, which of course I have never used on these boards.

    That should have everyone who posts here concerned. It could just as well be your family that she goes after next.

  18. Point taken, Noway. I don’t doubt that she’s not the best source for information about the case and I’ll attempt to not react emotionally when she reports her version of the facts.

  19. Ok, I understand what everyone is trying to say. It just gets to me that posters attack other posters in such a vicious way. Maybe I haven’t been around that long, but the time i have, I have seen Exlaw, Kimmer, Amanda, Bigm, Annie, shall I go on….. torn to pieces by other posters. They start with name calling, then pictures, then personal info. The only reason I was defending Exlaw, was because she is not here to defend herself. I’d do it for anyone here as well as posters of other boards. I just didn’t want this to go as far as her info being posted, etc.

    and Facs, I never thought about what you posted.

    Respectfully agreed to disagree. ;)

  20. Good morning, afternoon or evening no matter what time zone your in. Happy Hearsay Law Eve. YIPPEEEEEE

    I wonder……How many more days until an arrest ? Hmmmmm

  21. I wonder….should we start a countdown until indightment ? LOL seems to be the “in” thing to do.

    I wonder….should I just stick with my Christmas calendar countdown instead ?

  22. Wonder, Thursday would be a beautiful day for an arrest IMO.

    Thanks, Bucket. I’ll take two. One is for Littlest NoWay! ;)

  23. A scone sounds like heaven!

    Here’s the breakdown of the jurors in the mock trial:

    Demographics and psychographics of the jury included more men than women, and an equal mix of republicans and democrats, but there was no obvious trend between political affiliation, age or sex in verdicts. Just under half of the jurors were gun owners or members of the National Rifle Association, but no jurors had ever worked in law enforcement or the military.

    Five of the eighteen jurors, who came down with “guilty” verdicts, indicated a very solid presentation from the defense team, in their comments. Those coming down with a “not guilty verdict” pointed to “vindictive prosecution” as a key factor and that the People didn’t prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecution statement “that just because it (the gun) was overlooked didn’t make it legal” was rated as the most effective argument for the People. The defense’s arguments and opening and closing statements were overall rated, varying from simple “okay” ratings to “solid and on point” to “very convincing.”

    Does that sound representative of the national average for gun ownership? It seemed high to me but then I don’t hunt or anything. Maybe more people own guns than I thought…

  24. I know the weapons trial is the latest defense tactic, but I truly and honesty believe that it’s main purpose is to try and get their hands on the surveillance tapes through discovery.

    Besides, if Peterson is arrested for one of the crimes we’ve been talking about, isn’t it possible that the weapons charge will go by the wayside? Something like what is happening with Casey Anthony after she was charged with capital murder?

  25. greetings all….
    Thanks for posting the interview on NG last night FACS.
    As I was listening to that, I couldn’t help but wonder ( sorry Wonder!) what has happened between DP and Mr. Writer/publisher? Sure would have been a short book of “no comment”s. I guess he couldn’t have called it Drew Peterson Exposed then either huh?

  26. Hi danamck. When you actually listen to the conversation via the interview on NG, Peterson comes across as very flippant and, well, for lack of a better explanation, peed. I don’t know what the actual relationship is between those two, but it sure didn’t sound like Drew was in a place he wanted to be.

    I don’t put anything past those two, though, and if either one thinks it’s bringing in continued interest and making money, I’m sure they’ll use it to their benefit. One, both. Who knows.

  27. bucketoftea // November 18, 2008 at 11:37 am

    Yoo hoo, wonder, all. Teatime here, care for a cuppa and a nice scone everyone?

    That sounds yummy. Thank you. :)

  28. I thought the same thing Rescue. Drew sounded really “put out” but the whole interview. At the end he even just hung up. No good bye… no kiss my behind… nothing! DA sounded like he was trying hard to bait him into a conversation but DP was having none of it.

  29. Dana, do you think they have some sort of agreement, or even a contract that allows Armstrong to contact Drew for quotes?

    I couldn’t figure out why Drew was talking to him at all – he sounded so reluctant and annoyed.

  30. I’ve also noticed that DP’s entire demeanor has really changed in the last few interviews. Much more somber and short answers. Unlike a year ago when he was the self-described jokester and was haming it up.

  31. Ok no more copying for me. I just copied the entire thread and posted it. It is awaiting moderation. ARGHHHHHHHH.

    Noway, I agree Thurs works for me ! :)

    I wonder….Anyone else think DP will be found guilty of any and all charges that will eventually
    be brought against him, including the current weapons charge ? I do.

