Tribute to Stacy Peterson stolen in the night

sp-plaque-tree

Plaque and tree honoring Stacy Peterson

A tree and plaque commemorating missing mom, Stacy Peterson, were dug up and stolen from in front of the Bolingbrook Aquatic Center overnight, two years to the day after Stacy was first reported missing and the night before another status hearing for Drew.

Members of the Westbrook Christian Church in Bolingbrook erected the plaque and tree outside of the Aquatic Center, at 200 Lindsey Lane in Bolingbrook.

I’m reminded of the Dr. Seuss tale about the Grinch who attempted to destroy Christmas by stealing the Christmas tree.

sp-plaque-gone-sm

Flowers and a candle remain at the site of the theft

Vandalizing the tribute to a missing woman won’t change the facts of her disappearance, and it can’t destroy the love and anguish of her family and friends. They will continue to miss her, to search for her and to pray.

The plaque’s inscription was a simple one:

Stacy Peterson
Mom Sister
Friend

We’ll be reporting any news from the hearing today, as we learn it. Check the comments on this post.

Larger photos of the plaque and tree (lilac bush?) from Summer 2008 (Thanks, Wayne!):
Tree and plaque
Plaque
Read a report on the theft at WBBM.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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 are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Advertisements

282 thoughts on “Tribute to Stacy Peterson stolen in the night

  1. That is very sad that someone would take the tree and plaque. On the very date that Stacy went missing……another midnight run in black? I understand ribbons cause the same reaction. To whom ever did it….you can take all of the material reminders of Stacy and her life, but you cannot erase memories of her friends, family and those just seeking justice.

  2. Yeah, it is a shame. But, look at it this way. The majority of decent, honest people think Peterson and his life activities are sick, and everything about him and his few dysfunctional friends is disgusting. This is not going to do anything to endear Peterson to anyone other than those that are hellbent on supporting him. If anything, it brings attention to the kind of evil that Peterson represents.

    Remember how he had his son helping him after midnight removing ribbons that were placed on trees, meant to keep Stacy’s story in the forefront to aid in finding her? Isn’t this just more of the same, carried out by someone who thinks like Peterson?

    If anything, this just works against Peterson, because it disgusts people and they associate their disgust with him.. Maybe he should get his lawyers on this right away and have the plaque and tree replaced, because this just flies in his face.

    Doesn’t change the circumstances or get Peterson out of jail or the charges dismissed.

  3. Funny, I remember back when people were debating the propriety of there being a memorial to Stacy in Sharon’s front yard. Some thought it would be more appropriate to put a tribute to her in a public place, like a park.

    But apparently, it isn’t the location of a tribute that is at issue. The fact that Stacy is remembered or memorialized at all really bothers someone. Why can’t they see that you might kill someone, but you’ll never succeed in making a person “disappear”?

  4. Hopefully, a trial date will be set at today’s hearing, and the real “facts” that Brodsky wants us all to know will come out. The “facts” that he says will surprise us. I say good, bring ’em on, and let Peterson have his day in court, where this all belongs.

    This kind of moronic, sick stuff is just another Peterson sideshow. It, too, will pass. Remember, the State had more than 800 people that weren’t exactly lining up to help Peterson, where they? The ones that aren’t are stealing trees and plaques.

    🙂

  5. Also, at today’s hearing, I believe, they’re to discuss what “hearsay” evidence the judge will allow in, or, maybe it’s that the State will present to Judge White what they want him to allow in. Not sure about the hearsay issue, but it is to come up at today’s hearing, whatever the circumstances.

  6. I remember a post we wrote long ago called “Where is the love?” It addressed the fact that people were risking a lot to go public and speak out in support of potential witnesses for the prosecution, yet no one was standing up to speak publicly in support of Drew.

    This is the only way they’ll show their support–with anonymous attacks against the victims and survivors. Classy! Why not just donate to the Drew Peterson Defense fund? I’m sure they’d be thrilled to have it.

    Well, the real story is being played out in court today, not in vicarious media stunts.

  7. Why can’t Joel get expert witnesses to donate their testimony like Jose Baez says he’s been able to do for Casey Anthony??

  8. I remember recently posting a quote from Brodsky about Dr. Wecht being on the defense team to dispute the findings of homicide regarding Kathleen’s death. Abood wasn’t so straight-forward about that — he basically said they consulted him. But it probably comes down to not having the huge amounts of money it’d cost to have him testify. Money talks, bullshit walks, so it’s going to take big bucks to say the right thing, well, playing around with the words, that will be favorable to Peterson.

  9. Good point, TAI. IMO this whole claim of needing cash to pay for experts is probably not the real basis of the charge. They are probably trying to scrape up bond. I mean, if legal fees are such an issue, wby would Drew bring on yet another lawyer who needs to be paid? And not just a lawyer, but a “super lawyer”? 😉

  10. I guess the plaque was stolen not to let Stacy’s family and friends commemorate the second anniversary in a public place. Some people want the things to be removed from Bolingbrook history and cannot stand this is not a village from “Truman Show”.

  11. Not to mention the probability that, if Peterson gets his hands on this cash line of credit, it’s not going to last forever. He has an illegal gun charge against him, a probate estate issue against him, a wrongful death suit, a newly filed lawsuit against Chase that he’ll be on the line for in attorneys’ fees if he loses, and a two-count murder charge. Isn’t he going to have to ask the court to pay the attorneys’ fees anyway at some point, regardless of the hypnotic trance the defense wants us to fall under in thinking they’re doing us a favor by suing Chase?

  12. One definition of minitrial:

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/8591/Minitrial.html

    The minitrial is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure that is used by businesses and the federal government to resolve legal issues without incurring the expense and delay associated with court litigation. The mini-trial does not result in a formal adjudication but is a vehicle for the parties to arrive at a solution through a structured settlement process. It is used most effectively when complex issues are at stake and the parties need or wish to maintain an amicable relationship.

    Though minitrials can be arranged under rules negotiated by the parties, they usually conform to procedures used by facilitators of ADR. The parties sign an agreement consenting to a minitrial and then each chooses a management representative to sit on the panel. These representatives have the authority to negotiate a settlement. The parties also select a “neutral adviser” to sit on the panel. The adviser must be independent and impartial, as this person will moderate the minitrial. If the parties cannot agree on a neutral adviser, the ADR facilitating agency may make the selection. The parties pay an equal share of the adviser’s fees and bear their own minitrial costs.

    Prior to the minitrial the parties select and then provide the neutral adviser with background materials. The parties also file legal briefs and exhibits with the adviser that contain information they intend to present at what is termed the “information exchange.” This exchange is, in effect, the minitrial. The parties must agree on the length of briefs and the due dates for documents…

    Another one…

    http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/mini-trials

  13. What a shame it really is. There is some real sick people out there! What about that whacko that was taking all the signs down? Maybe they should question that guy. He seems to have a problem with things being put up. His reasoning behind it was the kids not seeing signs etc all over cause it might upset them. Whoever did it has some serious issues and should be ashamed of themselves!

  14. http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/5554115.php?contentType=4&contentId=4956732

    Posted: Thursday, 29 October 2009 1:42PM

    Peterson ‘hearsay’ evidence to be aired

    Julie Mann, Suburban Bureau Chief Reporting
    WBBM Newsradio 780

    (WBBM) — In January, Will County prosecutors will be airing some of the evidence they have against Drew Peterson in the murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio. It is evidence allowed under the state new hearsay law.

    Dubbed a mini-trial by Peterson’s defense team, Will County prosecutors, who have charged Peterson with the murder of his third wife, will put their hearsay evidence to the test before an actual trial is conducted.

    No trial date has been set. At the hearing in January however state witnesses will be called to testify to statements Kathleen Savio made to them regarding Peterson. The judge overseeing the case will then decide if the evidence will be admitted at trial based on whether it is creditable and relevant.

    Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky says the evidence may be opinion changing. He says much of what the state has as evidence against his client has been secret but will be aired during this upcoming hearing. He says he believes it’s going to change people’s perspective about Drew Peterson and the death of Kathleen Savio.

    Brodsky also indicated there my may be hearsay evidence admitted based on statements made by Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, who has been missing for two years this month.

  15. Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky says the evidence may be opinion changing. He says much of what the state has as evidence against his client has been secret but will be aired during this upcoming hearing. He says he believes it’s going to change people’s perspective about Drew Peterson and the death of Kathleen Savio.

    Then what was all the paper-flying motions about if what is going to come out is going to change people’s perspectives about Peterson, assuming he means for the good? Oh, and by the way, I thought Brodsky was in court when the Judge admonished jury people not to pay any mind to what happens outside of court when it comes to Drew Peterson. So, what is he spewing about with this nonsense. Who cares if it changes peoples’ minds and/or opinions?

  16. facsmiley :
    Good point, TAI. IMO this whole claim of needing cash to pay for experts is probably not the real basis of the charge. They are probably trying to scrape up bond. I mean, if legal fees are such an issue, wby would Drew bring on yet another lawyer who needs to be paid? And not just a lawyer, but a “super lawyer”?

    I’m not sure Maksym seems like the kind of guy who’d turn down a on spec opportunity that involves television. On the other hand he has such a mature, avuncular style reminiscent of some teachers I had in high school…(in reality duplicitous right bastards to a man) he may be on board to ameliorate Joel “whatsthematteryounotgettingany” Brodsky’s obnoxious unappeal He’s probably a good influence for discipline….it’s probably in his contract that he must keep his hands on the desk in plain sight at all times on camera(that’s for you, givarat). By following suit Joel may be able to refrain from picking his nose for the nation, too.

  17. It’s odd that Joel says he thinks the State’s “secret” evidence will be “opinion changing”. I guess a lack of evidence could possibly change my mind but more evidence certainly would not. Lately, I’m finding his statements less caustic and annoying and just more baffling.

  18. Yah, right. Opinions changing from guilty to something I don’t think is appropriate for public consumption.

    Is Robinson in custody? Someone was proving how much they love that you-know-what that definitely is in custody.

  19. Once again, if we’ve learned anything all these months, is that whatever Joel Brodsky says, expect the opposite. I won’t even venture to guess what he meant by this: the evidence may be opinion changing. He says much of what the state has as evidence against his client has been secret but will be aired during this upcoming hearing.

    The “secret” evidence could be the identity of the person who says he was solicited to kill Kathleen. But, other than that, if there’s over 800 state witness that are set to testify against Peterson, how is that going to sway people over to his side? Brodsky’s cryptic statement makes no sense.

  20. facsmiley :
    It’s odd that Joel says he thinks the State’s “secret” evidence will be “opinion changing”. I guess a lack of evidence could possibly change my mind but more evidence certainly would not. Lately, I’m finding his statements less caustic and annoying and just more baffling.

    Ha! I think the technical term is “waffling”. lol I can’t remember; do they use that expression there? It means to go on and on about nothing. As in the sentence: “Joel was not prepared for his final exams, so he just waffled through every single essay question.” Baffling Waffling. or He will bafffle with his waffle. 🙂

  21. Okay, then.

    Hearing on hearsay statements set in Drew Peterson case
    October 29, 2009 2:58 PM

    A hearing to decide whether statements that Drew Peterson’s slain third wife and missing fourth wife allegedly made to family, friends, prosecutors and a pastor could be admitted into evidence in the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s first-degree murder trial has been set for Jan. 19.

    Before hearsay comments can be admitted, Will County Judge Steven White will rule on whether the preponderance of evidence shows that Peterson killed ex-wife Kathleen Savio in 2004 and whether the hearsay statements are reliable.

    Peterson’s attorneys challenged a new law dubbed “Drew’s Law,” which allows hearsay evidence into the courtroom under certain conditions. In this case, the law would permit a judge to admit Savio’s letters and statements to friends and family into evidence at trial.

    Prosecutors also want to admit statements from fourth wife Stacy Peterson, in whose disappearance Peterson is the sole suspect, one of his defense attorneys, Andrew Abood, has said.

    Peterson’s attorneys have argued that the law, which took effect in December, violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses; goes against state and federal constitutional proscriptions against retroactively applied laws; and “erodes the presumption of innocence” by asking a judge before the trial even starts to find that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.

    –Steve Schmadeke

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/blog/

  22. Peterson Hearsay Hearing Set for January
    By ANDREW GREINER
    Updated 2:30 PM CDT, Thu, Oct 29, 2009

    On the second anniversary of the disappearance of Drew Peterson’s fourth wife Stacey, a Will County judge has set up a hearing so his third wife can speak from the grave at a hearing over her murder.

    Prosecutors will test the effectiveness of the so-called “hearsay” law that allows for comments made by Kathleen Savio, Peterson’s third wife who is believed to have been murdered, to be entered into the court record during a mini-trial hearing in January.

    At that hearing state witnesses will be called to testify about statements Savio made to them regarding her husband. The judge overseeing the case will then decide if the evidence will be admitted at trial based on whether it is creditable and relevant.

