Experts say Kathleen Savio investigation botched

Artist's rendition of retired Sgt. Parick Collins, ISP, on the stand

Experts: Police botched 1st Peterson investigation

By MICHAEL TARM and DON BABWIN
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 23, 2010; 1:57 PM

JOLIET, Ill. — From nearly the moment the lead investigator stepped into the suburban Chicago area home where former policeman Drew Peterson’s third wife was found dead in a dry bathtub, he treated her death as a tragic accident.

Illinois State Police Sgt. Patrick Collins collected no forensics evidence from the scene – not fingerprints, unfinished drinks or clothes. Most disturbingly, say experts, Collins let Peterson sit in on what may have been a vital interview.

Six years later, as prosecutors and defense attorneys prepare for Peterson’s trial on charges of murdering Kathleen Savio, one thing has become clear: Police blew the initial investigation, undermining prosecutors’ ability to prove their case.

“The incompetency that comes out is somewhat unbelievable,” said Richard Brzeczek, a former Chicago police superintendent who now works in private criminal defense. “It seems that, pretty fundamentally, what should have been done was not done.”

Among the litany of mistakes: Collins said he never asked anyone whether Savio’s body had been touched or moved, he never tried to account for her body being bent forward, and he never interviewed her relatives. And when he left the house, he didn’t seal it, meaning someone could walk in and take, move or even clean something.

“They could have had the evidence with a proper investigation,” Brzeczek said. “A prosecution’s extremely more difficult now.”

The now-retired Collins testified Thursday and Friday at a pretrial hearing meant to determine what, if any, “hearsay” evidence prosecutors can use during Peterson’s murder trial.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys hit Collins with tough questions, with prosecutors trying to show he could have gathered evidence pointing to Peterson’s involvement in Savio’s death. The defense, which has long claimed Savio’s death was an accident, argued that even if someone had killed her, the investigation was so shoddy it would be impossible to determine who that was.

Peterson has pleaded not guilty in Savio’s 2004 death. Officials exhumed her body and ruled her death a homicide only after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007. He hasn’t been charged in her disappearance, but authorities say he’s the only suspect.

Brzeczek says one of the glaring examples of Collins’ poor judgment was permitting Peterson to attend an interview of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, in which she was asked about her husband’s whereabouts the day Savio died. Peterson and Savio had divorced and Peterson married Stacy Peterson before Savio died.

Collins testified that Peterson not only sat in on the interview, he answered a question put to his wife about what they ate for breakfast that day.

“Collins should have said, ‘I’m sorry there are serious considerations here, we have a death investigation, and at this point there will be no profession courtesies,'” Brzeczek said. “You just cannot do those kind of things.”

There’s quite a bit more to this story.

Read the rest of the story at the Washington Post

~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

111 thoughts on “Experts say Kathleen Savio investigation botched

  1. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys hit Collins with tough questions, with prosecutors trying to show he could have gathered evidence pointing to Peterson’s involvement in Savio’s death. The defense, which has long claimed Savio’s death was an accident, argued that even if someone had killed her, the investigation was so shoddy it would be impossible to determine who that was.

    All of this is true, IMO. The defense is right in the sense that the investigation was shoddy. Proving WHO killed Kathleen is going to be no different than it would have been six years ago, except the main suspect snuck under the radar six years ago. Otherwise, the circumstances of his involvement in her life are the same now as they were then. Short of having him on a video killing her, showing how HE had everything to gain by her death is the same now as it would have been then. It took six years to get to that place. Pfffft on the defense.

    The night Kathleen was found, the scene had been trampled, people had been through the house, her clothes were not there, the area surrounding the tub was not disturbed, no blood stained, dirty floor. Even if they had looked at Peterson suspiciously that night and they did determine her death was a homicide, they would have had to go through the same steps to investigate, charge and try Peterson as they are now. What’s different? The ex-husband walked through the bathroom, moved her body to take her pulse, and he (probably) left his DNA everywhere he could. Smart move, heh? Let half a dozen unsuspecting people find her, run through the house screaming, and touch walls and floors.

    The only difference between then and now is that the investigating detective didn’t bother to look into why he should NOT have been a suspect, whereas, now, every detail of his life prior to and since her death is pretty much known.

    The hearsay. Relatives and friends would have told the cops six years ago, as they have now, that Kathleen feared for her life by her ex-husband. Whether it would have gotten into trial then or it does now, doesn’t necessarily mean he killed her, and I don’t believe a jury would convict him solely on that knowledge. Putting ALL the pieces together, including exposing him as a lying skunk (dragging Kathleen by her hair into the house, as recounted by his son), may be what convicts him.

    Whether it was six years ago or it was now, he did gain financially, he did have access to the house, his alibi is missing, there’s a witness now that claims he was offered money to kill Kathleen, and he looks to be as guilty as anyone can be. The prosecution of Drew Peterson, whether it was six years ago or it’s going to be six months from now, is going to rest on the same set of circumstantial evidence.

    Except, now, unfortunately, they are going to have to show how he killed poor Stacy to silence her, and I think that’s what’s going to be his undoing. Really.

  2. Collins admitted he broke from normal police procedure in allowing Drew Peterson, a fellow police officer, to sit in on the interview with Stacy as she provided his alibi. Collins said Drew Peterson was never a suspect.

    He said Stacy Peterson was very nervous and visibly shaking.

    “Drew was sitting next to her, very close,” Collins said, “guarding her. He was looking at her mouth, listening to the words she was repeating to us.”