    I think the man is guilty of ATLEAST 2 murders. I think he is guilty of a lot of crimes that no one will ever know about. These are of course just my opinion based on nothing but conjecture on my part since I have no evidence and of course am not a Grand Juror.

    Oh but to be a fly on the wall in the Grand Jury room. Hmmm I wonder….anyone know can
    flies hear ?

  32. I’m sure there is $$$$$ behind it somewhere. The more “info” DA can put out there, the more books he can hope to sell and the more $$$ has to be lining someone else’s pockets besides just the writer/publisher.

  33. Maybe DA has a second book in the works?? He is still “investigating” after all……
    Wish he would just find Stacy in all his investigating.

  34. 1wonderwoman:
    I think the man is guilty of ATLEAST 2 murders. I think he is guilty of a lot of crimes that no one will ever know about. These are of course just my opinion based on nothing but conjecture on my part since I have no evidence and of course am not a Grand Juror.
    *********

    See, that’s the beautiful thing here, Wonder. We’re not the ones that will judge the man. We’re just the public, ones that are on a particular blog. You can form your opinion any way you want. Innocent until proven guilty is for the court!!!!! Doesn’t apply on a blog.

    He’s a free man and hasn’t been locked up for anything. His rights have been preserved, the law is affording him the proper avenues, i.e., a lawyer, a legal process, a courtroom, a judge, and we have no say in any of it. Outside of these blogs! We’re just expressing our opinions. The rest of Peterson’s fate is up to Brodsky and the road he leads his client down.

    Like it or leave it, that’s just the way it is, heh?

    ~ One of the Hens

  35. Oh wow, it never occurred to me. A sequal!

    He did say his investigation was ongoing didn’t he? Maybe they contracted to do more than one book with him. So, Drew has to talk to him or be sued for breach of contract.

  36. The rest of Peterson’s fate is up to Brodsky and the road he leads his client down.
    ——————————————————–
    That is a scary thought Rescue…. I’d be pretty scared if I were in his shoes.

  37. Exactly Rescue. I just cant fathom the possibility that the GJ won’t indict. They indicted on the weapons charge.

    If they don’t indict him on atleast KS’s murder
    then the GJ is on drugs or drunk, or streetrats, or just out to write books, ie you get the jest.

    I am just so happy. I know its coming down the pike. The indictment that is.

  38. BINGO facs….. that is what I had been thinking.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if think DA thinks he has a series in the works…

  39. There are no cameras in the Illinois courts, Wonder. Only reporters first-hand descriptions of the proceedings…..

  40. Any speculation on what the “issues” (in regards to the divorce) that the lawyers were talking about last night would be?

    From what I gathered, there are child custody issues and marital asset issues. She is gone and hasn’t been heard from. Short of declaring her deceased I don’t know how he would get around those. Does he want her declared deceased? I don’t think that would be good for him right now.
    How would he sell the house if it is in Stacy’s name ( as has been implied to keep wife #3 away from it)? He says he wants a divorce so that he can move. Doesn’t make logical sense to me.

  41. Thanks Rescue.

    I wonder….Why not ? We have that out in CA
    and it’s great !

    Oh well…I wonder….Can I count on you guys to blog about it daily ?? :)

    Perhaps I could bribe you with a ride in my
    super secret invisible spy plane ?? ;)

  42. This is a previous response from Matt Phelps regarding remarks made by Joel Brodsky when they were tape recorded by Phelps for a possible book:

    Look, I’m not about to get into the minutia of what was said, what was not said, etc … but I can release snips of the conversation on audio if need be. Notice what Joel Brodsky doesn’t deny. Also, during the radio show I specifically said I was very interested in pursuing the Drew Peterson book idea. Didn’t mean I wasn’t feeling dirty about the conversation or the potential book. In fact, my agent and I spoke right after–and I talked to him about my feelings. If they want me to start releasing emails (not just from me or to me), well, I can do that, too. I never signed a confidentiality agreement with them. I spoke to Joel Brodsky a few days after this call and told him–pointblank–that I was having trouble and struggling with some issues involved with the book. I said my journalistic integrity was more important. Drew Peterson would not take a lie detector test for me. That was of great concern. Now, this is the last time I speak about this. I’m done. I’ve moved on. They have an author, or so I’ve been told. … I should [also] probably note that my call with those guys was more along the lines of about 90 minutes (two sides of a 90-minute cassette tape). I had spoken to my agent and Drew’s publicist Glen for an additional half-hour/45 minutes before Drew and Joel came into the conversation, and my agent by himself for approximately 45 minutes before that–all of which centered around the Peterson case/potential book. So the entire process that morning took over three hours. Perhaps I did misspeak in implying that I spoke directly to Drew and Joel for three hours. I apologize if anyone misunderstood me.