    Peterson’s attorney Joel Brodsky thinks the evidence will be a game changer in the case.

    “What the public knows or thinks about the death of Kathleen Savio and the disappearance of Stacey Peterson will be turned on its ear, 180 degrees,” Brodsky said.

    Stacy Peterson has been missing since 2007 and is believed to be dead. Peterson, however, claims that she ran away with another man. He said the recent case of Jaycee Duggard, the girl who was kept as a sex slave in California, supports that claim.

    The hearsay hearing will take place in January, but no trial date has been set.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Petereson-Hearsay-Hearing-Set-for-January-67288217.html

  23. He said the recent case of Jaycee Duggard, the girl who was kept as a sex slave in California, supports that claim.

    What happened to Jaycee Duggard, is despicable, and so is Brodsky for using her now as his new defense. His comments stink like rotten sewage.

  24. Stacy Peterson has been missing since 2007 and is believed to be dead. Peterson, however, claims that she ran away with another man. He said the recent case of Jaycee Duggard, the girl who was kept as a sex slave in California, supports that claim.

    How would that be, exactly? Is he equating Jaycee Duggard (a child) being dragged into a car, imprisoned, hidden and raped over a number of years with Stacy Peterson disappearing after asking for a divorce from her husband?

    Or is he trying to say that Jaycee Duggard, at the age of 11, voluntarily “ran away” with Phillip Garrido?

    Or is he, as usual bumbling and talking out of his ass and just trying to say that because Jacee Duggard is (miraculously) alive…that Stacy is as well?

    Holy God. WTF?

  25. Joel’s comments, although they cause a rise and a stir in all of us, can just suck the life air out of you sometimes. He is just a slime ball that is enough to make you want to ….. do bad things to that puss of his.

    It shows how cold and lacking of compassion this man really is. He thrives on the shock value that comes out of his mouth. Comparing the kidnapping and detaining of an eleven year old to the facts of his client’s case is sickening. Ewwwwwwwwww.

  26. Stacy Peterson has been missing since 2007 and is believed to be dead. Peterson, however, claims that she ran away with another man. He said the recent case of Jaycee Duggard, the girl who was kept as a sex slave in California, supports that claim.

    JOEL BRODSKY HAS GONE OFF THE DEEP END.

  27. Here’s Karen Conti’s response regarding the mini-trial:

    “I don’t know exactly what he means, but, without looking at the order or hearing his rationale in court, here’s what I think”:

    There are numerous bits of testimony that both parties will want to have the jury hear. As to each, the opposing party has objections based upon hearsay and perhaps other legal bases. At the mini trial, the judge will hear either from the witnesses themselves or he will hear the nature of the witness’ expected testimony and will issue pretrial rulings by which the parties will be bound at the real trial. This way, the jury does not hear improper testimony and the real trial will be streamlined because there will not be as many objections throughout.

    The judge could also be hearing evidence concerning the new hearsay exception, which is testimony of what a deceased witness (Stacy or Kathleen herself) said. As you recall, the new law requires some finding that Peterson took some action to silence the witness and that is the reason that she is unavailable for trial. That has to be decided first by the judge before the jury gets to hear that testimony.

  28. Drew’s ship must be sinking or they have already got to the very bottom if they can see a connection between Durggard and Stacy.
    The other reason may be that Brodsky’s efforts are equivalent to the payment he receives. LOL

  29. I wondered what and where the pic of the plaque was on the family website.Now I know I guess. What a shame. (**modified**)

  30. Blabsky’s pushing me to a thesaurus…looking for synonyms for despicable, repulsive, repugnant, jerk, ass… He’s not worth the effort.

    It shows just how very low both the skills of Nose Picker, Esq. and the deeds of Multiple Mommy Murderer are that NP,E would cite such an incredibly horrific and unusual crime to distract.
    YUK

  31. Brodsky must have forgotten that unlike Jaycee’s family who was very worried about her, searched for her, cried endlessly after losing her, and actually saw her being dragged into a car – Drew had been cool as a cucumber, hitting the bars, getting engaged, bad-mouthing Stacy, driving around the shipping canal while lying to her worried sister that he was at home, trying to get on a reality show for a brothel, and NOT being the one filing the missing person report.

  32. I really wish we could see the exact statement Joel made about Jaycee. The only thing he should be relating between the two cases is that some missing people do show up alive. IIRC, the police had questioned Jaycee’s step-dad and many people thought he made the story up about her getting pulled into the car but he took polygraphs and fully cooperated with the investigation and was never arrested for it.

  33. facsmiley :

    cyrhla :
    Does anyone know who first and when discovered the plaque is missing?

    Last night a small group went to the site for a memorial and discovered the vandalism/theft.

    Thanks, facs.

  34. Here is Karen Conti’s explanation for Brodsky’s comparison:

    I am sure that Joel Brodsky is trying to plant the idea in the heads of potential jurors that it is possible that someone once thought to be dead could be alive and that without Stacy’s body, there can be no finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she is dead and therefore murdered by Drew Peterson and therefore the hearsay exception does not apply.

  35. facsmiley :
    I just saw a short mention on WGN news and it looks as if a new lilac has already been planted to replace the stolen one.

    Thank God they are only things that can be replaced unlike Stacy who will never be.I know Stacy’s friends will keep on putting memorials up as fast as they are being taken down or stolen.

  36. I don’t care what Brodsky’s trying to pass along to the rest of us. A potential juror could also pluck dozens of past stories out of their memories, like a loving father who pulled off on a side road, and shot and killed his children and his wife, or another man who recently left his house for work, sneaked back in, killing his children and his wife because he had a girlfriend he wanted to be with. Or, maybe recall how Scott Peterson boo hooed all over tv about his missing wife, who he chopped up and dumped with his unborn child in the water. Brodsky causes much more negative reactions, IMO, in his presentations of examples than positive.

    IDK, maybe he wants people to despise him, so they’ll feel sorry for Peterson, having such a clown for an attorney. Ya think?

  37. Oh My Goodness, this is sick !

    What is WRONG with people ??

    “If anything, this just works against Peterson, because it disgusts people and they associate their disgust with him.. Maybe he should get his lawyers on this right away and have the plaque and tree replaced, because this just flies in his face.”

    ABSOLUTELY !!

  38. The fact that someone whom it was feared in all likelihood had died and was later found to be alive will have no bearing when DP’s jurors finally retire to deliberate. Our criminal justice system only requires the evidence to prove his guilt beyond a “REASONABLE doubt,” not beyond “there was a case once which was completely different, but…”

  39. Our criminal justice system only requires the evidence to prove his guilt beyond a “REASONABLE doubt,” not beyond “there was a case once which was completely different, but…”

    Oh, Coffee, that says it all. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

  40. I still don’t understand Drews lawyers arguing the line of credit is DREWS money and it is an entitlement.

    It is a line of credit based on the equity in his home and the only time it becomes Drews own money is when he sells the house, not when he just has credit on the equity in it.

    It is hard to believe Drew really wants to use the money for bond money, legal fees, this that and the other, as regardless what he does he is going to be millions short of any endeavour he under takes, especially considering there are many more future financial challenges looming for him such as the civil suit, etc.

    It looks more like asset stripping, so when the time comes everything is encumbered to the hilt and everyone can whistle dixie for their money !

  41. It looks more like asset stripping, so when the time comes everything is encumbered to the hilt and everyone can whistle dixie for their money !
    ———-
    I think you are absolutely right, JAH.

  42. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/stacy-peterson-memorial-tree-plaque-stolen-67334237.html

    “It’s just really sad that someone would do that, said Suz Elder, a friend of Peterson’s, with a quiver in her voice. “I just really hope it was someone who just thought it would be funny and not someone doing it out of malicious intent.”

    Elder and other members of the Westbrook Christian Church helped select the location near the Bolingbrook Aquatic Center where the memorial was placed. It was near a statue of children at play, meant to serve as a constant reminder that Stacy did not vanish on her own.

    Hearing news of the stolen memorial while answering questions after a scheduled court appearance to determine the admissibility of hearsay evidence, Drew Peterson’s legal team quickly deflected any responsibility.

    “We have an alibi,” Attorney Joel Brodsky said

    “I don’t want to, in any way, shape or form, depreciate the pain that Stacy’s family is going through in having somebody missing, and it’s unfortunate that someone would — that a vandal would do that,” he said.

  43. Let me speculate for a moment… I wonder what would happened if they put Drew’s DNA to the police DNA computer database.

  44. Also how is Maksym going to get paid if Joel hasn’t been paid yet (!!) or is he also going to get his share of the same $ 220.000.00 that has already been set aside many times over ?

  45. A vandal would have damaged the tree and the plaque. The place all around looks OK, so I do not think it was a vandal but someone did it intentionally not to let celebrate the second anniversary.

  46. “We have an alibi,” Attorney Joel Brodsky said.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Why would he even say that ?

    Did anyone ask him if he had one ??

  47. I only hope Drew is not going to use the money on the children’s account (and that this account actually exist…).

  48. justanotherhen :
    “We have an alibi,” Attorney Joel Brodsky said.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Why would he even say that ?
    Did anyone ask him if he had one ??

    Just in case someone did. LOL
    Was it supposed to be a joke? Below the belt, I think, and in big contrast to what he said next.
    Does he also have an alibi for the day the documents vanished from the ISP car?

    That is obvious Brodsky did not do it on his own…

  49. Still sinking in that it not only occurred to someone that they might/could/should disturb such a sweet, simple remembrance, but that they actually DID it. Someone felt compelled or entitled or something to purposely steal and/or destroy a physical representation of love for a missing mother/sister/friend.

    It’s hard to take it in… I don’t want to… Especially because I think Cyrhla’s right. Considering the timing, it’s not likely to have been a random vandal, but some cold, twisted thing making a ‘statement.’ It’s grotesque.

  50. I really can’t understand how Brodsky thinks he is so witty. Disgusting and not funny. Didn’t Lenny say Brodsky was on a recording saying something about sinking the StacyAnn? If so, and played in court, we will not have to see/hear that slime ball again! (*end rant*)

  51. IDK, I really don’t understand the depth of this gag order the Judge placed on ALL of the parties. Doesn’t it seem like Brodsky works outside of that premise? Press releases, morning news shows, documents posted online, on-camera interviews before and after hearings, statements made by him through the media meant to reach potential jurors (like today’s comparison of Jaycee Duggard’s return after being presumed dead with Stacy’s running away and being presumed dead). Just don’t understand it at all.

  52. It was a very vindictive and psychopathic thing to do and very much in line with wanting to sabotage the StacyAnn and wanting to burn the memorial in Sharons yard !

  53. Psychopathic? I hardly think that’s the case, JAH. Killing two women is psychopathic. Removing a tree and a plaque that wasn’t bothering anyone is crude, disgusting and shameful. All the morons who did that accomplished was getting their 5 minutes of kicks, and a reminder to all of us that it’s typical behavior of what an idiot is.

  54. Can someone help me out here:

    I read Karen Conti’s reply on Drew selling the house and putting Stacy’s half in Escrow, since Stacy is half owner of the house, but how can Drew have access to the full line of credit in the equity of the home, without Stacy’s consent/signature ?

    If Drew takes out $ 220.000.00 for whatever he needs it for, doesn’t he encumber Stacy’s half of the property by $ 110.000.00 without her consent ??

  55. rescueapet :
    Press releases, morning news shows, documents posted online, on-camera interviews before and after hearings, statements made by him through the media meant to reach potential jurors

    Is this advertising or a person on trial? Selig and Brodsky think it’s a reason to line their pockets. Pathetic. Where is the Judge?

  56. Womenscorned – that’s exactly what I was thinking. Isn’t this against what the Judge wanted — wasn’t his ruling about the gag order meant to stop this kind of stuff? That, and admonishing the potential jurors to avoid reading or watching material that pertains to this case? Yet, when Peterson’s lawyer gave an interview today after the hearing, he asked that people keep an open mind, that they’re going to do a 180-degree turn when they hear the facts of Kathleen’s death and Stacy’s disappearance. Who is he talking to? He’s not talking to potential jurors, is he, the ones that are really going to be responsible for keeping open minds? Because, he’s not supposed to be, and they’re not supposed to be listening to his chatter.

  57. rescueapet – If this is what our “justice” system is turning in to, we are all in trouble.
    Where is the Judge? Where have all the real lawyers gone?

  58. rescueapet :
    Womenscorned – that’s exactly what I was thinking. Isn’t this against what the Judge wanted — wasn’t his ruling about the gag order meant to stop this kind of stuff? That, and admonishing the potential jurors to avoid reading or watching material that pertains to this case? Yet, when Peterson’s lawyer gave an interview today after the hearing, he asked that people keep an open mind, that they’re going to do a 180-degree turn when they hear the facts of Kathleen’s death and Stacy’s disappearance. Who is he talking to? He’s not talking to potential jurors, is he, the ones that are really going to be responsible for keeping open minds? Because, he’s not supposed to be, and they’re not supposed to be listening to his chatter.

