Your Thread – November 19

Roy Taylor

Roy Taylor

I was going through some old photos when I came across these two. They brought to mind a couple of funny stories. They’re both from the barrel cleanup on the Des Plaines River in May. The first one shows the site where my previous cell phone was last seen. As I was taking pictures and videotaping, I decided to step out of the boat to get a closer shot. I got within about ten feet of Roy on the shore to the left when I took a step onto what appeared to be solid ground. It was actually soggy garbage and I ended up in the river. Five minutes later I realized my cell phone was gone, never to be seen again.

Shawn Michael

Shawn Michael

The second photo was shot a few minutes before the boat hit a wave and it (along with everything in it, passengers included) went airborne. The barrel at the front of the photo landed squarely on my foot while a drill went flying into the river. Shawn, my video camera and my digital camera, also all nearly ended up going overboard. Lessons learned: Never ride atop barrels in a small boat; package valuables in ziploc baggies with floating peanuts (tip from my aunt, a fishing enthusiast); and never, ever accelerate into an oncoming wave.

~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


134 thoughts on “Your Thread – November 19

  1. …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.”…

    * * * * * * *

    * * * * * *

    Good Morning! Are we ready? Is the batphone already connected to Springfield? 🙂

  2. I’m also beginning to think that DP is even more afeared of Sharon than I thought. His national media kicks can’t really mean anything else.Bet he is so peed that she knew all about the 25k before he did. In fact, I’ve long suspected that it was actually the money that snapped his twig on Oct 28 2007.

  3. Danya,

    Thanks for sharing the pictures and story. Roy and Shawn have spent thousands of hours searching for Stacy by land and by water. Have gotten to know both a bit while assisting.

    Well today is Wed, and hopefully all goes well in the Il House today and hearsay is signed off and maybe an arrest by end of week. Hopefully in court on Thursday. Don’t want it to happen at the house with neighbors.

  4. Good Morning. Happy Hearsay Law day.
    Happy GJ Eve as well.

    I wonder….will this be the week ?

    I wonder….what will today bring ?

    Hmm so many things to wonder about 😉

  5. Morning Bucket. How are you ? I am so happy today, I feel like it’s coming and probably sooner than the suspect thinks. 😉

  6. Good morning, everyone. Good afternoon Bucket.

    Hope whatever today brings goes on to bring out whatever the truth is.

  7. Good Morning,

    As we all wait anxiously on the hearsay law, I wish everyone a wonderful day!

    Love the pics of Roy & Shawn.

    Roy, I know has put his heart, body and soul into finding Stacy. I know I commend all his hard efforts. WTG, Roy and all other searchers!

  8. Thanks for the story, Danya. Condolences on your cellphone. 😦

    Should be an interesting next couple of days. At least I hope so!

    Thanks for the link, Thinkaboutit!

  9. “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.”…


    Could Armstrong show the PIs Drew Peterson has hired the same thing?

  10. It seems like the simple step of ‘picking up the phone’ can take you much further than poking around on the Internet.

    Armie is evil but I had to admire his sort of reptillian resolve in that phone call to Drew. His creepy little voice just carried on with the questions even though Drew was so obviously annoyed.

  11. Noway said……
    Could Armstrong show the PIs Drew Peterson has hired the same thing?

    Now, that’s funny Noway!!!!! Ya think he could pass that along to the “others?”)

  12. Danya,

    Have to tell you that you are indeed a great person with a wonderful sense of adventure, humor and compassion! These pictures will always make you smile I’m certain.
    We share that bond of in the water/losing our cell phones/pictures to prove it.,2933,454687,00.html

    I found this article really interesting….did the attorney suggest to Drew to do a little more investigation?? Hummm makes me wonder, has he got nothing to show for looking for Stacy??

  13. This is the bit that intrigued me about that last night:

    LEVING: … He can present his evidence to the courts. If there is evidence to the contrary, that would be presented and there would be a trial. And the judge would make a decision.

    So…who does that, if the spouse is a missing person?

  14. 😀
    Facs … in the article posted by Jeepers, they have the detective as Detective Hale (ph) … so the mystery continues.

    I do hope Jeffrey Leving gave Drew the detective’s name and information. Sounds like Drew needs some help in finding Stacy.