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=353261

    Collins also said Peterson asked him to show “some professional courtesy” and allow him to be present for the interview of Stacy, who had an 8-month-old son and was pregnant.

    “He said she was really shaken, very upset, that she had just had a baby, she was very young, and he asked to be present for the interview,” Collins testified.

    During the interview, Stacy, then 20, “was emotional” and “broke down and started crying,” he said.

    http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2007241,012410drew.article

    He said Drew Peterson even spoke up to answer one question to his then-wife about what he and Stacy had eaten for breakfast that day.

    http://www.wwltv.com/news/national/82348632.html

    This is pretty compelling. Why would Stacy have been nervous to the point of shaking and crying if she didn’t think her husband had something to do with Kathleen’s death? (and she was Drew’s ‘airtight’ alibi?)

    Again, this reminds me of the way he hovered over Christina during her interviews.

    “I controlled my family.”

  3. There’s also absolute PROOF that he caused the complete contamination of the crime scene by his blatant scheme to do so. Another “idiot?” Nope, he knew exactly what he was doing by calling in the reserves to muck up the evidence.

    Convict him!!!!!!!!

  4. Why has it been reported, and testified to, that the children of Kathleen and Peterson were not interviewed during the investigation, but the defense is saying that Peterson’s son is going to give him an airtight alibi? Which son? The teens can’t possibly be considered reliable alibis for hours that are crucial from six years ago, when they were young boys, and they WEREN’T EVEN INTERVIEWED.

    Do they mean the adult son, Stephen, is going to give him an alibi now? Because I’m confused by this airtight alibi. What, does he whip ’em out as he goes along?

  5. I think Sgt. Collins statement is only the tip of the iceberg as far as showing Drew meddled, interfered and manipulated the entire investigation.

    It may even be shown Drew actually orchestrated the whole investigation himself as what are the chances of just lucky him getting a first time investigator who might as well not have bothered turning up for all the investigating he did (!!)

    Also the family rang the investigators several times and even if Sgt. Collins didn’t think of interviewing anyone himself, their phone calls didn’t remind him either (!!)

    The family was not accidentally ignored, the family was deliberately ignored.

    It looks like Drew had his finger on the pulse the whole time and from way before the investigation even started.

  6. Since it was Sgt. Collins first investigation who assigned him to this particular case and what were Sgt. Collins 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc investigations like ?

    Were they as dismal as his first or was he a quick learner ?

    Just wondering …….

  7. JAH – I don’t think it was Collin’s first investigation, just that he had never investigated a homicide scene before.

    Savio’s death was the first homicide investigation for Collins, a more than 20-year police veteran who previously had taken part mostly in narcotics and gaming industry crimes. But Chicago attorney Michael Helfand said Collins’ apparent blunders don’t necessarily point to incompetence. They may have more to do with an entrenched police culture in which cops, almost by reflex, trust and protect each other.

    “Within the profession, it takes a lot for a cop to go after another cop,” Helfand said. “I don’t think it’s corruption. I don’t think they would purposely cover a murder up. They just think, ‘That’s just the police way (to watch out for each other)

    But this report calls him a first-year investigator.

    Collins went as far to describe himself as a naive first-year investigator who never considered Drew Peterson as a person of interest, simply because “we had no information he was a suspect at the time.”

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7233396

  8. Why were they laying at the coroners inquest and sent Hardy and Pratl there?
    Collins had worked with drugs as Drew did. Have they asked Collins if he had known Drew before? Sorry for asking the same question over and over again but I would like it to be cleared.

  9. Sgt. Collins was a 20 year Police veteran and this was his first investigation.

    If this was his first investigation in the Homicide Squad that makes it even worse, for him to never even consider it a homicide in the first place.

    He’s let people suggest to him it was an accident as soon as he stepped in the door
    and that was oke with him (!!)

  10. justanotherhen :

    Since it was Sgt. Collins first investigation who assigned him to this particular case and what were Sgt. Collins 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc investigations like ?

    Were they as dismal as his first or was he a quick learner ?

    Just wondering …….

    I think we’ve all got it now – the investigation was botched. The point is, the State had to start from square one and gather the information necessary to charge Drew Peterson with the murder of Kathleen, and they’ve done so.

    Sgt. Collins’ deficiencies may be largely, in part, due to the fact that he was out of his area of expertise. Otherwise, if he did all of this intentionally, as some may conclude, then he’ll have to be charged and tried himself. Personally, I’m not interested in Sgt. Collins. I’m interested inn how the State straightened out the mess and is going to prove Peterson is the only person to suspect of killing Kathleen.

    Movin’ on…..

  11. “He said Drew Peterson even spoke up to answer one question to his then-wife about what he and Stacy had eaten for breakfast that day.”

    This would have been an important question for Stacy to answer correctly, since Drew told investigators that he only left the house to go pick up doughnuts that morning. He couldn’t risk Stacey forgetting that portion and placing him possibly at Kathleen’s home.

  12. Some nice pictures of the partners of Brodsky & Odeh law.

    The caption is “But he just says the case is going to make us famous and we’re all going to get book deals.”

  13. This is from acandyrose.com (thank you, once again!)

    These are exchanges between R. Conn and Attorney Harry Smith, who represented KS, and who was contacted by Stacy prior to her disappearance.

    RC: When’s the last time you talked to Stacy Peterson?

    HS: I’m sorry I don’t remember the date. I can tell you that it would have been the Friday before she disappeared. So she disappeared that weekend and I believe it would’ve been Friday of the week before.

