Drew Peterson and the Slayer Statute. Can a Killer Inherit?

will-new2
On last night’s Justice Interrupted show Robin Sax and Susan Murphy-Milano invited UCLA Law School professor and partner in the Personal Planning Department of Proskauer Rose, Andy Katzenstein, to talk about the estate and will of Kathleen  as well as the status of Stacy Peterson’s estate.

On looking over Drew and Kathleen’s will which was written up on March 2nd, 1997, Katzenstein had three observations about it:

  1. The will is odd. Usually a husband draws up his own will and a wife draws up her own. You shouldn’t write up a joint will, but that’s what this one is.
  2. It’s obvious that no lawyer had a hand in writing up the will. It’s hand-written on a a legal pad. There’s probably nothing fraudulent about it but it was obviously drawn up by people who had no idea what they were doing.
  3. The will only says what happens if they both die. It doesn’t say what happens if he dies or she dies individually.


Katzenstein said, “The interesting thing with a joint will is they didn’t each write it out. One or the other of them wrote it out and then they both signed it. So it can really only stand as a holographic will for the person who wrote it, not for both of them even though they tried to do a joint, holographic will. So the bottom line is she must have written it if that will is admitted into probate. it’s the only way it got in.”

It’s interesting to note that in a Fox News interview from January 2008, Drew said he is the one who wrote out the will. “I wrote up the will with Kathleen’s instructions and we simply had a couple friends that were over to witness it and that was that simple.” If that is true, then the will could only apply to Drew and not Kathleen.

But regardless, Katzenstein said that the will is meaningless mainly because it states only what is to happen in the even that both Drew and Kathleen were to die, not what would happen in the event that either of them passed away individually. Essentially, Kathleen had no will and in that case the laws of intestacy say who would inherit. Katzenstein says in Kathleen’s case the inheritance would go to her spouse.

What no one brought up on the show is that Kathleen had no spouse at the time of her death. She and Drew were divorced, so what do the laws of intestacy say then?

“Public policy is if you kill somebody you can’t inherit from them.”

Katzenstein went on to explain that if Drew were to be charged and convicted of either woman’s death then he would easily fall under the Slayer Statute. The conviction would be taken to probate court and the judge would rule that he could not inherit.

Interestingly, it isn’t necessary to have a conviction in order to disinherit a murderer under the slayer statute. You would only need to convince the judge in the probate court that the deceased is a victim of felonious and intentional killing. If the Savio family is able to reopen Kathleen’s estate, would Drew fall under this Slayer Statute?

Katzenstein was asked about Stacy’s estate and the shared marital assets the Drew appears to be dispersing. Can anything be done about him signing over the title of Stacy’s car, or giving away her jewelry and clothing? He answered that someone representing Stacy’s kids would need to get into court to stop him, “The judge on his own isn’t going to say ‘I read this in the paper so I’m not going to distribute anything.'”

Who is going to step in to represent those kids?

Big thanks to Justice Interrupted for attempting to get to the bottom of some of the nagging legal questions about the estates of these two women! As always, thanks to ACR for the great library of resources.

Play or download the show (Choose 3/17/2009 show. Discussion begins about forty minutes in)

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

Advertisements

213 thoughts on “Drew Peterson and the Slayer Statute. Can a Killer Inherit?

  1. I’m sorry if the post is a little dry! Hey, maybe it will balance out all the girlfriend gossip and the publicity stunt coverage. 🙂

    What I came away with from the interview is the conviction that the will that Drew wrote is meaningless, so isn’t that all the more reason for Kathleen’s estate to be reopened?

  2. Okay, after reading this, my question is this. Is what was done in the probate court in the Savio/Peterson matter another case of oversight, incompetence, lack of caring, stupdity, greed, fraud, or what? In other words, if all that this man says is true, then what is the next step? Do they go back to square one and start over? If so, then there is no will, and she died intestate. Her assets would pass to her heirs/decendants. Drew Peterson does not fall into that category. They were divorced.

    So, what is puzzling to me is, why does this even have to go through the chain of appeals now, if that will isn’t a valid one to begin with? I believe Brodsky is fighting the re-opening of the estate based on his belief that there are no additional assets that were discovered to be disbursed, therefore, no reason to re-open the estate. He certainly isn’t going to admit/deny there was any fraud invovled.

    So, whatever happened to let this will be accepted in the probate court in the first place then – what was that? Was something illegal done? If something illegal was done, who is responsible? The court, the involved parties? Who, now, is responsible for forwarding this to the prosecutors for criminal charges as to the actions of the parties in the Savio estate?

    What a friggin’ mess!

  3. Thanks, girlfriend! It’s very readable! I’ve just spent ages listening to it, and it got hard going, didn’t it? The UCLA prof went on for ages about how the accepted principle everywhere is that murderers can’t inherit from their victims, while I, too, stood up from my chair shouting “they were divorced, you imbecile!!!”
    How could all those experts miss that?

  4. No kidding!

    “So since the will doesn’t say what happens when she dies, then it’s the laws of intestacy that say who inherits and in that case he gets it as a spouse.

    I would have yelled at my computer if it hadn’t been one in the morning.

  5. I’m actually preferring dry posts this morning. 😉

    So the bottom line is she must have written it if that will is admitted into probate. it’s the only way it got in.”

    It’s interesting to note that in a Fox News interview from January 2008, Drew said he is the one who wrote out the will. “I wrote up the will with Kathleen’s instructions and we simply had a couple friends that were over to witness it and that was that simple.” If that is true, then the will could only apply to Drew and not Kathleen.

    I’m sure they can determine who wrote the will.

    If it wasn’t Kathleen, then it should not have been admitted into probate. But considering how things went with Kathleen’s estate, this doesn’t mean much.

    And if Drew wrote it, it would only apply to Drew. So why did Drew say he wrote the will?

    I’m at a loss trying to follow this.

  6. It’s going through appeals because that’s the next step a shit lawyer always takes after sliming and lying.
    He considers it a kind of win-by-a-degree to delay the inevitable any way possible, but preferably in a way that pisses off and gets under the skin of everyone else. Statistically it helps to be short to excel at this.

    And really, Facs, great job 🙂

  7. 1. I don’t think Drew realises that in writing up the will alone that it would only apply to him.

    2. I think Andy K assumed that Kathleen must have written it since it was admitted into probate court as her will. Did the judge know that it was Drew who had written it?

  8. I think he didn’t know any better. That’s a big enough piece of shadiness that I think he would’ve remembered if he was supposed to lie about it.
    He was sure he was more clever.

  9. The thing with a will is – you don’t necessarily need it. If you have bank accounts and real estate in joint tenancy, the assets automatically pass on to the joint holder. No need for a will or probate to intervene there.

    Insurance policies – they have named beneficiaries. If she named her children on her policies – no need for a will or probate to intervene there either.

    Now, on the other hand, if she had numerous and substantial pieces of valuable jewelry, personal property, that, of course, is another story.

    But here’s the thing – that will now is Drew’s will, isn’t it? Unless he has since had a will drawn up to replace that will, that seems like a very interesting situation he is in.

    Does he have a “new” will? Of course, Stacy would also have a will too, wouldn’t she? If so, he can’t make a move – he’s completely tied-up now, by the fact that she is “missing.” He needs to find her dead body, one way or another, or he can’t get a divorce, he can’t sell his house, he can’t do anything with the marital assets. Not to mention, he’s stuck right now with a phony will. Umm, remember, he wants to be cremated and burried with Kathleen!