    The police haven’t been able to … his PIs haven’t been able to … it’s up to Armstrong (a leading expert in the Drew Peterson case) and Halek/Hale (one of the best detectives in the country).

  15. facsmiley // November 19, 2008 at 11:46 am

    … So…who does that, if the spouse is a missing person?

    I don’t know for sure but my guess would be family, friends, and (in this case) LE.

  16. I do believe the same applies to children being adopted in Illinois. Mother or Father have to be gone for one year and one does not know there where- a-bouts. As long as the lawyer has it printed in a legal paper and runs it for a certain length of time. So, what I am thinking is, he wants a divorce , he for sure is dating someone else right now. Hmmmm, marriage again? She would have all legal rights to adopt if they marry.

    Well, I will stick to my thought, a divorce is not going to happen anyways. I doubt he will make it back to see that lawyer, or any other lawyer for a divorce. JMO

  17. Applealley – in Illinois it’s not as easy as putting anotice in the paper.

    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.

    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.

  18. Facs,

    I am not sure about a divorce situation, I am I am sure it will not be easy under the circumstances facing DPeterson. However, I personally went through the adoption process 29 yrs ago. It really was very simple. I am sure the laws have somewhat changed since then. I did not know where my daughters father was, and it was just a little over a year. My attorney put a legal publication in the paper and we had to wait for a few weeks or so, for any response.

  19. Apple, I’m glad it was smooth sailing for you. 🙂

    Drew has got some extenuating circumstances that I’m sure will make his journey a little less care free!

  20. I think your right facs. I just do not see this happening soon, if at all. Again, I see other things happening before a divorce would ever be granted.

  21. You know, Drew Peterson getting a divorce makes no difference to me. Doesn’t change my life one way or the other.

    What concerns me about his current situation, merely as an observant blogger, is his children. IF he is charged with a crime, or crimes, and is taken out of his home, his children need a stable, happy environment, all kept together, with a stand-in guardian who cares for them as if they’re a part of their own family. I’m sure everyone can only hope that there is such a person or persons. Again, it doesn’t change my life what happens, but most anyone would have to feel compassion for their future situation.

    The cut-throat blogger wars are merely for the individuals’ entertainment.

    Cluck, cluck

  22. OK – I’m not seeing the hearsay bill on this list. Am I missing something?

    House Hearings Scheduled For Today 95th General Assembly

    11/19/2008 11:30AM Elections & Campaign Reform Committee
    Room 122B Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 11:30AM Tollway Oversight Committee
    Room 115 Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:00PM Agriculture & Conservation Committee
    Room 122B Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:00PM Consumer Protection Committee
    Room C-1 Stratton Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:00PM Executive Committee
    Room 118 Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:00PM Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee
    Room D-1 Stratton Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:00PM Personnel and Pensions Committee
    Room 115 Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:00PM Revenue Committee
    Room 114 Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:30PM Health Care Availability and Access Committee
    Room 114 Capitol Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:30PM Juvenile Justice Reform Committee
    Room D-1 Stratton Building – Springfield, IL
    11/19/2008 12:30PM Higher Education Committee
    Room 122B Capitol Building – Springfield, IL

  23. 11/18/2008
    Amendatory Veto Motion – Accept Motion Recommends Be Adopted Rules Committee; 005-000-000

    Placed on Calendar Amendatory Veto November 19, 2008

  24. On that document I see two Amendatory Vetoes on the calendar and the motions that House Representatives have made:

    Amendatory Vetoes

    S.B. 2636 — Harmon (Fritchey – Osterman – Kosel) —
    AN ACT concerning property. (OVERRIDE)

    S.B. 2718 — Wilhelmi – DeLeo (Gordon – Reboletti –
    Durkin) — AN ACT concerning criminal law.
    (ACCEPT) (RBA)

    Amendatory Veto Motions

    S.B. 2636 — Fritchey — I move that the House Concur
    with the Senate in the passage of this Senate Bill, the
    Governor’s specific recommendations for change
    notwithstanding. — (OVERRIDE)

    S.B. 2718 — Gordon — I move that the House Concur
    with the Senate in the acceptance of the Governor’s
    specific recommendations for change to this Senate
    Bill. — (ACCEPT) (RBA)

  25. Hmmm. They seem to go into blank mode on and off. I think that they do this in between official discussions so as not to catch what people really think.