    RC: And what was the substance of that conversation?

    HS: Ah, you know, there’s a pending investigation, and out of respect to her family, and to Drew, and to their children, I’m not going to talk about the substance of that conversation, but, in fairness, without . . . I don’t think it would be a shock to anybody, she did contact me for information regarding a dissolution of their marriage.

    *******

    RC: OK, and now why is it that your story has not been prominently told at this point? I mean here we are months later into this investigation – you seem to be probably be one of the most central figures in this in terms of contact and being able to sew the entire story together, why are we hearing right now from you?

    HS: I suspect some of the information I have are documents and court dates and rulings that would have been available to the media and they can see that through the court file. I suspect that maybe nobody was aware of up to this point that I spoke with Stacy at all, so that might have been part of it. That might be a little nuance that some people have missed. So and I . . .

    RC: Are the authorities aware of that?

    HS: Absolutely.

    RC: Authorities are aware that you spoke to Stacy on that Friday prior?

    HS: Yeah. Yes.

    RC: And that she was seeking information about a divorce?

    HS: Yes. Yes.

    RC: Alright. And they . . . can you give us any insight as to why this investigation has gone as slowly as it has? Clearly, without finding Stacy Peterson in some shape or form, clearly that has, um, um, that’s one answer to this. But beyond that, and maybe now that the Kathleen Savio change in the status of her death, do you see this moving any faster than it has already moved?

    HS: No, but you absolutely just described one of the reasons, and that is that Stacy has not been found so there are no presumptions that can be made by anybody at law. And secondly, um, there’s a lot of time that passed with the Kathleen Savio situation and obviously it would take a lot of time and money to have experts go through this and without being “cement heads” about all this, it’s got to be relevant in all this that Drew has a family he’s still trying to raise and these presumptions are swirling everywhere out there and I think there’s been a lot of factors that have slowed this process.

    RC: Do you think that it’s been a very, very fair attempt to gather facts?

    HS: I think Jim Glasgow is doing everything he can to . . .

    RC: Will County State’s Attorney.

  14. I think the investigation was done, and ultimately the conclusions that were reached were accurate,” said Andrew Abood, one of Peterson’s defense lawyers.

  15. Since it was Sgt. Collins first investigation who assigned him to this particular case and what were Sgt. Collins 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc investigations like ?

    Were they as dismal as his first or was he a quick learner ?

    Just wondering ……

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

    I was trying to illustrate if his subsequent investigations were done properly and according to investigative procedures/protocol than it begs the question even more why this particular one was so out of kilter (!!)

  16. “Savio’s death was the first homicide investigation for Collins, a more than 20-year police veteran who previously had taken part mostly in narcotics and gaming industry crimes.”

    ROFL. Well, this is Illinois after all! Like those Harvey recruits with a “clear criminal record”……

  17. JAH says…I was trying to illustrate if his subsequent investigations were done properly and according to investigative procedures/protocol than it begs the question even more why this particular one was so out of kilter (!!)

    Same could be said about Drew Peterson. If he was involved in well being checks while a police officer, then it stands to reason he was doing so in an official capacity, and certainly wouldn’t tell the family to go in and check things out while he waited outside for their screams. Makes his manipulation of Kathleen’s discovery all the more outrageous.

    Add that to the list of suspicious activity.

  18. bucketoftea :
    “Savio’s death was the first homicide investigation for Collins, a more than 20-year police veteran who previously had taken part mostly in narcotics and gaming industry crimes.”
    ROFL. Well, this is Illinois after all! Like those Harvey recruits with a “clear criminal record”……

    More amazingly, a Police veteran with 20 years experience in mostly Narcotics and Gaming Industry crimes describes himself as “naive” (!!)

  19. I think I found something from the early reports of the blue barrel that is very interesting!

    Since the defense is taking the position that TMorphey is delusional and there was/is no blue barrel, this seems to contradict that, at least according to this news report:

    A neighbor of Drew Peterson told police he saw the husband of missing mom Stacy Peterson and an unidentified man loading a barrel “big enough to put someone in” into the former cops SUV, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

    Sources told the paper that police are searching for the second man after the neighbor described the barrel as blue with a volume of between 35 and 55 gallons, the paper reports.

    Kind of like the saying, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, it looks as though the neighbor was the first to bring up the barrel, and TMorphey came into play AFTER.

  20. From what’s coming out now, it is becoming quite clear why Drew is sitting in prison with a 20 million dollar bond !!

  21. The Early Show – 1/23/2010

    But Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, insisted to “Early Show Saturday Edition” co-anchor Chris Wragge that hearsay evidence “absolutely” shouldn’t be allowed. “Somebody doesn’t wake up yesterday morning and say, ‘Gee, whiz. Let’s exclude hearsay,’ Brodsky remarked. “It’s something that’s developed over hundreds of years of jurisprudence, and the reason is because we’ve learned over those hundreds of years that hearsay is inherently unreliable. And to let it in (as evidence) is just plain wrong. Not only wrong, but unconstitutional.

    What is wrong with Brodsky? He argued and lost a motion before the Judge that is hearing his client’s case. He goes on National TV and calls it wrong and unconstitutional. OMG, the man has lost his mind. He is dissing Judge White outside of the courtroom. He’s NUTS!!!

  22. Brodsky, Peterson’s attorney, told Morphey’s “statements are inconsistent, and that inconsistency is going to make those statements inadmissible. … His description of the barrel changed so many times that I’m not worried about him telling that to a jury.”