  10. Susan really needs to find out a way to get some of the voices not to be 10x louder than the people that call into her show. It is so hard to listen to when you have to keep playing with your volume.

  11. I’m really curious about this “felonious and intentional killing” thing.

    If they don’t need for him to be charged or convicted, and just need to convince a probate judge that he did it, they could disinherit Drew (retroactively, I guess) from Kathleen’s estate.

    Wouldn’t that be useful in paving the way for a Wrongful Death suit?

  12. Well, he seems to be redistributing Stacy’s assets now, if it is true that the car was in Stacy’s name too, and from what Andy Katzenstein said, someone representing Stacy’s children would have to get into court and intervene.

    And if I understood it right, the will is not valid no matter who wrote it because it only gives instructions on what to do if they both died.

  13. I think it’s a way of putting distribution in abeyance. The probate judge doesn’t apportion blame, just that the deceased died in that manner. Sort of stopping it going to the wrong, guilty party, whoever that may be.

  14. I think it’s the fault of people’s individual phone settings. 😦

    My BF does a lot of radio interviews (he’s doing one while I type this), and he’s ended up doing them from some strange places (driving on the tollway, walking the dog) but even he’s never done one from a basketball game!

    I was actually pretty impressed with how Andy K was able to hold it together in such a setting.

  15. But I’m thinking if they got that established in probate it would be really great for the next step – wrongful death suit.

    Not sure if it could be admitted or not…

  16. I’m w. you, Rescue. I just don’t understand how a Will, specifically and solely stating what was to happen if BOTH parties were to die at the same time – and ONLY what was to happen if both died, was EVER accepted into Probate. What the hell?!?

  17. It seems to me that someone should be court-appointed to defend the children’s interest in this matter now that some of these things have come up (such as the signature not matching, etc.). The two teenage boys could have stood to inherit much more than the $.5M each. They should have been able to split their mom’s half of any of the marital estate that hadn’t yet been split during the divorce process. Instead it looks like most of that all went straight to Drew even though they were no longer technically married.

  18. Not sure about a registry, but in Illinois you can not notorize something if you are a party to the transaction.

  19. TAI – I believe an attorney has been appointed on behalf of Tom and Kris Peterson as it relates to the Savio estate. Someone is looking out for their interests now that this has all come to light.

  20. Good. I know the other person tried but somehow lost out when the will in question was allowed to be admitted. It is too bad that he didn’t legally question the signature then though.

  21. It really is mind boggling to think that any probate judge would let Drew inherit ‘as a spouse’, when not only had he and Kathleen divorced five months prior to her death, he married Stacy directly after the divorce.

    Kathleen had no spouse at the time of her death, and Drew already had a different one!

  22. Exactly. So how did he get 100% of so many of her assets in the first place? Inquiring minds want to know…

  23. I may just be paranoid, but it’s hard for me to imagine all these same things happenning if the gender of the parties was reversed…

  24. Katzenstein said:

    “Well, here’s the way it works. The will is offered for probate and when it’s a holographic will like this, when it’s offered for probate in most states somebody has to file an affadavit that says, “Yup, that’s her signature.” so I assume that that affadavit was filed here. If somebody wants to object to it then they’ve got to file an objection. Absent an objection the court’s just going to admit the darn thing.”

  25. I’m not sure if an affidavit was filed, but, if you will recall, the witnesses were called into probate court to verify they did witness that will.

  26. Kathleen said she had no will, lawyer recalls

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/832553,CST-NWS-boling08.article

    I do not know if you can remember this article so I post the link above.

    […]
    While she was divorcing Drew Peterson, Kathleen Savio said she didn’t have a will, her former lawyer said Friday.

    Attorney Harry Smith’s statement raises new questions about a two-page, handwritten will that Drew Peterson unveiled 15 days after his ex-wife drowned in her bathtub in 2004.

    The will — dated March 2, 1997 — named Peterson’s uncle James B. Carroll as executor of Savio’s estate. Carroll later awarded Peterson control of virtually all of Savio’s assets, although Peterson and his third wife already had divorced.

    Smith on Friday also said that Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, met with him twice in the week before she vanished to solicit advice for her own divorce from the embattled Bolingbrook ex-cop.

    Stacy Peterson discussed divorce twice with Smith in the five days before her Oct. 28 disappearance, he said.

    “She was looking for advice regarding a dissolution of marriage, [the] results and ramifications,” Smith said, though he declined to offer specifics, saying: “That would be a good way to be sued.”

    […]
    Though he said he recalled Savio told him she and Drew Peterson didn’t have a will, he couldn’t offer specifics about the conversation.

    Drew Peterson, meanwhile, has said he found the will after his ex-wife died.

    We just tucked it away , and I found it after she died,” Peterson said earlier this year. “There’s nothing sinister and out of line about it. Everything was done proper.”

    A Will County judge accepted the will as valid in 2005 after two of Drew Peterson’s friends testified they had witnessed Peterson and Savio sign the document.

  27. On March 23, 2005, after hearing, Judge Lechwar entered an order admitting the Last Will and Testament of Kathleen Peterson to probate and appointing James Carroll, the uncle of Drew Peterson, as executor of the estate of Kathleen (Savio) Peterson. The new representative immediately fired Harry Smith as attorney for the estate of Kathleen (Savio) Peterson in the divorce proceeding.

  28. Definition: In a bifurcated divorce, the marriage is terminated, but other issues, such as the division of property, alimony, child support or custody arrangements, are left to be determined at a later date or at trial. Couples pursue a bifurcated divorce when one or both spouses want to terminate the marriage quickly, perhaps so they may remarry, and are willing to resolve other issues at a later date.

    http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/legaltermsac/g/bifurcated_def.htm

    I just needed to remind myself what this meant.

  29. The will lists some of their assets:

    • A Golden Rule life insurance policy valued at $100,000

    • A Monumental Life Insurance policy valued at $125,000

    • A Prudential Life Insurance policy valued at $308,137.59 — “Beneficiary Merchants Bank Oswego to pay off note for Sud’s Pub in Montgomery,” according to the will.

    • Bolingbrook Police Pension fund of more than $50,000

    • A piece of real estate listed as 9 Clay Court, Montgomery

    • The Blue Lightning Corp., or Sud’s Pub, 1250 S. Broadway, Montgomery

    • Da Page Corp., Fast ‘N’ Accurate Graphics, 87 Eisenhower South, Lombard

    • A quarter interest in CMYK Corp., listed as a printing business in “Lombard-Naperville,” according to the will.

    I wonder if it was ever checked to see if all of these assets were actually assets of Drew and Kathleen’s on the date of the will in question rather than just at the time of her death. Like what if Fast ‘N’ Accurate Graphics wasn’t created until 1998? Wouldn’t that be a trip!

  30. Do you think that has anything to do with Drew not being disinherited? I know they hadn’t divided assets yet, but it had to be clear that there was a loss of affection since they had divorced and he was engaged.

    I can see how the bifurcated divorce might make things a little more complicated as far as division of assets, but I still don’t know how a judge could admit that will!

  31. It is also the desire of Drew Walter Peterson to have his remains cremated and buried with the remains of his wife, Kathleen Savio Peterson.

    It’s always struck me as very odd that only Drew has the request about being cremated and interred with his wive’s remains. Also, you would think the words “upon her death” might have come at the end of that sentence.

    The way it is worded it almost appears as if Kathleen was already dead at the time the will was written.

