Drew Peterson: Mommy’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.

This morning Drew Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky made the local morning show circuit to respond on air to the Savio family filing a wrongful death suit against Peterson.

On Fox’s Good Day Chicago show Drew made an embarrassing blunder. While leading into questions about the wrongful death suit, host Jan Jeffcoat asked a few questions about Peterson’s children, including what Drew tells them regarding his missing wife, Stacy’s, whereabouts. “What do you tell your children when they say, ‘Where’s Mommy?’ What do you say to them?” Jeffcoat asked.

Drew responded, “She’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.”

With some surprise in her voice, Jeffcoat asked, “Why do you say she’s not coming back?” Peterson quickly did a one-eighty, “I don’t say she’s not coming back.”

As the video feed switched to still images of Stacy and her children, Jeffcoat pursued the question, “You just said, “I tell them she’s on vacation. She’s not coming back.” Drew began to backpedal saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean that. She’s on vacation…and we don’t know when she’s coming back. My little girl keeps asking when she’s coming back and I keep telling her I don’t know.”

Jeffcoat then expressed that it must be heartbreaking for Drew. He responded, “It is for me, yes. But it’s become commonplace for the kids”

If it’s so commonplace for the kids, why is it that his little girl keeps asking when Mommy is coming back? If it’s so heartbreaking for Drew, why does he have an ongoing relationship with a young woman who according to Drew “comes and goes” from his home and in and out of the children’s lives? How does he explain that to his children?


Drew then went on to dodge a question about breaking into his estranged third wife’s house, although yesterday he admitted to creeping through a hole in the drywall that he had made in order to access the house.

Kathleen Savio made reference to that unlawful entry as well as others in the letter she sent to the States Attorney. Our friend, Thinkaboutit, did some research and made an excellent point:

It is interesting to look at the dates of some reports and Drew’s excuse that he didn’t want to break the door and admittence to cutting the wall.

3/11/02 – Order of Protection filed on Drew by Kathleen. Kathleen doesn’t mention any holes being cut but she does state “Put dead bolt on door, he broke through it.”

Then 7/5/02 is when he got in again and surprised her on the stairs where she states he got in twice before by cutting through the wall. 

So he already had the order of protection against him which was dropped but he still felt compelled to admit he entered that house without Kathleen’s permission by cutting through the wall.

I’m not sure what Drew and Joel think they are going to gain by speaking out at this point. Their claim that the Savios are acting out of greed doesn’t wash since any money gained from the suit is to go to Kathleen’s children, and the suit doesn’t really ask for much. It’s very clear that this is about obtaining justice and nothing else.  Regardless of motive, it appears there is plenty of evidence to show that Drew was involved in the death of Kathleen Savio.

Joel does well to fidget and stutter.

Read the story at Fox News Chicago

~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.~

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, HTML allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Advertisements

268 thoughts on “Drew Peterson: Mommy’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.

  1. Okay. Name one good thing that came out of this Fox interview that benefited Drew Peterson, or made the guy sitting next to him look like a slam dunk ace of an attorney?

    They called the plaintiffs in the wrongful death suit greedy, even though they’re not asking for money. Drew said he goes through numerous relationships because of the media’s fault (he married 4 times in spite of never being in the media in all those years). He denies taking anything from the house on the day of Kathleen’s funeral, yet, that can be brought out one way or the other. Drew has admitted to cutting a hole in the drywall of “his” house and doing so to spare a $400.00 door, but his lawyer said if things like that happened, it would have been investigated by the BB Police Dept (which means what). He said he took things from the house but didn’t need permission to do so, yet, he relies on a will he found to dispose of Kathleen’s property through a probate court. Tells me he decided to do what he wanted to, with our without a will. How did he know there was no other will in the house that disposed of her property by naming her children/sisters/family members? Sounds like he jumped the gun on that one, and he freely admitted doing so by the way he said he didn’t need permission on Fox News this morning.

    My question of the day: how did Drew KNOW there was no will in the hands of a lawyer or her family? My guess would be he “found” her recent will the day of her funeral.

  2. The utter ego and conceit of the man to assume that because his ex-wife “managed” to die after the divorce yet before division of the marital assets, that he could lay claim to everything she owned.

  3. Or, perhaps he found her new will among the papers strewn out on her bed the night he murdered her, Rescue. As much as he was able to be in and out of that house on his terms, it’s possible he knew every step Kitty was taking to try to protect herself and the boys. And, don’t forget her had Ric Mimms following her around, so he knew when she wasn’t there. That bifurcated divorce was the dumbest damn thing I’ve ever heard of — given the contentious nature of the divorce. I’ve always felt Kitty’s attorney, Harry Smith, got out-lawyered with that bifurcated divorce.

  4. Sugar – yeah, well, one way or the other, he KNEW he had his mitts on her new will, so he had the cockiness and the wherewithall to clean out her place and get his fraudulent paperwork whisked through the court. If the Appellate Court Judges came out with an opinion that says:

    “Even from an objective standpoint, we can think of no just or fair reason why Carroll, as executor of the estate, would relinquish all of Savio’s interest in the marital property to Peterson individually”

    that still does not explain how the judge and the court allowed it in the first place without getting all the facts first. Aren’t they there to make sure people like Drew Peterson are supposed to follow the law, not make it up for their own benefit?

  5. I know, Rescue. This whole case is just filled with “if only’s” people had done their jobs in the first damn place.

  6. Keep talking Drew – You just do it so well!!

    I couldn’t believe it when Jan tripped him up with asking him about telling his kids that Stacy isn’t coming back.

    His back peddle was horrendous and this tape could very likely enter a court of law IMO. He denied saying it 2 seconds after saying it. The the best part was he looked to Brodsky and said “What did I say??”. What a dumbass.

    I wish I had a little wire into Jan’s ear so I could tell her to tell him that the dating while a single dad isn’t the problem… The getting engaged before you know the girl’s middle name, bringing her around your kids who have already experienced loss of two moms, is harmful to THEM.

  7. “Even from an objective standpoint, we can think of no just or fair reason why Carroll, as executor of the estate, would relinquish all of Savio’s interest in the marital property to Peterson individually”

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

    Exactly, that never made any sense.

    Besides what Drew already grabbed for himself beforehand, the Uncle (Carroll) only ever acted in Drews interest as well and between them they picked the Estate clean !

    Then there are the various Insurance Policies paid out to Drew, with even the million dollar policy for the children ending up in his pocket in a round about way, since he is their father/legal guardian and they are living with him (!!)

  8. It would also be very interesting to see when exactly the inventory of the house was made as I read Drew took what was not on the inventory, but it must have been the other way around, especially considering comments were made how little jewellery there was at the time and just recently Drew stated he has a drawer of jewellery at his home (!!)

  9. Has anyone else noticed that it seems to be the female interviewers that knock Drew off base with their honest questions while the guys kind of throw him softball questions.

    I think he gets especially off balance when the interviewer is good looking. I loved Jan’s reaction when Drew siad it was “fun” being on shows like this because he gets to meet people like her.

    I wonder if she went straight home and took a shower to get the ick factor off of her… (Sorry wonder)

  10. I’ve vowed not to link to his blog, but I can’t help mention that someone who I will call Nurse Pauline has a post up today saying that Drew’s FOID card shouldn’t have been revoked and that “Today Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky sent a strong letter to the Illinois State Police demanding a hearing on the matter..” (Doesn’t Joel have bigger things to fret about?)

    I find it really amusing that Joel keeps Miss Pauline apprised of all his communications, but even funnier is this pic he’s posted of what is supposed to be Drew’s FOID card. The guy’s height is shown as 6’3″! LOL! Everyone know’s Drew is a lil bitty thing.

    I call BS.

    They must be under Yellow Alert up in the Brodsky/Odeh offices: Deflect! Deflect! Deflect!

  11. TAI, good point. Lisa Bloom and Amy Jacobson were both able to fluster Drew under questioning as well. I hope they go with a female prosecutor when/if he ever goes to court.

  12. “Today Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky sent a strong letter to the Illinois State Police demanding a hearing on the matter.

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

    Joel sends “strong letters” and “demands” hearings ???

  13. “Even from an objective standpoint, we can think of no just or fair reason why Carroll, as executor of the estate, would relinquish all of Savio’s interest in the marital property to Peterson individually”

    The reason? Not a just or fair one, just GREED.

    justanotherhen Says:
    April 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    It would also be very interesting to see when exactly the inventory of the house was made as I read Drew took what was not on the inventory, but it must have been the other way around, especially considering comments were made how little jewellery there was at the time and just recently Drew stated he has a drawer of jewellery at his home (!!)

    I imagine that items identified by Kathleen’s family as hers, that were not on the inventoried list, but that somehow ended up in Drew’s possession would be of great interest. (More GREED on his part.)

  14. Ha! I don’t think this is the response the dynamic duo went on tv to get!

    ****
    Drew Peterson Says He Tells His Children Their Mother Isn’t Coming Home

    Thursday , April 23, 2009

    Drew Peterson made an apparent slip Thursday on “Good Day Chicago” on the city’s FOX affiliate, suggesting inexplicably that his fourth wife is gone forever.

    During an interview on the morning show, he said that he tells his children their mother, Stacy Peterson, is on vacation and is not coming back.

    When asked, “Why do you say she’s not coming back,” Peterson, a suspect in his wife’s disappearance, first denied making the comment. Then, when pressed, he said it was merely a slip of the tongue.

    Stacy Peterson disappeared in October 2007. Drew Peterson has been the focus of a police and grand jury investigation, but he has not been charged.

    The death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, in a bathtub was ruled a homicide after initially being deemed accidental. Savio’s body was exhumed and re-examined after Stacy Peterson vanished.

    Authorities have not identified him as a suspect in Savio’s death. Peterson has denied any involvement in either case.

    On Tuesday, his attorney, Joel Brodsky, reiterated Peterson’s innocence after Savio’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against him, alleging the former Chicago-area police sergeant drowned her in the bathtub.

    Click here for more on the “Good Day Chicago” interview.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517656,00.html

  15. Why was Joel fidgeting and jumping around so much, staring at his watch for ages and why was he so terribly ill prepared to answer any of the questions so obviously related to the Wrongful Death Suit.

    Didn’t he know these type questions are now going to be asked.

    His comments about Henry Savio were just mindless and directionless waffle.

    He found it necessary to take over from Drew, but couldn’t come up with anything any more sensible or constructive than Drews babble.

    If he is this bad now, how will he go in a Court room ?

  16. I wonder…How old will Lacy be when she figures out that going on vacation means “Her dad murdered her mother” ??

    Poor thing.

    Wondering where that indictment is ??

  17. Drew Peterson “I Didn’t Care Then, I Don’t Care Now”
    Thursday, March 12, 2009

    “Eighteen months said Drew Peterson, I didn’t care then and I don’t care now” [refering to Thomas Morphey and the immunity deal with the State’s Attorney moving a body in a blue barrel]

    With microphones shoved in Drew’s direction. News reporters asked questions in the driveway of Stacy Peterson’s home. I think her name is still on the title of to the house?

    Oh wait, I am confusing this with the recently signed car title to live-in bed warmer Christina Raines. Can he do that? Was the title of the car driven and owned by Stacy in Drew Peterson’s name? Or did he go ahead and sign Stacy’s name anyway to the car title? You know he’s good at signing people’s names to documents living or deceased.

    Take Kathleen’s Will as an example. Yes,another media event, as Drew Peterson’s legal marshmallow roaster take’s the issue of Kathleens estate, all the way to the supreme court.
    Send that man a bag of campfire marshmallows. Because that’s the only thing that will stick to the bottom of his shoe’s after he is turned down at the supreme court on Kathleen Savio’s Will.

    Martin Glink, one of the attorneys representing the Kathleeen Savio’s family, did not consider Brodsky’s appeal to the Supreme Court to be much of a threat to his case.
    “I would doubt very much the Supreme Court would find this novel enough to hear,” Glink said.“I don’t think it raises any conflict among the judicial circuits,” he said. “I think what the appellate court did and what Judge Goodman did was correct.”

    Come to think of it, the bed in Drew Peterson’s home belonged to Kathleen Savio, wife #3. After her death, on the day of Kathleen’s funeral Drew had a moving truck and hauled everything inside the home a few blocks away to his new home he bought with his current wife Stacy Peterson. The bed was moved into Stacy and Drew’s master bedroom.

    But, wait, I keep forgetting the same bed occupied by wives #3 and #4 is now occupied by Christina and Drew. I hope at least Drew shelled out money for a new matress.

    Now the trick is for Drew to declare in a court of Stacy abandoned him. You remember Drew said she’s not comming back and he wants to get married. How would he know for certain Stacy is not returning?

