Savio inquest juror, Jim Pretto: If we had known…

Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.

There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.

“We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”

We’ve all seen the complete inquest transcript now.  Yes, there was no testimony or evidence presented to the jurors to indicate that foul play might be suspected.  In fact, ISP Officer Herbert Hardy said otherwise.  One panel member (Dennis Pratl) made it personal, and said Drew Peterson was a good guy.   Yet, Jim Pretto wishes they had listened more to Kathleen’s family. The jurors did not hear about Savio asking for a restraining order against Peterson, and they were told by the ISP officer that there were no insurance policies involved. They did not hear about the police being called eighteen times to intervene in their disputes.

Several questions arise about these claims made by Pretto.  Who exactly was responsible for making sure these important issues were presented to the jury panel?  Or, in the alternative, who was responsible for making sure they were not presented to the jury panel?   Oversight or out-of-sight.  Which is it?

At the time of this juror’s interview, Anna Doman said:  “I think we’re closer” to justice. “I just wish it was four years ago.”

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

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>


66 thoughts on “Savio inquest juror, Jim Pretto: If we had known…

  1. facsmiley posted:

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


    I know Lt Mark Turvey and he is for sure the father of David Turvey.

  2. Thanks for the clip, Rescue. Wasn’t she just gorgeous. Terrible, terrible, terrible story, but what a wonderful smile. I send special thoughts and love to her boys tonight.

    He will never get it, and that’s a shame. His children are the biggest victims. The worst thing you can do to a child is kill their mother. He’s a monster mommykiller. That’s worse than any bogeyman there ever was. I’ve gone and scared myself.

    The little guys need their Auntie Cass, and the big boys will one day seek out the Savios; all to murmur their mother’s love to them. It will come. Hold on. The family can sue for violation of human rights if need be, but it will come.

  3. Case ID: 2008CF000098 Offender Name: MICHAEL ROBINSON Date of Birth: Age: Case Status: Open Case Agency: Will Circuit Clerk Race: Gender:
    Upcoming Court Event(s):
    12/02/2009 09:30 AM (CDT) Status hearing

  4. Here’s my whole opinion on this hearsay law as it pertains to this case. Here we have the hearsay on same things from more than one person.In other cases I would say one person saying it then it shouldn’t be allowed.Or at least face a lot more scrutiny.This case has a double possible murderer however here, that had motive to silence at least one of the parties from keeping them from testifying to the others murder. Now I believe this law should only fly when presented especially in a possible double homicide case like this one.My opinion also would say in this specific case, with different multiple people from different backgrounds, isn’t even hearsay because more than one person, who seem to have no vested interest in anything in particular except justice maybe, is saying the same things.

  5. Has anyone listened to this? I tried to last night, but the live broadcast wasn’t working for me.

    Watts pretty much tooted his and Fuhrman’s horns by saying they’re the reasons Peterson is in jail now due to their on-the-spot detective work. They compared their relatively non-existent money output to uncover things that were helpful to the current situation DP is in vs. the ISP and State’s resources investigating DP.

    Watts asked Fuhrman if he thinks either of them, or Baden and/or Greta Van Susteren, will be called as witnesses in the Peterson case, due to the work they did while covering the story. Fuhrman says no, because it’s embarrassing for them that journalists in town with no resources found out more than they did. The coroner is embarrassed. Will county still has the same “bizarre, goofy, country bumpkin” coroner’s office.

    As an aside, it seems Fuhrman thinks of this as clueless law enforcement officials investigating a case at the local, county and state levels. I guess that’s what he means by “country bumpkins.” Didn’t sound like they thought there was any mass conspiracy involved. That’s pretty much what David Murray, the Huffington Post writer, said about the Savio death investigation. (He also wrote Unanswered Cries.)