  32. I learned that the notary power is given for 4 years. To become a notary you have to pay 5000 bucks every four years.
    Therefore, I believe Drew was a notary between 2000-2004. Was he one on 2nd March, 1997? There is not stamp on the will so how could it be admitted by any court? That’s redicoulous! However, I understand the judge had no way out because ‘the witnesses’ confirmed they signatures. Unfortunatelly, nobody noticed they were ONLY Drew’s buddies.

    I wonder how old James B Carroll is.

  33. I also wonder if Joel Brodsky knows James B Carroll and it was him who recommended Joel to Drew. They are worth each other and their style of work is identical.

  34. Drew did not renew his authorization. He is not a notary anymore or it expired in 2008.
    I can’t wait for more documents related to Stacy now, and authorized by Drew. She probably left a will saying: “In case I went missing or run away with my lover …or be accidently found in a Lemont quarry…”. Forgive me.

  35. Hmm… Interesting story here. This person went over 20 years before being charged with her hubby’s murder and was caught after some witnesses became adults:

    http://www.wftv.com/news/18959723/detail.html

    Teacher Arrested For 1988 Murder Of Husband
    Posted: 2:54 pm EDT March 18, 2009
    Updated: 4:06 pm EDT March 18, 2009

    ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — Orange County sheriff’s office homicide detectives in partnership with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement arrested a school teacher Wednesday morning for the 1988 murder of her husband.

    Deputies said that on March 20, 1988, they responded to a death investigation at 5810 Elon Drive in Orlando. When officers arrived at the house, they met with Delores Laster who told investigators she returned home from a trip to Gainesville and discovered her husband dead in the garage.

    Delores Laster, 61, reported that someone broke into the home and killed her husband, Clarence Laster, who at the time was 48 years old. Detectives discovered there was no forced entry into the residence and it did not appear that anything was missing.

    Detectives found the victim’s wallet and watch laying on the nightstand next to his bed in the master bedroom. The detectives also discovered blood on the nightstand, the floor a crib and the walls within the master bedroom indicating the victim was shot while in bed and then carried into the garage.

    Clarence Laster’s body was covered with a thick piece of plastic. The victim died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

    Delores Laster told detectives she last saw her husband on Saturday morning, March 19 and that he left with an unknown male driving an unknown vehicle. Family members gave conflicting testimony at the time. Subsequently the suspect declined to speak with detectives.

    In mid 2008 FDLE Agents began to review the case for any possible new evidence or witnesses. In speaking with a retired detective who was involved in the case, it was suggested to try to locate the family members who were now adults, to see if they recalled anything. A complete review of the case and subsequent interviews with witnesses involved in the investigation revealed inconsistencies in the suspect’s statements that previously could not be verified.

    After the case was presented to the Orange County State Attorney’s Office for review, a presentation was made to the Grand Jury who indicted Delores Laster for First-Degree Murder with a Firearm and a warrant was issued for her arrest. She was arrested Wednesday morning in Orange County and charged with his homicide.

    Delores Laster has been an Orange County Public School employee since 1969. She is a first-grade teacher at Dillard Street Elementary School in Winter Garden.

  36. I’ve been away for a couple of hours and did a quick read-through, but didn’t see anything posted yet about this.

    I just heard reported on WBBM news radio that Ernie Raines was told by his daughter that they’re still planning on having a June wedding. The report says that his daughter told him a notice is going to be published in a paper, and, after 30 days, Peterson can claim that Stacy abandoned him.

    The report claims they spoke to Brodsky about this, and his response was that no final determination has been made about when and where to do this, but they considered putting the notice in the Chicago Law Bulletin.

    I can tell you, from all the years and years I worked for lawyers, the Chicago Law Bulletin is not going to fall in the hands of Stacy Peterson, or anyone else for that matter, since it’s pretty much only distributed and read by lawyers.

    So, there you have it. The future Mrs. Peterson is spreading the word, and giving away the game plan, so she can marry her Drew.

  37. I’m going to start calling you Scoopy Scooperson!

    In a way I hope they do try to do the simple “post in the papers” route and then go to a judge with a copy of the paper.

    I honestly think s/he’ll laugh out loud.

  38. But the gall and audacity for that witch that moved in with him to think that an ad in a newspaper is all that a young mom’s life is worth, to clear the way for her to marry a murdering, disgusting POS.

    I’ll bettcha Brodsky was a little taken off his mark when he found out that idiot is blabbing.

  39. Someone should send her a mock-up of such an ad… but w. HER name as the “abandon-er.”

    As to her blabbing, I wonder if this is something they’re seriously considering or if it was a sop by DP/JB to keep Chrissy (dumb &)happy.

  40. OMG – I hope this is really not possible. Although I believe that Drew and Chrissy completely deserve each other, the very thought that a newspaper ad is all a young mother’s life is worth is disgusting to me also. If SA’s office is correct, he will never see June!!! I am really hoping that will be the case. Hey maybe they will arrest him when the question is asked Does anyone have any objection to this marriage ya think?

  41. He will never marry her. He needs her now to get a divorce and then tell her to go away. She is really naive.
    She wants to have a baby with him. He doesn’t want to and he does not want to share “his” assets [what assets in future??? 😉 ] with her. He does not love her, has not even taken her to a good restaurant and the only presents she got from him where somehow inherited by Drew from his former wives. That is the opinion of my hubby. I believe him. All the stunt is made to attract attention of the media and earn more money (how much will be the ticket for this show?). Additionally, Drew has a babysitter for free.
    “Poor” Christina wants to save Drew and believes Drew will be another man with her. She does not understand she is on the way to ruin her life, and the wedding will not make her happy. Should it be a mouse is chasing a cat?

    What’s more, before 30 days pass, he will be formaly accused of murder, so NO judge is going to divorce him. Will she be so desperate to marry him even when he is sentenced? No more men in Illinois?

    Lacy is just an excuse. Or a remorse.

  42. Yes, there is something very odd and disturbing about these “last wishes” especially considering this will was supposedly drawn up in a joint effort by Drew and Kathleen (!!)

    Only Drew states he wants to be cremated and “burried” with Kathleens remains, yet Kathleen doesn’t state at all what she wants done in case Drew is the unfortunate one to die first (!!)

    At the time this will was co-written neither party could say with certainty who would die first, unless of course Kathleen was already dead when Drew penned this will with this unintentional omission.

    It is also worth noting Drew always uses the word “remains” when he speaks of his deceased spouses (!!)

  43. The two older boys are named too, we guess it to be Savio estate related…or still trying to interfere with the appointed Guardian ad litem, Chrystel Gavlin?

  44. It’s really sad. I think he knows perfectly well he will not get a divorce. He’s leading Chrissy on, unless he thinks he can control her from ‘inside’. Free babysitter with benefits. No, he won’t want to share his money with her. Won’t want her kids, neither, probably.

  45. Joel Brodsky stated very early on Drew getting a divorce would be very easy as all he’d have to do is put an ad in the paper and if Stacy doesn’t reply within 30 days, Drew can get a divorce.

    Of course this is also what they have told Christina and what would she know (!!)

    Why doesn’t she ask, if it’s that easy, why isn’t Drew divorced yet, considering he is the one wanting to get married a.s.a.p (or so he states in their joint interview)

  46. I suppose if he marries the kids would stay with her, he thinks. Chrissy should lighten up. If I had custody of Lacy I would be delighted to have Chrissy, Paula, Lenny and so on round for tea. They don’t have to be strangers, and I think most people would agree with me. I’ll bet you a girl like Chrissy would identify like mad with Lacy. I kind of dated a widower once long ago chiefly because my heart went out to his 12 year old son who was desperate for attention and reassurance. Many years later we are still loosely in touch and I didn’t have to marry his drunk dad!