    Unless, wait a minute. Thomas Morphey is telling the truth!

    Could it be? Thomas Morphey is not as crazy as Drew and “The Legal Marshmallow Roaster” would have us all believe and a body was carried down those stairs.
    subscribe to our feed .

    Funny another slip where he says she isnt coming back.

  18. Unfortunately for Drew that answer about Stacy not coming back is going to haunt him from now until the end as every reporter is going to ask him about it every time there is an interview.

    It is going to be as sore a topic to him as the blue barrel questions as he hasn’t got an answer for it !!

  19. Can you imagine a worse time to give Drew back his FOID card, as the minutes are ticking down and the pressure is on? Drew is exactly the kind of controlling bastard who would kill himself and take the kids with him if he felt he was about to lose all-precious control of his family.

  20. Disgusting! I have always maintained he hasn’t bothered to tell them she is on vacation, but instead tells them she doesn’t love them anymore and ran away. PIG!

  21. Drew is going to have a hard time explaining why he believes Stacy is now not coming home when, according to him “she said she was going to be gone for a while.”

    “She said she was leaving,” Peterson said. “She found somebody else. She’ll be gone for a while. And I can’t remember. It’s been played over again and again in my head her exact words. … Basically, the gist of it was that she found someone else. She was leaving. She’d be gone for a while.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=6770060&page=3

    Keep talking, fool. Keep talking. 😀

  22. My question of the day: how did Drew KNOW there was no will in the hands of a lawyer or her family?

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

    Exactly, logically speaking he couldn’t have known that, which raises all sorts of questions in relation to the will he supposedly “found”.

    When exactly did he write that will, regardless of the date he put on it.

    The only person to answer that question may be the one who actually “witnessed” the signatures and that person doesn’t want to have anything to do with Drew these days(!!)

    When exactly did Drew find out he was no longer the sole beneficiary of the million dollar Insurance Policy ?

    How long after the above was Kathleen found dead ?

  23. I just went and had a look at the interview. That was good, the interviewers were pretty forceful. Not forceful enough though. When boobsky refused to let drewpy answer about cutting the hole in the wall, Jan started to say he has already answered it in other mediums but then she dropped it.

    Also at the end, when he said “why does dating make me a bad dad” she dropped it then as well. I can think of a whole lot of reasons dating makes him a bad dad!!!

    I also liked the way the male interviewer interjected when boobsky said Henry Savio didn’t even know his grandkids, he said “if he thinks you killed his daughter of course he won’t want anything to do with you”.

    Just keep giving him that rope. Stupid, stupid man.

  24. “Also at the end, when he said “why does dating make me a bad dad” she dropped it then as well. I can think of a whole lot of reasons dating makes him a bad dad!!!”

    The first one being…he’s still married to their mom.

  25. P.S. did anybody notice how he kept blinking repeatedly? He looked nervous. Also, when he said that Kitty didn’t trust her family and basically wanted nothing to do with them, well that make me sick. Especially if it isn’t true.

    Did anyone notice when he said she didn’t trust her family, and them handling her estate is the last thing she would have wanted, he was shaking his head? I’m no body language expert, but usually that means he is internally disagreeing with his words. IE: A BIG FAT LIE!

  26. facsmiley Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 6:45 pm
    Can you imagine a worse time to give Drew back his FOID card, as the minutes are ticking down and the pressure is on? Drew is exactly the kind of controlling bastard who would kill himself and take the kids with him if he felt he was about to lose all-precious control of his family.

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

    Drew can easily do all that without having the need for a FOID card.

    To take his weapons and FOID card only stops him from legally posessing and obtaining guns.

    It doesn’t stop him from getting them anay other way !

  27. Too true JAH. He doesn’t need to have that FOID card to pull out a gun and start firing.

    That’s why I don’t see the point of gun amnesty’s, like the ones we have here in Australia from time to time.

    In our local paper the other day there was a story about some old guy just handed in some ancient relics that were used in the war by his grandfather. I thought that was sad and unneccesary. It’s not the law abiding gun owners we have to worry about. I don’t think the crims are going to be handing in their weapons during an amnesty!

  28. Yes, but would you want to be the judge who reinstated his FOID only to read that he murdered his children the next day?

  29. aussienat Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 7:13 pm
    P.S. did anybody notice how he kept blinking repeatedly? He looked nervous. Also, when he said that Kitty didn’t trust her family and basically wanted nothing to do with them, well that make me sick. Especially if it isn’t true.

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

    He said exactly the same about Stacy.

    That is just his standard line and he is speaking of himself when he says those things as Sociopaths can only project how they think themselves (!!)

  30. Aw, it’s not going to happen. Not with at least twice alluding to a shoot-out, not just the time he spoke of suicide-by-cop to Paula. Taking his son out cutting down ribbons like a wannabe commando, hiding the folding weapon from police, illegally transphering a gun, still facing possible charges over his shortened barrel (not the blue one, ha!)

  31. Remember Drew said Stacy wanted to move to Arizona to get away from her family as she didn’t trust them and wanted nothing more to do with them (!)

    I bet Vicky Connolly didn’t trust her family either and neither did Carol Brown – LOL !

  32. He thinks he is entirely too important to this world to kill himself !

    If he only knew how impotent he really is 😉

  33. Bucket @ 7:41. Excellent points! Thanks for bringing up all of those reasons why he shouldn’t legally be entitled to possess or carry a gun!

  34. facsmiley Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm
    Yes, but would you want to be the judge who reinstated his FOID only to read that he murdered his children the next day

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

    I can see where you’re coming from because for example the Judge did transfer Drews gun collection to his son (!)

    As if his son could stop Drew if he wanted one of his guns (!!)

  35. bucketoftea Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 7:41 pm
    Aw, it’s not going to happen. Not with at least twice alluding to a shoot-out, not just the time he spoke of suicide-by-cop to Paula. Taking his son out cutting down ribbons like a wannabe commando, hiding the folding weapon from police, illegally transphering a gun, still facing possible charges over his shortened barrel (not the blue one, ha!)

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

    Yeah well with all that in mind makes you wonder why a Judge would still have Drews gun collection transferred to his son instead of keeping them in Police custody (!!)

  36. Vicky Connolly and Karen Brown appear to have been chiefly lucky that while they were married to Rat Bastard they had not accrued enough assets to be worth murder.

  37. I totally agree. For the sake of public safety. It might have been smart for a totally innocent Steven to voluntarily hand them over to be impounded until matters were settled. Like putting them in a trust fund 😉

  38. I was thinking that the way the Fox lady handled him today was like giving him strokes by inviting him to talk about his 2 favourite subjects: his popularity with the ladies and his celebrity, then WHAM.

  39. bucketoftea Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 8:02 pm
    Vicky Connolly and Karen Brown appear to have been chiefly lucky that while they were married to Rat Bastard they had not accrued enough assets to be worth murder.

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

    Yes, but he already had the gift of the gab for these women not to get the better of him then either.

    In the divorce with Carol Brown for example, he advised her to get the same divorce attorney he had !!

    He started young with his “cons” as he calls them !

  40. Re the gun collection issue.

    Imagine this scenario:

    Drew goes to his son Stephen and says:

    “gimme one of my guns”

    and Stephen says:

    “No, you can’t have one, I’m not alllowed to give you one of your guns”

    Does anyone think Drew is going to say:

    “Oh, oke”

    LOL !

  41. bucketoftea Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm
    LOL

    Well he says “Oh, oke” and goes away but comes back and cuts a hole in his wall.

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

    Exactly – LOL, LOL, LOL !!

  42. That bifurcated divorce was the dumbest damn thing I’ve ever heard of — given the contentious nature of the divorce. I’ve always felt Kitty’s attorney, Harry Smith, got out-lawyered with that bifurcated divorce.

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

    Yes, I always wondered what the benefit would have been for Kathleen to agree to this arrangement, unless she was subjected to it by Drew being in such a hurry to marry Stacy, especially considering Drew and Stacy got married one week after the divorce became final !!

  43. Drew appeared nervous and really let the cat out of the bag with his “..and she’s not coming back..” remark. He also appeared crude and disrespectful of Kathleens rights under the law. Typical sociopath.

    Drew does as he pleases and is accountable to no one, so he thinks.

  44. I cant believe JB returns to acting like a lil *itch?

    What does it matter HENERY SAVIO not visiting with kids? HE KNOWS BETTER YET CONTINUES TO CARRY ON LIKE A WOMAN WITH HORRIBLE PMS, and NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW…

    HE IS A VERY BAD LAWYER, and CONTINUES TO LET EVERYONE KNOW JUST HOW BAD HE IS…

    AS FAR AS DREW, HE IS A STUPID MAN THAT THINKS HE IS THE NEXT OJ….
    TRIP A LIL MORE DREW PLEASE!!!

  45. I noticed that they only complained that Kathleen’s father didn’t see the children. They never once said that her sister did not. I had thought her sister was very much in her life, at her home, and around her kids until her death. Am I wrong?

    Maybe the dad had some problems prior to Kathleen’s death and now he has come around and changed his life. Drew claims he likes to help other people who have had problems (Lenny, Paula, Morphey, Yelton, Rick Mims, Mike Robinson, Stacy, Chrissy, etc.)so why does he not think that Kathleen’s dad could have changed?

    Maybe he had a problem with alcohol and did some things that hurt Kathleen physically or emotionally. Maybe she did cut ties with him. But that doesn’t mean she would never have mended those ties if he had changed his ways.

    Is he telling the kids that Stacy’s family doesn’t want any part of them now – after he called the police and threatened to charge Cassie or Sharon with kidnapping for having the little one take a photo next to their own aunt??

  46. Kathleen Savio’s attorney clearly stated that Kathleen did not have a will at the time of divorce so the only one she had ever signed (if she really had) was the one from 1997. According to acandyrose, Kathleen started getting anonymous letters on Drew cheating on her also in 1997. Another coincidence? Did she plan to get rid of her at this time? Who was that woman?

    From the citation of one of the children’s Christmas wishes I deduct that it was Drew who did not want to give divorce to Kathleen. As Drew met Stacy in 2001, Kathleen learnt about Stacy 12/2001,and they were already divorced in 2003, these Christmas wishes must have been written in December, 2002.

    The same year Drew (probably) frauded the power of attorney by putting a fake signature of Kathleen’s on it (24 April) to buy a lot at 6 Phaesant Chase Ct (25 April, just one day after). On May 5th he breaks into the house cutting a hole in the garrage wall and threatens KS. In June he sells The Blue Lightning Corporation. In 2002, Stacy gets pregnant.

    [BTW, I wonder when exactly he and Stacy moved to the new house.]

    In 2003, he petitioned to sell the house to reduce $2,000 monthly child support payment.

    I can imagine he really needed money then.

  47. Good morning, everyone.

    Cyrhla – That is correct, that she told her attorney, Harry Smith, she didn’t have a will. But, prior to her death, she told her sister she did a new will and would be giving her a copy of it. She, of course, never did.

  48. Drew must know that his deal went down bad yesterday. He is doing desparation moves now. I heard on 780AM that Drew had his teen sons on one of the shows this morning and one of them said he was the greatest dad in the world. I’ll try to find the link.

  49. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/24/earlyshow/main4965950.shtml

    Drew Peterson’s Son: He’s “Greatest Dad”

    Says He “Highly” Doesn’t Believe Drew Killed His Mom;
    New Suit Claims Peterson Did
    BOLINGBROOK, Ill. and NEW YORK, April 24, 2009

    (CBS/ AP) Despite assertions in a wrongful death lawsuit filed this week that Drew Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, their son says he “highly” doesn’t believe Peterson killed his mother.

    Thomas Peterson, 16, also says Drew is the “greatest dad in the world.”

    Thomas, his 14-year-old brother, Kristopher, and Drew appeared on The Early Show Friday, along with the lawyer representing Savio’s family, John Q. Kelly.

    The suit, filed on behalf of Savio’s estate, claims Peterson, a former Bolingbrook, Ill. police sergeant, drowned Savio in her bathtub in 2004.

    Savio’s family has long voiced suspicions about the circumstances surrounding her 2004 death, especially following the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, in October 2007.

    Peterson has been named a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, but hasn’t been charged. Authorities haven’t identified him as a suspect in Savio’s death.

    Peterson has denied any involvement in either case, and his attorney, Joel Brodsky, this week reiterated Peterson’s innocence.

    Savio’s death, initially classified as an accidental drowning, was reclassified as a homicide after her body was exhumed and another autopsy conducted following Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    The lawsuit, filed by Savio’s father and sister, was widely expected. Many of the allegations in it have been reported in the media since Stacy Peterson vanished.