    Later in the interview, he touches upon Stacy’s disappearance. He says DP is “smart, not a stupid man, mentally disturbed.” He thinks DP is too smart to make obvious mistakes, such as the appearance of his dive weights/belt being missing and using it to dispose of Stacy’s body by weighing her down in water. He thinks that was a diversion — he believes Stacy is buried.

    Fuhrman again said DP came home, told Stacy that he did it, she covered up for him, and all LE had to do was look at phone records. Obviously, a suspect is with the victim at the time the victim is killed. So, they’re going to wrap themselves around alibis. That’s what Drew did.

    Watts asked Fuhrman if they will combine the two cases for trial. (He didn’t really answer yes or no here.)

    He thinks they have a good case regarding Stacy Peterson, regardless of having a body.

    He said here’s the problem if you combine the two. ISP is involved and there’s the same detectives from then and now. You’re talking to one jury by combining the two.

    With Kathleen Savio, you have a body, it’s obvious she was in a fight and no evidence she died in bath tub. No clothes, no towels, face down. “Ludicrous.” Then it’s changed so it’s a homicide. Now Stacy’s missing, but there’s no body. Same detectives — the defense attorney will have a “field day.”

    That’s about the extent of the discussion relating to Peterson.

    (In fact, remember, this is what Peterson himself thought about the investigators: “The tapes allegedly also recorded Peterson insulting the investigating officers, saying, “She was in a dry bathtub. What a bunch of f****** idiots.”)

  6. Here’s a recap of David Murray’s response about the Kathleen Savio investigation:

    When you were writing the Unanswered Cries piece, did you uncover anything or learn anything in particular that gave you a reason to conclude how accident was listed as Kathleen’s cause of death? Cover up, incompetency, complacency? What is your opinion?

    I’d say incompetence due to complacency, and then kind of a queasy cover-up. A longtime Will County watcher I spoke with called the politicians and law enforcement people out there “a bunch of chicken farmers.” Meaning, most of them rose through the ranks many years ago when Will County was basically Joliet surrounded by farm country and some villages—long before it became a Chicago-like bustling population center with a high volume of exotic crimes and other problems. The feeling I got as I grilled various Will County officials about why they didn’t take this Savio story more seriously from beginning to end (and after the end) was kind of a self-pitying: How could we have known this was going to become such a big deal? To be honest, I felt for them—and hoped voters would put them out to pasture on the nearest remaining chicken farm. Or maybe they’ve learned their lessons and are getting up to speed. You guys would know that better than I would.

  7. Here’s a recap of another question/response from David Murray (Unanswered Cries) pertaining to the KS death investigation

    Do you have an opinion how a police official testified before the panel who wasn’t even present at the death scene, and had no firsthand knowledge of the crime scene investigation?

    No. I told Coroner Pat O’Neil that I thought he should have postponed the coroner’s jury until the state police’s lead investigator could appear, and he simply said that wasn’t done. I got the feeling it would be done from now on.

  8. Well since Rescue listened to the Steph Watts interview, I listened to the Levi Page interview with Fuhrman from last night and he said some pretty similar things:

    Drew Peterson case was “pathetically easy” long before Stacy Peterson went missing, Kathleen Savio (supposedly) died of an accidental fall in the bathtub where she drowned. The evidence in just the summary of her autopsy shows that not to be true. The detectives and ISP had a preconceived idea that it was an accident and that’s what they made the evidence fit.

    When he went to Bolingbrook and started nosing around and he saw that autopsy and the layout of the bathroom, he thought “this is a homicide”. Dr. Baden did another autopsy and said it was a homicide. It was a “clown show”.

    The night Kathleen died, Stacy says (via Pastor Schori), that she tried unsuccessfully to reach Drew by cell phone, that she caught him later in the house, dressed in black, putting women’s clothing into the washing machine and that when she asked him where he had been he said, “I’ve been taking care of a problem”.

    Re: The cell phone records. The ISP “layed down on that one. They didn’t do anything”.

    He also blames the media (local papers) for not jumping on the case when Kathleen first died. He says any investigative journalist is entitled to ask questions and follow up.