    Exactly Rescue, He should just shut up!His Bs makes me sick. Sounds like I’m listening to drew.The judge should like tell him to stop this media exploitation. Why not, he does got a gag order so gag it.

  59. Heres the thing also.He’s trying to be coy by reporting stuff that are the facts of this case.Like yea, when we hear the whole truth they got a 90% shot. Or I mean prosecution has 10%.Isnt that trying to tip people off about the evidence. i think so.That is definately in violation of his gag order. I bet the judge will do something you wait and see.

  60. Also about the hearsay hearing, I thought it had to be a trial and not a hearing for some reason. Then again I’m not sure if Brod and company can like appeal the admittance of the evidence and then it may go to a trial. I guess we’ll have to see unless you guys got some insight into it.

  61. As for the equity line and Stacy. They both, Stacy and Drew, entered a contract in 2005. Since then a lot of credit lines have been modified or terminated because the regulations on banks and banks’ policies have changed very much. Do not forget, most of the banks are debtors of the State and the State supervises them. The first rule is to assess the risk correctly.
    That is what the bank actually did when Drew went to prison. It means Drew would have to sign another agreement with the bank (for lower ammount) and to do it he would need Stacy. Stacy is not available so the risk of the bank would drastically increase, and, additionally, the bank would act against the law signing contract only with Drew if he still has a spouse.
    I can see from the experience of the bank I work for that they have big problem with getting their money back. There are lots of houses and other property being sold much under their ectual price now just to let the banks get back what they borrowed (the rest of the mortgage not paid off). Therefore, the value of Drew’s house for the bank is not $220.000 anymore. I think it is max. half as much.
    And banks do not like houses as the security as much as they used to before. They prefer other means, like account deposits or guarantees of third parties.
    Drew may wish to get $220.000, his choice, but he is not going to get this money. First, he must sell his house, but then he is not going to get 220.000 but (as Karen Conti confirmed) only 110.000 bucks.

    Another thing is that all the banks are obligated to notify competent authorities and are being notified by them as well if they suspect any criminal activity connected with bank operations. Generally, no bank is allowed to carry out a transaction with a person who is suspected of money laudering or fraud.

  62. Drew’s attorneys promise surprises

    October 30, 2009
    BY JOE HOSEY, Sun-Times Media

    Drew Peterson’s attorneys on Thursday vowed to alter the common perception of their client when they get a crack at the state’s witnesses during a January hearing.

    “People’s assumptions are going to be turned on their head – it’s going to be 180 degrees,” one of Peterson’s lawyers, Joel Brodsky, said after Peterson’s latest court appearance.

    Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager for their chance to cross-examine the state’s witnesses during the Jan. 19 hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be permitted at Peterson’s murder trial.

    Peterson, 55, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is accused of drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004 in a bathtub at her home. He’s being held at the Will County Jail.

    Peterson also is the main suspect in what Illinois State Police term the “potential homicide” of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who has not been seen since she vanished two years ago at age 23.

    On Thursday, prosecutors revealed that they have sent sealed subpoenas to at least a dozen county coroner’s offices. For his part, Brodsky has subpoenaed a DuPage County obstetric and gynecological office and Bolingbrook dermatologist Tehming Liang.

    A Chicago attorney, Bradley Levison, appeared at Thursday’s hearing to represent Peter Schoonmaker, an attorney from his firm. Schoonmaker’s involvement in the case was unclear, and Levison declined to clarify it.

    http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1854770,103009peterson.article

    curiouser and curioser

  63. On Thursday, prosecutors revealed that they have sent sealed subpoenas to at least a dozen county coroner’s offices. For his part, Brodsky has subpoenaed a DuPage County obstetric and gynecological office and Bolingbrook dermatologist Tehming Liang.
    ——
    Please, enlighten me, what it means!

  64. Are they looking for more prescriptions? Planning to say Kitty was a menopausal nutcase? Treated for acne with that drug that makes some people suicidal? Or just because they can so they’re fishing, fishing, fishing.

  65. I found a cached version of that page:

    Condon & Cook, L.L.C.

    Attorneys At Law

    Peter W. Schoonmaker

    Born 1956 in Evergreen Park, Illinois. Admitted to the Bar of the State of Illinois, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1980; United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, 1998; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

    Designated: Leading Lawyers Network: The Top Lawyers, 2005, by The Law Bulletin Publishing Company.

    Education: University of Wisconsin at Madison (B.S. 1977); Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law (J.D. with Honors, 1980).

    Member: Chicago Bar Association; C.B.A. Insurance Law Committee; American Bar Association; A.B.A. Tort Insurance Practice Section; Illinois State Bar Association.

    Counsel: Illinois Chapter of I.A.S.I.U.

    Lecturer: Annual Mortgage Servicing Clinic, Sponsored by the Illinois Mortgage Banker Association, “Mortgagee Claims from the Insurer’s Perspective,” 1988; Chicago Bar Association Insurance Law Committee, “Mortgagee Claims: An Overview,” 1990. Western Loss Association Spring Seminar, “Mortgagee Claims from the Insurer’s Perspective,” 1990; 10th and 11th annual I.A.S.I.U. Seminars, “Suspicious First Party Motor Vehicle Bodily Injury Claims: Effective Use of Examination Under Oath,” Naples, Florida, 1996, and Tucson, Arizona, 1997; 12th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Seminar, Charlotte, North Carolina, “Interplay of the Examination Under Oath and Forensic Accounting in Advanced Fraud Investigation,” September 1997; 13th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Seminar, Toronto, Canada, September 1998; 14th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Conference, Dallas, Texas, and 15th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Conference, Orlando, Florida, “Anatomy of a Fraudulent Bodily Injury Claim;” 18th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Seminar, Lake Buena Vista Florida, September 2003, and 19th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 2004, “Mortgage Flipping: What Is It and What Can the Industry Do About It?” 20th Annual I.A.S.I.U. Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, “Public Adjusters: Issues and Conflicts in the Fraud Investigation,” September 2005.

    Instructor: N.I.C.B. Advanced S.I.U. Academy.

    Author: “Is Insurance Claim Proper for Property Forfeited to Government?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Lawyer’s Forum, November 26, 1990; “Identification and Investigation of Suspicious First Party Motor Vehicle Bodily Injury Claims,” Insurance Fraud Alert, September 1996.

    Co-Author with Vincent P. Cook: monthly column, “Insurance Issues,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 1992-present.

  66. Thanks, Facs!

    ““Anatomy of a Fraudulent Bodily Injury Claim;” He and the dermatologist are going to prove that Kitty faked her peri-demise bruises?

  67. bucketoftea :
    Thanks, Facs!
    ““Anatomy of a Fraudulent Bodily Injury Claim;” He and the dermatologist are going to prove that Kitty faked her peri-demise bruises?

    They have really touched the bottom.

  68. justanotherhen :
    “We have an alibi,” Attorney Joel Brodsky said.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Why would he even say that ?
    Did anyone ask him if he had one ??

    I think Brodsky’s law school major must have been the non-sequitur.* I see him constantly throwing comments to the wind, (a la’ seeing what will stick). He’s a pro at hoping that something/anything! will distract people from the issue at hand that his sole goal is to take everyone’s mind off of you-know-who and keep their focus on himself. He is, after all, himeself’s best client.
    *Non-sequitur:Latin for ‘it does not follow’-ha. Should have a picture of Brodsky in the definition.

  69. Picture of Brodsky reminds me….I saw a 16th century portrait that looks just like him. I’m on the trail of identifying him so I can find an online copy to share.;)

  70. Hosey has added more to his report:

    We’re going to ask some very interesting questions of the state’s witnesses,” said Brodsky, who claimed that there will be “secrets coming out” at the hearing.

    …How is lawyer involved?
    A Chicago attorney, Bradley Levison, appeared at the hearing to represent Peter Schoonmaker, another attorney from his firm. Schoonmaker’s involvement in the case was unclear, and Levison did little to clarify it.

    Asked who Schoonmaker is, Levison said only, “My client” and “He is who he is.”

    Schoonmaker also failed to return calls for comment.

    After the hearing, which was held exactly two years and a day after Stacy Peterson was last seen, Brodsky maintained that she might not have been killed after all.

    “It is possible for people to disappear and still be alive, that there’s no foul play,” he said.

    Memorial stolen
    Not only has Stacy vanished, but a plaque and lilac plant placed outside the Bolingbrook Aquatic Center to memorialize the missing mother have disappeared as well.

    The plant and plaque, which reads, “Stacy Peterson. Mother, sister, friend,” were last seen Tuesday, said Bolingbrook police Lt. Michael Rompa, who noted that investigators are probing the crime.

    Peterson’s attorneys jokingly denied involvement in the theft, with Brodsky saying, “We were here,” and Abood adding, “We have an alibi.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/genevasun/news/1854767,4_1_JO30_PETERSON_S1-091030.article

  71. Whoever guessed and insurance connection to Schoonmaker could be right:

    Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, recently subpoenaed any insurance claims made by Savio from the companies AssureCare of Illinois and AFLAC for medical treatment or pharmaceutical prescriptions from Jan. 1, 1997, to March 31, 2004, and for records and copies of prescriptions written by a Bolingbrook Walgreens from Jan. 1, 2001, to March 31, 2004.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1853912,6_1_NA30_PETERSON_S1-091030.article

  72. I was thinking of them trying to get Drew’s insurers to pay out, forgettint they’re not pursuing it any more.

    The lawyer attending called Schoonthing his “client”? His bio page down? I thought he was from the same firm, just standing in. I guess maybr not.

  73. Bucket, that first link was an old one. Cyrhla posted the current one, so it’s not down – just moved and updated looks like to me.

    I really can’t guess what the connection is. The insurance claim subpoenas could just be in order to get Rx info. Time will tell!

  74. For my part, I still don’t understand how Brodsky can make these cryptic statements, like there’s going to be “secrets” coming out about the State’s witnesses, when he’s under a gag order to STFU. I’m sick of his ignorant, obnoxious comments. Obviously, he’s trying to send a message to the State’s witnesses that he knows their dark secrets from being buds with his murdering client, and since he couldn’t slime and character assassinate them up to now in the media, he’s going to do it in January. Can you just see him rubbing his hands together like a sick putz, jumping up and down with glee, thinking he’s got the upper hand.

    Based on his past record in the media, about the only thing he really is good at is attacking the people that have finally decided to get out of the sewer they occupied with his client. JMHO.

  75. After the hearing, which was held exactly two years and a day after Stacy Peterson was last seen, Brodsky maintained that she might not have been killed after all.

    It is possible for people to disappear and still be alive, that there’s no foul play,” he said.

    Who here, there, anywhere, including her family and friends, wouldn’t wish that to be true.

    The witnesses are going to be in court in January with their testimony to relate, and it’s Judge White who’s going to decide if they’re reliable and their testimony admitted. Why is Brodsky talking to the camera, telling the rest of us he hopes we’ll keep open minds, and we’re going to do a 180 degree turn around after we hear the secrets come out? Why, why, why doesn’t Judge White call him in there and tell him to shut his pie hole?

  76. As for the range of rotation our heads can make. I can remember my head spinning 360 degrees. To and fro and around after hearing Drew’s and Brodsky’s statements and news. It does not work anymore.

  77. Heh, cyrhla. Right!

    If all these months of Brodsky allowing his client to parade around, laughing it up on the radio, giving network news interviews, and, last, but not least, promote him as a potential head of a whore house in Nevada, what, exactly was he trying to get us to think of his client then, and why is it going to change now?

    I wish the guy would go crawl away under a rock, because he’s irritating as hell.

  78. facsmiley :Whoever guessed and insurance connection to Schoonmaker could be right:

    But why would the lawyer have a lawyer who called him his client instead of his co-worker. That is the part that is really odd to me…

  79. Because, TAI, I think:

    There is an old lawyers’ saying that a man who represents himself will have a fool for a client.

    Any lawyer that must appear for a legal proceeding almost always shows up represented by another lawyer.

  80. Right – but that means that he is being called on something about himself personally and not for a company he represents… at least that is my take and what makes me scratch my head. Do we even know who called him to court that day (prosecutors or defense)?? I’m kind of thinking prosecution because the defense is putting all of their motions online and talking about who all they are going after…

  81. No, doesn’t seem like there’s any information about who’s side they’re on. I tend to think if it was the defense’s doing, Brodsky would’ve found a way to get that information disseminated. But, who can say.