    The suit, filed in Will County, Ill., seeks more than $100,000 and alleges Peterson killed Savio before a scheduled trial over the divorced couple’s property.

    But Kelly told Early Show co-anchor Julie Chen Savio’s father, Henry Savio, and sister, Anna Doman, don’t stand to gain “one penny from the suit. “They have no financial interest in the lawsuit whatsoever. It’s only for the estate and Kathleen’s two minor children.”

    If the suit succeeds, Kelly explained, “All the assets that should have gone to the children originally, all the marital assets and things like that, would be properly segregated for the children. And Mr. Peterson would be taken to task and labeled for what he had done, causing (Savio’s) death.”

    Peterson was given control over various assets “to use at his discretion, rather than segregate it to his children,” Kelly noted.

    Thomas Peterson told Chen he thinks the suit is “ridiculous. Because what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to take money from my dad and basically give it back to us. Now, do the math. He’s got everything put into us as it is. So it just doesn’t make sense to me.”

    Thomas says he doesn’t remember ever even meeting his grandfather, Henry Savio, and hasn’t seen his aunt, Doman, in six years, adding, “They’ve made no attempt of contacting me. So I haven’t really seen them.”

    He also came to the defense of his father, saying, “Accidents happen all the time” and “I highly do not believe that my dad had murdered my mom. Because, first off, he wasn’t there, he was with us during that period of time. I don’t know what else to say. I don’t believe it.”

    Thomas and Kristopher live with Drew, and Thomas says the intense media focus on Drew has been difficult to deal with: “It’s been crazy, like, with the news media in front of my house all the time. And like, there really hasn’t been much of an impact ever since my mom died, because nothing could be worse than that. But it’s just made my childhood much harder.”

    As are, he said, suggestions that Drew killed Savio. “That’s just making it even worse,” Thomas remarked. “I’m seeing a lot of the world and a lot of the people’s true motives.”

    What does he want to say to the public about his father?

    “I would say that he’s the greatest dad in the world. Not a lot of people know that. People see the news all the time and what everyone has portrayed him to be. But to our family — no one could ask for a better dad.”

    Drew Peterson told Chen a woman who claimed at one point to be engaged to become his fifth wife no longer lives with him.

    And Kelly, the lawyer for the Savios, added, “By all accounts these young men loved their mother. Their mother loved them. To see them thrust on national television to talk about her untimely death right now is unsettling, too.”

    He also noted that the family will probably wait for the results of a grand jury probe of Savio’s death before pursuing the suit any further.

  50. I wish that they asked Thomas if he believed that Stacy would run away with another man after he said he didn’t believe that Drew killed Kathleen.

    These poor kids. Shouldn’t they be in school today? Drew didn’t want the authorities talking to these boys yet he’ll put them on national TV. I just don’t get it. Did they get a trip to NY out of it? I want to say shame on CBS for agreeing to interviewing the kids.

  51. I wonder…How much more damage is the two time murderer going to be allowed to do before the GJ
    indicts his A$$ ??

    I wonder..Will he have to kill again to get their attention ??

    I wonder..How does anyone feel safe in Kill County ??

  52. OMG.

    Now I know something big is coming, because if he is so desperate as to do something like this, he knows he’s about to be hammered.

    It doesn’t make sense for him (at least to us, not to him or Brodsky) to parade his kids out on national tv for a suit that is months and months away from resolution. Using his kids as the sympathy factor after 18 months is about as low as this snake can get, and I truly believe it will bite him in his ass.

  53. Drew Peterson’s son tells CBS ‘Early Show’: ‘I don’t believe it’

    April 24, 2009

    BY JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    Drew Peterson dragged two of his children along with him for his latest morning show appearance Friday and sat by while one explained his murdered mother’s death away, saying, “Accidents happen all the time.”

    The two young men appearing on the CBS “Early Show” – Thomas and Kristopher Peterson — are the sons of Peterson’s murdered third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Kristopher, 14, was dressed in a T-shirt and sat in silence throughout the show on his father’s left. His brother, Thomas, 16, sat on his father’s right side. Thomas wore a black suit, black shirt and white tie, and did all the talking for the two.

    Thomas said he was skeptical of accusations that his father had something to do with his mother’s death.

    “I don’t know what else to say,” he said. “I don’t believe it.”

    Thomas also criticized his mother’s sister, Anna Marie Doman, and her father, Henry J. Savio, for bringing a wrongful death lawsuit against Drew Peterson earlier this week.

    “I think it’s ridiculous,” Thomas said. “They’re trying to take money from my dad and basically give it back to us.

    “Do the math,” he said.

    Thomas also said he had virtually no relationship with his aunt or grandfather.

    “If he was walking down the street I wouldn’t recognize him,” he said of his mother’s father.

    “My aunt, I haven’t seen her in six years,” Thomas said of Doman.

    Kathleen Savio was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. She and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she was found dead.

    State police found nothing suspicious about Savio’s death and it was ultimately ruled accidental. Authorities reclassified Savio’s death as a homicide after Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in March 2004.

    State police are investigating both cases and have named Drew Peterson their sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, a matter they have labeled a “potential homicide.”

    Also appearing on the “Early Show” Friday was John Q. Kelly, a New York attorney representing Savio’s family in the wrongful death suit. Kelly was disturbed by Peterson taking his children on the nationally broadcast morning program.

    “To see them thrust on television, talking about their mother’s death, is upsetting,” Kelly said.

    But thrust on television or not, Thomas Peterson was in full support of his father.

    “I want to say he’s the greatest dad in the whole world,” Thomas said. “A lot of people don’t know that.”

  54. Funny how a young child like Thomas can determine a lawsuit to be “frivolous” and talk about “peoples motives”

    Is Thomas copying Joel Brodsky or is Joel Brodsky copying Thomas ?

  55. Folks – Let’s try and keep our comments regarding the national tv appearance of Drew Peterson’s sons limited to their father’s motives, rather than analyze why they are publicly defending their father. They are young men, minors, who are under their father’s control at this stage, so it would be pointless to discuss their reasons for doing this.

    Thank you.

  56. Guess this was one of the “scenarios” Chrissy was talking about.
    Drew Peterson has no shame. But I guess we knew that.

  57. I don’t care how desperate Drew is feeling. That’s just the lowest of the low to drag those kids on TV.

  58. Drew was so much less giddy than he was with Fox Chicago yesterday.

    I am trying to think through this thing. I have a daughter the same age as Thomas. I could see her wanting to get her voice heard if I were accused of something. It is an age where there is a gray line and some kids may be mentally mature enough to do this. Thomas seemed like he really wanted to talk IMO. I can understand how a kid would feel the way he does and why they would want to stand up for their dad. I can understand that he may not see that the reason his aunt (who he acknowledges he had only not seen since his mother’s death) is unable to see him is because Drew probably blocked it after she was trying to get people to know she thought Drew killed her right out of the gate. I can understand why they wouldn’t get the fact that him and Kris would not have to share their part of Kathleen’s estate with their two younger siblings, all of the people that Drew seems to want to help financially, and any children that Drew’s new girlfriends bring into the picture.

    I feel much more horrible for Kris. He didn’t seem to really want to be there. They could easily have just had Thomas and Drew on together.

    I’d also like to appeal to Drew to listen to what his son (who says that Drew is the greatest dad in the world) said. He said that the media attention has made his childhood harder. I hope Drew hears that and stops doing the crazy antics he does to add fuel to the media fire and keep himself in the spotlight. If he is the greatest dad in the world – he’ll put his kids needs first.

    Tom does seem like a very smart, articulate young man. My prayers are with him and his siblings that they know that people care about them and they don’t experience any more loss like they’ve had to endure so far in life.

  59. Of course those poor kids want to defend their dad – he’s all they have left. The only other alternative is to believe that he did kill their moms and then go on day after day living with him him. What kid could cope mentally with that?

    I don’t think anyone is blaming the kids for wanting to defend their father. The blame here is with their desperate dad and greedy publicist who trotted them out into the ‘media circus’ that Drew claims to want to protect them from. It’s the height of hypocrisy and desperation.

  60. That’s exactly right….he’s finally reached the lowest rung. Those poor kids. There’s more than one way to take hostages. 😦

  61. I agree with you, gatekeep, as for the children. I imagine they are between the devil and the deep blue sea now.
    THAT would be rediculous if they wanted his father to go to jail for 25 years or be dead, same as they wanted to have a substitute family. Sorry to say so, but I understand them. Drew is their only parent and they had a right to be scared about their future. Their opinion should be neither taken under consideration, or criticized.

  62. rescueapet Says:
    April 24, 2009 at 8:56 am

    OMG.

    Now I know something big is coming, because if he is so desperate as to do something like this, he knows he’s about to be hammered.
    * * * * * * * * *

    I think saying Mommy’s not coming back means he’s probably reached the point of no return, too.

  63. Aggravated child abuse. I’m serious. Or like how they have laws some places where there is a separate charge for killing seniors and the very young…the most vulnerable, with heavier penalties. I think that should be the case for killing moms of minors.

  64. I think having to face that charge would send a big, helpful message to the motherless victims…that it’s NOT OK!!!

  65. I understand that these children are caught between a rock and hard place, but I am sure that they seen way more in the way of abuse to Kathleen and Stacy at the hands of their “dear old dad”. Kris knows more than he’s telling also. Why can’t Drew be stopped? I mean this is ridiculous.

  66. That’s why the chief argument is that it will waste money and thereby harm the children’s interest. I suspect they’ve already run this by the courts and lost.

  67. Joe Hosey wrote an article about an arrest warrant out for Stacy’s brother Yelton for missing another court date on his IN charges.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1541863,Warrant-for-Stacy-Peterson-brother_jo042309.article

    He has wrong information in the article though:

    Cales last to see Stacy?

    Cales was incarcerated when his sister vanished, having been locked up on a parole violation right before she went missing. According to Stacy’s husband, Drew Peterson, his sister was on an errand to help her jailbird brother when he last saw her alive.

    Peterson claimed the final time he laid eyes on his wife, she told him she was on her way to paint the imprisoned Cales’ Yorkville rental home in order to get him out of his lease.

    How could Yelton have been the last one to see Stacy if he was locked up?

    According to Drew’s timeline in DP Exposed – Stacy told him he was going to see her grandfather.

    And what does he mean by his “sister” was on an errand?? Didn’t he mean his “wife” was on an errand??

    Joe must have missed some sleep that night.

    I hope Yelton steps up and turns himself in. That sounds like it was quite a mess out there that he got himself into.

  68. Didn’t Drew have weird slumped body language? It looked like he was trying to make himself smaller than Tom, and little turned away from Kris.

  69. Drew looked very dejected today – unlike his perkiness yesterday. CBS must not have sent any young, pretty people to his home for the filming. 😉

  70. Drew’s faking it, I think. He’s going for the Poor Me I’m So Misunderstood I’m Only Trying To Give My Poor Motherless(x2)Kids Some Money vibe.

  71. Thanks, Think!! I can’t reason with the “new” state abbreviations LOL It will always be Ind, Ill, Calif for me.

  72. Folks – we have chosen not to copy and paste news pieces that detail the recent criminal issues relating to Stacy Peterson’s brother, as they have no bearing on either Stacy’s disapperance or Kathleen’s death.

    Thanks.

  73. Bucket – I think that is very possible. Kind of like his pretend sadness on April Fool’s Day. Well – at least this time they all didn’t break out and start talking about chicken wings.

  74. Gate – I had put it out there because the way Hosey’s article was written it made it seem as though Hosey was implying that Yelton was the last person to see Stacy and that Drew said she went to meet up with him. I think that would have bearing on the case.

  75. I see your point TAI. I don’t understand what “Cales last to See Stacy” meant in the context of the article either. Maybe an editor added that?

  76. TAI – your first one is fine. Just referring to the recent issues that have no reference to Stacy’s disappearance.

  77. here is something to keep in mind…
    when drew bought all of the property, like the cars and the house stacy lived in, he was still technically married to kathleen. so he put everything in stacy’s name so kathleen couldn’t lay any claim to it during the divorce. he may be able to give the keys of the car to krissy, but he cannot transfer the title or sell the house until he can prove either abandonment or death.
    something else…
    it is only on drew’s word that kathleen’s family wanted nothing to do with the children. kids don’t always understand that daddy told auntie not to call anymore because she wasn’t welcome. kinda like he has isolated the younger kids from stacy’s family. and stacy did not want kathleen’s family around because they were not exactly friendly to her (not a judgement on either of them, just the truth of the situation) since she had been helping drew harrass kathleen.
    many many people tried to tell stacy at the time that she was making abig mistake with drew, but just like krissy now, stacy would hear none of it. she was under drew’s spell/control, and like a classic abuser drew isolates his victims to make them dependant on him, and then uses that later to defend himself (the family wasn’t even around for months/years….etc).