  47. There are three diferent Insurance Companies mentioned in this extremely dodgy will:

    Golden Rule Insurance, Monumental Life Insurance and Prudential Life Insurance.

    My guess is these three Insurance Companies are following this case with great interest, if they aren’t doing their own investigations already as they would want to get their money back if they paid out on a fraudulent claim and have the perpetrator charged with defrauding them (!!)

  48. Since in effect there was no will, the estate passes as the intestacy laws say (i.e., the state laws govern…). If the estate has been distributed pursuant to the laws of intestacy, there isn’t anything to open now.

  49. Just the thought of Christina left in charge of 6 children is absurd in its own.

    She can’t even look after herself and her own two children, let alone adding another 4 to it (!!)

  50. If the estate is now closed, that means whatever was there was distributed. I can only assume that the court had it distributed under the laws of intestacy as it should have been to the right people. You can re-open if there are assets found later, but in most cases (at least where the lawyer knows what he or she is doing) the order closing and distributing the estate says “if anything else is found distribute as we the court have said and you don’t need to re-open”. So I can’t figure out why they would re-open.

  51. Didn’t know they were divorced as I was on the call – sorry! But you’re right – if no spouse, then it goes to the kids. The end. Yet, that doesn’t change the fact that there was in effect no will, and therefore he had no right to “run” the estate if that is what he is trying to do!

  52. Me too. He didn’t know what he was doing – this will stuff is messed up by “laypeople” who just don’t know how it works all the time – that’s why it’s best to have a lawyer prepare the documents. When clients want something “quick and dirty” like this kind of will I often dictate it to them just so they don’t make this kind of mistake!

  53. Welcome to the blog Mr. Katzenstein.

    Thanks so much for following up with your comments here and feel free to drop by anytime and share your expertise!

  54. Most states have a rule that says someone is presumed dead if no one has heard from them in 5 years. If her will was probated they must have had a finding that she was dead, so he wouldn’t need to divorce if they were married when she died.

  55. If they were finally divorced, then Drew wouldn’t take…the kids would take by intestacy. However, the court would typically appoint someone to represent the minor children if it felt their interests weren’t being properly protected – courts have that discretion.

  56. If you are divorced, at least in California, you are automatically disinherited – no matter whether assets are divided or not. If separated but not divorced, you are still a spouse and inherit under intestacy. That is the rule in most states.

  57. Thanks, for visiting the blog, Mr. Katzenstein.

    What do you think the Savio family wants then, in reopening the estate?

    “Will County Judge Carmen Goodman ruled to reopen the estate of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. Drew’s atty appealed the decision. The state’s third district appellate court upheld the ruling, prompting Brodsky to take his case up the ladder with a Supreme Court appeal.”

  58. Attorney Katzenstein: If there were no newly discovered assets, and there was no reason to re-open the estate, what is the remedy, then, that the family would have if the will is incorrect, as you say?

    That will was accepted as legitimate and went through the probate court, an executor appointed and assets distributed. Wrongly.

    Now what?

  59. Judge Rodney Lechwar is national anthem soloist. No kidding.

    […]
    “Advocates help by becoming the eyes and ears in court. “They are the voice of the child,” said Will County Juvenile court judge Rod Lechwar. “I don’t know how I could do my job without CASA’s advocates. I get good, honest information. They are unprejudiced…[…]

    Sounds strange in comparison to his decision.

  60. Oke, but the estate wasn’t distributed persuant to the laws of Intestacy, it was duly distributed as a will supposedly written by Kathleen and Drew.

    It was never declared an invalid will by any Court.

    That’s why the Savio family wants to reopen the case, as everything about the will and its distribution was dodgy.

  61. Well, that’s my question. If it’s not to be re-opened because there are no new assets, then what should be done? The assets were distributed incorrectly according to an invalid will. Should the parties be prosecuted criminally, should the original probate court be sent to the gallows, or should some court somewhere just compel Peterson to give all the money back as it was intended to be distributed intestate?

    What is the answer?

  62. I totally understand where you are coming from facs, my reply was to katzo.

    If this will was inenforcible because it was an invalid will and as a result Kathleen died intestate, then the Savio family has all the more reason to have the Estate re-opened as Drew ended up with money in his pockets that was’nt his to claim in the first place’s !!

  63. Yes indeed now what ?

    A “non” will went through the Courts and assets distributed accordingly, resulting in Drew lining his pockets.

    Where does that leave the proper beneficiaries ?

  64. Oke I will repost my original reply to Katzo as it seems to have gotten lost in amongst all other posts:

    If this will was inenforcible because it was an invalid will and as a result Kathleen died intestate, then the Savio family has all the more reason to have the Estate re-opened as Drew ended up with money in his pockets that was’nt his to claim in the first place’s !!

  65. Another post froum Liz, the ISP intern:

    At lunch today though, we had a few calls on the Peterson tip line. Nothing that sounds like a good lead, but we got a few laughs out of it. I guess 95% of the time, the calls that come in are from people who are trying to find fame out of making a bogus claim.

    The funnier thing is that I’ll bet most of these people are dead serious…and we’ve blogged with them. 😉

  66. katzo Says:

    March 18, 2009 at 5:33 pm
    Since in effect there was no will, the estate passes as the intestacy laws say (i.e., the state laws govern…). If the estate has been distributed pursuant to the laws of intestacy, there isn’t anything to open now.

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

    The Estate has not been distributed puruant to the laws of Intestacy.

    If it were there would not have been the injustices to it’s rightful beneficiaries, especially since Drew and Kathleen were already divorced at that stage !!

  67. A June Wedding For Drew Peterson And Fifth Wife?
    CHICAGO (CBS) ―

    Drew Peterson’s fifth wedding could happen this June, according to WBBM Newsradio 780.

    Peterson could march down the aisle with girlfriend Christina Raines, who has for some time been rumored to be his fiancée.

    And Raines’ father, Ernie Raines, says their plans are still to get hitched this spring.

    “She told me the other day that they were going to get married in June,” he said. “She wanted a June wedding.”

    But Peterson is still legally married to his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who disappeared mysteriously more than a year ago.

    “From what I gather, his lawyer wants to run an ad. Thirty days, she doesn’t answer the ad, then he can file for abandonment and then he’s free to get married because she didn’t come back,” Ernie Raines said of plans to get around the legal hurdles.

    Peterson was named a suspect in Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. His third wife, Kathleen Savio, died under mysterious circumstances.

    http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.wedding.2.962574.html

    WBBM Newsradio 780

  68. This is from the WBBM radio site, with Brodsky’s response:

    Posted: Wednesday, 18 March 2009 5:14PM

    Date Set For Bride Number 5?

    Steve Miller Reporting
    CHICAGO (WBBM) — The man who would be Drew Peterson’s newest father-in-law tells Newsradio 780 that Peterson and his fiancee are still planning a June wedding – but that a lot depends on an ad that Peterson’s lawyer may run in the newspaper.

    If Drew Peterson marches down the aisle a fifth time, it may be in June.

    That’s still the plan, says Ernie Raines, the father of Christina Raines.

    “She told me the other day that they were going to get married in June. She wanted a June wedding.”

    And how to get around the fact that Peterson is still married to Stacy?