  82. Peter W Schoonmaker is a speaker of the International Association of Special Investigation Units.

    IASIU Mission is:
    Founded in 1984 by a group of insurance industry fraud investigators, the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) is a non-profit organization dedicated to:

    * Promoting a coordinated effort within the industry to combat insurance fraud;
    * Providing education and training for insurance investigator;
    * Developing greater awareness of the insurance fraud problem;
    * Encouraging high professional standards of conduct among insurance investigators; and
    * Supporting legislation that acts as a deterrent to the crime of insurance fraud.

    https://www.iasiu.org/about_us/mission
    https://www.iasiu.org/speakers_bureau

  83. Maybe Drew has added making a fraudulent insurance claim to his list of charges. I’m thinking about trying to claim on the legal costs portion of his insurance though not entitled unless he murdered “negligently”

  84. Just by-the-by I had Judge Judy on earlier and she said, ” Defense lawyers are always continuing proceedings. They do it to try to wear down the witnesses

    I thought it was to keep control of their diary commitments. 😉

  85. hmmm, Wasn’t Joel Brodsky talking about himself when he said you can’t believe what you heard in the Media about his client, considering he and his client have been the only ones in the Media all the time putting themselves out at any given opportunity.

    Wasn’t Joel just stating the obvious ? – LOL !

  86. Do you happen to know what this abbreviations mean?

    TOMCZAK JEFFERY JOHN 11 12 9 900 111 BOLINGBROOK VILLAGE 09SC002866 SCC
    TOMCZAK JEFFERY JOHN 11 12 9 100 WCCA BOLINGBROOK VILLAGE 09AR000544 ARBM

  87. I think that SCC is Small Claims Court and ARBM is Mandatory Arbitration. Not positive but that is my best guess.

  88. Before hearsay comments can be admitted, Will County Judge Steven White will rule on whether the preponderance of evidence shows that Peterson killed ex-wife Kathleen Savio in 2004 and whether the hearsay statements are reliable.

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

    Why is Joel talking about cross examining witnesses when at the next hearing Judge White is only going to rule on the preponderance of (hearsay) evidence and if he is going to allow particular (hearsay) evidence into the trial ??

  89. So is it possible that this Schoonmaker guy was just there on a totally unrelated case that happened to have the same date and approximate time as Drew’s hearing? From the Will County schedule the case number he was supposed to be the attorney for looks like it is from 2007 and doesn’t match any of the cases numbers associated with Drew’s criminal or civil cases. IDK.

  90. JAH – I’d think that the prosecution has to put out some of their evidence (including the proposed hearsay evidence) for the judge to decide if there is a preponderance of the evidence. I think this is why it makes it unusual to do this for the victim of the crime committed rather than just a regular witness. It seems like it gives the defense a preview of the case that the prosecution will use for the jury trial. (I think I may be talking in circles… Sorry if I am.)

  91. Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager for their chance to cross-examine the state’s witnesses during the Jan. 19 hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be permitted at Peterson’s murder trial.

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

    Isn’t the hearsay evidence exactly the type of evidence to be used from people that are no longer living and that is what this whole hearsay law is about, so how can Brodsky and Abood be eager to cross examine witnesses re their hearsay if they are no longer living ??

    Does Brodsky even understand the concept of the hearsay law if this is what he wants to do ??

  92. JAH – Kathleen made “hearsay” statements to people about her fear of Peterson, and I believe she made statements to ER personnel when he beat her and she went for medical treatment. Also, “hearsay” evidence is her letters, logs and diaries she kept, which may contained events of him breaking into her house, etc.

  93. The Prosecution is going to present hearsay evidence (from the deceased/missing, in this case Kathleen and Stacy)) to the Judge for the Judge to decide if that hearsay meets the criteria of the Hearsay law to be used in the trial.

    So who are Joel and Abood going to cross examine – Kathleen and Stacy ??

  94. I would think that Brodsky and Co are going to cross examine people like Kathleen’s sister, Stacy’s sister, Pastor Schori, etc. and anyone else who has testimony that would be considered hearsay. I’d think that the judge will decide which of these statements (if any) will be allowed but he has to know what they are first because if anything that isn’t allowed is said at the real trial then it could cause a mistrial. Not sure of this but that is the way I see it.

  95. thinkaboutit2 :
    JAH – I’d think that the prosecution has to put out some of their evidence (including the proposed hearsay evidence) for the judge to decide if there is a preponderance of the evidence. I think this is why it makes it unusual to do this for the victim of the crime committed rather than just a regular witness. It seems like it gives the defense a preview of the case that the prosecution will use for the jury trial. (I think I may be talking in circles… Sorry if I am.)

    You’re making perfect sense, Think. It’s the subject that’s convoluted!

  96. When I read that “Brodsky and co-counsel Andrew Abood seemed eager,” I think of how ‘eager’ and ‘certain’ they have been every step of the way. They’re schmucks.

  97. The Judge is going to decide if the hearsay evidence at hand is innuendo, gossip, rumor, conjecture, “over the back fence gossip” or wishful thinking and made by people with drug/alcohol problems, amorous notions, mentally unbalanced, with an agenda or out of spite as Joel Brodsky is going to point out.

    The surprise in that area is not going to be much of a surprise.

  98. As anxious as I am for the trial to get underway, there are aspects I dread. We all know Blobsky & Co will make despicable, smarmy, sordid claims and innuendos against DP’s victims. But, unlike the past two years when there was no real ‘answer’ to those repeated smears, I hope Glasgow will be able to stand against them. Not that I think that will stop the Blob, but it may keep me from jumping out of my skin.

  99. Yes, one can only hope Judge White will keep Court proceedings firmly in hand and prevent the slightest development of a similar Circus we’ve seen in the past few years !

    I pray Justice will prevail and Justice will be served !

  100. I have to hold out hope that the witnesses will be able to rise above the ugliness, when Brodsky & Co. throw their slime at them.

    I also remember that Brodsky tried to hold up ten year old pictures of Tom Morphey on TV, and get them posted online by Legal Pub, casting him in an unfavorable light. Which pictures were bought and paid for from an old gf of his, by Drew Peterson, accompanied by Steve Carcerano. So, I’m not all that sure that anything that comes from the guy charged with murder to aid in his defense is all that worthy. Because if he is going to out these people as anything but law abiding citizens, lest we not forget that he, as a 30+ year police veteran, turned a blind eye.

    You know what they say — be careful what you wish for.

  101. The hearsay statements that were mentioned in Lisa Madigan’s brief include the following:

    Kathleen to a roommate

    Kathleen to a fellow student

    Kathleen to a coworker

    Kathleen to her sisters

    Stacy to a friend and

    Stacy to a pastor

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/documents/kathleen-savio-murder-case-legal-documents/#g

    Page 10

    I think it’s safe to assume that the witnesses Joel is eager to cross-exmaine would be the roommate, the student, the coworker, the sisters, the friend and the pastor.

    Obviously, the defense is not going to be cross-examining a dead woman…or two. 😦

    There is a lot to be found in the many briefs already filed for this case. If you have questions about the particulars, I would check out the documents page.

  102. I think TAI is right about those abbreviations. I called the courthouse about them once and they indicated that it means the “kind” of court. It can also be the initials of the Judge who is presiding over the case. ARBM is probably some kind of arbitration. If you look at the Brodsky cases, you’ll often see the abbreviation “SDW” for Stephen D White.

  103. rescueapet :
    I have to hold out hope that the witnesses will be able to rise above the ugliness, when Brodsky & Co. throw their slime at them.
    I also remember that Brodsky tried to hold up ten year old pictures of Tom Morphey on TV, and get them posted online by Legal Pub, casting him in an unfavorable light. Which pictures were bought and paid for from an old gf of his, by Drew Peterson, accompanied by Steve Carcerano. So, I’m not all that sure that anything that comes from the guy charged with murder to aid in his defense is all that worthy. Because if he is going out these people as anything but law abiding citizens, lest we not forget that he,, as a 30+ year police veteran turned a blind eye.
    You know what they say — be careful what you wish for.

    Absolutely, the more his deceased wives, former friends, associates, collegues, neighbors etc get slimed by the Defense Team, the worse it reflects on Drew himself as he once valued these people in his life, had associations with them and some of them he’d been married to.

    If all these people are claimed to be valueless and unworthy, the worse it reflects on Drews own judge of character !

  104. BTW Joel has been claiming all along how much he is looking forward to cross examine potential witnesses, so it looks like his big moment will be arriving very soon !

  105. I have another question:

    How do you “slander” someones credit ?

    Is there such a thing as “slandering” someones credit and if so how does that apply in the case against Chase ?

  106. Found @ http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ARBM
    Acronym Definition
    ARBM Atelier Rijksbouwmeester
    ARBM Adaptive Regional Blend Matching
    ARBM Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits
    ARBM Adopt-a-Rescued-Bird Month
    ARBM Alligator Ridge-Bald Mountain
    ARBM Advanced Reservation Based Metascheduling
    ARBM Adventure Recreation Business Management
    ARBM Alpine Resort Board of Management
    I’ll go with Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits, although I really like Alligator Ridge-Bald Mountain better. 🙂

  107. justanotherhen :
    BTW Joel has been claiming all along how much he is looking forward to cross examine potential witnesses, so it looks like his big moment will be arriving very soon !

    Yea should definitely be hilarious. 🙂

  108. I think they are talking about by the term A.R.B.M. , is about Brodsky’s future. A.R.BM. = A Retired Bald Man LOL. Actually Appellants Reply Brief on the Merits sound pretty good.

  109. Hey everyone. I know that this is way off topic, but I found it interesting and somewhat confusing.

    I went to the FBI Missing Persons webpage and found that Stacy is no longer listed as a missing person on their site. I recall many months ago visiting that page and her name was there (along with that of Lisa Stebic).

    Does anyone have any clue why Stacy’s name would have been removed?

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/kidmiss.htm

  110. myabelle516 :
    Hey everyone. I know that this is way off topic, but I found it interesting and somewhat confusing.
    I went to the FBI Missing Persons webpage and found that Stacy is no longer listed as a missing person on their site. I recall many months ago visiting that page and her name was there (along with that of Lisa Stebic).
    Does anyone have any clue why Stacy’s name would have been removed?
    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/kidmiss.htm

    I have no idea, myabelle, but I have also noticed that.
    That’s why I have been constantly asking about the identification of the body found near the marina. I know it was said this was a man, but… I somehow cannot go on with it.

  111. That’s why I have been constantly asking about the identification of the body found near the marina. I know it was said this was a man, but… I somehow cannot go on with it.

    Cyrhla – What, particularly, do you think would be the point of LE keeping the public thinking the remains that were found have not been identified, and may possibly be Stacy Peterson? I am curious to know why you think they might do that? I would think that they’re legally obligated to notify the family, any family, when remains are identified. If a body is identified, it means insurance proceeds, home ownership, bank accounts, are freed up, no? In the alternative, it would make them part of a conspiracy to hide her identity for reasons that I don’t think I can clearly imagine.

  112. Reascue, I can find the reasons based on the whole story but I do not want to speculate. 😉
    This is only my personal feeling. It is totally unreasoned basing on the facts we were given, I realize, but I cannot help I feel as I feel.
    This body was so pettite… the man who found it said it was a woman…the location… ordering two DNA kits by O’Neil (no in this case, I know, but…) and millions of other thoughts I do not want get into thinking about the state of the body.
    Sorry, if it was not OK to post it. I did not want to confuse anyone. The more learned about the story, the more suspicious I am. That may be the reason.

  113. On the opposite end, isn’t it also reasonable to believe that the GJ did indict Peterson for the disappearance/death of Stacy Peterson, which indictment is under seal at the moment, awaiting the trial/outcome of Peterson related to Kathleen Savio? Isn’t it possible they have substantial evidence to show that she is, in fact, deceased? Don’t they have to convince the Judge of that also that she is deceased, in order to get in certain hearsay evidence at the trial of Peterson for the murder of Kathleen? If the remains were identified as Stacy’s, I sure am scratching my head wondering why they’re withholding that information or keeping it secret. How does hiding the identity of discovered human remains help LE in this case, or any case, for that matter? Unless one is thinking they’re covering up for Peterson somehow. But, then, why is he awaiting trial on two counts of murder……

  114. Here’s a recap of the sealed indictment question we asked of Karen Conti:

    July 29, 2009 at 1:55 pm | #26
    Quote | Edit

    KAREN CONTI RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY QUESTIONS

    The questions posed to Karen Conti were based on this paragraph, as reported by Joe Hosey, in May, 2009:

    The grand jury indicted Peterson two weeks ago on first-degree murder charges in connection with Savio’s death, but no indictments are on file relating to either Stacy Peterson or Stebic’s disappearance, although they may be under seal.

    Pelkie declined to comment on whether or not the grand jury has returned indictments in either Stacy or Stebic’s case.

    QUESTIONS: Generally, speaking, is this a possibility? Why would an indictment be sealed, and not acted upon with charges against a suspect? Isn’t an indictment what the SA expects the GJ to return after presenting the preliminary facts?