  78. I can imagine Stacy told Drew she was going to visit her grandpa rather than admit she was helping Yeltin to avoid Drew’s comments about her “jailbird brother,” as he so kindly refers to Yeltin.

    According to Stacy’s husband, Drew Peterson, his sister was on an errand to help her jailbird brother when he (Drew) last saw her alive. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1541863,Warrant-for-Stacy-Peterson-brother_jo042309.article

    But he says he last saw his wife before he went to bed, not when she was on her way to run an errand for Yeltin (i.e., painting the house?)

    Again, McCord said that was “deceptive,” and concluded the same to Peterson’s “yes” to whether he last saw his wife at their home before going to bed after an overnight shift at work.
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1202947,CST-NWS-bolingintro05.stng

    So which was it Drew? Did you see her last before you went to bed or when she was on her way to do the errand? Because those things didn’t happen at the same time.

  79. No one has been speaking up for “Dad.” Isn’t it telling that past Mr. Mom videos (two, I believe), and now this, have only his minor children propping him up? No brother, no sister, no friends. No “adult” that can hold their own and speak up for him freely. Only minor children who are stuffed next to him on a sofa, or pretending to be happy and gay eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches during a staged video. BTW, remember, according to Brodsky, ISP and the Wawczaks are supposed to have permanently psychologically damged these kids by befriending them and leaving. Seems like the father is putting them on TV as happy, well-adjusted people, heh?

    As sad as this is to watch, it’s buried this creep even deeper in the hole he’s dug for himself. I would venture to guess just about anyone who has watched it is disgusted beyond belief.

    But, in all honestly, what the hell is wrong with CBS News for allowing this? I hope they hear the outrage by the thousands.

  80. I hope Kathleen and Stacy’s family members all reach out to the kids now. If I were their aunt – I’d send them registered letters so that I would have proof to show them one day that I did try. I’d call the house and leave messages. I’d knock on the door. I’d reach out via the email.

    I think Anna Doman was always a part of the kids lives and a roadblock was put in front of her the day Kathleen died. The same roadblock that has taken Cassie away from the kids even though she seemed like she hung around with them and Stacy a lot before she disappeared.

    I just pray for these kids. As I’ve said over and over – they are the victims in this no matter how Kathleen died, why Stacy disappeared, or how much money they would have gotten after Kathleen’s death.

  81. Noway – I think Hosey made a mistake in his article. I don’t think Drew said that she went painting – at least not before Cassie reported her missing. Remember – he told Sharon that he needed her to watch the kids for a minute and that Stacy went to see her grandfather. He also said in DP Exposed that she went to see her grandfather.

    I think that was what Cassie and Bruce said and then Drew may have repeated that story later??

    I’m just kicking this around in my head and think sometimes mistakes in news articles throw us off a bit.

  82. There are some very good comments up at the CBS site.

    “PRESS RELEASE
    New defense tactic sweeping the nation – – Use children of accused murderers to say their Dad is GREAT, and didn’t do it.
    GS
    News Staff”

  83. I have a great idea for a “April Fools Joke” on Drew. First, make sure none of his children are around, wouldn’t want to upset them any more than they all ready have been……

    Find a young girl who looks exactly like Stacy, pay her to go to Drew’s house, bust the door down and stay…” Honey, I’m Home!!” The look on his face would be priceless, prob similar to “I’ve just seen a ghost” look………………..

  84. I wish I could tell the boys that they are going to be OK, because they are. It’s none of their fault, they’ve done nothing wrong. They’re not alone. They may be surprised to one day realise that loads and loads of families are a bit weird one way or another, (most, probably), and lots of young people have “recovered” just fine from all kinds of weirdness.

    I can see that they’re brave and smart boys even if they don’t feel it sometimes, and it feels like the end of the world, but it really, really isn’t. Hang on.

    And it’s not true that everyone is just out to use them and let them down. They already have and will have more people through all the rest of their lives that they really, really can trust. The world is full of kind, smart and interesting people just like Tom and Kris themselves, and have no ulterior motives whatever. 🙂

  85. I’m afraid it’s my belief that CBS is in the gutter. I follow the sad Meredith Kercher in Perugia, and BOTH CBS 48hours programmes were absurdly ill-researched and slanted shamelessly with outright lies (eg no physical evidence implicating her)insisting Amanda Knox is being railroaded, and suggesting horrific miscarriage of justice by a bunch of American-hating slavering backwards Italians.

    And in the centre of it all, quelle suprise encore, are 2 self-promoting PI’s from Central Casting, ANDthe author of a book for whom this tragic crime is a marketing gift, if he latches on. He did. So did CBS and Tom Cruise who has bought the film rights.

  86. Is anyone else noticing that John Kelly has sure softened his remarks about the importance of this lawsuit, such as making it sound as though it’s secondary to the criminal investigations going on, and that they’re putting it on hold until the GJ is finished? Originally, the attorneys’ intentions were clear and precise: “Though Kelly initially said the wrongful-death suit was filed in part to pressure the state’s attorney’s office, he later retracted the comment as a “bad statement.”

    I can’t help but think that this is lawyer speak for the news that they know is about to come – he’s being charged criminally. Soon.

  87. Eyes for lies looks at the “not coming back” video.

    Drew then says, “I didn’t mean to say that…she’s ah…she’s on vacation….and (shoulder shrug) we don’t know when she’s coming back.” Here we can clearly see Drew thinking on his feet as he talks. Now, realizing he slipped up, he is self-censoring. Look at he looks directly at the reporter when he is finished. He is checking out how she is responding to his answer. This is a common trait of people who are deceptive. They want to know if they’ve convinced you, because if they feel they haven’t, they will continue to speak until they feel they have done so.

  88. What do you think of the CBS lady excusing having the boys on by saying they wanted to have their say. Their say? Clearly Kris did not want to say anything at all.

  89. I think it was brave and right for John Kelly to air his chagrin at the boys being put on the spot on tv like that.

  90. I wonder if any other media outlet will openly critize CBS for their poor judgment, lack of taste, and unprofessional tactics, allowing Peterson’s sons (at least one of them) to speak on behalf of their father like this.

    What would we expect them to say under these circumstances? That their father is a POS that killed two mothers, but he’s the dad we’re stuck with and we forgive him?

    Can you imagine the kids, teens, out there that have dads that are fighting a war thousands of miles away, or who go to great strides to improve the world for their own kids, as well as others, watching this young man defending a potential double murderer, merely because he’s their father? It cuts both ways, and this was both a disgusting tactic on Peterson’s part to allow this, and CBS for using it to boost their ratings in favor of the mighty buck.

    “My dad is the greatest dad in the world.”

    Chilling.

  91. How suspicious is it that Mancow’s contribution to the debate on his show was on message about the kids?

  92. I’ve viewed the Fox vid again and they’ve blocked out more than when I saw it this morning. I n t e r e s t i n g .

  93. Why is it that Peterson feels he needs to showcase his sons to defend HIS reputation, his honor, when, in spite of that, he’s done everything humanly possible to degrade and destroy the reputations of Kathleen, Stacy, and just about every one of their family members?

    Bucket: Is that right? Hmmm.

  94. Bucket, I noted a couple of very odd comments on a message board yesterday along the lines of “Let Drew’s two son’s decide if he is guilty”. At the time I thought it was just a nutjob posting. Now I wonder if it was someone who knew they were going to be on the air.

  95. Why didn’t they ask Mike Robinson to sit next to Drew and talk about Drew’s innocence, their rather strange on-paper conversation on 29th Oct., a new cell…?

    Why didn’t they ask Kris what he heard on the day Stacy vanished or try to get to the policeman who helped Drew?

    OK, I know why. The show must go on.

  96. So it’s not the chicken wings being plugged now.

    I thought Mancow’s statement was idiotic (as if having great kids truly meant you must be innocent of all wrongdoing).

    Thomas’ statement is even more idiotic. Shame on Drew and Joel for using Drew’s children to try to improve his image. I remember that Drew Peterson controls his family.

    And yet, we’re supposed to believe Thomas came up with all this on his own? I don’t.

  97. I don’t know, honestly, who is worse. Peterson doing this and exposing his teen sons to the national media like this for his own sinister reasons, or for CBS using this “exclusive” interview for their sinister reasons.

    I can’t make up my mind on this one.

  98. Rescue, my vote is that Drew is worse. If he didn’t give permission for his son’s to be on CBS, they wouldn’t have been.

    I control my family. I think more people in America need to control their family.

  99. “They wanted the public to know they love their dad.”

    *********

    Yeah, and CBS wants the public to know that they got the exclusive interview of two teens in the midst of a horrific situation to openly defend their crime suspect father.

    What does and can this man teach them of love, when he’s working on getting wife #5 down the aisle? Funny, his Eric does’t feel the love, does he?

  100. Bucket: Is that right? Hmmm.

    * * * * * * *

    You used to be able to watch him say that Mommy’s still on vacation and she isn’t coming back. Now you can’t see any of it.

  101. bucketoftea Says:
    April 24, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Bucket: Is that right? Hmmm.

    * * * * * * *

    You used to be able to watch him say that Mommy’s still on vacation and she isn’t coming back. Now you can’t see any of it.

    Now, Bucket, that’s just interesting.

    At whose request was that cut out, I wonder.

  102. Rescue & Noway – I think it’s a tie.
    To be used in such a way by your parent (even if they HADN’T Murdered your other parent) is horrific, no doubt. But, for CBS to exploit the acts of a murdering psycopath solely for financial gain, which adds “special circumstances” to murder charges in most states, is really disgusting, as well.

  103. Honestly, if you could stomach it you should take a look at the recent 48 hours about Amanda Knox and then compare it to tons of real information and analysis at true justice for meredith kercher.
    WTH is wrong with these people?

  104. Bucket, do you mean that they cut away to still photos during that time or that it’s gone completely? All I’ve ever seen is the version where they cut away (which is the one I posted on Youtube).

  105. The video is still out there in full (although bad quality) on YouTube:

    Note from Facs: FYI, That’s the video I uploaded and which you see at the top of this post.

  106. Yeah, it’s hard to pick.

    For example, on the day the People Magazine article about the goofbirds hit the stands, the cookoo bird was fleeing the coup. In that special piece, it was said:

    Drew Peterson stands at the kitchen counter, making PB&J sandwiches for the kids. “I’m Mr. Mom,” he jokes. Standing a few feet away is his fiancée, 24-year-old Christina Raines, with his 4-year-old daughter Lacy in her arms. “Chrissy and I are going to get our hair colored later,” Lacy says as Raines smiles. “I told her we’d buy hair color and paint each other’s hair pink or purple,” says Raines. Adds Drew, 55: “It’s nice having a mom in the house.”

    Now, on national tv, Chrissy has been reduced to being a “girlfriend” from a “mom in the house,” and, not the least bit surprising, he’s allowed his little girl to be quoted in the magazine as though life is one big bowl of cherries.

    For this hour, I’ll pick Drew Peterson.

    (CBS – blah)

  107. Yeah. I watched him say it 3 or 4 times. They cut away to photos after she she asked why he said “not coming back”.

  108. I heard another thing on the Fox Chicago interview that made me scratch my head. On the link I just provided – if you go to 2:10 Jan says that it must be heartbreaking for Drew that his kids asking about her mom. He responds, “Yeah it is for me yes – without a doubt – but it’s become commonplace for the kids so…”

    It’s like he thinks the kids get used to all of this so quickly like their new life without their mom is like getting a new pair of shoes.

    That is just a very odd comment and I cannot imagine a dad not saying that it horribly hurts his kids that their moms are either dead or missing. The pretending like nothing is wrong, it’s no big deal, and he’s the best dad in the world is just over the top. It is just like he was when he drove past Kathleen’s house and basically said – yeah, stuff happens, oh well, you move on… How do you say that stuff and not even show a single ounce of concern unless you have no heart??

  109. TAI – notice that Drew says “It’s become commonplace for the kids” right after he just stated that “the little girl” asks often about her mom. Can’t be too commonplace if she is continually asking about her.

  110. I think it’s commonplace that they ask about her, meaning that they do it every day. (How sad is that?)

    Sorry, but I don’t buy Thomas’s remark that he has the greatest dad.

  111. I’m wondering if something did “happen” with Chrissy both because of Drew’s silly girly nervous giggle and the reactions when she is brought up a second time after Tom has spoken his piece.