    “From what I gather, his lawyer wants to run an ad. Thirty days, she doesn’t answer the ad, then he can file for abandonment and then he’s free to get married because she didn’t come back.”

    Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky told us running the ad in a law bulletin is something they’re considering – but no decision has been made.

    Brodsky says he doesn’t think Peterson can officially sever his ties with the missing Stacy in time for a June wedding.

    Raines just got out of the hospital yesterday, after a heart scare Friday as he was talking to his daughter, trying to get her to leave Drew Peterson.

    Peterson was named a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy. His third wife died under mysterious circumstances.

  69. Re #38 A little ear ruffle for you, Rescue!
    Maybe he’s realistic about his imminent arrest. If he’s charged with Stacy’s murder, he could have a jailhouse wedding asap before Chrissy realises what’s happened (that should give him a 6 months or so LOL)

  70. “From what I gather, his lawyer wants to run an ad. Thirty days, she doesn’t answer the ad, then he can file for abandonment and then he’s free to get married because she didn’t come back,” Ernie Raines said of plans to get around the legal hurdles.

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

    It sounds too easy as it means to get a quick divorce anyone could just murder their spouse to give the perpetrator the guarantee the spouse would never be able to reply to a newspaper ad (!!)

    I’m sure Brodsky pulled that one on Christina as she believes anything if it doesn’t require any thinking or logic on her part (!!)

  71. BTW, Susan MM says that “if you go to the justice interrupted site the show will replay without all the noise. For some reason I am unable to control the volume when we are on the air live but the replay is much better. Once you go to the site it will automatically play for a week until we have the next show.”

  72. I think they are just continuing to try to perpetuate the idea that Stacy left of her own volition.

    For the sake of his case, Drew has to continue to act as if Stacy walked out on him, no matter how ridiculous it looks.

    I just don’t see any judge granting him a divorce while he’s a suspect in her disappearance. Again, Stebic was probably the smarter one here in quietly withdrawing his petition to divorce after his wife “went missing.”

  73. Besides Drew is the “get married asap” type (why wait until tomorrow if you can get married today) and he would have divorced Stacy and married Christina by now if it were as easy as Brodsky has been proclaiming.

    Remember Drew went to see a divorce attorney before Stacy was even missing a full year and he would have instigated divorce proceedings the second the year was up, but here it is March 2009 and Drew is still a married man (!!)

    LMAO – apparently it’s not that easy !!

  74. It’s obvious that no lawyer had a hand in writing up the will. It’s hand-written on a a legal pad. There’s probably nothing fraudulent about it but it was obviously drawn up by people who had no idea what they were doing.

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

    Has Mr. Katzenstein considered this will was drawn up by a Sociopath with the idea everything in the will was about him and how it would effect and benefit him and him alone ?

    Through the eyes of a Sociopath the will makes perfect sense (!!)

  75. rescue,

    Sorry I just saw that you posted. I guess my eyes are still a bit blurry. Loved the Brodsky comment. Just told my wife and hoping his rear end will be in jail in June.

    mod edit\ Hey WSF, I deleted your post just for the sake of tidiness. Thanks for posting though!

  76. So, what is puzzling to me is, why does this even have to go through the chain of appeals now, if that will isn’t a valid one to begin with? I believe Brodsky is fighting the re-opening of the estate based on his belief that there are no additional assets that were discovered to be disbursed, therefore, no reason to re-open the estate. He certainly isn’t going to admit/deny there was any fraud invovled.

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

    I agree and what I also don’t understand is that so may legal eagles have been involved in all this and no one has come up with what Mr. Katzenstein has just mentioned that this will was always a non enforceable will and as a result Kathleen died intestate.

    So why did this dodgy will go through the legal system without the blink of an eye ??

  77. Katzenstein was asked about Stacy’s estate and the shared marital assets the Drew appears to be dispersing. Can anything be done about him signing over the title of Stacy’s car, or giving away her jewelry and clothing? He answered that someone representing Stacy’s kids would need to get into court to stop him, “The judge on his own isn’t going to say ‘I read this in the paper so I’m not going to distribute anything.’”

    Who is going to step in to represent those kids?

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

    Oke another point:

    Who can be representing Stacy’s kids in regard to Drew prematurily disposing of their mothers assets if Drew does not allow any contact with the Cales family ?

    How can the Cales know what Drew does behind the scenes ??

    If anything they most likely also only find out after the fact, so what can they do ??

    Can they get Stacy’s (known) assets frozen before they all end up in Christinas name ???

  78. I’m just wondering if Drew has more rights to Stacy’s assets than anyone else considering he is officially still her husband and continuous to live under the presumption of innocense as he hasn’t been charged with anything in either case !

    God this is so awful and so complicated (!!)

  79. I am wondering if it was legal of Drew to take all the assests of Kathleen Savio BEFORE the whole legal procedure was finished? Should it have been deposited first?
    It is was said he took all things from Kathleen’s house before the end of April 2004.
    They were already divorced so IMO he did not have any right to do it. He could only take children’s things, right? Wasn’t that fraudalent?

    It would be great to have access to the documentation of the cases of 23 March 2005 when Lechwar appointed Carroll the executor of the testament and of 8 Aril 2005 awarding Drew all the assests.

    see paragraph 5 and 6

    It would be great to learn on what basis the power was granted to JBC and then all the assets awarded to Drew. If the will considers only the event both Drew and Kathleen die – let’s say in an accident – how could it be admitted and interpreted that the assets go to Drew? The will only mentions the children and in fact the children were not given a dime resulting from sharing the assests but only Drew. They were given only the money from the insurance.

    Can you remember, Drew himself said once the will had been signed by them before going on holidays or something like that. So its intention was to protect children, not Drew or Kathleen.

    IMO, everything would be all right if all Kathleen’s assets were awarded to the children and then Drew was given a resonable portion of it to cover some part of the costs connected with bringing up children on his own. Granting all the assets from KS and DP’s shared assests ONLY to Drew stinks.

  80. Now look at it:
    http://www.mapunion.org/web-data/SmartObjects/Board.pdf
    and the power of attorney

    Jeff Ortinau
    (appointed by KS to represent her interests in 2002)
    I have been serving on the MAP
    Board for approximately twenty years. I
    retired from the Bolingbrook Police
    Department after 27 years of service at
    the rank of Sergeant.
    At the present time,
    I am MAP’s legal advisor and attorney,
    licensed to practice law in Illinois since
    1991. My objective is to assist MAP
    members and all those who serve in law
    enforcement.

    It sounds like joke, isn’t it?

  81. To me this is doesn’t look like Kitty’s signature, but on top of that it’s the kind of thing that would be sorted as part of the division of assets. I really don’t believe she would have signed it at that time. It was a substantial ‘lever’ she had in the property negotiations. Very smelly, I think.

    I’m wondering about DP’s career as a notary. It’s usually real estate, insurance brokers, (some attorneys?)who register themselves a snotaries, isn’t it? 5 thousand bucks evey 4 years sounds like an awful lot to pay if you’re not notarising very much and making it back, or even if you don’t need it.

    Does he know a lot of people who need ‘flexible’ notarial confirmation? um.