    RESPONSE: It is possible that the grand jury returned an indictment that the the judge placed under seal. There are many reasons why the State’s Attorney would want to do this. They may want to continue their investigation without the public knowing there is an indictment. Also, they may want to counter the potential and eventual defense argument that, “if the States Attorney’s Office took so long to bring charges, THEY must have had a reasonable doubt, so YOU, the jury, should too.” They may also want to see what happens in the Savio case. Finally, they may be hoping that they will find Stacy’s body, which would bolster their case immeasurably.

    Karen Conti

  115. It’s possible that those remains were identified,yet maybe they suspected no foul play,notified the family, and it hasn’t been reported on.Or possibly they are still trying to identify them.Just like the remains that were discovered in a Cook County forest preserve near Lemont. We haven’t heard anything about them as well.Of course those remains were reported to have been there much longer in the latter case.I’m sure also that there have been a lot more unidentified bodies found that are not reported on once an identity has been learned.You may be able to check the John Do file and see if there is any info there.

  116. I absolutely believe Glasgow and all the people close to him. I believe he wants to solve the case and justice to be served.
    However, some of the people who must have helped in covering Drew are still active. And they the last persons who would be willing to see Drew convicted even if they were manipulated or did so for political reasons.

    It is really easy to fake DNA results if you know what to do. It does not have to involve a group of people. One is enough.

    IMO, there was intially only one person who helped Drew by using his connections. As we could see Kathleen’s death was not even investigated and even if it was, the investigation was halted. One phome call? Then Drew was able to get EVERYTHING he wanted to and no one stopped him on this way.

    Do you really believe that all the (very expensive!) help Drew is given can origin from only Brodsky, acidently met thanks to the TV broadcast? Is the lawyer who was almost a bunkrupt able to organize all those experts, investigators, and so on? Not to mention the national media… I do not think any ordinary policeman would have such an army of advisors all around.

    As long as there is no Stacy’s body, Drew may go free one day. That might be the interest people who cover or covered for Drew have.

    I believe one day this circle will be broken.

  117. Just like the remains that were discovered in a Cook County forest preserve near Lemont. We haven’t heard anything about them as well.
    ——
    They have been identified if think about the same persons, found covered in white sheets. I read they had been taken from the bar by two men pretending to be policemen.

  118. cyrhla :
    Just like the remains that were discovered in a Cook County forest preserve near Lemont. We haven’t heard anything about them as well.
    ——
    They have been identified if think about the same persons, found covered in white sheets. I read they had been taken from the bar by two men pretending to be policemen.

    No this was a different case.Single body and I believe it was female.Used to have the info, but my computer crashed before and I lost it all.Not linked to either Stacy or Lisa as the report goes.

  119. I know what body you mean, givarat, and I also absolutely agree with you that lots of bodies have never been indentified and that the information of those who have may not be published or so.
    As I mentioned before, I just stuck to this particular case.

  120. cyrhla :
    I know what body you mean, givarat, and I also absolutely agree with you that lots of bodies have never been indentified and that the information of those who have may not be published or so.
    As I mentioned before, I just stuck to this particular case.

    Yea I’m just trying to help you out and offer some answers.I just researched it and the most I gleaned from it all was that they were able to get DNA from the remains. I read in another article that the Spira family have also inquired into it and it’s reported that it isn’t John either. They were uncertain of the gender or race until the DNA tests came back. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522420,00.html

  121. Your welcome cyrhla. Not meaning to take away from your feelings about it. Anything is possible as the saying goes.Just thought I’d revisit this story along with you.A good thing I did also for I learned some new stuff.

  122. I don’t expect anyone to feel the same, but I’ve never been able to shake the feeling that we might see a sinister Drew connection there. Again, like Cyrhla expressed it; just a feeling. I don’t want to start a fire here. Just sayin’.

  123. bucketoftea :
    I don’t expect anyone to feel the same, but I’ve never been able to shake the feeling that we might see a sinister Drew connection there. Again, like Cyrhla expressed it; just a feeling. I don’t want to start a fire here. Just sayin’.

    Anyway, it is nice to know, I am not alone here. LOL

  124. If you don’t mind, can I ask exactly what it is Drew is connected with? I’m not getting a clear idea what you mean. Connected with the unidentified remains that were found this past summer? Thanks.

  125. Rescue, not the unidentified remains, just John Spira’s disappearance and the arson of his business. Someone tore down the banner asking for help to find him, too. Like I said, I don’t mean to throw everything in the air and speculate wildly. It just all came back to mind when he was mentioned above.

  126. I’m not sure Rescue who that was addressed to out of us 3. Cyrhla was just describing her feelings about an individual case she has in mind.She explained more than once that this was just her feelings.Not that it’s fact. I responding to her made sure she understood I respected those feelings and just gave her some solid news articles where reporters said this is the way it happened. In the process of just checking on things, which myself even missed because of news downtime, I had to look up some things.I actually learned some things I wouldn’t of do to those feelings.Bucket also came forward that she has the same feelings.It was another case however that came up because of the whole theme.So my thing is now, lets not forget about the others missing.What there hell is like.

  127. I say a prayer for those families right now. May god give you the encouragement you need to go on. You are not alone.You have many friends.I care about your loses.I would not wish them upon anyone.The I don’t know is what hurts the most.There will be answers.You just got to know what the answer is.The answer is there. AMEN!

  128. At first, I do not really know what to say.

    OK. Yes, I am very suspicious but I think it is reasoned because lots of things happened around Kathleen’s death that are beyond my understanding and belief.
    We all know someone must have helped Drew with getting away with Kathleen’s muder.
    Tomczak did not order any investigation. He does not even want to comment all of that.
    O’Neil was a coroner and it was him responsible for coroner’s request. The coroner is responsible for the composition of the coroner’s jury and so called orientation of its memebers. As long as I cannot blame him for Hardy tesfifying (that was Tomczak’s responsibility), another policeman who knew or knew of Drew on the panel was against the law and all the procedures.

    I am not going to develop it but my doubts simply originate from one question: why should I believe those who helped Drew then? why are they not going to help him now? I would say they motivation might have even increased because they do not want Drew to start talking. It is clear that finding Stacy’s body would not help them.

    I did not say I knew that was Stacy’s body at the marina. I only felt that and the initial description of the remains really appealed to me and according to the above, my suspision may be reasoned. They may be not reasoned as well. Time will show.

    I think it will let you understand my feelings and suspisions, Rescue.

  129. bucketoftea :
    Rescue, not the unidentified remains, just John Spira’s disappearance and the arson of his business. Someone tore down the banner asking for help to find him, too. Like I said, I don’t mean to throw everything in the air and speculate wildly. It just all came back to mind when he was mentioned above.

    Yes someone also took down the missing signs of Lisa Stebic, and Stacy Peterson also. Why people would do that, is beyond me?

  130. I previously missed this bit from Hosey’s “two years” story. Thought it was worth quoting:

    Sign of desperation
    Savio’s nephew, Charlie Doman, believes Brodsky’s subpoenas are rooted in desperation.

    “He’s going to try everything he can, especially with everything that happened in (their last) court appearance,” Doman said.

    During that Oct. 2 hearing, Brodsky struck out in bids to have Peterson’s trial moved out of Will County and to have a law allowing hearsay evidence declared unconstitutional.

    “That’s what you get for defending a murderer,” Doman said.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1850111,4_1_JO28_PETERSON_S1-091028.article

  131. I was going through some old saved stuff and came across a weird assertion made by Joel Brodsky and posted May 2008 at the SYM forum.

    Drew’s timeline (as given in Drew Peterson Exposed) for the day Kathleen’s body discovered states:

    “He goes to work at 5 p.m. and goes to Savio’s house at 7 p.m.”

    Yet when Joel was asked if Drew was on duty when he went to the house he replied:

    “No. He was off duty at the time, (but in uniform as he was coming off his shift) “

    A two hour shift?

  132. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking (maybe not a good thing lol!) what everybody’s been saying here and about the thin blue line with Police Officers loyalty to one another etc, but I just can’t see how that would extend to them knowingly and willingly wanting to help Drew kill his wife/wives and botch the investigation(s), especially since they are not going to be the ones to receive great monetary gain, acquire real estate, property etc.

    Could it be his fellow Police Officers and others were conned to a point just as everybody else by Drew being the forever helpful, sociable and amicable Police Officer who “would take a bullet” for anyone of his collegues and most likely his friends in high places too.

    Of course there has to be some element of corruption for this to go as far as it did for as long as it did, but it doesn’t make sense for members of a Police Force to conspire killing someones wife and botching the investigation just so their collegue could get rich !!

  133. Yet when Joel was asked if Drew was on duty when he went to the house he replied:

    “No. He was off duty at the time, (but in uniform as he was coming off his shift) “

    A two hour shift?

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

    Yes you’re right, that is an awfully long shift for Drew (!!) as he needs his time for stalking, menacing, circling hair dressing salons, restaurants and going into Denny’s to sit with his wife and her friends, out staring and interrogating her male companions etc.

    Drew was a very busy Police Officer …..

  134. facsmiley :
    I was going through some old saved stuff and came across a weird assertion made by Joel Brodsky and posted May 2008 at the SYM forum.
    Drew’s timeline (as given in Drew Peterson Exposed) for the day Kathleen’s body discovered states:

    “He goes to work at 5 p.m. and goes to Savio’s house at 7 p.m.”

    Yet when Joel was asked if Drew was on duty when he went to the house he replied:

    “No. He was off duty at the time, (but in uniform as he was coming off his shift) “

    A two hour shift?

    In all seriousness that is a great find facs, Joel Brodsky put his foot in it nicely as this puts Drew squarely to be ON DUTY AND IN UNIFORM when he was hovering around Kathleens house, messing around with a locksmith and getting his FRIENDS and NEIGHBORS to go into the house to find Kathleens body.

    That is SOOOOOOOOOOOO against Police Procedures, it is not even funny !

    That could mean good bye fat Police Pension pension check !!

  135. When Joel was posting on SYM, in this particular comment, he was discussing Kathleen’s death. I do not take credit for the misspellings and/or errors, thank you very much!

    May 15, 2008, 5:08pm, joelbrodsky wrote: I will not deny that there are suspicious allegations such as comments by ex-wifes and pastors (even though that one is double hearsay and also inconsistent and fishy story), and the lette from Kathy to the states attorney. I can take those allegations apart one at a time and expose serious problems with each of them, BUT what really matters in a homicide case is having putting the defendant and victim togeather at the time of death. If you can’t put the victim and defendant at the same location when the victim dies, you can’t get a conviction. Thats why I am confident Drew will never be charged, because with Stacy there is no proof of a criminal act and with Kathy, even if you only believe the 2nd pathologist and discount the first one, Drew can account for where he was during the window of time Kathy died. (Please don’t ask for timelines though)

    Well, now, for one thing, Drew can’t necessarily account for where he was, because his wife, his alibi, is not available. The comment by Brodsky that “there is no proof of a criminal act” is just that, a comment. We all know how lacking credibility this comment is — “I am confident Drew will never be charged”.

    So, in order to avoid a conviction for his client, it appears he is prepared to put on a defense that the victim and the defendant were not “at the same location” when the victim died.

    This tells me that he is going to hammer the point that even if phone pings or whatever electronic evidence might indicate that his client was near or around Kathleen’s home at the time she died, the State must show that he was “at the same location.” He doesn’t appear to be too concerned that Stacy may have been calling Peterson when he said he was home, because that still doesn’t put him “at the same location as the victim.” Maybe the State can, maybe they can’t, I don’t know. Either way, that will be up to the jury to sort out. We do know that Tom Peterson is now on the hot seat for being his father’s alibi stand-in.

    What is also interesting is that during the time JB was blogging, he posted one of two hypothetical questions. He wanted bloggers to answer this, as it related to Kathleen:

    If Drew was charged with the murder of Kathleen Savio, and you believed her death was a homicide, and a lot of the so called hearsay statements were allowed into evidence, but the State could not produce any evidence that would put Drew inside Kathleen’s home at or near the time of her death would you convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

    See how the art of lawyer defense works? This question was posted by him in May of 2008. Anticipating what has now actually come to be, he wanted to know from his faithful bloggers what they would need to convince them that Drew was guilty of Kathleen’s homicide. Except now, he knows what the State’s evidence is or is not. So far, what we’ve heard is how he can’t wait to cross-examine the people who were told by Kathleen that she was fearful of Drew killing her. Beyond that, who knows.

  136. Did witnesses provide statements to LE at the time of the initial KS investigation, say, like seeing him “at the same location as Kathleen” around the time she may have been murdered, which statements never saw the light of day. Not impossible, considering how bungled the investigation was.

    Did Stacy share her secret information with anyone besides Pastor Schori, say, like a divorce attorney she spoke with a couple of times just prior to her death?

    Did anyone living in the Peterson house at the time of Kathleen’s death overhear activities or conversations the night Kathleen was murdered that has since provided information to the GJ?

  137. I want to know more about this insurance guy witness also that everyone is asking questions about.On that further note Rescue.