  112. OMG Drew is now showing how desperate he realy is…I belive he knows he’s going down, and going down soon.. He has always used his children,so this comes to no surprise to me whatsoever.He would’nt be in this mess if he didn’t kill his children’s mothers! My heart brakes for Thomas, Kris,Anthony and Lacy. And if you remember way back when, Drew said that the garden was disturbing to these kids…think again, no it was not, what their father has done and continues to do is what is disturbing to them. My God, I pray this ends soon, so all 4 of those children can get the help that they need.

  113. The garden disturbs the children when it suits Drew to have the garden disturb the children.

    Right now, he’s got a civil trial to think about, so it’s the Savios who disturb the children (daring to come into their lives and trying to give them what is rightfully theirs).

    When the criminal trial was forefront (right now it’s taken a back burner to the civil trial as far as the media is concerned), it was those people who were accusing Drew of killing Stacy (e.g., Stacy’s family, Sharon, Tom Morphey, Ric Mimms) who disturbed the children.

    And really, IMO, it’s Drew who is the most disturbing character in this whole mess.

  114. This CBS interview reminds me of a hostage situation, where people are put in front of a camera and are told to say they are fine and treated well by their captors.

    The things Thomas are saying are not spontaneous for a young man his age, the comments are pure Drew/Brodsky, they are so totally coaxed and unnatural, it is painful to watch.

    Thomas is holding up well until the interviewer starts addressing Drew and his love life (!). Thomas then bows his head and seems to be struggling whilst Kris is just cowering next to his Dad the whole time.

    The only decent and sensible part of this interview were the comments by John Q Kelly, especially his observations at the end !!

  115. Good analogy JAH (hostage situation).

    I watched the video once this morning but it made me so uncomfortable that I haven’t been able to watch it again.

  116. BTW – This lawsuit is not about Henry Savio and whether he is a bad person or didn’t send a birthday card to the children, this is about Kathleen Savio’s untimely demise and the mishandling of her Estate !

  117. The interview is disturbing and bizarre, especially Drews demeanour as he is sitting between his two children like a cardboard cut out with only his eyes darting back and forth.

    There is no reaction, recognition or empathy with anything his son is saying and he doesn’t even seem to notice how Kris is shrinking away to nothing in the seat next to him either.

    There’s no acknowledgement from Drew that child is even there !

    It’s all very bizarre and disturbing !!!

  118. Drew is a manipulative person. He knows his appearance on Fox last night was a disaster so now being the manipulator he is, he’ll be schlepping the kids around to prop up his troubling image as a human being. He’ll try to play the kid card but will accuse others of doing exactly that and try and have them arrested. He is a manipulative liar.
    Message to Drew or his pimp-daddy Brodsky: now the entire viewing audience in America is totally onto you because you bragged about your exploits and that “..mommy is not coming back..” You ass.

  119. JAH, your comment about Drew not acknowledging Kris is right. He never looks at him even to give encouragement like “I know you don’t want to be here, but it’s going to be okay.”

    Could we see history repeat itself, and one of Drew’s sons won’t want anything to do with him?

  120. Good morning

    I woke up keen to mount an SAS style rescue of those kids. No guns, just a bunch of moms to distract him by nagging in unison and waving shiny things at his front door while another bunch of moms spirit the kids out the back door and give them a good cuddle til family members arrive.

    How could the family stomach watching their CBS appearance? Will uncle Paul or brother Steve rescue them?

  121. Yo Facs! I was just admiring the little caption/speech bubble things you added to the vid above. Cool.

    I’ve been trying to find Neil Schori’s post here explaining the truth of his “interview granted” with D’Armstrong. I’m hopeless.

  122. ….because JB spoke the truth when he said that what he said to DA was not the same he told Greta. He didn’t have to ring her up to tear her off a strip.

  123. Good morning, Bucket.

    I have just what you’re looking for:

    To: Van Susteren, Greta
    Subject: Derek Armstrong

    Greta,

    I need to set the record straight. I did not grant Derek Armstrong an exclusive interview. I tracked him down to confront him about the things that he said in his book about me and about his horrible choice of pictures that he chose to have published (of Stacy and Cassandra).

    After talking with him for about 40 minutes, he casually asked if he may let people know that we had spoken. I said that was no problem as long as he shared why we had spoken in the first place, i.e., for me to contact him about his falsehoods and speculation in his book.

    I was contacted by ABC a couple of weeks later to tell me that Armstrong had recorded our conversation. Let me be really clear—I did not authorize that in any way, shape, or form.

    Please get this out for me, Greta.

    Thanks,

    Neil Schori

  124. Here are the Justice Cafe posts by Neil Schori:

    Neil Schori Says:
    December 13, 2008 at 11:45 am

    Just to quickly clear the air…I called Derek Armstrong because of concerns that I had about his book.

    I was bothered by his inaccurate assessment of me in his book (even though he only had Greta’s interview with me to assess me) and that I was saddened by some of the inappropriate pictures that he put in the book of Stacy.

    We did speak on the phone but I shared nothing new with him whatsoever. Of course, he did not share the the reason for our call in the first place, which was for me to set the record straight.

    Thanks for keeping this story alive!
    ******************

    Neil Schori Says:
    December 13, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    It was very manipulative. At the end of our chat, he casually asked if it was ok that he told people that we talked. I said that was fine, if he told WHY I spoke with him in the first place. Funny that that never made it into the “press release,” huh?

    A friend of mine in the media called me a few days back to alert me that Armstrong was peddling the transcript AND a recording of our conversation. Armstrong NEVER told me our talk was recorded. How incorrigible!

  125. Hiya Rescue! Thanks.

    It made me want to spit when JB mentioned Neil granting an interview to DA.

    Here is a nice concise description of the grounds for DP’s FOID revocation

    A FOID may be revoked and seized if the holder made a false statement on the application, is no longer eligible, or whose mental condition poses a clear and present danger to self, others, or community. A written notice must be given with the grounds for denial or revocation and seizure.

    A person whose FOID has been revoked or seized or whose FOID application was denied or not acted upon within 30 days may appeal the decision to the Director of the Department of State Police, unless it was based upon certain violent, drug, or weapons offenses. In that case, the aggrieved person may petition the circuit court in the county of his residence. If the Director upholds the Department’s decision, the applicant may appeal to the courts. Any judicial review generally will be limited to the question of whether the Department’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”
    * * * * * * * * * * *
    I popped over to nurse pauline’s and really lol at his snitty reply to ‘a bunch of comments I deleted’ that no, it’s not DP’s FOID, just an example, and yes, I have JB’s letter, but I chose not to share. nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyha.

    They really want to try to prove that DP’s not unstable??? LO bloody L!!!

  126. Today’s Tribune says, Thomas gives Drew an alibi. Drew knew he was going to get Kathleen, the weekend he had his kids [premeditated]. To use them as an alibi. Where was he when they were sleeping?
    What was time of death listed on death cert.?

  127. I think it’s time to tell Joel that the people he’s trying to bullshit with his unprofessional lawyer speak is so stupid, it’s not worth the time it takes for it to come out of his mouth.

    He was popping his gasket the other day and ready to do a happy dance that he can’t wait to question Pastor Schori about his “interview” with Derek Armstrong. He claims, basically, that Pastor Schori denies to Armstrong that Stacy got a confession from Drew that he killed Kathleen. We are all to assume that means this is a contradiction of Pastor Schori’s past statements, thus, he’s not credible.

    I have seen no public statements that Pastor Schori has recounted where he specifically says that Drew confessed to Stacy he killed Kathleen.
    *****
    SCHORI: She said, He did it.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Just like that.

    SCHORI: Just like that.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Do you know what the reference point was, as that point, that, He did it?

    SCHORI: I had a feeling, but I needed clarification, so of course, I followed up.

    VAN SUSTEREN: How did you happen to know that that — I mean, had you spoken about the “He did it” aspect before with her?

    SCHORI: I had never spoken with her about that before. I had just heard casual conversations in the community and in my own church about speculation over an interesting death of Mr. Peterson’s wife, his third wife.

    VAN SUSTEREN: So when she said, He did it, what did you believe that to mean?

    SCHORI: I believed, unfortunately, that it was exactly what I thought, and I believed that it was related to the death of his wife. But I clarified, and I said, He did what? And she said, He killed Kathleen. And I was really blown away. I was reeling inside.

    VAN SUSTEREN: So how — what did do you?

    SCHORI: I asked for more specific things. She gave me details that I really can’t share. But I just got her talking about it and asked her what — this is a crazy amount of information. Again, I asked her, What exactly can I do with this? Why did you tell me? I asked her if she had ever told anyone else. She said at the time, she had never told another person.

    VAN SUSTEREN: What was the reason for her all of a sudden do you think or the compulsion to suddenly tell you? What was — what was eating at her, or why did she want to tell you?

    SCHORI: I’ve wondered that for two-and-a-half months. I hope that it’s because she looked at me as a safe person that she could share some very important information with. It’s really speculation, at this point.

    VAN SUSTEREN: How do you know that it wasn’t just speculation on her part, you know, that she had information that he had — did it?

    SCHORI: She had specific information.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Like?

    SCHORI: She had specific information about his not being in the house.

    VAN SUSTEREN: The night Kathleen died?

    SCHORI: Uh-huh.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Did she say she’d ever confronted him about it?

    SCHORI: They talked shortly after that about it.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And did he admit it to her, or did she put two and two together?

    SCHORI: It was more than just putting two and two together. It was not speculation on her part.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Did she see something?

    SCHORI: No.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Was there any — besides the fact that he wasn’t home that night, did — were there any other clues or signs that he wasn’t just — I mean, I don’t why anyone would brag about it, but I mean, that he wasn’t just lying about it or trying to scare her or something?

    SCHORI: Well, she shared details with me that I can’t — I’m not comfortable getting into, but it was very clear. It was very clear that this was not just speculation. She was not jumping to conclusions.

    *****
    In this, Pastor Schori does not clearly state that Drew confessed to Stacy. It appears he’s speculating she had enough information, or even shared things he said to her, that indicated she knew Drew killed Kathleen.
    *****
    In this transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317115,00.html), it is MARK FUHRMAN that says Drew confessed to Stacy he killed Kathleen. He uses as a reference to the conversation Pastor Schori had with Greta.

    Now, Kathleen Savio was found Monday night at 11:17 PM, almost midnight. So prior to that, we heard on Monday Pastor Neil Schori tell you that Stacy actually confided in him that Drew Peterson actually confessed that he had killed Kathleen Savio. And you, of course, followed up, When? And he said that Stacy told him the very night.

    Stacy told Pastor Schori that day that in that time when she finally found Drew in the house, she heard him, he was downstairs by the washing machine. She saw him. He was standing there in all black, stripping down, putting his clothes into the washing machine.

    He also had a bag in his hand that he emptied that was women’s clothes. And he looks at her and he starts telling her, explaining to her, In several hours, the police are going to be here, and they’re going to ask a lot of questions. I’m going to tell you what to say. It will be a perfect crime.
    *****

    In my opinion, there is no exact quote from Pastor Schori that Stacy TOLD HIM Drew explicitly confessed to killing Kathleen. Maybe he did, but Pastor Schori did not out-and-out say that, at least that I’ve been able to find.

    So, in his conversation with Armstrong, if Armstrong asked Schori: “did Stacy say Drew confessed to her that he killed Kathleen,” and Schori’s answer was “no,” there is no contradiction. Brodsky is mincing words and blowing hot air out of his mouth, once again.

  128. In their dreams. An 11yr old can’t give anyone an alibi while they are fast asleep in the middle of the night. Are you forgetting the phone records D and J? Stacy calling frantically when she awoke to find DP gone and not answering his phone. Steve’s old girlfriend Jenny can shed light on that night, too, possibly.

    I must say I have noticed that the Trib reports sometimes pump up the controversy.

  129. I guess it’s OK for Dad to plead the fifth…but did the interview on tv work out well for DP and JB as a dress rehearsal for the stand? Nice work, Dad. Nice work Shitsky. Looks like poor Tom may be the only defense witness, 😦

  130. Oh how annoying. This is the link to where you used to be able to see Part II of the Interview Neil did with Greta.

    http://tinyurl.com/24wure

    This is the part that was not aired where he mentioned the washing machine, the black clothes, Drew saying that the police would be here soon and bragging to her that “it’s the perfect crime”.

    The video is no longer there and I can’t find a transcript of it either. If anyone can dredge up either the video or transcript, I’d like to see it.

    This is what Greta posted on her blog at the time:

    by Greta Van Susteren
    I just got word that more of our interviews with Sgt Peterson’s fiance and Stacy’s Pastor will be posted here or on our ON THE RECORD show page in a couple of hours. Right now they are encoding them – whatever that means…you might want to watch these interviews on the web simply because we did not show complete interviews on out TV show (ON THE RECORD, ten pm eastern)….