    What about the neighbor? Is he worried about his statement, and his descriptions? Oh, never mind, it didn’t happen.

  23. If you read the above quote of Brodsky, it’s obvious he flipped his lid.

    First, he says the inconsistencies are going to make those statements inadmissible.

    Then he says he’s not worried about him telling his barrel description to a jury.

    If they’re inadmissible because they’re inconsistent, how are they even going to make it to trial for the jury to hear? Judge White is going to rule on hearsay evidence, not direct evidence. Morphey’s testimony is not hearsay.

    Confused, Mr. Brodsky?

    Huh?

  24. rescueapet :
    If you read the above quote of Brodsky, it’s obvious he flipped his lid.
    First, he says the inconsistencies are going to make those statements inadmissible.
    Then he says he’s not worried about him telling his barrel description to a jury.
    If they’re inadmissible because they’re inconsistent, how are they even going to make it to trial for the jury to hear? Judge White is going to rule on hearsay evidence, not direct evidence. Morphey’s testimony is not hearsay.
    Confused, Mr. Brodsky?
    Huh?

    LOL, LOL

    Everything to Joel is hearsay, gossip & innuendo, there’s no hard evidence, the Prosecution has no case and the Hearsay Law is unconstitutional !

    That is his repertoire and we should love him for it (!!)

  25. January 23, 2010

    BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist

    Drew’s Law?

    A quick note from a reader concerned with the naming rights of “Drew’s Law,” which would allow hearsay testimony. (In this case, close friends of Drew Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, who claims she told them Peterson had threatened to kill her several times.)

    • Quoth the Sneed reader: “They shouldn’t make that ‘Drew’s Law.’ They should make that ‘Kathleen’s Law.’ Why honor him? To me it’s an honor. He shouldn’t have that honor.”– Lorraine R.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2007588,CST-NWS-SNEED24A.article

  26. facsmiley :Yes, the all-important Krispy Kremes with the carefully retained receipt to prove it. 😉

    docsdaughter :“He said Drew Peterson even spoke up to answer one question to his then-wife about what he and Stacy had eaten for breakfast that day.”
    This would have been an important question for Stacy to answer correctly, since Drew told investigators that he only left the house to go pick up doughnuts that morning. He couldn’t risk Stacey forgetting that portion and placing him possibly at Kathleen’s home.

    😉 Good catch.

    This reference was for Kathleen’s death. When Drew was asked if he left the house he stated he only left to go pick up doughnuts for the kids that morning and “I think” Drew conveniently took the family downtown for the remainder of the day. Correct?

    Seems like Drew likes coffee and doughnut shops.

  27. rescueapet :I think I found something from the early reports of the blue barrel that is very interesting!
    Since the defense is taking the position that TMorphey is delusional and there was/is no blue barrel, this seems to contradict that, at least according to this news report:

    A neighbor of Drew Peterson told police he saw the husband of missing mom Stacy Peterson and an unidentified man loading a barrel “big enough to put someone in” into the former cops SUV, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.
    Sources told the paper that police are searching for the second man after the neighbor described the barrel as blue with a volume of between 35 and 55 gallons, the paper reports.

    Kind of like the saying, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, it looks as though the neighbor was the first to bring up the barrel, and TMorphey came into play AFTER.

    We now know LE was talking to Tom in the hospital and Walter had also related to LE everything that was told to him PRIOR to Tom talking the drugs. Brodsky will have a difficult time claiming Tom’s story changed after his attempted suicide. Brodsky was flapping his jaw in the media in November with great confidence that Drew had everything under control with his loyal group of followers. But the new testimony shows conversations between Tom Morphey and Drew were recorded as late as November 26, 2007. (Add Lenny and Paula to the mix.)

    I hope the neighbor seeing Drew loading the barrel is real, and was not released to the media as a way to protect Tom, while drawing Drew out to make a move as to where he placed Stacy.

    It’s comforting to know while the Dream Team and Drewpy were parading around to the various media outlets, LE was quietly working behind the scenes recording conversations. There’s obviously much more to be heard at the actual trial. The defense will be squirming in their seats.

  28. I caught a portion of 48 Hours last night and featured was a case involving a husband accused of murdering his wife. There was a problem with the dead woman’s cause of death.
    The jury eventually convicted the husband, but in the post trial interviews done by 48 Hours, it was the LETTER FROM THE (DEAD)WOMAN fearing her husband was going to try to kill her that convinced the jury he did it.

    This is the second case they’ve aired in the past two weeks where letters from the dead women were allowed as evidence in the case. (Long before the new Illinois hearsay law was passed) I think Kathleen’s letters will be powerful testimony against Drew Peterson. Who has read her letters and pleas for help and not been moved and felt great sorrow for this poor woman’s circumstances? (GUILTY AS CHARGED)

  29. We all know he’s got receipts and what-not for his weekend adventures. Big deal. He’s a lying skunk anyway, so let him explain where he was from the time he picked up his kids until the time he sent in the reserves to discover his dead ex-wife. Every hour! Because, he’s going to have to account for it all now. He’s not going to be given a get-out-of-jail-free pass this time. Ain’t gonna happen. His whereabouts, his allowing the death scene to be compromised prior to law enforcement arriving at his ex-wife’s home, his lying about his relationship with her, his lying about his financial gain, his cleaning out her house after her funeral, his phony will documents and fraudulent affidavits, his missing alibi, and his lack of complete accountability during the entire weekend, is all going to come out. What comes out of his lawyers’ mouthes is just words. Even if Kathleen’s remarks about her fear of Drew killing her don’t get allowed into his trial, the circumstances of everything here is enough to give an intelligent-thinking person a substantial reason to doubt his truthfulness.