  9. Fuhrman again said DP came home, told Stacy that he did it, she covered up for him, and all LE had to do was look at phone records. Obviously, a suspect is with the victim at the time the victim is killed. So, they’re going to wrap themselves around alibis. That’s what Drew did.

    Right. This is one point that stood out for me. I am assuming, now that Stacy’s gone and she can’t help reconstruct DP’s alibi, it’s resting on Tom. Brodsky has made a point of saying that there’s nothing to put DP “in the same location” as Kathleen during the time of her death. Well, on the other hand, if his main alibi is no longer available, and he’s relying on a child’s recounting of the hours during which his mother was murdered, I would expect that the jury is going to want to hear something to help clear Drew – that being, a reliable showing of “proof” that he was somewhere other than the same location. Works both ways, as I see it. A presumed dead alibi witness, who later disspelled the alibi, and a “coached” child of the defendant, isn’t exactly a slam dunk reason to believe Peterson wasn’t with Kathleen at the time of her death, IMHO. The jury, I would think, is going to want something to believe in when determining Peterson’s non-guilt, and I don’t think, so far, what’s come out is doing it.

  10. I really do wish someone had mentioned the Krispy Kreme video to Fuhrman. Not that I want to see him put on the spot, but I’d really like to know why he was so sure this was Drew and Tom Morphey.

    The take I get on that episode is that he was shocked to find that neither BBPD nor the ISP had taken a look at the security footage from local coffeeshops and he was just over eager to find something himself.

  11. Brodsky’s comment on SYM (his spelling mistakes, not mine):

    Kathleen’s death was not a staged homicide. I urge everyone to read the original pathologists report and coroners inquest transcript (its online somewhere). According to Cyril Wecht, (google him) who reviewed these for us there is nothing in these reports that show anything but accidential death. What really convinces me is that there was no sign of a stuggle in the house and also, no bruises, scratches, or abbrasions on Drew. Everyone universally described Kathleen as a “hell cat”, and state that she would have fought for her life very hard.

    “No sign of a struggle in the house.” There’s nothing in the reports to show that her death was nothing more than an accident because that’s the way the investigators reported it, not because it was an accident. Merely an interpretation of what was written in the report. There never was legitimate, further competent follow-through, including the inquest.

    You don’t have to be a “hellcat” to fight for your life, so I fail to see how that explains away why her death was an accident as opposed to her being attacked by an assailant and losing the battle. Wonder what he would have expected to see, other than the gash on her head, the numerous bruises, and lungs full of water, to think it really was a murder? A pristine scene could just as well be explained away by saying the killer cleaned up to cover up the killing and make it look like an accident. It seems the killer knew the investigators might be swayed into an easy theory. Maybe the killer worked with enough of them to know how they’d work the scene, heh?

    No bruises or scratches on Drew? Don’t know the facts about that, but a protective vest sure would explain the lack of chest bruises and/or scratches. Long sleeves and face covering would prevent scratches. If LE didn’t secure the scene, why would they look at the ex-husband’s entire body for bruising and/or scratches? Once again, this is an interpretation of the investigators’ written reports, not a determination of the truth.

    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.

    I know I’ll be waiting for this explanation, as I am sure the jury will.

  12. Brodsky on Sym:

    Finally, when the locksmith opened the door and Carerano and the other neighor went inside the arlam was off. Whoever turned it off had the code. Drew did not have the code.

    Bull! Alarm systems, at least one that I am familiar with, have numerous codes that can be entered into the keypad to deactivate the alarm. It’s not a one-code-serves-all kind of thing. The sequence of codes needed start with the #0 and go through #9. For example, maybe someone in the house may have used the #1 sequence, so they might program in 12345ENTER to disarm it. Kathleen’s birthday may have been a deactivation code, for example: 613ENTER. The kids’ birthdays may have been a code entry, and they could very well have told their father that, so screw that theory. I’d ask the kids if they each had a code of their own to enter into the alarm if they needed to disarm it. Not rocket science here.