    Lordy, here’s the defunct link to part III, the raw interview footage. Arrrrgh!

    http://tinyurl.com/2t9q38

  131. Oh well, maybe it’s not so important that we be able to see this stuff. The important thing is what Schori has told to the Grand Jury and what he can testify to in civil/criminal court, which looks like it could be happening soon! 🙂

  132. Thanks GA, but that’s the transcript of the PART I video which aired on the show. I was looking for PART II or the raw video that had everything.

    It’s OK though. Like I say, it’s not so important that we have access to this stuff. They may very well have removed it for a reason.

  133. You’re right in that it doesn’t matter if we can see it or not, but it’s useful (and fun) to pull Blobsky’s lies to pieces.

    I think Neil Schori has got to be the safest witness anyone can think of anywhere. He did tell a lot, BUT NOT ALL to anyone but GJ, LE (FBI?)and probably his wife.

    DP has even lately confirmed his penchant for dressing all in black when he goes out to “play”.

  134. Here’s Mark Fuhrman again. But of course, this is just Fuhrman talking.

    “I believe it’s absolutely corroborated that Stacy told Pastor Schori that day [August 2007] that in that time when she finally found Drew in the house [03/01/2004], she heard him, he was downstairs by the washing machine, she saw him, he was standing there in all black, stripping down and putting his clothes into the washing machine. He also had a bag in his hand that he emptied that was woman’s clothes and he looks at her and he starts telling her, explaining to her in several hours the police are going to be here and they are going to ask a lot of questions and I’m going to tell you what to say. It will be a perfect crime.”

    From acandyrose:
    http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_witness_schori.htm

  135. I wonder….How many days does the two time murderer actually have left of freedom….I am guessing about
    12 😉

    I wonder…What is the two time murderer doing with these last days ??

    I wonder…Is he scared ?? I sure hope so !

  136. Or when she moved back in she did so with cameras and mikes? I also wonder if “..and she’s not coming back ” was such an easy slip because perhaps he has been repeating this sweet little nothing in her ear for weeks on end. Who knows?

  137. A certain admin of this blog (that would be Facs) brought up a very good point. If Armstrong taped his conversation with Pastor Schori, regardless of what their conversation was, and it was done without his knowledge, could that be used to contradict anything the Pastor said in prior interviews or testimony? If Brodsky has this taped conversation, did Armstrong bother to tell him it was done without the Pastor’s knowledge, and is it even ethical or legal for him to refer to it in that regard?

  138. I thought it is illegal in Illinois (the US or Canada) to record anyone without his/her knowlegde. That is why even the police have to have a warrant to do so.
    Prior to recording, you must inform a speaker the conversation is recorded, right?

  139. I remember looking into the phone recording incident when it was done and since it was done in Toronto(?) and they have single-party permission there, it was legal for him to tape Schori’s conversation.

    However, I don’t know that it could legally be admitted as evidence into a U.S. courtroom. AND can you imagine if they called Armstrong as a witness for the defense? he’d be ripped to shreds! LOL!

  140. I believe it varies State by State, and when it is across states with different rules, the one where the call originated is applied I’m sure we went through this yonks ago with some good research. Pastor Schori made the call, I believe, and probably from Illinois. So. In a way it doesn’t matter whether Duck’s Ass was in Illinois, Ontario (subject to any other rules that apply across Canadian border), Florida, Kentucky, Peoria or Thailand.

  141. This is what I posted back in Dec when this first came up:

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent.

    It’s important to understand the difference between what has become known as one party consent and two party or all party consent. One party consent simply means that one party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording. Two party or all party consent means that every party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording.

    There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:

    California
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    Florida
    Illinois
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Montana
    New Hampshire
    Pennsylvania
    Washington
    **********************

    AND

    Is it legal to record calls in Ontario without letting the other person know?

    Canada requires “one-party notification” – only one person in the conversation needs to be aware that the conversation is being taped. In other words, the person taping the conversation must be participating in it. You will find this law in the Criminal Code of Canada.

  142. Do you happen to know or can check it in any way if the night shift in BB is from 6 p.m. to 2 p.m.?
    Thanks in advance 🙂

  143. Since Pastor Schori originated the call, then is it Illinois’ laws that apply? Aw, ror crying out loud, when one person calls another person, from one state to another, or, in this case, to a location outside of the US, whose law governs?

  144. Re: cyrhla @ April 25, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    *********

    Honestly, that could vary substantially. For example, in an “afternoon shift,” the times would be 3p – 11p for a few beat cars, and 4p – 12a for the remaining ones. During shift changes, they can’t all come in our go out and the same time, thus, the need for a few that start earlier.

    The shifts, in general, in p.d.’s are: 12a – 8a, 8a to 4p, and 4p to 12a. Again, there would be a few early starts in all three shifts.

    In a department as large as the Chicago Police Department, for example, there are also variances to the standard shifts. There’s tactical teams that have a different starting time, than, say, the 4p-12p, and could very well have a 6p to 2a shift. However, those would be special teams of sorts that would have those start/end times. Of course, this could also apply to any number of suburban departments.

    Hope that helps.

  145. Can you imagine hearing this as a juror?

    Thomas, when you were 11 years old, at the time your mother had her accident, do you remember how you were with your dad every moment of the day, for 3 or 4 days, and even when you were sleeping? Isn’t that how you know now that your father could not have murdered your mother, even after all of the fights they had, and how you boys wished they would stop? Because, your father TOLD you he was with you the whole time during which your mother died?

    You almost choke laughing about this insanity, don’t you?

  146. Rescue, we all know Drew killed Kathleen at night and the only person who could have provided alibi to him was Stacy so it does not matter what children say NOW. What matters is the fact that no one even bothered to investigate the case from the very beginning. The so called investigation was focused, as they said then, on explaining the circumstances of Kathleen’s death and Drew was not a suspect at any point of it. If we had to do with real and thorough investigation, Stacy’s alibi given to Drew would be ignored, taking into consideration all the other facts and the on-site evidence.
    I do not know if you can remember that from the very beginning but BB police started with the same story: Drew is not a supect and cooperates with the police very well… I really wonder if this time things are really different. I hope so but sometimes I lose my faith. We expected Drew to be arrested many times and nothing has happened until now. What evidence do they need to arrest Drew for murdering Kathleen? They have a body, they have lots of evidence and a motive. It seems to me someone does not want things to happen.
    Where to hell is Glasgow, our hero who seems to me be much more talkative BEFORE the election?

  147. cyrhla: I think so many of us feel the same way. What more do they need to arrest him. In all reality, is there ever any guarantee that a jury is going to render a verdict the prosecution wants them to? I don’t remember seeing any high profile cases where they had video evidence of a defendant committing an actual murder. Isn’t it all about putting all of the pieces together to get the full picture?

    For me, as to Kathleen’s death investigation, that was a poor excuse of an investigation, and I sure hope somebody figures out why it was so unprofessional. Incompetency, complacency, or turning a blind eye. Which is it?

  148. BTW, yes, we all know that Drew was the likely murderer of Kathleen, and Stacy was the one that needed to and did provide him with an alibi.

    So, for him to allow his 16 year old son, who was 11 at the time and couldn’t possibly be considered an alibi, to go on national tv and let him say they were all together the whole time and he couldn’t possibly have done it, does more to bury the POS in more mire than accomplish what he set out to do. I’m having a hard time believing that either Drew Peterson or Joel Brodsky didn’t drop down from another planet – the planet of Stufantasy.

    He used his missing wife as an alibi, who spilled his secret, and now she’s gone and hasn’t been heard from since October 28, 2007. Get him out of our sight. The sooner the better.

  149. I wonder if this time they checked those phone records or are looking for another excuse not to do that.

    I know we were discussing this before but I also wonder why (if innocent) Drew reacted so histerically to Kathleen not answering her door or phone. He was supposed to return children by 8pm Sunday. He cannot get in touch with Kathleen and is not sure if the children are supposed to stay with him till Monday or not. OK. Then on Monday he tries to contact Katty again without success and instead of calling Anna (what he did when ‘discovered’ KS’ body=must have known her phone number) and learn if maybe something happened to Katty (what I think everyone would have done in his place), he decides to break into Kathleen’s house to check the things. He calls a locksmith who seems to be invisible as no one besides Drew could see him. Rather histerical decision as Kathleen could have been away, for instance, not at home, have a car accident or something. In addition and of course it is just another coincidence, he breaks into her house being at work. We all know it is typical for policeman to deal with their private issues when on duty. He does not even call for help of any of his collegues from BB department because they do not like him and are too cool. Instead, he involves the closest friends (of himself and Katty to have some balance) to create more dramatic and emotional situation so that there were people to cheer him up and feeling sorry for him when the police come or so, I can imagine.
    Then the police comes [and tread the scene with respect! instead of treating Kathleen in such way] and they do not notice that she has livor mortis present on the wrong side of her body or just deduct she turned upside down after death…or it was too dark ten. She looks like a baloon and Drew calls the emergency and tries to rescue her. There are no towels nor bath rugs in the bathroom, all the things around stand upward and an experienced crime scene technicians and investigators do not see anything suspicious about it. Her hands are packed into bags and then during the autopsy it appears her nails are short cut and clean. The medical examiner can see just a few bruises on her body (while 3 years later another one describes it as ‘many’), the time on the autopsy report shows it was run before the death took place, and determines the cause of death as accidental drowning.
    I would agree with Drew they were just idiots if that had been the end of the story but it was not. The main investigator goes on a (sick?) leave and this is a person who does(not)have idea about the case testifies before the jury and lies (or tells what was told to tell). A member of a jury is a policeman who knows of Drew and just suggests good policemen do not kill their wives. Everyone suffers from amnesia (no phone calls, no protection order, no police reports, no KS’ crying for help) except Katty’s sister. Furthermore, the jury is deprived of one of the options, i.e. undetermined cause of death.

    That is the recipe how to kill someone and close the case within 3 month, then get all his/her money and … Provided that you are a policeman, beacuse I am sure if I were in Drew’s place I would be already in jail and no one could even have TV shows with me.

    Sorry, I had to vent.

  150. As far as Drew putting his children on t.v. and vouching for him they were with him the whole time and their mothers death was an accident “as accidents happen all the time” etc is just Drew/Brodsky talking through Thomas and is of no more value than watching a puppet show and as far as Drew being the “Greatest Dad” ?????

    These children have already been in counselling to no avail when Kathleen was still alive with one counsellor reporting “they cannot fix what continues to happen”.

    One of the children asked Santa Claus if he could “stop Daddy from hurting Mommy” etc, so would Drew be the “Greatest Dad” if that is on a childs wish list for Christmas ?

    Considering there would be a considerable amount of interviews and child advocacy records concerning the children, it was a very stupid move on Drews part to put his children up for scrutiny like this in a t.v. interview !!

  151. I know we were discussing this before but I also wonder why (if innocent) Drew reacted so histerically to Kathleen not answering her door or phone. He was supposed to return children by 8pm Sunday. He cannot get in touch with Kathleen and is not sure if the children are supposed to stay with him till Monday or not.

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

    Considering there was always a lot of contention re picking up the children and the times of dropping them of, it is hard to believe Drew would have made such a half hearted arrangement as in “not knowing he was maybe supposed to have them another day” as that was his excuse for not contacting anyone.

    All these “Sociopathic quick fix” statements are going to be Drews undoing as he doesn’t have the ability to know empathy or concern like other people do !

  152. facsmiley Says:

    April 25, 2009 at 6:56 pm
    What’s next, Drew’s mom dragged on TV to attest that Drew is a “good boy”?

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

    Well, Mrs Morphey hasn’t been on t.v. yet, but she certainly already attested Drew is such a “good boy” and “would never hurt anyone” !

  153. Good morning, everyone.
    —–
    […] on the day of Savio’s funeral, rather than attend a reception for family and friends, Peterson removed personal property that had not yet been inventoried.

    Peterson said he took things for the children, such as beds and clothes.
    —–
    He forgot to add Kathleen’s bedroom and jewerly, and some other things.

    I believe Drew and the boys were present at the funeral and Anna Doman, too. It took place in 2004. Why then does Thomas says he has not seen her aunt for 6 years (“Do the math.”)?

    BTW, you must be a real SOB to do all that on the day of the funeral. I think he did not want anyone to disturb him.
    That was actually reflected by him saying “treat the scene (not Kathleen!) with respect”.

    I wonder how it was possible from the point of view of the then ongoing ‘investigation’ to remove everything from the crime scene two weeks after the incident? Shouldn’t Drew have any permission to do so?