  26. Heh – I was just saying the same thing. I think they only want to transmit official proceedings and not applause or people singing “Happy Birthday” (which I think is going on now).

  27. That’s really annoying. If we are taxpaying citizens we should be able to see the whole thing.

    Or the least they could do is play some good Musak (sp??) during the lull times.

  28. Rep. Pritchey needs to back off that mike just a little. POP POP POP

    I hope the video doesn’t blip out when we get to SB2718…

  29. Frank asks if the rush has anything to do with the ‘fact pattern’ in the Drew Peterson case.

    Rep Gordon says she has no knowledge of that. The law will apply to all victims.

    He says he will vote with her, but wants to know why there is no explanation for moving it up.

  30. Rep Winters from Winnebago is ‘a little confused’. Wants some clarification.

    Gordon says it has to do with “forfiture by wrongdoing”, She complains that she can’t hear.

    The house needs to STFU!

  31. Rep Winters wonders if you would need to prove the person guilty first (chicken/egg).

    Rep Gordon says there would be a pre-trial hearing to see if judge would accept.

  32. I find it interesting that they passed this bill the first time around and it is only up for changing the effective date.

  33. Oh SNAP!

    Rep Gordon says that Rep Black’s staffer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Rep Black is putting on a show and claims that what Rep Gordon is saying is hearsay!

    He’s yelling!

  34. He’s making some sort of point about ‘hearsay’. What a goof.

    Right – it’s already been passed once, so what is up with the shenanigans now?

  35. At least it shows that this isn’t being rushed through for show, I guess. They’re discussing things about this Bill that was already voted on, which I don’t understand, because it was supposed to be merely a “take-effect immediately” vote.


  36. That was so exciting! …ot conceding that it was giftwrapped for DP, but Glasglow requested it be brought forward………

  37. It absolutely ASTOUNDS me that these people need to be told to be quiet??

    WTH is up with that? Perhaps they all need to sit in on a few classes, be it grade school or college. So disrespectful.(:


  38. I’d put money on Mr. Black being the one voting Present. I wonder how Mr. Black voted on the first go round. My gut tells me he voted Nay or Present (which has the same result as Nay).

  39. Funny thing about Rep Black – he says he’s not a lawyer. He did not discuss the reason for having this bill take effect immediately, he argued with Rep Gordon about actual hearsay issues. Wasn’t that what was discussed previously and voted on prior to this one outstanding issue? Duh.

  40. I think that it is interesting that there is a Federal law regarding hearsay but that our State has to add one in. Why can’t they just use the Federal one or can they only do that if someone breaks a Federal law?

  41. This has been so exciting!! Thank you so much for the link and the comraderie – it was great to share it w. all of you!

  42. All that noise and not paying attention….you should hear Parliament! They’re constantly roaring and shouting “hear hear” (or “boo”) while they wave their order papers (agenda) about.

  43. I’ve wondered that as well, Thinkaboutit. I also found that list of 30 exceptions that will normally allow hearsay into admission and a number of them seemed to apply – at least in Kathleen’s case.

    Maybe some legal type could address it for us.

  44. I guess we move on to the next phase now and we have to wait and see what this really means for the case. This bill passing still doesn’t mean that they will proceed with charges right away.

    The prosecution using this law doesn’t mean the evidence will be approved by a judge, that he will be found guilty by a jury, or if found guilty that it would stand intact upon appeals.

    It’s been my gut feeling for a while that they were waiting on this law to proceed but my gut’s been wrong before.

  45. I love to see parlaiment when it’s on TV. They all sit so close togther too. I’m always waiting for someone to throw a punch.

  46. I think that because we found out from the floor of the house that Glasgow wanted it brought forward by those 6 weeks……

  47. facs- sure know what you mean. It’s all theatrics. It’s great to watch because you cn see them so well, too…..slumped in their seat, sucking on a sweet, leaning over whispering, laughing….

  48. I think the handwritten letters and statements of Kathleen’s are the most important “hearsay” evidence, IMO. I’m not clear on whether or not they would have been able to be presented in a court trial prior to this now passed law, but it’s a sure bet now they will be.

    As to the other utterances, that’s going to be up to a judge in a pretrial hearing and he’ll make the decisions on what comes in and what doesn’t.