  13. Of course, Drew may not have done the actual striking/drowning and so would have no bruises or scratches. He may very well have only gone to the scene afterwards to clean up and take the clothing.

  14. Clint Van Zandt – former FBI Criminal Profiler, Hostage Negotiator, and current TV and News Media Crime Analyst
    News Type: Event — Thu May 7, 2009 10:29 PM EDT


    Illinois State Police have worked hard through this recent investigation to save some part of their reputation, noting it was one of their own investigators that did what many believe to be a less than thorough investigation of the death of Savio, allowing an obvious murder to be ruled an accident. Now that agency has led the charge to find missing Stacy and to identify the murderer of Savio, the latter of whose family has placed their $300,000 wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson on hold while the murder indictment runs its course. Although some information suggested that Peterson could have murdered Stacy in their common home and, with the aid of his stepbrother, carried her body from the house in a plastic storage container, placed it in Peterson’s SUV, and made it disappear for the ages. While such stories have never been proven, the stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, says it actually happened. And as far as Peterson, he continues to claim he was the ultimate victim in the loss of his last two wives, this while his second wife alleges that she, like wives #3 and #4, had also been abused by Peterson over the course of their 10-year marriage. The really true victims, in addition to his last two wives that is, are his children and those in the community who once placed their trust in him.

    One question that is raised over and over in this case is how did the authorities miss the fact that Savio was murdered, allowing cause of death (murder) to both reflect on the status of her life, this while allowing her killer to go free. Remember that in the case of Will County, and many other jurisidictions in America, the local coroner is an elected official who many times does not have a medical or forensic background. This person then reports findings to a coroner’s jury that returns a cause of death. In the case of Kathleen Savio, State Police and other investigators reported they had found no evidence of foul play, notwithstanding the many injuries to her body, to include the gash on the back of her head, and, therefore, believed she had accidently drowned. The jury simply blockstamped a bad report and a terrible police investigation, and a killer was allowed to walk the streets for five more years.

  15. Illinois State Police have worked hard through this recent investigation to save some part of their reputation, noting it was one of their own investigators that did what many believe to be a less than thorough investigation of the death of Savio, allowing an obvious murder to be ruled an accident

    Do you think he means Hardy or…?

  16. As far as the initial investigation into Kathleens death, Drew would have kept his finger on the pulse so to speak to make sure which way the investigation was heading.

    Drew was pro-active in a re-active investigation (as investigations are) and by being a Police Officer it enabled him to do this.

    It must have been a piece of cake for him if it wasn’t even questioned he let his friends into the house to find the body whilst he was on duty and in uniform !

    WTF !!

  17. Drew was pro-active in a re-active investigation (as investigations are) and by being a Police Officer it enabled him to do this.

    Being a cop had nothing to do with this man dancing on his ex-wife’s grave by hiring Brodsky to join him in a media blitz to cash in on his new-found fame. He didn’t need to keep his finger on the pulse of anything. They did all the work for him. All he had to keep his finger on was the keypads of his phones to get his next media interview.


    Back in 2004, Savio was dead in her bathtub, and her family knew she had previously and repeatedly complained about abuse by Peterson. They had her medical records, police reports and other documents and wanted to bring these to authorities. They also knew that Savio had been charged twice by Tomczak’s office with battery and domestic battery against the big, tough cop.
    Both Tomczak-approved cases against Savio went to trial, and she was found not guilty in each.
    Yet Savio was nobody and Peterson was a somebody. Tomczak believed Peterson. And he had a heavy boss, Republican big wig Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar, who supported Daley’s favorite prosecutor, Tomczak.
    Claar told us he never used clout to help Peterson and that his Police Department turned over the case to state police. When Savio’s body was found, her family tried to bring evidence to Tomczak.
    “I kept calling the state’s attorney and the police with all that stuff,”her sister, Anna Doman, told Walberg. “At first, they just said, ‘Well, we’re investigating. And if we need it [evidence of abuse], we’ll call you.’ Then after it went to the coroner’s office, they said, ‘Sorry, it’s an accident – case closed.’”
    Tomczak is still feuding with the man who defeated him in 2004, State’s Atty. James Glasgow, a Democrat. A Glasgow spokesman earlier said that state police had presented evidence about Savio to Tomczak’s office, but that Tomczak filed no charges in her death.