  43. I posted this on SYM so I’m posting it here too (as I do not post or have accounts on any of the other boards involved in the crazy cross-forum war of 2007-2008).

    I’ve been accused of being a hen and a nutjob at SYM by both sides. Somehow I even made a little spotlight address (accusing me of being other people) in one of HangDrew’s main page articles from a post at Topix long, long ago…

    I like discussing both sides of the case. I guess that makes me a clucking nut!

    ***

    Quite honestly I see the cross-forums wars all over the place. Someone always brings posts from other forums to pick at them. I personally prefer to go to the source forum and discuss it there. The sad thing is that everyone is complaining about other people doing exactly what they are doing. It will never stop though – there are too many people in the mix now.

    The game is really getting old and it is just expanding to more and more forums. Sad, sad, sad.

    But just like public transportation – you have to take some bad parts with the good conversations you get in between the craziness.

  44. facsmiley // November 18, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Oh wow, it never occurred to me. A sequal!

    He did say his investigation was ongoing didn’t he? Maybe they contracted to do more than one book with him. So, Drew has to talk to him or be sued for breach of contract.

    ****

    Funny – that is what I was thinking. He didn’t sound like he WANTED to talk to him – it almost sounded like he HAD to talk to him.

    The relationship between Armstrong and Peterson is hard to figure out. There has to be something contractually (or intentionally trying to make things look one way) or there would be no way in heck that Drew would talk to him after he has been on several shows saying that he thinks Drew is guilty and the book didn’t end up making him look as innocent as he had hoped.

  45. danamck – I can’t imagine that it would be so easy to just walk into a divorce court and be declared a victim of marital desertion without some kind substantive proof that that is, indeed, what happened. Either Stacy is alive and hiding, or she’s dead and can’t “show herself,” like he keeps repeating over and over. (BTW, why can’t he tell her to come home? Why does he insist on using the term “show yourself?” Anyone ever notice that?)

    I’m sure the Judge would want to know for himself, before me makes any final rulings, what her fate was, or where she is. Common sense would dictate that Peterson’s lawyer must come up with something that shows some sort of activity on the part of Stacy, or admit she’s deceased. Then, if he wants the matter to go through, maybe he’ll conveniently find a way to have her body found.

  46. georgia1834 // November 18, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Rescue, I’m not baiting anyone. when you read something someone else posts, you have your own decision to believe it or not. don’t attack someone for what they post, just attack what is posted. If you would like to find some of the examples, I can. Exlaw is a person, no matter is you agree with her or not, agree to disagree without name calling.

    ***

    I wish the name calling would end all the way around.

  47. Rescue- I would also think that if she were alive and hiding, the thought of losing everything ( her kids and all material things that she finally had in life) would bring her out of whatever cave she is in. I also never liked the “show yourself” comments. I would think that since this has been such a high profile “missing person” case that a judge would want proof that DP has done more than just an internet search for her.

  48. think – thank you. However, I am reminded that there’s plenty of blame to go around.

    As far as dealing with the issues on the “source forum,” not possible. Requires a Supreme Order of the Ruling Sister/Brotherhood.

    Those that have their super, secret forums can hide their nastiness in their little fishbowls, but have the luxury of coming to WordPress and proclaiming their outrage when they feel the need.

    Lopsided, unbalanced.

  49. Thanks for the NG transcript, facs.

    I was disturbed by his answer to the question about her chances of returning: “Why would she want to come back?”

    Duh, let’s see DiP. To hug and take care of her kids, to see her sister, to help her brother, to get her degree, to divorce you; all the things she was planning the week she “left”.

  50. Liz – at least he didn’t call her a ‘little girl’ this time.

    But yes, she has every reason in the world to come back if it were possible. Every reason.

  51. Now that was creepy. If he was married to a ‘little girl,’ what would that make Chester.
    Definitely not winning the hearts and minds this way.

  52. Just once when he says, “Why would she want to come back?” I’d love to hear an interviewer ask him WHY he thinks and says that…. why not come back? and really push for an answer.

  53. Matt lauer mentioned the children when DP answered the same way, and it was as if it didn’t register, like he was apathetic to how stacy (or any mother) would feel.