    All he has to do is show he was seen and accounted for at all relevant times, at all hours of the days of that weekend, give a better explanation as to why an experienced, 30+ year sergeant would not secure a death scene until it could be determined if someone got in the house and killed the mother of his children. If the defense thinks that Sgt. Collins did a decent job of investigating the death scene, how do they leap to the defense of Drew in how he handled a simple well-being check, when all the experienced law man had to do was dial 911? Not a locksmith, and two neighbors. Just 911. Does the defense get to pick and choose which law enforcement guys did good when it helps their case? Drew’s reactions to the situation sucked. So did Collins’. Drew KNEW it was against protocol to sit in on an official investigation interview. If Collins didn’t know any better, surely, the seasoned, experienced sarg should have known, but, instead, he initiated the request to do so. Nice that he was able to hear his wife’s answers to questions asked of her while in his presence. Damn good work on Drew’s part.

    Explain in detail where the will he found had been “tucked away” and how he was able to find it, when, in reality, his ex-wife hated his guts and didn’t want him to gain a penny of her money. She told her divorce lawyer she did NOT have a will, and she was in a contentious property settlement to keep whatever she could AWAY from him.

    How does he explain telling the lead investigator that he had an amiable relationship with his dead ex-wife when he knew, and surely knows now, that that was an out-and-out lie that could have been, and now has been, shown to be false? He KNEW he was in the midst of a battle for marital property assets. Yet, he blatantly lied to investigators.

  30. When Kathleen died, her divorce lawyer, Drew’s divorce lawyer (Beck) and Drew himself, thought that the divorce settlement ended, and the litigation along with it. In fact, Drew thought the fight was over, and the property was his to gain. Nope. It turns out, the Judge advised them, and case law showed, that it was still an “active divorce case with only one client remaining.” There was no will. Imagine Drew finding out that getting the whole enchilada wasn’t going to happen (we don’t have to imagine; we know what he did). So Kathleen’s family took steps to ensure that the children’s interests would be safe-guarded. Her property would pass to her heirs. Drew was her ex-husband. He didn’t mean jack-squat. He was nothing to Kathleen anymore.

    Along comes Drew with the famous will that he found tucked away. The witnesses said they signed it, the uncle named in it as executor discharged the other lawyers working on behalf of Kathleen’s family and her surviving children, and the money went to–you guessed it, Drew. This is not hearsay, this is fact.

  31. Collins knew better. I find his testimony difficult to believe. How could he have not known to call Kathleen’s relatives? The Blue Wall at work. IMO

  32. This is not hearsay, this is fact. This is official court record. This is not some attorney spewing what he thinks sounds good. This will be a part of Drew’s trial. 🙂

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1421594,Drew-Peterson-Savio-estate_jo020909.stng

    Excerpts

    The appellate court shot down Drew Peterson’s bid to keep his uncle in control of his slain third wife’s finances.

    Peterson’s legal team appealed a Will County judge’s decision to remove Peterson’s uncle, James Carroll, as the executor of his third wife’s will and to reopen her estate.

    Peterson and Savio were in the midst of a contentious divorce when she turned up drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004.

    In fact, Savio and Peterson were halfway through a highly unusual divorce proceeding in which the marriage was severed but the financial affairs had yet to be settled.

    The appellate justices questioned this in their written opinion, saying, “Even from an objective standpoint, we can think of no just or fair reason why Carroll, as executor of the estate, would relinquish all of Savio’s interest in the marital property to Peterson individually.”

    Bettcha we can figure out why he did this, no?

  33. The prosecution has numerous cases that have been tried in the US where letters from the dead wives were allowed as evidence in the court. If Brodsky has done any research, then he’s totally aware of these cases. Hearsay or no hearsay, JB knows the letters which were officially mailed asking for help from Kathleen will make it to court as evidence. I think his latest campaign to discredit her words is his lame attempt to sway public opinion. Too late, Joel.

  34. Heh. He can sway public opinion all he wants right now. He’s gonna have to shake it for the Judge regarding the hearsay testimony, which is the only thing that will be determined during these proceeds.

    I don’t know why he’s not saving his sound bites for the actual trial.

    As to his crash and burn technique regarding, say, TMorphey, I’d like to know why we should care or believe anything Brodsky dishes out about him. Brodsky participated in a stunt where he tried to get ten year old photographs disseminated in the media as though they were recent pictures proving drug abuse (which is a leap without his narrative, because they don’t show jack squat). Pictures that were sold to Drew by an ex gf of his, admitted to by Carcerano. Maybe TMorphey will bring that up in his testimony for the jury to hear, heh?

  35. Rescue- I don’t think I am speculating anymore than anyone else on this board. Collins, like everyone else in public positions still has to follow a certain line of protocol. Who signed off on his work? Drew, himself knew he would be a suspect and from the small amount we’ve heard, was able to influence the investigation from the beginning. Drew asked his colleagues for special consideration and it was given.

  36. Docsdaughter – then we’ll let it stand. I will delete my post. You are “accusing” Sgt. Collins of participating in covering up for Drew in the death of Kathleen.

    Your theory, not ours, okay?

  37. Rescue- we almost need a new special timeline , with the Brodsy-Peterson media parade on one side and the now known “behind the scene” LE work on the other. Drew’s contact with Tom in November is very incriminating evidence. How is Brodsy going to spin that portion of the evidence?