    We called Tomczak for comment, about the Savio evidence, Tomczak’s relationships with Peterson and Claar and other matters.
    “Maybe I’ll send my statement over, and if you don’t print the whole thing and say you did print the whole thing, I’ll call a press conference and tell the other reporters what you did not print,” he said.

    Well, three days after his latest threat, still no statement. Too bad.

  19. As to the above, to my knowledge, Mr. Kass never interviewed nor did any journalistic investigations concerning the Savio/Peterson matters. Mr. Kass is very anti-Daley and Chicago politics, so he tends to see the bad in anything or any name that is tied-in to Daley or Chicago.

    On the other hand, David Murray did spend considerable time (as did Joe Hosey) interviewing people involved, and this is what he had to say about Mayor Claar:

    Did you interview anyone within the BB village that gave you the impression Peterson was their dirty little secret, but they were willing to turn a blind eye for unknown reasons? Do you think his superiors, or Village officials, were willing to short circuit a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his ex-wife’s death?

    Mayor Claar had a relationship with Peterson and I’m sure would have rather kept this story inside Bolingbrook and maybe tried to hush it, perhaps sympathetic to Peterson’s characterization of his wife as a “hellcat.” But had he believed Savio was in real danger I don’t think he would have protected Drew. And I never found any evidence that Claar had any influence on the state police investigation of Savio’s death or on the coroner’s jury.

  20. Drew was pro-active in a re-active investigation (as investigations are) and by being a Police Officer it enabled him to do this.

    Being a cop had nothing to do with this man dancing on his ex-wife’s grave by hiring Brodsky to join him in a media blitz to cash in on his new-found fame. He didn’t need to keep his finger on the pulse of anything. They did all the work for him. All he had to keep his finger on was the keypads of his phones to get his next media interview.


    My post was in reference to the INITIAL investigation into Kathleens death and Joel Brodsky was nowhere on the scene then.

    By the time Joel Brodsky came around Drew was retired from the Police Force and Kathleen had been dead for four years.

    There’s no relevance to Joel Brodsky and the initial investigation.

  21. What I find interesting is that Joel expects people to believe Drew just because he says he didn’t have the alarm code.It’s even possible she never even set it in the first place.Drew may have even been invited in and no struggle occurred because she may have been forced at gunpoint for all we know and with one traumatic blow have been killed or rendered unconscious.The no clothes found at the scene leave me to believe she was killed before while she had her clothes on and that’s why Drew had to dispose of them for they probably had blood on them.My theory anyway.Theres just too many other theories that could of happened to debunk Joel’s rantings.

  22. May 8, 2009 – ABC News:

    Peterson’s ‘Lock-Tight Alibi’

    Andrew Abood, an attorney for Peterson, told The Associated Press the indictment was not a surprise because “there was tremendous pressure for the government to do something in this case.”

    He added Peterson had a “lock-tight alibi” because Peterson and Savio’s teenage son said last month in a television interview that he was with his father at the time of his mother’s death.

    “I highly do not believe that my dad had murdered my mom,” Thomas Peterson, 16, told CBS’ “The Early Show.” “Because, first off, he wasn’t there. He was with us during that period of time.”

    No, first off, a “lock tight alibi” is based on the credibility of the person giving it. We now know that Stacy was Peterson’s main alibi, and she was coached by Peterson into giving it. Now, it comes out that he has yet another alibi, his son, who was, what, 11 or 12 at the time.