  82. I meant no disrespect to notaries everywhere…it was a typo, honest. 😉 ..although Drew’s quite likely a snotary notary lol

  83. I caught what you mean, buckeoftea:)
    I think it is much cheaper to go to a notary and pay for the services than buy the ‘licence’. Are you going to buy a truck if you are going to move out? 😉

    Having the power only to sign one or two documents does not make any sense unless …

    Bucket, you said “on top of that it’s the kind of thing that would be sorted as part of the division of assets”. What do you mean? When I read the will, I had impression its concerns ONLY children. There is no word of Drew’s (except burring him next to the ‘remains’ of KS) or Kathleen’s related to the division of assets in case one of them die. The will does not make any sense to me for the reason that in case they both died, the assets would go to the children anyway. The will gives some advantage to Eric and Steven because Kathleen did not have to share her part with them.

    BTW, why some of her assets were not given to Eric and Steven if the will states so? 😉

  84. Sorry..I meant the power of attorney that enabled DP to get a mortgage for his home with Stacy, not the will.

  85. drew life adventures: the future in-laws

    The man who would be Drew Peterson’s father-in-law is out of the hospital, resting, but planning what to do next to try to get his daughter to leave Peterson’s home.

    It was last Friday when Ernie Raines had a “heart scare” and then spent four days in the hospital for tests, including an angiogram.

    Raines says everything checked out OK – but he says his blood pressure and cholesterol are too high.

    He says that when he started feeling ill, he was talking to his daughter Christina, trying to persuade her to leave Drew Peterson.

    Now, after talking to priests while he was in the hospital, he wants to try again.

    “I’d like to get a priest over there. Not for him but for my daughter.”

    Raines says he and his daughter are Roman Catholic.

    “You know, if I can’t get through to her… I’d have the priest talk to her. That’s my only option right now. All the other options are gone.”

    Raines says his daughter tells him she still wants to be a June bride.

    http://tinyurl.com/cdpojt

  86. What’s the matter with Sellig? Can’t he get Drew booked on TV anywhere? Well, it’s as I thought. He’s only good at answering the phone and saying ‘yes’, not actual promotion.

  87. what on Earth is he going to talk about now? I think everyone knows the answer to just about everything except WHERE IS STACY, DREW????

  88. In the radio interview with Amy Jacobsen, Brodsky sounded perplexed why GMA didn’t respond to his email asking to be able to provide their on-air rebuttal of Tom’s story with them.

  89. I’m going to ask a really stupid question. Should an ISP intern really be blogging about this case? I just don’t want something to slip out that shouldn’t or the defense team to win on some kind of technicality.

  90. He is going to talk about his amnesia. No barrel, no murder, no credible witnesses and so on.
    He wants to present a new timeline for 10/28. He was in Thailand and Stacy did not want to return.

    But seriously saying, this idiot MUST talk. Otherwise he feels abandoned.

  91. Good morning, Happy GJ day.

    I wonder…Will there be any GJ news at all soon ?

    I wonder…Am I the only blogger that reads here that fires up her computer every morning hoping that the “New Post of the Day” reads something along the lines of….GJ hands down indictment DP arrested…News at 11 ?? 😉

  92. …nd he will use it as a proof in court that his client did not have any chance to defend himself.

    Brodsky and Drew should just book a ticket as ordinary people do if they wants to take part in the program.

  93. But Chris Cuomo (who interviewed Tom)said that they had contacted both LE and Brodsky for comment and neither one of them had responded.

  94. What’s your excuse, cyrhla? I’m several time zones east, Whitesoxfan often here early before work 🙂

    How’s the foot doing, Wonder?

  95. Just wanted to toss it out there that I’m not concerned about the ISP intern blogging. Unless she posts something specific about the case I don’t think she’s doing any harm. The fact that she’s blogging about it reassures me that they actually work on the case. Lately I’ve been wondering…

  96. I think she shouldn’t but I read her posts with interest :). When she was writing about copying documents of KS and SP I even though “Could she send one for us?” 😉

  97. FWIW
    To set the notary fee straight, the fee is only $10.00 (ten) State fee, and $5.00 (five) County fee. The $5000.00 is a surety bond, which usually costs between $35.00 (thirty-five) and $50.00 (fifty), and you have to buy your own stamp. The maximum fee you can charge is $1.00 (one) You have to re-new every 4 years. I thought I would let you know, as I am a notary in Illinois.

  98. Drew is getting his name out there in all kinds of fascinating ways:

    And so in honor of President Obama’s penchant for multi-tasking at the worst possible time, the following is a list of the top 10 things he could also work on, on the side, while fixing the economy:

    1. Do we know definitively how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?
    2. Alitalia loses luggage like Drew Peterson loses wives. They need to be punished. Severely.

    Full Story: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/author/secupp1/

  99. Who’d have ever thought Drew Peterson would be a poster boy in the pro-gay marriage fight:

    From the obits: The New York Times (Feb. 11) lists the death of Betty Jameson, who helped found the LPGA. The golfer lived with another golfer, Mary Lena Faulk, for 30 years. Eric Zorn, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune (Feb. 15) pulled a quiet little paragraph out of a Feb. 12 obituary about the partner (for 32 years) , Jay Dillon, of the deceased, Gregory Harris. Zorn interviewed Dillon about this “incredible love story” and found they had met as juniors at Indiana University and had been together ever since. They were both teachers. To quote Zorn: “How dare we so casually grant serial marriage rights and privileges to any impetuous heterosexual who wants them—think Drew Peterson—and deny them to such stable, committed partners as Dillon and Harris?”

    Source: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20689

  100. Anytime I look at the photo of Fritzl in the news, I think about Drew Peterson and how similar they are.

    The man has been sentenced for life sentence in mental hospital today. Now Drew’s turn!

  101. I was thinking about Fritzl this morning. He’s admitted to and has expressed remorse for even more depravity than DP, saying he can’t make it right, but wishes to stop making it worse by proceeding with the trial. Makes you think if Fritzl can, why not the mommykiller?

  102. Foot is healing slowwlyyyyyyy. Thank you for enquiring. 🙂 Have a wonderful day everyone. I’m off to the market. BBL this evening after my afternoon medicated nap 😉

  103. I think Brodsky is inadvertently burning all his bridges regarding the press. We saw what a goof he was early on, but it took awhile for people who don’t follow this case as much as we do, to see what a nut he really is. I think almost all the major TV hosts realize that now.
    He blew his chance for his life long dream of being a TV commentator, with his bumbling antics. He is the one that has NO credibility.
    *******
    I think the networks should get facs or rescue on to answer questions knowingly and truthfully, as most “experts” they have on do not research this story enough, and spread misinformation.
    Soooo, call in NG, GV, HLN, LK, JVM, M&J, GMA, Today, TES, Mancow, S&T, WGN, Geraldo, and get on the panel that answers questions for the people that call in!
    Like Bucket said (#56), contrary to how hard Sellig tries to make it seem, it just takes a phone call. lol

  104. OT and not that anyone asked, but I’m voting for the old layout.

    I find myself having to re-read posts I’ve already read. Not that what you all had to say wasn’t fascinating.

    I’m sure this is a personal issue and has more to do with a learning discibility on my part than it really being all that difficult to follow.

  105. I have to say that I second that vote but will live with the format if others really like it.

    While I’m getting accustomed to this new format on my PC – I’m finding it much more challenging on my Blackberry. (Yeah – sometimes I check here on my way to or from work when I don’t have my PC handy to see if I’m missing any big news…)

  106. Thanks for the feedback. Let’s give it a full week and see how it goes.

    I hate to say it, but the cascading replies might work better with a different theme.

    What, more change!!?!?!???

  107. I agree. You have to read from post #1 every time you checked in, to see if anyone added anything to existing post.
    Any way to make it so new replies stay in time order?