  138. I wonder if Mike Robinson’s case is going to be continued once again this morning? Or if it will finally be over?

  139. justanotherhen :

    facsmiley :I was going through some old saved stuff and came across a weird assertion made by Joel Brodsky and posted May 2008 at the SYM forum.Drew’s timeline (as given in Drew Peterson Exposed) for the day Kathleen’s body discovered states:

    “He goes to work at 5 p.m. and goes to Savio’s house at 7 p.m.”

    Yet when Joel was asked if Drew was on duty when he went to the house he replied:

    “No. He was off duty at the time, (but in uniform as he was coming off his shift) “

    A two hour shift?

    In all seriousness that is a great find facs, Joel Brodsky put his foot in it nicely as this puts Drew squarely to be ON DUTY AND IN UNIFORM when he was hovering around Kathleens house, messing around with a locksmith and getting his FRIENDS and NEIGHBORS to go into the house to find Kathleens body.
    That is SOOOOOOOOOOOO against Police Procedures, it is not even funny !
    That could mean good bye fat Police Pension pension check !!

    Very nice find Facs!

  140. Where are you seeing that, Cyrhla? I’m not finding anything on the Will County Court Schedule for James B. Carroll.

    Do you mean the civil case? I guess they do name Carroll as a co-defendant.

  141. If that is the right Carroll didn’t he confess to something awhile back? I remember something about it, but it involved someone sitting in jail for something and he didn’t do something he was supposed to.

  142. Thank you very much Rescue for the refresher! So much happens in this case hard to keep up, and things in order! You guys are doing an excellent job here keeping everything up to date, in order, and easy to find!

  143. I’d like to ask what happened with that “coffee shop footage” of Drew and another man? I think it turned out to be two truckers and to have nothing to do with Drew, but I’d like to hear from Fuhrman what exactly transpired.

  144. I remember when it happened, and I think it was during a news report and Fuhrman stopped covering the case at that point. The video tape was from a Krispy Kreme – I remember that.

    I’ve found mentions of the tape and also mentions in forums that it was debunked, but not the actual report about it being so.

  145. The fact that Morphey says Drew took him through a Starbucks drive-through and then left him at a park with the cell phone pretty much debunks the Krispy Kreme video for me (unless Morphey is completely wrong about what they did that night):

    The night after their trip to the park on Remington, and then the storage facility, Morphey said Peterson showed up again. Morphey admits he’d been drinking beer, but claims to have a clear recollection of what transpired.

    “He just started driving,” Morphey said. The two men got coffee at a Starbucks drive-through before heading to a park off Weber Road. There, Morphey said, Peterson handed him a cell phone, told him not to answer it, then left.

    Morphey said he paced back and forth in the dark, wondering, “Is he killing someone?” About 45 minutes later the phone rang. Then it rang again. Both times, the caller ID showed “Stacy’s cell,” he said. It was then he “got a pretty good idea” that Peterson was not scheming to do in anybody’s boyfriend.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1468257,Peterson-stepbrother-talks_jo030909.article

  146. Going back and reading over some things, I am wondering if Drew Peterson actually filed for a divorce from Stacy. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. Raines seemed to be sure there’d be a wedding this past June, and a couple of things I read over seem odd.

    Late last year, this was reported:

    Technically, Drew and Stacy are still married. Attorney James Quigley says, legally, it would only take a few months for Drew Peterson to dissolve that marriage, claiming Stacy left him.

    “He could pursue mental cruelty, physical cruelty. There are a number of bases that one can pursue a dissolution under. But abandonment is the most logical choice,” said James Quigley, divorce attorney.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6559988

    On May 15, on our blog, we posted a piece about Raines hiring Attorney Gloria Allred, where she is reported as saying:

    Chrissy, age 24, has known Mr. Peterson for many years. This year they became romantically involved and she lived on and off with him for part of this year. She cares for him and believes that he cares for her. They did have plans to marry once the divorce from Stacy Peterson became final.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/chrissy-raines-hires-lawyer-gloria-allred/

  147. Armstrong, the author who wrote a book about Drew Peterson, said Peterson did not initiate the proposal. The young woman asked him to marry. Armstrong also adds that Peterson said he and his children are in love with the young women.

    All of this hinges on his divorce. Armstrong says Peterson has not filed but expects to in the new year.

  148. If you sort through all the “Brodsky-speak,” I’m getting more convinced he could have begun to initiate a divorce from Stacy. Maybe didn’t get through it, but sure worked on it.

    (November 18, 2008)(CNN) — Drew Peterson has met with a prominent divorce attorney more than a year after his wife, Stacy, disappeared, his lawyer confirmed to CNN on Tuesday.

    Drew Peterson’s behavior after his wife disappeared deepened suspicion, but he says she ran off.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook, Illinois, police sergeant, has not filed divorce papers, said his attorney, Joel Brodsky.

    But Peterson told an author he would look into a divorce after Stacy had been missing for a year. He said he was considering divorce for the sake of their children.

    “I can confirm that Drew Peterson did have a consultation with Jeffrey Leving,” Brodsky said, adding that no divorce papers have been filed.

    Leving, who bills himself as a father’s rights lawyer, represented Cuban immigrant Elian Gonzalez’s uncle and ultimately helped reunite the boy with his father.

    Police have said that 54-year old Peterson is a suspect in his wife’s disappearance, which investigators have labeled a “potential homicide.”

    Peterson maintains that his wife, who was 23 at the time of her disappearance, left him for someone else.

    In an interview in May with Derek Armstrong, author of “Drew Peterson Exposed,” Peterson hinted that he planned to divorce her after she had been missing for a year. In Illinois, willful desertion or abandonment is grounds for a divorce after a year.

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

  149. Rescue, I do often think about it, too.

    I think Drew did really have such plans but IMO his intention was to accuse Stacy of leaving him and her children in particular. This way he could have had a slight chance to get all the money. But since the publicity did not buy his stories about having been a perfect husband and there is a lot of evidence showing he might have had a lot to do with Stacy’s disappearance (witness of Kathleen’s death), I think no judge could take a decision favorable for Drew.
    Sharing everything in two halves has never been Drew intention, I am sure. That is why Drew is not interested in “ordinary” divorce and (probably) has never filled for it.

    But who knows?! I cannot manage to follow Drew and Brodsky.LOL

  150. There were a number of times that Peterson directed statements meant for Stacy to hear when he made his numerous tv appearances. Like, show your face or show yourself, end all of this. I absolutely believe his attorney instructed him on what to say based, once again, on this remark by Brodsky on the Legal Pub blog, in which he stated his ideas concerning media appearances, etc:

    …..I could go on for a long time on this issue, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer.

    I believe when they let it seep out that he consulted with a divorce lawyer, they must have known it would have its shock value, but, like anything else, it would pass. I wouldn’t doubt that they had a notice to Stacy placed in some obscure publication, like Farmers Guide to Tractors.

    Also, BTW, JB’s definition of “white noise,” as he defined it on SYM:

    Its an oversaturation of the media. If you say just a few things they can pick it apart for inconsistencies, but if you say alot then any inconsistencies will cancel each other out.

  151. There were a number of times that Peterson directed statements meant for Stacy to hear when he made his numerous tv appearances. Like, show your face or show yourself, end all of this.
    —–
    I amy be wrong, but I cannot remember Drew saying something like this from his own initiative and spontanously. Only when he was asked/forced by a journalist or so.

  152. LOL, Cyrhla, the only way he could get that message out was by opening his pie hole on tv or in the newspapers, so………

    Drew Peterson to missing wife: ‘Show yourself’
    October 28, 2008 11:24 AM | 8 Comments

    Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant whose fourth wife Stacy disappeared one year ago, reiterated his belief that she left voluntarily and said, “Show yourself. Put an end to this nightmare.”

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/drew-peterson-to-missing-wife-show-yourself.html

  153. I think that this is just a brief of what he had said earlier on TV.;) Wasn’t he asked: “Come on, Drew. This is your last chance to show you have feelings. What would you like to tell Stacy?” ? LOL
    [but seriously, I have my headphones off now and cannot listen to it again]

  154. It’s strange that this subject came up. I just wondered the same things about the divorce. What got me thinking that is , why sue Chase rather than just sell the house? Obviously he can’t because he’s still married. Of course Brodsky was all full of talk on it then. Like usual. I hope they cross examine him about the PI.’s he hired to find Stacy. Can’t help but feel that is a bunch of bologna. Sorry DP I know your pretty sick of those bologna sandwiches about now.

  155. Will County Circuit Court Schedule 11/4/09

    09MR000648 – COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE vs. Drew Peterson, Henry Savio,…

    COUNTRY MUTUAL 11 18 9 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Prove-Up
    CARLSON KEITH 11 18 9 900 WCCA COUNTRY MUTUAL 09MR000648 CVNJ
    PETERSON DREW 11 18 9 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Prove-Up
    JB not fighting this losing battle.
    SAVIO HENRY J 11 18 9 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Prove-Up
    SAVIO KATHLEEN 11 18 9 WCCA 900 09MR000648 Prove-Up

  156. Will County Circuit Court Schedule 11/4/09

    09L 000326 In Re: Estate of Kathleen Savio, Deceased wrongful death suit

    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 12 1 9 930 WCCA PETERSON DREW 09L 000326 CIVJ
    PETERSON DREW 12 1 9 WCCA 930 09L 000326 Hearing
    VARSEK LAWRENCE E. 12 1 9 930 WCCA SAVIO HENRY J 09L 000326 CIVJ
    SAVIO HENRY J 12 1 9 WCCA 930 09L 000326 Hearing

  157. Will County Circuit Court Schedule 11/4/09

    09CF001048 – People of the State of Illinois vs. Drew Peterson, Defendant

    BRODSKY JOEL ALAN 12 4 9 930 402 PETERSON DREW W 09CF001048 SDW
    PETERSON DREW W 12 4 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Status
    PETERSON DREW W 12 4 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Status

  158. I don’t know that it is so much Chase’s fault that Drew cannot get a different HELOC. I would believe that in order to get a HELOC in the first place, all of the people who are listed as owners on the house would have to sign off on it somehow since the property is collateral for the loan, right??

    Bottom line is that since Stacy isn’t here she cannot sign off on a new HELOC and he can’t sell the house without her signature either so basically his home equity is tied up due to her being missing.

  159. I wonder if it would be possible to find an institution who would buy Drew’s half. Like an equity release for cash, no loan.

  160. thinkaboutit2 :
    I don’t know that it is so much Chase’s fault that Drew cannot get a different HELOC. I would believe that in order to get a HELOC in the first place, all of the people who are listed as owners on the house would have to sign off on it somehow since the property is collateral for the loan, right??
    Bottom line is that since Stacy isn’t here she cannot sign off on a new HELOC and he can’t sell the house without her signature either so basically his home equity is tied up due to her being missing.

    Yea but didn’t he take out the 200,000 at least before and put it back without Stacy’s signature?

  161. bucketoftea :
    I wonder if it would be possible to find an institution who would buy Drew’s half. Like an equity release for cash, no loan.

    I would think something like that would require Stacy’s signature.Otherwise you’d think they would have considered such an option already.

  162. AFAIK, either Drew or Stacy could remove/transfer funds on the home equity credit account. Sort of like how both people can make purchases on a joint credit card.

    If you look at the paperwork, Chase froze the account based on his incarcerated status. They didn’t mention anything about needing both parties to OK the withdrawal.

  163. I am trying to research this law and having a hard time trying to come up with a good answer given Illinois state law on the sale of half the property.I do find this term may fit the situation and maybe anyone who is interested could research this further.The term Tenancy by the Entirety is what I believe may keep DP from selling his share of the house.Some other reading states also that a co owner can take out an equity mortgage without the others approval. That is left up to the banks if they want to honor it without a co signature from the spouse.Any default on DP’s part would only go toward his half of the ownership.Like I said though I’m just gleaming this from what little I read and really haven’t found a good link to back this up yet.

  164. How stupid was it for Brodsky to put Jaycee Dugard in the same context as where Stacy is? Everyone is going to think of Stacy being held against her will, tortured and raped.

    Not the brightest bulb, that Joel.

    IMO

  165. Givarat – Stacy had already signed the HELOC with Drew before she went missing. Unless it is specifically stated in the HELOC that both signatures are required to access that existing credit line then only one signature is necessary. Most companies give you a credit card and checks to access that money.

    What I am saying is that he cannot open a whole brand new HELOC with a different company because I believe they have to have the signatures of all owners of the property.

  166. thinkaboutit2 :
    Givarat – Stacy had already signed the HELOC with Drew before she went missing. Unless it is specifically stated in the HELOC that both signatures are required to access that existing credit line then only one signature is necessary. Most companies give you a credit card and checks to access that money.
    What I am saying is that he cannot open a whole brand new HELOC with a different company because I believe they have to have the signatures of all owners of the property.

    Oh you were talking about taking out a new loan with a different company. Sorry I misunderstood that part.