    What is Tom Peterson prepared to say now that is so lock tight and believable? What makes this any different?

  23. Can I answer that please? Maybe I shouldn’t. This subject is very taboo on here yet I know I can offer an explanation on the psychological aspect of it all. I guess I need some time to be able to express it in the right way. I will say this however. Drew’s using the kids is just sickening in the first place. I guess that is the main reason I’m not commenting on this now. First I have to unleash my anger about it all. That just pisses me to no end I’m sorry.

  24. By the way Rescue that is not directed toward you for bringing it up. The question I come up with then is how did Tom know which day Kathy was murdered to give such an alibi?

  25. As for Drew not having any scratches on him, or bruises how do they know? They treated this as an accidental death. Did they search Drew for scratches and bruises? What was he wearing when they arrived at the scene?

    There is a video it is from March 2004 Stacy was taking home video of her Grandfathers birthday party. Watch the video around 2:07 of the tape Drew walks out from the kitchen into the dining area. Look at his face he doesn’t look happy at all. He looks kind of freaked out to me. Also notice he is dressed very good to cover his body.

    In footage taken a little more than a year later in her Bolingbrook home in March 2004, Stacy and Drew Peterson are playing host to her grandfather’s 80th birthday celebration. Family members say Stacy loved to throw parties for her loved ones.

    Here is the video that shows Drew in there around 2:07 into video

    It is probally one, if not the only video right after Kathleen was found dead in the bath tub.

  26. That’s a good point, Givarat, about how Tom knows which day his mother died, if you keep in mind he was, what, 11 or 12 at the time. The answer to that could be he knows what he has been told to know. And he could very well believe it. He was a young boy at the time, and he’s still young to have to be involved in this mess.

    Why would Tom say his father was “with us during that period of time?” What period of time? His mother died due to a “fall” at some point, from what he was told, and now it’s been ruled a homicide, much too complex for a young person like him to sort out.

    He can say whatever fits now because, according to Hardy during the inquest, the boys were not questioned about the circumstances surrounding their mother’s death, if I am not mistaken. To avoid causing them any trauma.

    I certainly don’t blame DP’s children in any way, because they were and are being manipulated by a creepy, heartless father to help him save his sorry ass. I hope that backfires right in his puss.

    Here’s the clincher and how clueless Peterson’s attorney, Brodsky must be. He stooped so low as to compare the Duggard kidnapping and her reappearance with Stacy’s disappearance and possible reappearance. Trying to show how things can be different that what they seem. That even though we think Stacy is dead, she could be alive, having run away like her husband said she did.

    She was an eleven year old child, who was stolen from her parents by a madman. During the years of her captivity, she adopted a new life to survive in her surroundings.

    When parole officers visited the house where she and her two young daughters lived with her alleged captors, Phillip and Nancy Garrido, Jaycee initially became indignant and explained that she was from Minnesota and had been hiding for five years from an abusive husband.

    She added that Garrido was a changed man and a great person who was good with her kids,” the report continues. “Alyssa subsequently stated that she didn’t want to provide any additional information and that she might need a lawyer.”

    Dr. Carole Lieberman, a forensic psychiatrist at UCLA, suggests that Jaycee “was protecting Garrido out of fear, a distorted sense of loyalty, and a need to feel connected to the father of her children.”,,20318322,00.html

  27. I might add, to “protect” the well-being and welfare of his children, Peterson hooks up with an old bud who purports to be a Ph.D., yet who has no valid license to practice psychology that can be found anywhere in the records of his State’s licensing information. He claims to be a substance abuse “counselor,” but apparently feels qualified enough to get the kids’ heads straight by having their father tell them their mother went on a vacation, without them, without saying good bye. The same “professional” who blogged about Peterson’s case, getting most of the facts wrong, and whose piece was filled with absolute inaccuracies.