  154. Shouldn’t any reporter ask the coroner why accidental drowning is still on KS’s death certificate if the latest autopsy ruled otherwise, instead of running clueless interviews with Drew’s son?

  155. Good morning, everyone.

    Cyrhla – with all due respect, Brodsky is the one that says he obtained a copy of the death certificate and it shows a cause of death as accidental. Why not wait until someone with some credibility issues a statement on the subject. Most of us take what comes from Brodsky with a grain of salt, and he is known to tilt the “facts” to suit his cause.

    I’m as guilty as anyone of wondering why Peterson hasn’t been arrested yet and wanting him arrested yesterday, but that doesn’t mean the current investigation, police and/or State’s Attorney is inefficient or guilty of covering up something. This crime suspect has had years of questionable dealings going on, so unless and until this current Grand Jury is dismissed, take Brodsky’s explanation about Kathleen’s death certificate as nothing more than donkey doo. Remember, the family members, the ones that count here, aren’t publicly trashing the investigation, so why should we, heh?

  156. Let’s say, this is no BS and Brodsky has the certificate that still shows accidental drowning…
    Wouldn’t it shut up Drew and leave open doors to the investigation? Is that the reason it was still not corrected?
    ——-
    CHANGES TO CAUSE OF DEATH
    Should additional medical information or autopsy findings become available that would change the cause of death originally reported, the original death certificate should be amended by the certifying physician by immediately reporting the revised cause of death to the State Vital Records Office.

    MANNER OF DEATH

    Always check Manner of Death, which is important: 1) in determining accurate causes of death; 2) in processing insurance claims; and 3) in statistical studies of injuries and death.

    Indicate “Pending investigation” if the manner of death cannot be determined whether due to an accident, suicide, or homicide within the statutory time limit for filing the death certificate. This should be changed later to one of the other terms.

    Indicate “Could not be Determined” ONLY when it is impossible to determine the manner of death.

  157. I wonder…What is the two time murderer doing with his last…oh say 11 days of freedom he has left ??

    Hmmmmmmm

    Things that make you wonder 😉

  158. They need only TWO months to determine Kathleen’s death was accidental though there was the basic evidence of murder (livor mortis present on her back what says the body was moved AFTER death).
    Now they have known the results of the new autopsy for more than and a year and the cause of her death cannot be determined for a year, not to mention the time of the investigation (I am much more understanding as for Stacy because there is no body and the case is much more difficult to prove. Sorry, but I feel there is something wrong about it. Otherwise, Anna Doman would not sue Drew now.

    Ok, we will see what is going to happen to GJ. I bet they will take another six months so that Anna have her hands tied.

  159. I am more worried about the childrens pyschological wellbeing than their phyical well being around the two time murderer. His EGO is entirely too HUGE to
    hurt his own offspring. JMHO 😉

    I don’t think the murderer wrote and sent the letter, I think it was someone he pissed off that just happened to know about it. I am probably wrong. 😉
    I often am.

    I wonder…Will the GJ have a decision on any of
    these three cases ( KS,SP,LS ) at the end of their
    session ??

    I am really curious to see how many will be furious if there is no indictment ??

  160. 1wonderwoman Says:
    April 26, 2009 at 10:44 am
    I am really curious to see how many will be furious if there is no indictment ??
    ————
    I will be the first one to open the list.

  161. I am somewhat bewildered that Drew Peterson didn’t have his adult sons appear with him on the CBS Morning Show to add to being his alibis during the time period Kathleen died. Hasn’t it come out that both were living with him at the time, or at least Stephen and his gf were. I mean, come on, why use a teen that was 11 at the time to say things that 99.9% of the viewers know is impossible to believe. You know, like he couldn’t have killed their mother because he was with them at the time?

    Drew is self destructing and in the midst of a major meltdown. He’s going to make a damn good defendant in a criminal trial, isn’t he? Who knows who he’ll come up with next for an alibi if he’s charged with the homicide of Kathleen. Can’t use Stacy, because she’s NOT coming back. Plan B. Thomas and Kristopher. Oh, the drama, Drew.

  162. Wonder says: I am really curious to see how many will be furious if there is no indictment ??

    **********

    Obviously, Drew seems to be the one amongst us that isn’t secure in thinking there’s not going to be an indictment. Why else is he doing absolutely stupid things like he did the other morning with his sons? Doesn’t sound like a confident man to me. Looking like a half dazed zombie on that sofa was kind of jumping the gun a little, don’t you think, when that civil suit is months and months away. Hell, if we’re to believe him (and we all do, don’t we), Stacy is on an island somewhere and can pop back at any time to reiterate her alibi story. Because, remember, he and Brodsky said what the Pastor has divulged is not true. Damn, he sure could use Stacy in his life right now, heh?

  163. Ah, it’s all clear now. His alibi is NOT coming back from vacation, so he needed to find new ones. No wonder he looked so confident (NOT) sitting on that sofa, hoping the public would embrace the sympathy factor after watching him sit idly by while his son became the new alibi.

    How can those poor children know what the world’s greatest dad is when they only have a scumbag like him to use as comparison?

  164. I uploaded the part 2 raw video with greta/schori

    Schori does say yes when Greta asks him “Did she have any solid information he did it? Let me back up a second. He actually confessed to her to having killed Kathleen Savio?”

    There are actually 5 videos I have with this interview. There was part 1 and 2 that aired, and 3 raw parts that have the same info as the transcript, plus the parts that were left out. Schori never said on these videos what Fuhrman said on the other video, about the washing machine, black clothes, etc.

    On the Fuhrman video, he never says “Schori told me”, he says “Now, I’ve got sources that have given us…..” and “I believe it’s absolutely corroborated that Stacy told Pastor Schori that day…”
    I wonder why he puts it that way?

    rescue, did Brodsky ever say “Schori denies to Armstrong that Stacy got a confession from Drew that he killed Kathleen.” ?
    I think Brodsky just says “conflicting statements”

    Is there any audio from that phone call that the sleazy author recorded? Or Armstong talking about it?
    I wonder what was exactly said to Armstrong.

    Is there any other documentation about that night about the washing machine, black clothes, etc.? (besides Fuhrman)

    One of the videos has Neil Schori saying he was on the Grand Jury, and excused himself when Kathleen Savios case came up.

    I can upload the other videos if anyone wants.

    grandam: Baden says on the Greta/Fuhrman video the time of death for Kathleen Savio was between 2 and 6 A.M.

  165. Thanks womenscorned. I was questioning what I had written earlier myself after I saw the Fuhrman quote (thinking that Neil had mentioned that stuff on video). Now I am curious to know what sources Fuhrman had to make him say that stuff was corroborated. Interesting.

    Armstrong had Neil’s phone call recordings up for sale at one time. Maybe Joel bought them and paid top price so he could be the only buyer. I still question whether or not they would be admissible considering how they were obtained (no matter what they contain). Armstrong didn’t exactly have a warrant to obtain any covert recordings.

  166. Womenscorned: Regarding your two questions:
    rescue, did Brodsky ever say “Schori denies to Armstrong that Stacy got a confession from Drew that he killed Kathleen.” ?
    I think Brodsky just says “conflicting statements”

    Is there any audio from that phone call that the sleazy author recorded? Or Armstong talking about it?
    I wonder what was exactly said to Armstrong.
    *****

    I believe Brodsky did say something to the effect that Pastor Schori denies Drew confessed to Stacy, but I will go back to, I believe, the WGN interview and listen again. As to the recorded conversation between Pastor Schori and Armstrong, no, it’s never been made public, as I believe Armstrong wanted to be paid for any of his recordings, whether it be this or otherwise. Also, since no one has ever heard this fantasy recording, as Facs likes to say: “pictures, or it didn’t happen.”

  167. You know, D’hamstrung wasn’t just covertly recording a conversation with any old person in the street, but a GJ witness in a current investigation. And JB is in possession of same. That doesn’t look very good, does it?

  168. In listening to the WGN interview, I missed this the first time. Brodsky slips up himself, and says he doesn’t think the civil case can proceed “while there’s criminal charges”….. and then stops himself and says “while there’s a Grand Jury investigating him.” I assume he was going to say “while there’s criminal charges pending,” since I would think he’s got enough brains to figure out criminal charges are coming. I say this because, last year, he insisted that his client was never, never, ever, going to be charged (on LKL), so, if that is the case, why is he surprised now that the Savio family is filing this suit when he KNOWS his client is not going to be hit with criminal charges? He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He is inconsistent with his statements.

    In the WGN video, Brodsky says, regarding Pastor Schori/Armonstrong “interview,”: “he says things totally opposite to what you just read.

    This was a reference to the interviewers reading from the civil lawsuit about Pastor Schori relating the events from that night, per Stacy. I’ll check the Fox News video for his comments regarding Pastor Schori.

  169. The link above in the main post to DP admitting to cutting through the wall doesn’t work. Taken down perhaps?

  170. On the Fox video:

    Brodsky has seen “several different versions” of what Pastor Schori says. He says, with regard to the Pastor Schori/Armstrong “interview,” he says “nothing even similar to that,” meaning what was stated in the complaint.

    So, Womenscorned, there was not actual words by Brodsky that I’ve heard now, after listening to both videos, denying a confession.

    You know, what is very interesting now that I’ve watched the Fox video again, is that the last words of Peterson were “I am a good dad. Why does dating make me a bad dad? Why?.”

    Wah lah. The next day, there are his teens, calling him “the greatest dad in the world.” What a coincidence.

  171. I put this old video up (12-07) of mancow dissing DiP, and defending Pastor Schori.

    Must have been before mancow found out he could make $$$ off DiP.
    “were they (LE) were protecting their own” “creepy vibe about him” Sounds like a true bff.
    Mancow suing another station for doing a “bit” about him?? Can he say hypocrite?

  172. Thank you, Womenscorned! Mancow is, on the right side of the fence before he started schmoozing with Peterson and Brodsky, and even calls “the guy creepy” and looks like the “Lion from the Wizard of Oz.”

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  173. rescue
    No you can’t!

    I just wanted to see if Brodsky said that about the confession, because I don’t remember him saying that, and I remembered Pastor Shori saying yes on the video.
    Brodsky has nothing, and will be made a fool in court. I just wish we were able to see it on TV. I may have to go a few days in person.

  174. That was weird. …and his latest noticeable act was to cheer on, on song, with this week’s promotional message from DP.

  175. When Lisa Bloom talked to Drew and Joel, Joel began to talk about the Armstrong/Schori phone call but she cut him off:

    BLOOM: And that Stacy’s pastor came out and said that Drew had told her that he killed Kathleen Savio…

    BRODSKY: No, and actually to be true, there was an interview done with the pastor by the author of a book called, Drew Peterson Exposed, and he did an interview with the pastor and the pastor said that that was, never happened. That there was in fact…

  176. Peterson goes into a convoluted explanation about how he and Kathleen did a will, and how Kathleen didn’t trust her family and wanted others to handle their estate in the event of their deaths.

    How does this moron reconcile the fact that Kathleen had him put under a restraining order, divorced him, changed the locks to the house (that he admits breaking into), called the police on him numerous times, told others, verbally and in writing, that she was afraid he was going to kill her, and he taunted her with his young girlfriend/future wife, yet she didn’t trust her family and wanted HIM to take control of her assets? Even though she was in the midst of a highly contested property settlement with him?

    What you might find strange, as I do, is that he doesn’t admit to the explanation that, in the absence of a new will on her part, the one he found “tucked away” is the will that took precedent.

    What he is avoiding here is bringing attention to the fact that he may have found a new will, but he destroyed it. On the other hand, he had their original will, and he could and did have a field day with it. With help from the judge, the court and a very generous executor, his uncle.

  177. I really wonder what validity that “interview” with Armstrong has, or how far it would get in legal proceedings, if it was recorded without the knowledge or consent of Pastor Schori, since he originated the call from Illinois.

    Does Armstrong have any credibility? Why would Armstrong only make this recording available to Brodsky if he “believes” Peterson had something to do with the fate of Peterson’s two wives? For anyone else wanting the recording, he wants to be paid. He surreptitiously recorded a conversation with a Grand Jury witness in a criminal investigation for his own greedy, selfish reasons. He’s as slimy and the dorks he’s using to make a buck from.

  178. It was ABC who contacted Schori to let him know that Armstrong had tried to sell the conversation to them. Armstrong never even let him know he was being recorded, much less that he was going to then attempt to sell the recording.

    What I’ve always wondered is, if those recordings contained some explosive about-face statement from Schori, why didn’t Armie just write it up and release it himself? Isn’t he the “go-to person” for breaking news pertaining to the Peterson cases?