    Anyway yea, that’s what I came up with. That usually a spouse can take a loan out without the other signature with the banks discretion. It’s interesting to note about that law that when it comes to liens that the IRS can like penalize the whole deal against both spouses.If it came down to taxes that is.Another thing to note is I hate reading those the party of the second part crap that I try to find some simpler comprehension to it for us laymen.It kind of is a complicated law.But yea thanks for the HELOC help there think. Almost forgot about that.I kind of understand now that there is an agreement as to 2 separate lines of credit.I guess it’s possible also it may be agreed upon by both parties he would have control of it all.As far as who can take out a loan on the equity and such for all we know.What luckily seems to hold true in the whole thing, is that Drew can’t sell the house without Stacy’s signature.What bothers me right now however is how Drew gave Stacy’s car to Chrissy. Unless that never happened ,but I could of sworn I read that somewhere.Any help there would be appreciated.

  167. Back to wall: Is Drew’s nephew persecuted?
    Man fears jail time over testimony in Peterson murder trial

    November 6, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    ROMEOVILLE — A nephew of Drew Peterson’s slain third wife says prosecutors will call him to the witness stand during the disgraced former cop’s trial, and he believes the testimony is going to cost him a year of his life.

    “This is definitely political,” Charlie Doman said of prosecutors supposedly planning to lock him up for the maximum year sentence if he is convicted of misdemeanor battery and obstructing justice in order to keep his testimony above reproach.

    Doman, 34, was arrested in July for allegedly attacking his sister’s boyfriend and refusing to allow police to shoot his mugshot.

    “It’s not a bad crime,” Doman said. “Nobody got hurt.”

    But Doman said his public defender, Robert Bodach, related that the state is pursuing a year jail sentence so they cannot be accused of favoritism when Doman testifies at the murder trial of Drew Peterson.

    “They think the state’s going to call me to testify against Drew,” Doman said. “They don’t want (Peterson’s attorney Joel) Brodsky to use it.”

    Peterson has been in jail since May while he waits to be tried for the murder of Doman’s aunt Kathleen Savio.

    Bodach declined to comment on Doman’s allegations. Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, would not comment on the battery and obstructing charges but dismissed Doman’s claims of being persecuted to further another case.

    “No other investigation at all had any bearing on the charging or the prosecution of this case,” Pelkie said.

    Doman admitted to confronting the boyfriend of his sister but insists no one was injured in the altercation. Doman also said the boyfriend, Bobby Perez, repeatedly told police he did not want to press charges.

    Perez could not be reached for comment.

    Doman was initially arrested on a charge of domestic battery for allegedly pushing his own girlfriend, Kristin Locasto, while trying to get at Perez. The charge was later changed to battery for allegedly attacking Perez.
    ‘Just take me to jail’
    After his arrest, Doman was taken to the Romeoville police station for processing. Things there did not go well.

    “I swear to God, they were taking pictures (of me) with cell phones,” Doman said. “I wouldn’t let them book me. I told them, ‘Just take me to jail.'”

    This recalcitrance bought Doman the obstructing charge.

    Deputy Police Chief Mark Turvey was dubious of Doman’s cell phone photo claim.

    “I don’t believe that for a minute,” he said.

    Turvey did explain that because Doman was so unruly, “At one point an officer grabbed a digital camera to try to get his mugshot. (But) he didn’t cooperate with that either.”

    Doman said he did not want his photograph taken because he was concerned about bad publicity and possibly damaging the Peterson prosecution.

    “I didn’t want to mess up anything with my aunt’s case,” he said.

    “I was afraid,” he said. “I didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t know if they were going to try to sell (his photo)” to a media outlet.
    From bad to worse
    Doman then went to the county jail. While he was being fingerprinted and booked, he passed out and hit the floor.

    “I think I had a heart attack,” he said, adding, “I felt like I was going to die.”

    Doman was transported to Silver Cross Hospital but released in the morning, And from there, things possibly got worse for him.

    Doman says he was taken to court in nothing but his boxer shorts and a tank top, and when he was returned to jail, the staff for some reason placed him on suicide watch.

    “I had no idea” why, Doman said, adding that he still does not know what made jail staff think he would pull his own plug.

    “I asked them why and they didn’t say,” he recalled. “They just said I may have said I may hurt myself or someone else.”

    Doman said he was forced to don a “silly dress” and stripped of his eyeglasses, leaving him virtually blind for the five days he was on suicide watch.

    To add insult to injury, he says, a correctional officer implied Doman orchestrated his arrest, incarceration and placement on suicide watch to get at his allegedly murderous uncle.

    “She accused me of plotting to get sent up to the medical unit to beat up Drew,” he said.

    Seven days after he was taken into custody, Doman’s girlfriend came up with his $500 bond and he was released from the jail. His trial is scheduled for January and Doman suspects prosecutors want to put him away for the maximum.

    “They want to give me 364 days,” Doman said.
    ‘Too much time’
    Besides dispelling notions of favoritism, Doman also believes State’s Attorney James Glasgow has it in for him since he publicly called out prosecutors to “step it up” with regard to handling his murdered aunt’s case.

    “I know I said some things the state’s attorney didn’t want me to say,” he said. “I think that might be it.”

    Pelkie said that this also was “ludicrous.”

    Doman is no stranger to violent crime. He was sentenced to probation for stabbing a sleeping man 13 times and later was sent to prison for slashing the neck of a man he claims was trying to rob him.

    “I’ve served less time for doing more damage on a felony,” Doman said.

    “I almost killed somebody how many times and the most I did was six months,” he said, adding, “I just think it’s too much time.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1868181,4_1_JO06_CHARLIE_S1-091106.article

  168. Seems like a lot of people in Drew’s life are no stranger to violent crimes. Brodsky has his own Peterson pal, Mike Robinson, to rehabilitate. Maybe all the felons will cancel themselves out.

  169. Good Lord! I have been away for a while and have had quite a bit of catching up to do. This is all quite unbelievable. Talk about a circus. I hope this doesn’t get made into a cheesy made-for-TV movie!

  170. I’ve found today that yet another true crime writer was contacted by the Peterson camp to write a book. Yikes.

    An interview with true crime writer Ann Rule
    By Paige Wiser on November 6, 2009 4:20 AM

    Excerpt

    She averages one hardcover and one paperback collection a year, and gets at least 5,000 suggestions each year about possible subjects.

    But Rule prefers to write about less publicized cases. Don’t expect a book about Laci and Scott Peterson. Or the BTK killer. And definitely not Drew Peterson.

    “He had his publicist call me and ask me to write a book about his innocence,” says Rule. “I thought, no, I don’t think so. How could I possibly write a book about his innocence? I think he’s guilty.”

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/tv/2009/11/an_interview_with_true_crime_w.html

  171. GAR (aka Givearat) – Drew did give Chrissy his car IIRC too. However, he pretty much just let her use it just like he let her use Stacy’s bed. If Stacy’s name is on the car then Chrissy cannot get clean title on the car and Drew can’t sell it for cash. So it is more a technicality there.

    I think the reason Drew is claiming that Chase has ruined his name in the credit world is that it totally tanks your FICO score when you have a loan like a HELOC shut down. It can hurt by having it closed plus it can hurt your score if you have other outstanding credit or a balance on that line because it makes you look like you are over your limit or have to much outstanding balance compared to available balance. I bet his FICO tanked on that one decision by Chase. But that is what happened to lots and lots of people.

  172. “I thought, no, I don’t think so. How could I possibly write a book about his innocence? I think he’s guilty.
    ——
    I got liking her very much at once! LOL

    Big contrast to Brodsky’s ethic. 😉

  173. So far, we know they contacted Phelps, LeFort and Rule, and wound up with Armstrong, who was a joke. It is so obvious he pretended to be an outsider looking in, when, in all reality, he was nothing more than an extension of the rest of them.

    Not to mention the authors that were contacted made it so clear they were not finding the love when it came to Drew Peterson.

  174. I started to reread “Exposed” yesterday and was just so put off by the snotty tone and border-line slander. There is a whole chapter full of little scenarios about the day that Stacy disappeared in which Drew is depicted as being guilty but they are intentionally written to sound ludicrous, to discredit the witnesses – and to make the reader believe in Drew’s innocence. No person with half a brain would be taken in by it. How embarrassing it must be for Armstrong to look back at it and know he wrote such crap.

    It also must sting to be caught lying about it not being “Drew’s book” when Joel has openly admitted now that the contract was for an author to co-author a book with Drew, from Drew’s point of view (which is what we always assumed it was).

    As for Charlie Doman, he is what he is. AFAIK, witnesses are allowed to testify while serving time for a conviction.

  175. As for Charlie Doman, he is what he is. AFAIK, witnesses are allowed to testify while serving time for a conviction.
    ——-
    I do not think a witness who is against a prosecutor and says things like this openly is a good witness…IMO. I am angry with Charlie about it. He should not have gotten involved in anything like that, including battery.

    I feel very sorry for Anna Doman. She has another problem on her head which may distract her from Kathleen’s case.

  176. Well, as far as Charlie’s testimony, I don’t know how he fits into all of the circumstances surrounding Kathleen’s death and the ensuing investigation. I suppose he knows inside information that isn’t public information. After all, Brodsky just recently said there’s going to be “secrets” coming out–which works both ways if you think about it. But, yes, he’s turning out to be a big disappointment!

  177. I’m sure State’s attorneys are used to getting passionate criticism from the families of victims. I don’t think they will let Charlie Doman’s statements alter how they are approaching the prosecution of Drew Peterson. The charges against him are a different matter, IMO, and could very well put the kibosh on the merits of any testimony he might have to offer, which is a real shame.

    Anyway, as Rescue pointed out, we don’t know what Charlie knows or has to say. He may not be very important as a State’s witness and they may not need to call him at all.

  178. Rescue, Charlie had access to the stolen papers from ISP. I can remember him commenting in what manner the police came and retrieved papers from him.

  179. I don’t think Charlie really has any testimony that is critical to the Kathleen Savio case. They aren’t going to put him on the talk about evidence that landed in his hands. His mom is the one who was the keeper of Kathleen’s documentation and many of her possible hearsay statements. I absolutely do not think there is any way that Charlie’s behavior (current and past) has anything to do with Kathleen herself.

    It is really a shame though that Charlie didn’t worry about how this would affect Kathleen’s case BEFORE he got involved in the altercation.

    I also don’t get the logic that he used here and his comments about the other things he did just made me cringe.

  180. Yeah – but news stations all had access to those papers as well. The reports said that since they had been mailed to an undeliverabe address, the postal service opened them and sent them to an address contained within the docs–a Savio relative, I believe–so possibly Charlie.

    “I got these in the mail” isn’t the most compelling testimony, IMO.

  181. If the cell phone photo deal is true then Charlie should get a lawyer, file a civil lawsuit immediately, and subpoena the list of officers that were there and their cell phones and cell phone records. If someone just saved the photo to their cell phone they may not get anything but if the sent the images to someone else’s phones then that is indeed wrong. This whole thing becomes a bigger circus at every turn.

    I can see the police being mad if he wasn’t going to stand still to take the mugshot. When Drew and Lenny got into it, Lenny stood there and took his. And the police are going to be mad at the way that those documents came out to the public and embarrassed the police. The police were wrong to have “lost” the documents but going public with them instead of giving them to the lawyers or notifying the police about them before the media would definitely get under their skin even if it was their own fault.

  182. I have a request for all potential witnesses in any cases for Kathleen and Stacy – please sit down, shut up, and behave at least until after trial. 😀

  183. TAI – from your keyboard to their brains.

    I can’t find the actual FOX story any more, but are some quotes from it:

    They showed up anonymously in a manila envelope. We confirmed with the State’s Attorney’s office that they are indeed a copy of legitimate documents, but here’s also part of the rub, and here’s potentially where the defense is going to have a bone of contention. They said this is a flawed investigation from the get-go and we’ve learned from Will County State’s Attorney that these documents were taken, were stolen from an Illinois State Police car.

    Someone brought these key investigative documents and our time line, probably about a year ago, they were out there and were floating we believe in the U.S. mail for all that time and then the Post Office, we presume, saw an address inside these files to the sister of Kathleen Savio, Drew’s former third wife, sent the documents to that family. The family then turned all these documents over to authorities but a couple of months subsequently documents also showed up at the station. So who knows how many copies of these documents are out there, but they’re out there.”

    At least one other person received the same documents we did. That would be Charlie Doman, nephew to Kathleen Savio, He claims State Police showed up at his home and threatened to kick in the door and search for the documents. He handed them over. But he told us the evidence he saw strengthens his belief that Drew Peterson should be arrested.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/where-was-drew-peterson-at-1059-am-october-28-2007/#more-2260

  184. Cyrhla – the concern here is how critical his testimony may or may not be regarding Kathleen’s death and the ensuing investigation. There’s plenty of mystery to go around about the events in the saga of Drew Peterson. I’d like to know why Mike Robinson can beat the crap out of three women, yet, stay on the good side of Peterson and his attorney. You know, the same guy that flew to the side of Peterson considerably soon after Stacy disappeared with a cell phone for Peterson to use, and communicating with him by notes to avoid being “overheard” making remarks. He was in Peterson’s life, around his kids, but Peterson won’t let his missing wife’s sister have, at the very least, supervised visits with her niece and nephew. Bah. Hypocritical.