  49. Think,
    A huge thank you for sharing this link with all here at WP today!!
    It was fun to see a bit of history happening with something I have been so involved with for nearly 13 months.
    thanks again

  50. Rep Gordon wasn’t exactly direct in her response about why the law was being rushed…even when she was asked if Blago wanted it done because of the Drew Peterson case.

    So, that’s interesting.

    Even if there’s no arrest soon, it could still factor in further down the line.

  51. You’re welcome, Jeepers (and others who thanked me for the link). I tried to watch the last one but must have gone on it when they were on the little breaks and thought it was already over.

  52. Facs – I found that interesting as well. I think he is the main reason but I think that the Stebic case also could fall into this category and maybe they have other cases it would help with too.

    Did this process really only push the bill up by 6 weeks? That isn’t that long in legislative time.

  53. I’m grateful for the impact this will have on other witness-intimidator-murderers and the likes of Michael Robinson, the little toe rag. It goes for those who intimidate without murder, too, doesn’t it?……if they’e responsible for a witness “not being available”. That’s how I interpreted it the first time I read about it.

  54. 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.


    Will the fact Drew is the official murder suspect have any bearing on his divorce application/proceedings or can you just kill someone and then divorce them as well ??

    Sounds too easy !!

  55. Now, facsmiley, Drew is innocent until proven guilty.

    Oh, wait, that’s right. In a court of law. On blogs, we can say whatever we want.

  56. I’m just saying that I think the law was originally proposed to allow the testimony of witnesses who had been ‘hit’, especially in the world of gangs and drugs.

    If this ends up helping out any of those cases, all the better!!

  57. Thank you, Noway, for saying it so succinctly and straight forward.

    It can’t be stressed enough about how we’re merely expressing our opinions.

    Drew Peterson’s fate is an enormous task that will, possibly, be heard by a jury of his peers. His fate is in their hands, not any of ours. That’s the beauty of him having the rights afforded to him under the law.

    Yes, some just don’t get it that innocent until proven guilty is a matter of law, not a matter of a bunch of bloggers!

    It’s turned cruel over the idea that somehow some of us have taken anything away from him. That’s the farthest thing from the truth!

  58. I believe i had heard that the grand jury was going to meet until the end of Nov. that would be tomorrow, as next Thursday is Thanksgiving.
    Maybe an indictment?


    Originally posted: November 19, 2008

    House passes ‘Drew Peterson law’
    Posted by Ray Long at 3:12 p.m.

    SPRINGFIELD—The House today voted 109-0 to put into law a bill that could affect a potential prosecution against former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson in the cases of either one of his last two wives.

    The bill, which is backed by the Will County state’s attorney’s office, would allow a judge to admit hearsay evidence into court for first-degree murder cases if the prosecution could prove that the defendant killed a witness to prevent testimony.

    The House vote followed Senate approval a week before. Their votes meant lawmakers accepted changes proposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich that allowed the law to become effective as soon as the House approved the measure.

    Peterson’s last two wives had told family and friends that they were fearful of Peterson, who is a suspect in the Oct. 28, 2007, disappearance in his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. In addition, Stacy Peterson also told her minister that her husband had allegedly confessed to her that he killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, according to the minister.

  60. Just a thought – I wonder if the ones that doth protest so much about Drew Peterson’s innocence until proven guilty are the same ones that have Casey Anthony tried and convicted?

    The blogger fishbowls get smaller and smaller, don’t they?

  61. Hi Wonder. Don’t you think the GJ had their decision a long time ago? I do. They don’t have to hear from “every” possible witness – it’s only a GJ proceeding to get enough to indict.

    The list of witnesses will, I am sure, grow when he’s finally charged.

  62. Rescue – I called someone out on that on a different forum (not SYM) and they basically brushed it aside and said that it was a forum for Caylee and not to bring Drew Peterson into the conversation. I was just really curious on why they fight so hard in one case yet play the opposite side on another.

    I play the same side on both of the cases.. My gut thinks they are both guilty but I think both have the right to a fair trial and are legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

  63. thinkaboutit – yes, that’s my point too. Why is it that it’s “easy” to see what’s really going on in one high-profile case, but not in another? Again, it’s just a bunch of observers and bloggers making these remarks and decisions. It means jack squat in the realm of things – they’re opinions merely formed on what the media and news has published.