    But, he was clever enough to include in all of his blogs that he has a book coming out, including his involvement in the Peterson case, so that when you enter a search term for Drew Peterson, this guy’s puss comes up in the searches at the top, including his involvement with Peterson.

    As though he has something worthy to report about that involvement, so buy the book.

  28. Here’s an excerpt from today’s blog by the “professional,” Budenz. (Gee, Bud, thanks for sharing Peterson’s agony with us.)

    The Rest Of The Story (Bullshit) Updates

    Drew Peterson’s deceased (murdered?) wife Kathleen Savio’s nephew Charlie Doman (34) was arrested in July 2009 for attacking his sister’s boyfriend and later obstruction when he refused to model for photo taking related to the Battery charge. He is facing a year in prison, “Because it is political – the prosecution wants to make sure I testify against Drew. I almost killed people in the past and only got 6 months,” was his additional defense. When looking for the outlaws look at the in-laws. Drew shared with me during a recent visit that being locked up has made him, “Never want to have even a pet that is caged. The presumption of innocence in our Justice system is non-existent. No professional has deemed me a flight risk or dangerous to others.” He remains in Joliet Jail under the weight of $20 million bail and the Hearsay “Drew” Law drafted by his prosecutors.

  29. Nice to know that Budenz is on the list of approved visitors. But I doubt that Drew has much use for a substance abuse counselor in jail.

    I’ve read Dr. Dan’s blogs. All Drew is getting from those visits is a big fat dose of crazy.

  30. LOL, if someone with Budenz’ extreme views showed up at a real psychologist’s office, they might want to take some notes and see if there was anything they could do to get the dude’s head back on straight. No kidding.

  31. He totally misquoted Doman as well. Charlie didn’t state that he was going to be imprisoned to “to make sure I testify against Drew”. He said that they were going to make him serve a year in jail so that the State could not be accused of favoritism.

    Budenz is a nut.

  32. IMO, he’s not doing his BFF any favors opening his mouth. He’ll make a really, really, really, good witness of behalf of Peterson at trial, don’t you think? 😉

    The scheme team is so busy criticizing the State witnesses, they’re oblivious as to their own witness problems, I guess.

  33. As far as Tom providing an alibi for Drew, I don’t believe it’s very meaningful that he knows the approximate time of Kathleen’s death. They’ve had five years to establish that. It’s only since Drew was arrested that it’s been suggested that Tom will say he was with Drew at the time of his mom’s death.

    Remember, initally it was Stacy who provided Drew’s alibi and he’s only needed a new one since October 2007.

    Even so, how strong is the testimony of a boy who was 11 at the time of the murder and who is the son of a man who admits that he “controls” his family? As a juror, I wouldn’t take anything the kids have to say as being very credible. Not because they are liars, but because they are the children of the defendant, a man accused of killing their mothers, and a known controller.

  34. Or, possibly, a “distorted sense of loyalty?” We don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world of Drew Petersons.

    Fear, distorted loyalty, controlling. That world.

  35. Hmmm, the next paragraph in this article mentions a Budenz family (Kim) member’s issue with a bank and holding cell:

    “Attorney Joe Sommers faces a month loss of his law license and $92,000 fine for pulling down the pants and spanking mean spirited prosecutor Paul Humphrey and his prosecutorieal (Criminal?) misconduct. Kim (4 days in a holding cell without visitation for a $200 Credit Union induced error) owes the UW System nothing. They are actually in arrears to her for $1,444. The free use of her Family’s 200-acre Equestrian Facility she manages is permanently off limits as long as good deeds and volunteerism is rewarded with silly accusations, malicious investigation and criminal prosecution. These concerns and predatory banking forms and practices will be reported on later.”

  36. Hardy’s testimony regarding the Peterson boys. No mention of a lock-tight alibi here.

    AUDIENCE MEMBER: Were they interviewed regarding the father’s whereabouts during the course of the evening?