  38. rescueapet :Docsdaughter – then we’ll let it stand. I will delete my post. You are “accusing” Sgt. Collins of participating in covering up for Drew in the death of Kathleen.
    Your theory, not ours, okay?

    Rescue- remove it if it causes a problem. Do you call it “unintentional” change in protocol? (I’ll try to more careful regarding word choice.) A good suggestion to wait on further testimony from Collins and those above him who would have signed off on the investigative work. Peterson has made messes of a lot of lives with his antics. (This is also my opinion)

  39. I keep thinking I remember an interview with Drew in which he said that he hadn’t spoken to Tom Morphey since that hospital visit. I can’t find it though. Does anyone else remember it? If he did say that, it certainly conflicts with a phone record from the end of November 2007.

  40. facsmiley :I keep thinking I remember an interview with Drew in which he said that he hadn’t spoken to Tom Morphey since that hospital visit. I can’t find it though. Does anyone else remember it? If he did say that it certainly conflicts with a phone record from the end of November 2007.

    Facs- I think you’re right. We’ll have to look at those November dates. Ironic if it was Drew thinking he was the reason Tom was not making himself available to the media.

  41. “Drew Peterson received the letter Wednesday, and didn’t open it until Thursday, the attorney said. Peterson, who has been named a suspect by authorities investigating his 23-year-old wife’s disappearance, immediately called the Illinois State Police and his attorneys to notify them, Brodsky said.

    Brodsky released a written statement on Thursday describing the letter Drew Peterson said he received. It carried a Peoria, Ill., postmark and was dated Nov. 19. It detailed an encounter the writer had with Stacy Peterson on Nov. 12 at a Kroger grocery store, the attorney said in the statement. [to continue click on MSNBC above]”

    By November 19th 2007, the defense started releasing Stacy siting reports to the media. (Drew still in contact with Tom.)

  42. It was said, the house had been tapped with bugs by Drew. Maybe State Attornney retrieved the records and the conversation with Tom was on them. Just a thought.

  43. Came across this … Drew’s own words:

    Peterson appeared on WIND-AM (560) Sunday with WIND personality Geoff Pinkus and newswoman Amy Jacobson, saying he and Morphey visited a storage facility the day before Stacy disappeared because he needed a place to store tires that were cluttering his garage.

    He said he was just looking and didn’t rent the storage space.

  44. Rescue- I totally forgot about that. What was the date of that interview?

    We know:
    -November 19th Brodsky releases the Stacy siting to the media.
    – Nov. 26th Tom spoke to Drew on the phone and the call was tapped. Drew tells him to avoid media.
    – November 28th, Fox News, releases Tom Morphey’s name and the blue barrel connection on Geta’s Show. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313424,00.html) Mark Fuhrman states no one is around at Tom’s residence.

    – date? Peterson admits visit to storage shed

  45. Joel Brodsky posted this on Legal Pub. By the way, if someone is in rehab, how do they get access to drugs (Brodsky said Morphey’s in rehab and still isn’t cleaned up after five months). If the pictures are “IMPORTANT on the issue of Morphy’s credibility,” but we know that they were bought, paid for and are ten years old, just who’s the nincompoop who is not credible here?

    Brodsky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! News flash — your client lied to you.

    As to the blue barrel and Dan Abrams, this is a good example. Actually Dan Abrams people had a copy of the pictures via e-mail a week before we went on. Then they took grapic scans while we were in the studio so they could put the pictures on the screen. (The pictures are recent pictures of Tom Morphey smoking a crack pipe and stoned out of his mind) We wanted to put these out to counter a recent news article that portrayed Morphy as clean and sober since the mid-90’s. (in fact he was fired from his last job in September of 07 because he kept showing up for work drunk). Abrams people agreed to show the pictures on the condition that Drew also come on the show. We agreed because the pictures are important on the issue of Morphy’s credibility. (By the way he is not in protective custody, he is in rehab because the State is trying to clean him up, but its not working. He still is not clean enough to go before the grand jury after 5 months of rehab, thats how messed up he is. Not a credible witness I say.) When I realized that Abrams was not going to show the pictures, as his producer had agreed, then I decided to try to show them to the camera, but Abrams cut away and just described the pictures verbally, which did not do them justice. (So what appears like me trying to sneak a picture on tv is not what occurred. The bottom line is that there is no evidence (receipts, credit card records, forensic traces, etc.) what so ever that a blue barrel / container ever existed. Morphy was so horribly messed up on drugs and alcohol at that time you cannot rely on anything he as to say.

  46. ROTFLMAO. Drew is getting the defense he deserves. Shambles, unorganized, off-the-mark.

    But Reem is stunning and beautiful. (Hey, the press release wasn’t my idea.)

  47. Just curious – does anyone think this will be brought up to the jury?

    Morphey also accused Peterson and his friend, Steve Carcerano, of paying one of Morphey’s former girlfriends $500 for photographs depicting Morphey in a less than favorable light.

    Brodsky, without success, attempted to distribute the photographs, one of which allegedly showed Morphey smoking marijuana. The woman, Holly Steele, confirmed in September that she sold the photographs to Peterson and Carcerano.

    Carcerano said he remembers accompanying Peterson to purchase photographs of Morphey but did not know the name of the woman they obtained them from. He also disputed the $500 price tag for the pictures but did not give a figure for them.

    Morphey described the picture ploy as “the stunt that they tried to pull in the beginning, buying 10-year-old pictures and trying to make them seem recent.”