    It’s obvious he hasn’t got anything worth beans because if he had, either a.) he would have spilled it himself, or b.) someone would have paid for it and we would have seen it in the media.

    The one quote I remember Armie using from the phone conversation is, “Oh, I believe he’s guilty, absolutely.”

  179. ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 27 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 27 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 27 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Pretrial

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

    Tomorrow. I make that 6 counts. Seems like a lot. I wonder if this will be reported?

  180. cyrhla Says:

    April 26, 2009 at 10:13 am
    Have you ever thought that the letter to Kathleen on his affair with Stacy might have written by Drew himself?

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

    I often wondered about that too or perhaps someones mother (?) as isn’t there any reference to something Drew has done to someones son in that same letter ?.

    Was Mrs. (Christie) Cales still around at that time ??

  181. How does this moron reconcile the fact that Kathleen had him put under a restraining order, divorced him, changed the locks to the house (that he admits breaking into), called the police on him numerous times, told others, verbally and in writing, that she was afraid he was going to kill her, and he taunted her with his young girlfriend/future wife, yet she didn’t trust her family and wanted HIM to take control of her assets? Even though she was in the midst of a highly contested property settlement with him?

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

    Exactly Rescue,

    Kathleen “didn’t trust her family”, yet asked her sister to “take care of my kids” in case something happened to her.

    Kathleen also gave a case full of papers/documents to her family to safeguard from Drew.

    Kathleen changed the beneficiary on the million dollar life insurance from Drew to the children.

    She did all that because she “didn’t trust her family” – LOL !

  182. bucketoftea Says:

    April 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 27 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 27 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Pretrial
    ROBINSON MICHAEL 4 27 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Pretrial

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

    Tomorrow. I make that 6 counts. Seems like a lot. I wonder if this will be reported?

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

    I bet as soon as there is an arrest or Grand Jury decision, this case will suddenly go forward.

  183. rescueapet Says:

    April 26, 2009 at 10:56 am
    I am somewhat bewildered that Drew Peterson didn’t have his adult sons appear with him on the CBS Morning Show to add to being his alibis during the time period Kathleen died. Hasn’t it come out that both were living with him at the time, or at least Stephen and his gf were. I mean, come on, why use a teen that was 11 at the time to say things that 99.9% of the viewers know is impossible to believe. You know, like he couldn’t have killed their mother because he was with them at the time?

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

    Young Thomas states his Dad was with them the whole time, so he couldn’t have killed Kathleen (!)

    Kathleen was killed sometime between 2am and 6 am, so unless 11 year old Thomas was wide awake during those hours and with his Dad the whole time, he is telling the truth (!!).

    That also means Thomas is saying he was his dads accomplice.

    Not smart to put minor children on t.v. saying these type of things !

  184. I wonder..How long the two time murderer will be locked up awaiting his trial ??

    Things appear to move S L O W L Y in Kill County 😦

  185. Current processing time on mailed requests for ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES to death records that contain the appropriate fee is between 25 to 30 weeks from the date the request is received.

    http://www.idph.state.il.us/vitalrecords/deathcorrectioninfo.htm

    I wonder how long ago someone requested that the death certificate be changed.

    I would hope that as soon as Kathleen’s death was determined to be “drowning, homicide” rather than “drowning, accidental” but sorta doubt it. Not considering how things had been handled thus far.

  186. I would hope that as soon as Kathleen’s death was determined to be “drowning, homicide” rather than “drowning, accidental” but sorta doubt it. Not considering how things had been handled thus far.
    ************

    Not to be a dark cloud, but what not been handled properly so far? Kathleen’s body was exhumed and her death was reclassified as a homicide, correcting what was done by the first investigators, etc. I agree that a lot of months have gone by, but the GJ is still in session and no determination has been made or ruled out yet. So, what is not right here?

  187. I guess I’m asking why anyone is even contemplating that something is awry, since it was Brodsky that said the death certificate is wrong, and his word is about as worthless as the time it takes to report it.

  188. Just a light hearted observation.

    Anyone notice Joel Brodsky’s discomfort when Drew mentions in the interview with Jan Jeffcoat how women send emails to Joel to date him !!

    Jan Jeffcoat asks Drew how he meets all these women and Drews says “wherever I’m at or they send emails to Joel”

    LOL,LOL !

  189. I don’t mean that things were handled badly after it was determined that her death was a homicide. I meant that it was handled badly from the moment Drew Peterson entered the house.

    LOL — it was clear in my pea brain!

  190. It’s nice to see that Joel is uncomfortable with the idea of procuring and pandering…or maybe just with the idea of people knowing he does it.

  191. facsmiley Says:

    April 26, 2009 at 7:09 pm
    It’s nice to see that Joel is uncomfortable with the idea of procuring and pandering…or maybe just with the idea of people knowing he does it.

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

    LOL,LOL !

  192. I guess he’s annoyed that his inbox gets cluttered up with mash notes from barking mad women…addressed to DP, not him.

  193. If you really put some thought into the circumstances as they stand now, it sucks to be Drew Peterson.

    His alibi for his whereabouts during the time of Kathleen’s death is gone and is NOT coming back. His standby alibi, who was only 11 years old at the time, was 5 years in the making. He’s got an ex-partner, who was also a witness to the infamous will, that wants nothing to do with him and says “he turned his world upside down. Not looking real good for Drew.

  194. The greatest tragedy about Drew bringing his minor children on t.v. to defend him is the fact these children don’t understand the implications of what they are saying.

    Of course Thomas thinks he is telling the truth when he says they were with their Dad the whole weekend, because in fact they were and that’s how they are being manipulated by their father.

    The same with the money situation, Thomas can’t understand why money should be taken from their father and given back to them.

    At his age he doesn’t understand the complexity of the situation and his father is once again manipulating that to his advantage.

    Ditto with never seeing the Savios.

    Of course these children never see their Grandfather or their Aunt if Drew sabotages their visits or contact, thereby manipulating the children into thinking their family doesn’t want anything to do with them.

    And Drew being “The Greatest Dad” ?????

  195. I’m glad you spelled that out, Justie. Been there. For example: kids think 50/50 sounds totally fair for sharing custody as explained by their dad, but in practice completely impractical and disruptive of the kids’ lives, fitting in with Dad’s family meant them losing their favourite weekly activity, and allowed the stepmother plenty of access to abuse them.

    But it’s “fair” for Dad, bless their hearts.

  196. I can’t get it out of my head poor Tom saying that the worst thing that could happen was his mother dying, while his father tries to hide behind him and flinches not at all.

    ” I didn’t care then and I don’t care now”

  197. Here’s my take on the comment about the kids being with Drew the whole time the weekend that Kathleen died – Drew’s original alibi is MIA (aka Stacy) so he needs new alibis.

  198. It could be a breaking story, when Robinson sings all he knows on the Peterson case. [which I believe he knows who, what, and where.]

  199. Did anyone happen to listen? I’m starting to think he just lists Drew in order to get people to tune in.

    Monday, April 27
    Drew Peterson
    Steve Sailer
    Rebecca Hagelin Sexting Could Become Legalized
    Tom Maremaa Metal Heads
    Dr. John Townsend LEADERSHIP BEYOND REASON
    MICHAEL LOMBARDI F/Xs Rescue Me
    Brooke Taylor and Dennis Hof HBO’s Cathouse
    Jason George
    Ron Huberman
    Chris Simcox

    http://www.mancow.com/

  200. Hey Facs, good morning. Again with the Drew Peterson/Macow baloney.

    Well, Womenscorned is our “resident” listener, so maybe she’ll pop on with some info.

  201. Thanks for the MR info. Maybe I can go to catch him at the courthouse still and … well you can use your imagination. lol

  202. rescueapet Says:

    April 26, 2009 at 8:19 pm
    If you really put some thought into the circumstances as they stand now, it sucks to be Drew Peterson.

    His alibi for his whereabouts during the time of Kathleen’s death is gone and is NOT coming back. His standby alibi, who was only 11 years old at the time, was 5 years in the making. He’s got an ex-partner, who was also a witness to the infamous will, that wants nothing to do with him and says “he turned his world upside down. Not looking real good for Drew.

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

    Besides how about all the people he has now attracted very unwanted attention to, the ones covering,lying and doing favors for him in the past ?

  203. Re Derek Armstrong, I’m beginning to think he is no longer on the Drew/Joel Party list either as he’s been publicly stating Drew is a Sociopath and that he is quilty etc etc

    If you’re in Drews camp and on Drews side, would you be saying stuff like that ?

  204. bucketoftea Says:

    April 27, 2009 at 6:56 am
    I can’t get it out of my head poor Tom saying that the worst thing that could happen was his mother dying, while his father tries to hide behind him and flinches not at all.

    ” I didn’t care then and I don’t care now”

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

    Yes that was Drews most bizarre demeanour yet !

    No reaction whatsoever to anything Thomas was saying.

    Just the eyes blinking and more blinking !

  205. Derek Armstrong appears to be on whichever side he thinks will garner him favor and get people to buy the book. The book itself is pro-innocence, but he’s always been pro-guilt in interviews. Most recently he’s pretending to be a ‘correspondent”.

    Who cares about his opinions? He’s a parasitic opportunist. He’s got no press credentials and he’s proved that he has no ethics by recording people without their permission during phone calls and then trying to sell the recordings.

  206. Bucket – Can you clarify what you meant by the following on your earlier post?

    “…fitting in with Dad’s family meant them losing their favourite weekly activity, and allowed the stepmother plenty of access to abuse them.”

    I think this may have come out the wrong way and sounds like you are saying that Stacy abused the kids. From your other posts here – I don’t think that was your intention.

  207. TAI – I got the impression she was commenting about the family in the story she had linked to and not the Petersons. Not sure, though.

  208. I didn’t think so and wanted to make sure that you could clarify. Sometimes things sound so much better in your head than they come out in type.

    I’ve been there on more than one occassion.

    🙂

  209. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I think Tom Peterson is pretty much ruined now. He has had too many years to be brainwashed. Even if Drew is indicted and convicted, the damage has already been done to Tom. Kris, on the other hand, is probably a lot more sensitive and what goes on probably doesn’t sit well with him. I predict that ten years down the track Tom and Kris will be a mirror of Steve and Eric. One standing by their dad, blind to his faults, and the other seeing him for exactly what he is.

    The thing that makes me the maddest is the comments about Anna Doman. If only that kid knew the truth – that she has been forced out of their lives.

    I really hope drew is put away before the younger two, Laci and Anthony, grow up saying “well Auntie Cassandra doesn’t care about us because we haven’t even seen her in years”.

    GRRR, makes me furious!!!

  210. Regardless how these children are brainwashed and manipulated by their Dad, they have seen and heard things that don’t make any sense in the scheme of things and when they get OLDER they will work out for themselves how that was supposed to fall into place.

    At age 16 Thomas does not have the analytical skills and cannot possibly understand “peoples motives”, especially if his information is largely based on what his Dad/Joel Brodsky want him to believe, such as covering Drews alibi the night Kathleen died or the distribution of Kathleens Estate.

    And as far as “The Greatest Dad” – what else is he supposed to say with his Dad sitting right next to him (!!)

  211. I know JAH, what else IS he going to say. I was watching The FBI Files on TV yesterday and there was a case where a guy called Perry (I can’t remember his last name, killed his wife and behaved pretty much the same way as drewpy is behaving. His total stupidity and inability to shut his mouth got him convicted. It took 10 years, but it happened.

    I’ll try and find the details, it would be an interesting read, to look at the comparisons between drewpy and this guy.

    The wife, Janet (maiden name levine) was the daughter of a prominent Memphiss lawyer and her family didn’t give up, much the same way Stacy and Kitty’s family’s have not given up.

  212. http://www.amazon.com/Never-Seen-Again-Ruthless-Beautiful/dp/B0018MEDMU

    Perry March was a brilliant attorney working for one of the top law firms in Nashville, Tennessee. When he married Janet Levine,a painter whose beauty was as striking as her art, he seemed to have it all. But their marriage began to deteriorate, and soon he and Janet did nothing but fight-often in front of their two young children. Janet decided to make an appointment with a divorce lawyer-

    When Janet first went missing, Perry told family members and police that she had gone on vacation, then left him and the kids for good. Since there was no body to be found, and no evidence linking him to any crime, Perry was a free man. But as police kept digging for clues, shocking facts about Perry-s past came to the surface-infidelity, money trouble, sexual obsession. It would be ten years before authorities apprehended Perry, who had been living a double-life in Mexico. He would be extradited back to Nashville- and charged with his wife-s murder.

  213. Oh jeez, that’s too horrifying for words. That poor, poor child. How will she ever get over that?

    I hope that bastard fries!

Comments are closed.