    If not, it’s all good.

  108. Presently, you can see the new comments by going to the homepage and clicking on the “Recent Comments” in the sidebar at the right.

  109. I like chronological, but I think the cascades may be helpful to visitors. I’m good with continuing the trial week and more if that’s what everyone else wants. 🙂 you’ve done such a brill job.

  110. I’m going out for a bit and I think Rescue is also away from the computer this afternoon. If someone wants to listen to WGN at two and post anything interesting here, I’d really appreciate it!

  111. Was Brodsky serious about posting in the Chicago Law Bulletin?

    From Rescue’s description, the Chicago Law Bulletin doesn’t quite fit the bill of local newspaper which is what instructions tell you.

    😀
    I called the Will County Circuit Clerk to find out (Pamela J. McGuire, phone: 815/727-8585) what newspapers would qualify. I must NOT have been her first call about this because she was in a hurry to get it out and get on with her day. If I can trust my scribbles, she mentioned 3: Labor Record, Herald News, and Farmers Weekly.

    Since you can only use this if you cannot find your spouse after making good efforts to do so, I wonder if Googling and other Internet searches constitutes a good effort?

  112. This works for me unless I’m more than 5 posts behind.

    And it is good to re-read the posts since I’ve caught things the second time around that I’d previously missed.

  113. Yeah, but the thing is it doesn’t matter.

    IMO, publishing the notice about Drew’s intent to divorce in some obscure paper is just another attempt to perpetuate the myth that Stacy is still alive. Why else would they even mention the name of a paper that they know people will recognize as obscure?

    They want us to think they are playing games with her and to be angered by it, but of course, she would need to be alive for them to do that and she isn’t. She’s DEAD and it doesn’t matter where they publish anything. She won’t be reading it.

  114. Well Drewp will not be on WGN.
    Brodsky wanted money, and when Randy Miller said NO!, Brodsky e-mailed him and wanted “Randy to mention (a bar Randy WOULD NOT mention) two times each, tomorrow and Friday, say how good the wings are etc., and NOT have it connected to DP!”
    Randy said “NO” again.
    (Baldsky sure is slick)

    Also, Sellig called Randy, AND Mancow was involved.
    Randy really showed his disgust at all of them, saying words like “hazmat” “fumigate the furniture” “made me sick” “pesticides”
    and more.
    Also had a story about DiP in a bar.
    I guess Randy coined the name “Mancow” back when Eric used to work for him.
    Also said if you want DiP on your show to call “his agent Mancow”
    *****************
    I thought everybody else wanted to make money off this case and not Brodsky?
    I wonder if I can get Randy to send Reem that e-mail.

  115. Wow, Womenscorned, that is very interesting news you have for us! Thank you.

    I talked to Geoff Pinkus after he had DP on, and he said pretty much DP makes him sick.

    The first and foremost thing he was most interested in doing at the beginning of the interview was to sit next to Amy Jacobson. Mr. Pinkus told him no, you’ll sit here (pointing to the directed spot).

    If you did listen to the radio interview, you might recall hearing about Peterson going to a restaurant with Mancow Downtown, but they were turned away because they feared he would “hurt” the waitresses. I think I also remember Brodsky plugging a place on that radio interview and mentioning the “wings.” Oh, heaven help us.

  116. Well, Facs … you know that and I know that … but will the judge who hears the divorce case know that?

    And oops but my post at 1:22 was supposed to be a Reply to my own post at 1:16. If you have the power to move it, please do.

  117. I believe that he and Joel were also chuckling every time they said something about the wings. I have to listen to that again. I recall Brodsky or someone saying something about the wings being an aphrodesiac. Now if this is true – I would never go to that place of business and they should be called out if they are paying Drew for this stuff. Explains them going the whole radio route.

  118. Makes ya wonder if Brodsky’s defense table will have advertising on it.

    THIS SPOT AVAILABLE

    lol … that should be stamped on the top of Brodsky’s head.

  119. In the story about the bar, DiP was with “an associate producer” for the “Today Show”.

    Is there any “lawyer ethics” involved in any of this??

  120. womenscorned – did they discuss this on WGN prior to the cancellation of DP’s interview? I’d love to hear that!

  121. Your post made my brain take it one step futher. Drew and Brodsky probably will start showing up with a suit with flashing lights and a scrolling advertisement on it. Is there nothing that these two won’t do? Do either of them have a morsel or moral between them???

    In all seriousness though – if they are doing these interviews to score money (or free wings) and Brodsky is knowingly taking part in it isn’t it something that the bar should be investigating? All we need is for Drew to be awarded an appeal based on inadequate representation if he is ever charged with a crime.

    It pisses me off how much of a joke they think this is. It makes me want to yell “Hey – MF!! Stacy is missing and your kids are without their mother! WTF is wrong with you??!!”

  122. Well now, so much has happened since the last time I’ve posted here. Where to begin?

    First of all, remember what I said about Amy being a real reporter, right? Well I think she proved that. She was still too restrained, but boy did she trip up Drew something fierce. Funny how the great ‘master manipulator’ got owned by a woman, no? He comes in looking like a mid-life crisis, smelling of God-awful cologne and acting like a cocky a**, and didn’t expect to get tricked so easily.

    Almost laughable. But really it makes sense. I have a feeling he is obsessed with Amy in a stalker-type way. Fits his persona quite well, and she is a gorgeous woman. More to the point, a gorgeous woman who lost her job for wearing a bikini. In Drew’s mind, that makes her a potential conquest. Its how he first got involved on the Mancow show, and then went on Pinkus’ show. I don’t think he will be doing so in the future…

    Speaking of which, he blew Mancow off on Monday, and his most recent appearences have all been over the phone, not in studio. Why? Mancow doesn’t have women for him to hit on. No conquests means no reason for him to come into the studio. Noodle that one a while.

    If I were the prosecutor, I think I would hire some pretty young thing, preferably a waifish brunette in her 20s or so, to completely trip him up. She could trick him into saying anything given his comical behavior…

    As for the rest. This will is big news. Like I said before, I never understood how it was even passed in the first place without anyone questioning it. Something fishy is afoot in BB and that needs to be looked into before they bring Drew down.

  123. Since I posted it already on SYM…

    So… No doubt most of you have heard Drew Peterson getting interviewed by Amy, both on Mancow’s show and on Pinkus’. Now whatever you may think of her and her behavior in the Stebic case, she is a very professional journalist and (unlike many others) hasn’t been afraid to ask Drew some hard questions.

    What is more interesting to me, however, is the fact that she triped him up, got him to admit things he probably didn’t want to. After all, Drew is the ‘great master manipulator’. How did he get tricked by a woman? How did this self-proclaimed Cassanova stumble all over himself when confronted by a pretty reporter?

    The answer is quite simple – because Drew has never dealt with a professional, educated woman before in his life. He’s never dealt with a woman who is not his equal, but actually ABOVE him; so far out of his league, in fact, that it is laughable. Drew has never had to deal with a woman who didn’t buy into his BS. And he is so eager to please that he invents five or six different lies, trying each in turn until he gets caught.

    See… look at things like this. Drew can’t be seen without a woman. He jumps from wife to wife, girlfriend to girlfriend. And he needs someone new. That’s why he has this sham relationship with Chrissy*.