    THE WITNESS: I believe at this time they weren’t. If I remember correctly, we didn’t interview the children, just not to put them through that at that case. His current wife was interviewed, his job was interviewed, all those neighbors around in that area were — were talked to. We have no reason to believe at this time that he did not — he was not where he said he was.

  37. Peterson’s house going to auction block?

    November 11, 2009

    BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist

    Scoopsville: Huh? Sneed hears an attorney for jailed murder suspect Drew Peterson is hoping to rent out/auction off Peterson’s empty Bolingbrook home for broadcast use during his upcoming trial!

    “We are thinking it could be an excellent site for a news broadcast during the trial,” said attorney Walter Maksym, who filed a federal suit against JP Morgan Chase bank recently for suspending Peterson’s access to his $220,000 credit line.

    “It would be a perfect place for someone like Geraldo Rivera. Don’t you think?” Maksym told Sneed.

    Peterson, who is in jail charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, was hoping to use the credit line to post part of his bond, pay his attorneys and hire expert witnesses. The credit line was authorized in 2005 and suspended by the bank in May.

    “If he can’t pay for his own defense, the taxpayers could wind up paying for the enormous cost of the defense,” Maksym said. “I’m not handling his murder case. I’m working with his attorney Joel Brodsky, who is vigorously defending him, and we are looking for any way possible to raise money so Peterson won’t be denied a fair trial. The bank severed his credit line because Peterson is being detained for trial, and we believe it violates federal law.”

    Auctioneer Leslie Hindman tells Sneed she received a call from Maksym on Tuesday wondering if she might auction off “the use of Peterson’s house as a site for broadcast during the trial.”

    Quoth Hindman: “I said, ‘No. I’m not interested in doing such a thing. It would be much too weird.’ ”

    The Peterson home, which once housed his missing fourth wife, Stacy, and four children, has been vacant since Peterson was incarcerated in May.,CST-NWS-SNEED11.article

  38. Just more of the same — the Scheme Team trying to keep the dope’s name in the news, since he’s a meaningless piece of crap now and no one cares whether he rots in his cell or not.

    Drew Peterson Wants to Sell His House to Fox News
    He’s not gunning for a typical buyer
    Updated 7:53 AM CST, Wed, Nov 11, 2009


    With the real estate market in the cellar, some people are coming up with creative ways to sell their homes.

    Take for instance the case of Drew Peterson. Peterson is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio and suspected of killing his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

    Stymied by the market and hobbled by a home equity loan that was pulled by JP Morgan Chase, the alleged killer wants to auction his home to make money for his trial, according to Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed.

    But he’s not gunning for a typical buyer. Drew’s lawyer, Walter Maksym, wants to sell the home to a news organization as a base camp for covering the trial.

    “It would be a perfect place for someone like Geraldo Rivera. Don’t you think?” Maksym told the Sun-Times.

    The lawyer said selling the home to a place like Fox News could spare Illinois taxpayer from subsidizing the Peterson trial.

    “If he can’t pay for his own defense, the taxpayers could wind up paying for the enormous cost of the defense,” Maksym said.

    “I’m not handling his murder case. I’m working with his attorney Joel Brodsky, who is vigorously defending him, and we are looking for any way possible to raise money so Peterson won’t be denied a fair trial. The bank severed his credit line because Peterson is being detained for trial, and we believe it violates federal law.”

    The plan, however, could be a non-starter. Chicago auctioneer Leslie Hindman said she has no interest in facilitating a “weird” auction like that.

    First Published: Nov 11, 2009 7:53 AM CST

  39. Bypassing the obvious and horrendous insult of attempting to profit off the home of a victim, why would anyone want to set up operations in Bolingbrook to cover the trial in Joliet? It’s a half-hour away!

  40. Funny you should say that, Facs. Fox News in the Morning just reported on this, and Jan Jeffcoat said someone will do it, and he’ll make money from it. They also wanted to know “who thinks up these things?”

    Who thinks them up? You have to be demented in the first place to brainstorm an idiot idea like this.

Comments are closed.