  54. I personally think she would have everthing to gain if she came back. He has been “exposed”. Bet she could get a huge book deal herself and never have to worry about money or him again.

  55. lizanne61 // November 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Thanks for the NG transcript, facs.

    I was disturbed by his answer to the question about her chances of returning: “Why would she want to come back?”

    Duh, let’s see DiP. To hug and take care of her kids, to see her sister, to help her brother, to get her degree, to divorce you; all the things she was planning the week she “left”.

    ****

    You know – that is exactly the stuff I personally cannot mentally get past to believe that she’d just take off. People that take off on their family usually have some practice runs first. I mean her family was pretty messed up but if she wasn’t running away from it when things were really bad – what could possibly have been the last straw for her?? Honestly her family seems to be less screwed up now than at any point in her life.

    If every month she said she wanted a divorce – why is there no “history” of her saying she wanted to be free from the kids as well? Why is it that the people outside of the family have only said she was unhappy in her marriage and there are no witnesses that said she was unhappy with her kids??

    If she bought a new phone to get away from Drew – why then is there no signal from that phone? ?

    She had just gone to class and there is no indication she was doing poorly in school. She decorated for Halloween. If she was that deeply depressed she wouldn’t even be able to muster up enough strength to do that. (When my mom passed I didn’t want to decorate for Christmas and even though I did it for my kids’ sake I did it like on Dec 23rd.)

    I know she was looking to get divorced but there is a huge leap from wanting a divorce to totally abandoning your children. I’d more likely believe that she left of her own accord if he said she was depressed and he was worried about her rather than that she said she found someone and was running away and he’s mad at her.

    I realize that some moms put on a good show for people (ala Casey Anthony) but I just don’t see that in Stacy’s case. She didn’t show signs of being a habitual liar and she seemed to be the person in her family that held everyone together. She seems like she was the glue and people that take on that role are not the kid of people that are inclined to run away IMO.

    I hope that I am wrong.

  56. OT to Wonder … regarding the hearing prowess of flies.

    Found out a lot about flies while reading Diary Of A Fly to my daughter.

    It’s their ability to see (4,000 lenses per eye) that make us want to be a fly on the wall.

    That and the ability to take off backwards … ;)

  57. Thanks Bucket!

    I think that people on the other side of the fence have mental roadblocks that are very different than mine that prevent them from thinking Drew could harm Stacy. I don’t think they are evil people for thinking that and just as I cannot fathom why they can’t see the same thing I mentally see they think the same way about me.

    …but that’s me… always thinking about it…

  58. I think we are correct in saying there is no way she would leave those children. Drew wants everyone to believe she was depressed, unstable, cheating on him, crazy, just like her Mother, on and on. While I am not buying it for one second. He painted a similar picture of Kitty. To truly believe that Drew is innocent and everyone is out to get him just is not logical.

  59. I think the reason he seems so apathetic to anything regarding Stacy is in his mind he has de-personalized her to the point that he does not see her as a feeling caring human being, rather a trophy, a possession. I heard on some crime show about how murderers de-personalize their victims so when they kill them, it’s as if they are killing a thing, not a human. By cutting her, her family, her memory down, it’s almost as if he is trying to justifiy in his own mind that what he did was ok cause she was just a thing that was causing him trouble. Just my little psyco babble for the day! :-)

  60. Hearsay bill tomorrow, Grand jury Thursday!!!
    Hoping someone we know is having creamed turkey on toast, courtesy of will county, for thanksgiving.

  61. That phone call last night on NG between DP and DA was staged.
    DP, JB, GS, and DA have all been exposed as money hungry media whores. From DA and his minions self promoting his book on Amazon, DA giving himself awards from his own multitude of websites and mags, DA pretending to change his mind about guilt breaking stories promoted by GS, DP “acting” like he is cross with DA, to JB and the lie detector scams, show these guys desire to make money off that book, no matter how they deceive the public.
    They try to make it seem real, but fail. I hope others can see through the scams.
    Listen to DP’s voice on the NG show from last night

    ….you can tell he is reading a script, probably penned by GS, much like, but more so, than the scripted answers he gave that Phil guy. Watch that Phil video, and you can see him trying to remember that saying- often used by JB – about scorned women, for an example.
    He is not a very good actor. Listen to how he sounds when he is talking regular, and you will see.