    None of us get the chance to judge these people in a court of law. That’s a good thing, heh?

    I don’t understand why many who disagree with the way some of us blog our opinions here just can’t get that through their heads. Is that what defines the term “hens?”

    And, to that “famous” observer – maybe I will show up in court on a regular basis too and see the events unfolding as they occur, come shake your hand and introduce myself. That would balance things out, I am sure, LOL, LOL.

  64. rescueapet // November 19, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Hi Wonder. Don’t you think the GJ had their decision a long time ago? I do.

    Hmmmmmmm Now you got me wondering about that…LOL No seriously I’m not sure if they would have already decided and then do nothing, but I am not privy to what the GJ can and can’t do.

    I think it would be WONDERFUL if the GJ concludes tomorrow with an indictment of course 😉 and not just on KS and let’s not forget the GJ is also deciding the LS case as well.

    Lots and lots to wonder about.

  65. I just saw this at hangdrew’s:

    “Little Birdie told me that Peterson left about an hour ago in a limo that looks like it might be one used by Greta.”

    I don’t know what a limo used by Greta looks like, but it does sound like he’s off to the airport.

    It will be interesting to see who is paying to talk to him this time. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the conversation will not be so interesting…more of the same. I don’t really care what he has to say anymore. It’s not like he’s going to confess.

  66. If he’s being interviewed by Greta, the limo could be picking him up to go Downtown to the Fox studios, as he’s done before. I don’t think there’s anything that warrants a trip to Washington, DC to say on Greta.

  67. You know my BF has done the very thing but without the star treatment (no limo!). He took some pictures of what it looks like from the other end of the camera. Not so glamorous:

  68. House votes to allow hearsay in Peterson case

    November 19, 2008

    BY DAVE McKINNEY Springfield Bureau Chief

    SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois House today overwhelmingly handed Will County prosecutors a new way to investigate the murder of one of Drew Peterson’s wives and the disappearance of another.

    The House’s 109-0 vote will allow the use of hearsay statements from witnesses who may have been murdered by a defendant to block their testimony in a murder trial.

    Because the Senate last week approved changes to the bill made by Gov. Blagojevich, today’s House action allows the legislation to take effect immediately.

    Pushed by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, the new state law could apply to missing Bolingbrook mother Stacy Peterson, wife of retired Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson. State Police say he is a suspect in her “potential homicide.”

    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.”

    During floor debate, Peterson’s name came up when Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) pressed the bill’s chief House sponsor, Rep. Coreen Gordon (D-Coal City), on whether the legislation related to the “fact pattern” of the Peterson case.

    “I have no knowledge of that,” Gordon replied. “When this bill becomes law, it would apply in every single case. It would apply to all victims.”

    The legislation is known as the “Drew Peterson bill” at the Statehouse. A GOP staff analysis goes so far as to say the legislation is “in response to the Drew Peterson case.”

    But its Democratic sponsors have walked on legislative eggshells to avoid linking the ex-cop’s name to the bill.

    That likely is because of a provision in the state Constitution that bars the General Assembly from passing “special legislation” pertaining to an individual or a particular business.

    The provision could be an opening for someone to challenge the constitutionality of the law if it can be demonstrated it is associated with one person.

    Gordon, however, insisted her legislation is not “special legislation” and asserted that naming the bill after Peterson is purely a media creation.

    “You people are the only ones who call this the ‘Drew Peterson bill’ ” Gordon said, referring to the media. “It would actually affect everyone in the state of Illinois, not just come into play for a case like Drew Peterson. I do not believe this is special legislation.”

  69. Hi WSF. Yes, and maybe others. There is the Lane Bryant Murders, and a few others in Will County. You never know. No one should want this law passed for one reason, and one reason only, that is, to go after one particular person. That would suck! I would hope there’s plenty in this law to go around!

  70. Don’t I remember reading that the Judge told the prosecutors to come to court with what the defense is requesting, as far as the gun charges timeline, in the event he does rule in the defense’s favor?

    Let’s ALL show up at court tomorrow. It sure will be interesting.

  71. Hoda Kotb on the today show said either this morning or yesterday morning that she is going to Chicago to interview DP. Maybe the limo was for that. I love how he’s keeping a low profile & putting an end to media appearances.

Comments are closed.