  48. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317634,00.html

    So interesting to re-read those 2007 interviews.

    “GIBSON: All right. But Joel, even if it’s a leak, these records evidently show that Drew was in a certain area where he says he wasn’t. That’s where his cell phone apparently pinged, and that’s why they conducted that search which has now being called off of that canal. Can explain where Drew was if his phone is pinging in an area where he says he wasn’t?

    BRODSKY: Well, like I say, I’m not going to get into time lines about where Drew said he was. He gave that to the state police, but anybody that’s ever had a problem with their cell phone bill knows that the cell phone records are not 100 percent reliable. They have millions upon millions of bits of data coming in almost an hourly basis and you know, while they are somewhat indicative of what can happen, they are not 100 percent reliable as we’ve just found out when the state police realized there are nothing there.

    NAUERT: Joel, you are his attorney, why can’t you tell us what his alibi is?

    BRODSKY: Well, because as any good lawyer will tell you, once you give a statement once and give it to the authorities — that’s where it ends. And we’re not going to go into the detail about that. Now, if the Illinois State Police wish to release the copy of Drew’s statement, that’s fine, but we’re not going to give another statement or another explanation about the timeline on that night. Remember, they said he’s a suspect. He’s the target of their investigation, so we have to be cautious.

    GIBSON: Joel Brodsky, Drew Peterson’s attorney. Big exclusive interview here in the Big Story. Joel, thanks a lot. We’ll talk to you again.

    BRODSKY: My pleasure.”

  49. cyrhla :Docdaughter, why do you think the conversation of Drew and Tom was tapped on Nov.26?

    I thought it was stated in Tom’s testimony. I’ll look again.

  50. docsdaughter :

    cyrhla :Docdaughter, why do you think the conversation of Drew and Tom was tapped on Nov.26?

    I thought it was stated in Tom’s testimony. I’ll look again.

    OK. I must have missed it.
    Thanks.

  51. “‘He’s a very ill man’
    During the hearing, Glasgow played a telephone conversation between Peterson and Morphey that was taped by the state police. On the tape, Peterson orders Morphey not to talk to the press or the police, and warns him about discussing things on the phone.
    One of Peterson’s attorneys, George Lenard, raised the issue of Morphey’s drug and alcohol problems, pointed out that he suffers from bipolar disorder and claimed Peterson just wanted to rent the storage locker so he could hide things in it before Stacy filed for divorce.

    Another of Peterson’s attorneys, Joel Brodsky, attacked Morphey’s credibility during a break in the hearing.

    “He’s a very ill man,” Brodsky said. “He didn’t know which way was up.”

    Joe Hosey’s article.
    Still looking for the quote with the date. Too many articles!

  52. Oh, boy, look at this. They’re incredible, these attorneys.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/21/ijvm.01.html

    ANDREW ABOOD, DREW PETERSON`S ATTORNEY: You know, I think that there`s significant credibility problems with Mr. Morphey and I`m not here to put him down because he`s related to my client. But unfortunately he has a pretty long history of dependence on drugs and I think ultimately that will play out in court if it ever gets there.

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but he sounds pretty lucid in these interviews, Lisa Bloom.

    LISA BLOOM, ANCHOR, “IN SESSION”: Yes, I mean…

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: There`s a lot of people who have a history of drug and alcohol problems. I`m a recovering alcoholic with 14 years of sobriety; it that doesn`t mean that I`m not going to make sense as a witness.

    BLOOM: And that`s right. And Jane if you`re on the witness stand I`m going on with your testimony girl. And look, Thomas Morphey has been clean and sober…

    VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I`m not bipolar and he`s supposedly bipolar.

    ABOOD: Tom Morphey is no Jane Velez-Mitchell girls.

    BLOOM: Well, let me tell you something, my understanding is he`s been clean and sober for a number of years living a stable life and by the way, bipolar is not delusional.

    ABOOD: Not at the time of this — not at the time of this — what he`s claiming.

    BLOOM: Well, bipolar is not — there are millions of people who live with bipolar mental illness in this country. My father was one of them. He was not delusional and he did not lie.

    ABOOD: I never said he was bipolar…

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, George Lenard, raised the issue of Morphey’s drug and alcohol problems, pointed out that he suffers from bipolar disorder

  53. Finally! LOL Drew is still talking to Tom on November 26, 2007, but LE is listening and recording.

    When Peterson dropped him off later, he told Morphey, “This never happened.”

    Prosecutors also played a recording of a conversation between Morphey and Peterson on Nov. 26, 2007, about a month after Stacy was reported missing.

    Peterson advises Morphey to tell police he wants a lawyer if they want to question him about Stacy. “Just relax,” he tells Morphey, according to the recording
    At one point, Peterson tells Morphey, “Tom, Tom, Tom, don’t talk on the phone.” At another point he says, “I don’t want them turning our lives into a bigger circus than it already is.”

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/peterson-hearsay-hearing-resumes-today.html

  54. I have not read the breaking news. I missed this info and have been wondering for some time when it was recorded ;).

    Now it is clear to me, why they kept it in secret and the media (Fuhrman) started openly talking about Tom on 27 Nov.! The police already had what they wanted to!

    Thanks a lot, Doc :).

  55. VAN SUSTEREN: … Do you think he’s going to be charged? I mean, it’s — I know — I know — there may be no evidence or whatever, but do you think he’s going to get charged?