    I’m not here to defend anyone in this mess, but there’s plenty of muck on both sides. Let’s face it — the people that are a part of Drew Peterson’s life have many sides.

    What makes me mad is to think that Peterson’s defense attorney has criticized and tried to demoralize every witnesses that has come out against Peterson, but he conveniently overlooks the people that may play an even more important part in all of this. Those are the secrets that the defense might want to worry about.

    Peterson kept a lot of mysterious personalities close to him, including two high profile characters, Carcerano and Robinson, who neither have a spotless past, or present, for that matter. Why is that?

  185. facsmiley :Yeah – but news stations all had access to those papers as well. The reports said that since they had been mailed to an undeliverabe address, the postal service opened them and sent them to an address contained within the docs–a Savio relative, I believe–so possibly Charlie.
    “I got these in the mail” isn’t the most compelling testimony, IMO.

    Actually IIRC I think the testimony would be “My mom got these in the mail” which still isn’t the most compelling testimony.

  186. Did anyone else wonder why the article’s title said “Peterson’s Nephew” rather than “Savio’s Nephew”?? I wonder who was more pissed – Charlie or Drew after reading that. They were only related via marriage and when I saw the heading I was thinking it was a blood nephew of Drew’s that got in trouble. Crafty media pulling us in…

  187. TAI, you are so right. They should have issued duct tape at the grand jury. I have some I’d be willing to donate.

    “I didn’t want to mess up anything with my aunt’s case,” he said.

    I think cooperating would have been a better option than what you did. That’s JMO.

    “I almost killed somebody how many times and the most I did was six months,” he said, adding, “I just think it’s too much time.”

    I’m not sure this is going to get anyone in your corner, Charlie. Just shows to me that the justice system is screwed up. Very.

  188. Rescue – I think we all know the answer to that. Team Drew isn’t saying anything bad about those people because they may need them down the line and they haven’t come out as being against Drew.

    In all seriousness, the testimony I want to hear the most is the testimony from the Ponterellis. They have been uber quiet. They were there when Kathleen was found in the tub. I wonder exactly what Drew said when they went in the house. Did he steer certain people certain ways? Did he try to protect Mary from being the one to see Kathleen first? What explanation did he give them for not just having the police come over instead of them all lurking in her house? What kinds of things did they see or hear while living next door? Did they see Drew’s violent side? Did they hear him threaten her ever on a nice night if the windows were open?

    I also want to hear the testimony from Carcerano and Robinson. They are second on my list in the order of wanting to hear what they have to say because they haven’t spoken publicly much either and were on the scene quickly in one or both cases.

  189. You know what I find ironic in all of this? Usually, a defense attorney is the first to criticize and pick apart the cops in the way they investigated and handled their client’s investigation. In fact, Brodsky did that in a case he took on earlier this year, in which he criticized the cops for de-scarfing his client for a mug shot.

    Yet, with all the circumstances uncovered regarding Kathleen’s death investigation and inquest, because he likes the way it went the first time, he conveniently gives a pass to those involved, when the rest of us aren’t so sure they deserve a pass.

    It all needs to come out, get sorted out, and the truth be told. That’s all I want to hear.

  190. In all seriousness, the testimony I want to hear the most is the testimony from the Ponterellis. They have been uber quiet. They were there when Kathleen was found in the tub. I wonder exactly what Drew said when they went in the house. Did he steer certain people certain ways? Did he try to protect Mary from being the one to see Kathleen first? What explanation did he give them for not just having the police come over instead of them all lurking in her house? What kinds of things did they see or hear while living next door? Did they see Drew’s violent side? Did they hear him threaten her ever on a nice night if the windows were open?

    Mary Pontarelli’s possible knowledge and/or testimony in all of this intrigues me. What I’d like to know is if she did, in fact, or anyone else in the neighborhood, for that matter, tell the police that Peterson was seen the night Kathleen was murdered, but their statements conveniently disappeared. I have a feeling that may have happened. Didn’t the State Police bring their doubts about the circumstances of Kathleen’s death to Tomczak, the then SA, who was the one that didn’t pursue it? What was compelling enough for the State Police to do that if they weren’t suspicious? Since one hand didn’t know what the other was doing, such as Hardy saying they were awaiting the phone recs, yet they weren’t ever subpoenaed, it’s not unusual to think statements made by people fell off someone’s desk, never to be seen again. That’s what I think.

  191. “I swear to God, they were taking pictures (of me) with cell phones,” Doman said. “I wouldn’t let them book me. I told them, ‘Just take me to jail.'”
    This recalcitrance bought Doman the obstructing charge.
    Deputy Police Chief Mark Turvey was dubious of Doman’s cell phone photo claim.

    “I don’t believe that for a minute,” he said.

    I wonder if the filmmaker, David Turvey, is any relation.

  192. I absolutely share you frustration, Rescue. As for Robinson and Carcerano, and Hardy, Pratl, Tomczak, and so on. I would also like to hear the explanation why, who, etc.
    I am afraid to write here openly about the connections which are obvious to me.
    This is the decision of the SA to run the investigation and monitor it. It is the responsibility of the coroner to check thoroughly if the investigation has been run in a proper way and disapprove any inconsistence. One blame each other but in fact they both helped Drew. Not only they if we then look at all the things which happened with Kathleen’s insurance and estate. I do not think Drew personally knew Tomczak or O’Neil. BBPolice was not OK as well.Thought hey called ISP but Drew was not punished for dealing with private matters when on duty, for tempering the evidence, and so on. The one who wanted to fire Drew was McGuiry (sorry if I misspelt it) and he was given another position. Such elegant way to say goodbye to someone who can make a mess. [I hope he was not for sale and cooperates with SA].

    The first thing to make all these people take responsibility is to prove Kathleen was killed. The same with Drew’s pension and so on.I think this is one of the reasons Glasgow is using “hearsay” law. Who can he really trust here? “Internal Affairs”, right?

  193. Oh, wow, Cyrhla.

    IMHO, one bad apple (or two) doesn’t spoil the whole bunch, as they say. There’s cracks in any profession. The Savio family, at the moment, specifically, Kathleen’s sisters, have publicly said they’re good with the way the current officials have investigated Kathleen’s death and brought charges.

    As to Chief McGury, there’s no plot or conspiracy there. The man left to take a position with the Naperville Park District. He was, I believe, an employee in the capacity of a police officer in Naperville during his career, and, if I am not mistaken, he lives in Naperville. For sale? That is uncalled for, IMO, as he was a very vocal opponent as to the likes of Drew Peterson. In fact, I think that was rude to imply you hope he’s not “for sale.”

  194. IMHO, one bad apple (or two) doesn’t spoil the whole bunch, as they say. There’s cracks in any profession.
    ——
    I agree, Rescue. I do not blame ALL the people.
    But if not those bad apples, Drew would have been put in jail 5 years ago and he would not have killed another woman.

  195. Yeah, that may or may not be true, Noway, but BB isn’t the one that handled the investigation. When it was determined that Kathleen was the ex of a BB PO, the ISP took over the investigation. Again, as I understand it, they brought their findings, albeit, messy findings, to Tomczak, the SA. I assume they had their suspicions, but dumped it on his desk to handle. From there, how did a Harvey PO get planted on the coroner’s panel, and why was the ISP official who testified at the coroner’s inquest one who was neither at the death scene nor present at the autopsy? Not one word, AFAIK, has ever appeared in the press as to why the Harvey PO was there, and who is responsible for letting that happen. We’ve seen the reports of how O’Neil didn’t feel warm and fuzzy about the coroner’s panel ruling, but he doesn’t say jack squat about the Harvey guy being on the panel, who gently guided the panel into thinking what a swell guy Peterson was.

    And, then, after all this, it’s reported: “The tapes allegedly also recorded Peterson insulting the investigating officers, saying, “She was in a dry bathtub. What a bunch of f****** idiots.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5440864&page=1&page=1

  196. Ah, Drew, Drew.

    “If I said anything close to that, it was taken out of context,” Peterson told the Associated Press.

    His lawyer, Joel Brodsky, does not believe the tapes exist at all.

  197. This is a coroner responsible for the composition of the panel. He runs the so called orientation with each juror. In this case an alternate should be sat in Pratl’s place as soon as he said he knew Drew or knew of Drew. Why wasn’t he asked to sit aside and not take a voice? If not O’Neil, the main juror should have done it. Pratl was there to convice the jurors that Drew was innocent. He might have done it unintentionally. He could have been told before the meeting that there would be a case of policeman, so you know…. poor policeman whose wife accidently drowned in a bathtub and left him with two additional children, pregnant second wife, and so on.
    However, I do not personally believe in this option because Pratl had too much influence on the final verdict. As you can remember the first verdict was 3:3.
    Rotten apple to me LOL.

    Another thing which went through my mind is the thorough investigation FBI made at the Harvey PD just after Stacy went missing. It may be somehow connected. Marcus Patterson is also a Harvey police officer, right?

  198. Here’s the Fox story about the stolen papers if anyone is interested.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/exclusive_peterson_file

    Exclusive: Papers Reveal Peterson Case
    Updated: Thursday, 30 Apr 2009, 11:54 AM CDT
    Published : Wednesday, 29 Apr 2009, 4:27 PM CDT

    Call it the case against Drew Peterson. It’s been over three years since his third wife Kathleen Savio was murdered and a year and a half since his fourth wife Stacy disappeared. Tonight, for the first time, Fox Chicago News has obtained documents showing how prosecutors are building their case against the former Bolingbrook police officer.

    The documents were stolen from an Illinois State Police car then photocopied and dropped off for anchor Jeff Goldblatt. Inside is information never before seen by the public including a timeline of what happened to Stacy, a list of 59 leads, and the police report from the night of Kathleen Savio’s murder.

    “I was shocked by what was in there, I was really, really shocked,” said Charlie Doman, Kathleen nephew. Doman received a copy of the documents after the Post Office found the papers, saw the Savio name, and delivered them to his mom.

    But he adds his life has changed for the worse ever since the State Police found out he had the information. At one point he contends troopers threatened him to get the paperwork back. He says, “The female State Police said at first they were going to kick my door in and search every piece of paper in my house until they find what they were looking for if i didn’t give them right then and there.”

    Doman eventually returned his copy. But you can see why police wanted them…

  199. Please, scroll the page down a little bit to read GREG LONG’S STORY.

    Greg Long, on the other hand, has been locked up for almost nine years. At the Hill Correctional Center, a medium security state prison in Galesburg, Illinois, Long is known as inmate R-1-4-0-0-3.

    He was found guilty of murdering one his best friends on October 25, 2000. But all this time, he stood behind the belief that his trial had been flawed by a major error in the autopsy. That autopsy was performed by Dr. Bryan R. Mitchell.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson_greg_long

  200. rescueapet :
    Cyrhla, dear, you jump from one individual to another. It’s hard to follow your pattern. Who, exactly, are you blaming – everyone?

    Do you mean my last post?

  201. More confirmation that we don’t need to worry too much about the loss of Charlie’s testimony:

    …VAN SUSTEREN: Charlie, did he ever…

    ANNA DOMAN: … it. It makes me crazy.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Charlie, did he ever say anything to you about Kitty — that’s how you know here — Kitty’s death?

    CHARLIE DOMAN: About her death? No.

    ANNA DOMAN: No.

    CHARLIE DOMAN: I seen him one time after — oh, after the funeral, me and my sister ran into him at Ace Hardware and it was nothing much, you know, Hi, how’re you doing, bye, OK, see you later…

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519439,00.html

  202. thinkaboutit2 :
    GAR (aka Givearat) – Drew did give Chrissy his car IIRC too. However, he pretty much just let her use it just like he let her use Stacy’s bed. If Stacy’s name is on the car then Chrissy cannot get clean title on the car and Drew can’t sell it for cash. So it is more a technicality there.
    I think the reason Drew is claiming that Chase has ruined his name in the credit world is that it totally tanks your FICO score when you have a loan like a HELOC shut down. It can hurt by having it closed plus it can hurt your score if you have other outstanding credit or a balance on that line because it makes you look like you are over your limit or have to much outstanding balance compared to available balance. I bet his FICO tanked on that one decision by Chase. But that is what happened to lots and lots of people.

    Thanks TAI. I kinda side with Facs on the answer that much of that paper exposure is well known and Charlie hasn’t got much more than that.His actions and excuses are pretty lame in my opinion.Why bring his problems up in the same breath as the death of Kathleen.His issues don’t even connect.Yes his rantings make me cringe too.

Comments are closed.