    GS joined DP, JB, and DA in Cal for the Phil show. Notice how they had JB and DA sitting apart, and GS up in the middle of the crowd- you can see him at 5:51 in this video –

    Quothe the JB “Sinister sells”
    Remember! JB wants to get rich and famous off a book deal.

    JB, GS, and DA have lost what little credibility they may have once had.

    “No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”

    Samuel Johnson

  62. Interesting clip, Rescue.

    He does mention “desertion without cause or provocation” and says that Drew would need to plead his case and show evidence to prove that. He also says that the other side would need to show evidence to the contrary.

    So who would that be with Stacy gone?

  63. Thanks, Rescue.

    Interesting that Leving’s investigator was able to find a missing minor child after Chicago police claimed they could not find her.

    Says if you rely on LE or the wrong investigator, there are missing persons who will never be found.

    I didn’t catch the guy’s name (Detective Hal is what I heard … lol). Bet that guy did more than search the Internet. Maybe he gave the investigator’s name to Drew …

  64. You’re welcome.

    I’m sorry that Mr. Leving paints with a wide brush about declaring that you can’t rely on LE or some investigators. Hmm. But, nonetheless, if Peterson has to meet the burden of proof by showing his wife deserted him, and not just be able to say it’s so, that should be interesting.

    Probably, it’s more involved that he thought it was, and it might not be resolved anytime soon.

    Certainly, not run as smoothly as it did with the marital assets as it did with Kathleen.

  65. Pretend for a minute that Drew is granted his divorce.

    What happens to the marital assets. Split 50/50 and given to ? who?

  66. noway406 // November 18, 2008 at 7:57 pm

    Pretend for a minute that Drew is granted his divorce.

    What happens to the marital assets. Split 50/50 and given to ? who?
    ************************

    One of the lawyers on Nancy Grace said that they might go to her children. I can’t imagine that would happen unless she was declared dead, though.

  67. And wouldn’t “dead” negate the “desertion” ?

    I mean if you’re dead, you’re not deliberately staying away from your husband.

  68. Does anyone know what case Mr. Leving was referring to?

    Missing minor child in Chicago … some may have thought the disappearance was a result of the father’s misconduct … Chicago police unable to find minor child … enter Detective Halek (?), who found her and recovered her.

  69. Never heard of the case, but Leving’s been around a while.

    He made his name in the 80s getting custody for dads who normally were getting only visitation.

    I’ll bet they’re also using the PIs to dig up up dirt on the Cales family, to make it hard for them to get visitation or try for custody. Stacy adopted the two so all are legally part of their family, too. I hope they try.

  70. I Googled, Noway but I couldn’t find details of the minor child case. He probably tries to be discreet about names and such. No luck with the detective’s name either.

    It looks as if Leving was involved in the “Baby Richard” case, though.

  71. Facs … it was a typo on my part … the actual quote should have been “double not” … :D but I guess “nut” made it funnier.

  72. Yes, I googled too … but nothing. I thought he said it was a case “he just worked on” so I thought it might be fresh in the minds of Chicagoans.

  73. Too bad he didn’t elaborate on what he was talking about. I couldn’t find anything either.

    Other than he’s the attorney that is working for Alec Baldwin.

  74. Checked the website and no bragging about it there either.
    It sounded like a case of the spouse taking the child underground– which is more than a little different.

    She would more likely bring them with her (and go underground) than leave without them.

  75. CNN’s take on the meeting with Leving ( I won’t paste it all – just teh new stuff):

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/18/peterson.divorce.lawyer/index.html

    …Peterson elaborated, “I’ve always said that I’m mad about that. But I’m looking into this for the kids. This neighborhood is not healthy for my kids because of Sharon Bychowski.”

    Bychowski has been battling Peterson since his wife — her friend and neighbor — disappeared in October 2007. Peterson has accused Bychowski and other neighbors of harassing and threatening him…

    …Brodsky told CNN he had not been aware that news of the meeting with the divorce lawyer had become public knowledge.

    “We definitely didn’t advertise it,” he said. “That’s real thorough detective work. [Armstrong] could show police a thing or two about finding someone.”…

  76. Derek Armstrong is the Chief Crime Correspondent for Crime Report USA, and author of the very popular book-length news story Drew Peterson Exposed. He is a leading expert in the Drew Peterson case.
    **************************

    Again, it’s pretty easy to be the ” Chief Crime Correspondent” for your own web site.

    The man has no shame.

  77. You know Zapruder was paid $150,000 for his 8 mm film of the Kennedy assassination, but at least he had something of value to offer.

Comments are closed.