    Amy, on the other hand, is a professional woman. She is also quite beautiful; I think anyone would agree to that much. A bit too old for Drew, not to mention that she doesn’t need him for professional or financial support. But many people think she got fired for wearing a bikini to Stebic’s house**. For someone like Drew, that is a challnge, a potential conquest even. Not to mention that Drew most likely feels he needs to upstage Stebic, since he is a consumate attention whore.

    The first time they were in studio together was when she was filling in at WLS and guest hosted on Mancow’s show. Mancow had her call Drew to get him to consent to an interview, but he insisted on appearing in person the next day instead of doing it over the phone. He shows up early and hovers around, obsessing over her, asking about her kids, etc. However, Drew hasn’t appeared in studio with Mancow since. In fact, he actually blew him off on Monday.

    Mancow wants Drew on his show for fame and ratings. Drew wants fame too, but Mancow is only useful to him if he can further his own self-interest. So Drew can freely ignore anything Mancow does.

    Now, with that in mind, his interview on WIND becomes laughable as well. He comes in looking for all the world like a mid-life crisis, smelling of cheap cologne (or hookers, or bars, something strong and gross) and honestly believing that he is charming. But, he doesn’t expect her to ask tough questions or be so persistent. Both Pinkus and Jacobson wind up making a fool of him and are pretty much convinced he is guilty. I wonder if he would have the cobbles to go on their show again in the future? We shall see…

    For the record, I have long held that was part of the reason Peterson chose Brodsky and Odeh. Brodsky, of course, wants fame and attention. But his partner is also an attractive and professional woman – and a brunette! A bit too old for Drewpy, and way out of his league, but he probably thinks he would have a chance. Thats why he tried getting close to her, and she tried getting away from him. Politely, of course, for all appearences. Drew is easily fooled by women, and people should know how to use that by now.

    Of course, he is also a racist, so I’m not sure how well he would take to an Arab girl, but then, he might overlook something like that for a time.

    I do have to wonder whether or not the prosecutors have taken note of this behavior. Think about it. If I were prosecuting this case, I would get some pretty young thing involved – a waifish brunette in her twenties or so, because that seems to consistently be his type – and get her to manipulate Peterson. He can’t handle a woman who doesn’t fall for his imagined ‘charms.’ Either he would get triped up and confused, or he would get angry. Either way, he reveals his true nature instead of yet another parade of lies.

    I’m also tempted to reconsider potential connections to Stebic after this… While I had initially believed there was no connection between the two, save perhaps Peterson being inspired by Stebic, now I’m not so sure. The two men are very similar, but Stebic hasn’t done or said anything since his wife was murdered, whereas Peterson goes around screeching like a retarded baboon and everyone pays attention to Peterson… and conveniently ignores Stebic. Perhaps Stebic has been free to dispose of other evidence while everyone was distracted by the straw man***.

    * I believe Peterson was allegedly broken up with his fake fiance at this time, correct? It would give him a convenient excuse to hit on Jacobson, or at least try, without anyone questioning it. Yet now he is mysteriously back together with her and let it slip out he is married in June (yeah right!)

    ** The real reason was for leaking information to the police without telling her editors. But I doubt Peterson would know that; he isn’t all that bright.

    *** To be fair, Peterson is as much the tin man as he is scarecrow, since he has neither heart nor brains. You’ll notice I took the high road and didn’t compare him to the cowardly lion 😀

  124. Facs posted this above, but I also heard it on the radio this afternoon. This part, I am a little hesitant to say, kind of made me chuckle:

    He says that when he started feeling ill, he was talking to his daughter Christina, trying to persuade her to leave Drew Peterson.

    Now, after talking to priests while he was in the hospital, he wants to try again.

    “I’d like to get a priest over there. Not for him but for my daughter.”

    Raines says he and his daughter are Roman Catholic.

    *****

    Would this be for what they call an exorcism?

  125. I think it’s appropriate for Drew and Joel to push chicken wings. After all, chickens just flap their wings and squawk, just like the two of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  126. OK. So if you listen to the very beginning of the Pinkus show you hear Pinkus say “A deal is a deal” and then a lot of kind of awkward laughing before they talk about the sports bar & grill they are advertising for now. Then they advertise for it a second time at 18:22.

    [audio src="http://media.switchpod.com/users/geoffpinkus/LIVINLARGE20090315Hour2Part2.mp3" /]

    I say that this is totally unacceptable – especially for Brodsky who is supposed to be Drew’s lawyer – not his bar partner and advertising puppet.

  127. Oh, I love it when you really let it rip, Rescue! Let it all hang out!! I think the exorcism part is hilarious, but also not so far off the mark for what it would take to get her out of there.

  128. rescueapet Says:

    March 19, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    womenscorned – did they discuss this on WGN prior to the cancellation of DP’s interview? I’d love to hear that!

    thinkaboutit2 Says:

    March 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    WomanScorned – Did they announce it on the radio that Drew wouldn’t be on the show?

    Yes. it was on about 1:15 this afternoon.

  129. I’ve said it before – Drew is a shaitan of the lowest order, little different from the debris you find on a city street… or in the sewers.

    I think he’ll need alot more than just a Catholic priest to get rid of the sod… probably a rabbi, imam, sadhu, Buddhist monk, jiyo, miko and… well Sikhs don’t have priests, but may as well have one over anyway!

  130. Womenscorned, mind if I make a main post out of this WGN story? It’s a good one!

    Please send an email to petersonstory@gmail.com if you’ve got any more details.

    If anyone else listened to WGN and heard what Randy had to say or has read about it other places and has more to add, please email as well.

    Thank you!

  131. That’s the understatement of the year. Everything Drew and Joel do is inappropriate and unprofessional. I think that people should just boycott their bars! Not that it will do much good, but still.

  132. Facs – I listened the whole 2pm hour and he never said a word about Drew during that time. Guess I should have tuned in earlier.

  133. No, the real reason is because Drew is a coward. But then, thats unfair to chickens, since roosters can be quite fierce (cock fights and all). Then again, I sometimes wonder if Drew and Joel are going to stage a cockfight of their own behind closed doors, if you get my drift. 😀

  134. > but they considered putting the
    > notice in the Chicago Law Bulletin.

    Well of course. It’ll probably be the first (and only) time Brodsky will ever get published in anything legal anyway!

  135. I’ve thought that for a long time about the conflict of apparent interests. It doesn’t matter to JB if DiP goes down, he’s just his vehicle to riches via book deals, chicken wings, tv appearances. Some are accusing Jose Baez of the same.

    I would argue that DP knew full well from the start and is an enthusiastic participant. He’s even had plenty of warning from various legal talking heads.

  136. > The first and foremost thing
    > he was most interested in
    > doing at the beginning of the
    > interview was to sit next to
    > Amy Jacobson. Mr. Pinkus told
    > him no, you’ll sit here
    > (pointing to the directed
    > spot).

    I think you will be most interested in reading my comments on that. Appearently he smelled pretty bad too…

    Drew is obsessed with Amy, I think, and seems to be exhibiting many of the classical signs of a stalker. It makes sense, and explains how she got the better of him, but its also very dangerous for her. Drew is a dangerous man, and can easily find out more about her, where she lives, her two kids, etc.

    Lets hope the sod gets put away before he can hurt yet another woman!

  137. LO freaking L. I’d forgotten that Jowl BrodSky had a black eye. Maybe Reem handbagged him (that’s why no tv for Brodders for now).

    ps Dixon’s Sports Bar and Grill is the place to avoid.

  138. I think that applies everywhere because that is precisely what a notary is supposed to be..an impartial, honest witness.

Comments are closed.