    BRODSKY: No, I don’t. And because that’s because Jim Glasgow, Mr. Glasgow, the state’s attorney in Will County, is a good lawyer. He’s a fine prosecutor. And he is not going to walk into a courtroom on a murder — on whatever type of charge he may choose to bring when he doesn’t have evidence to support it.

  56. Rescue- I’m reading the same transcript again! It’s loaded. Joel would have known on November 29, 2007 that Tom Morphey was questioned and talking to LE. JB tells Greta he has called a meeting of other attorneys to figure out what they are goingto do. Joel is also not happy that Glasgow is not returning his calls or letters. Joel, why would they? I would let you go on blabbing to the media, as well, if I was sitting there with the information they already had on your client.

    “VAN SUSTEREN: Joe, when you handle a case like this and — although no two cases are alike, I agree, and this is an unusual one — you have conversations with the prosecutor. Have you had conversations with the prosecutor, and are you worried your client is going to get charged?

    BRODSKY: Well, that’s a two-part question. First of all, I’ve called the prosecutor on several occasions to discuss certain issues with him. I’ve even gone so far as to write him a letter about those issues, and I have not received a return phone call or a returned correspondence, which is highly…

    VAN SUSTEREN: Nothing? Nothing?

    BRODSKY: Nothing.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Absolutely nothing, absolutely zero?

    BRODSKY: Zip. And that’s highly unusual. I mean, I’m dealing with different types of criminal cases all day, every day, and it’s — calling up the phone and discussing issues with the prosecutors is something we do on a daily basis. And for me not to even receive a return phone call is highly unusual.

    As far as my belief as to whether or not my client is going to be charged, as I sit here today, I still do not see one piece of admissible evidence against my client. There’s not one thing that…

    VAN SUSTEREN: That’s a different…

    BRODSKY: … they could bring into a court of law…

    VAN SUSTEREN: … question, though. That’s a different question. Do you think he’s going to be charged? I mean, it’s — I know — I know — there may be no evidence or whatever, but do you think he’s going to get charged?

    BRODSKY: No, I don’t. And because that’s because Jim Glasgow, Mr. Glasgow, the state’s attorney in Will County, is a good lawyer. He’s a fine prosecutor. And he is not going to walk into a courtroom on a murder — on whatever type of charge he may choose to bring when he doesn’t have evidence to support it.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314129,00.html

  57. Speaking of receipts and phone calls –

    From Drews timeline:

    # 6 p.m. – Drew takes the three other children to McDonald’s.
    # 7: 30 p.m. – Drew and the children return home.

    I always wondered if a call was made from Drews phone to call Stacy before 6 pm to find out if she was coming home for dinner or joining the family at McDonalds, considering she had already “left” before Drew woke up at 11 am that morning and he has never mentioned anything about discussing what time she would be back, so one can assume a phone call was made by him to check as any normal father/husband would have done (?)

  58. JAH – the way he acknowledged not calling Stacy all day was that he was giving her space. I know it sounds absurd, but that was his explanation for not calling her to find out where she was, when, according to Sharon, she couldn’t even get her hair done at a salon without 10 phone calls.

  59. We hear Dr. Phil has been subpoenaed to testify at the hearsay hearings. Wonder if Greta Van Susteren and Mark Fuhrman will as well. Although, those two didn’t have a lot of face time with him like Dr. Phil did.

    i wonder if it’s about the “looking for Stacy’s car near the canal” statement…

  60. rescueapet :
    ROTFLMAO. Drew is getting the defense he deserves. Shambles, unorganized, off-the-mark.
    But Reem is stunning and beautiful. (Hey, the press release wasn’t my idea.)

    Somehow, the defense team really does seem to be Drew’s cup of tea – a pretty woman (Reem) and a loud mouth, know-it-all (Brodsky) who’s constant talking is going to sink Drew’s defense. I find it ironic that Drew couldn’t keep his mouth shut and retained an attorney just like himself. Drew deserves what he gets, and then some.

  61. January 24, 2010 at 12:34 pm | #58
    Quote

    ROTFLMAO. Drew is getting the defense he deserves. Shambles, unorganized, off-the-mark.

    But Reem is stunning and beautiful. (Hey, the press release wasn’t my idea.)

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

    Well Reem is beautiful and apparently the smarter lawyer in the Brodsky/Odeh partnership (!!)

  62. Reminder of a couple of interesting comments from the Dr. Phil show in November 08.

    #1.

    PHIL: In that you did have a pattern of calling each other all the time, why did you not call her the day she disappeared?

    DREW: I did but she, there was…she wanted her space. She wanted her space so that day I gave her her space.

    PHIL: Because there are those obviously who say you called her, you didn’t call her because you knew she couldn’t answer, but you’re saying you didn’t call her because you were giving her space.

    DREW: Correct.

    #2

    Phil: Well the phone records show that you were near the Chicago sanitary and ship canal the day she went missing. Were you there?

    Drew: Yes, I was driving through that area.

    Phil: What were you doing here?

    Drew: I was looking for her at a couple spots I thought she might be and I was looking for my car that she was driving.

    BUT…

    Wikipedia:

    …Drew Peterson claims that Stacy called him at 9 p.m. on Sunday to tell him that she had left him for another man and that she had left her car at Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport.

    Polygraph Reply:

    “To the question ‘Did your wife Stacy call you on Sunday, October 28th, 2007, and tell you that if you wanted the car it was parked at the Clow Airport?’ you answered Yes.”

    Greta Van Susteren show:

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, what Cassandra has told us, What Stacy’s sister, had told us is that about 11:00 o’clock on the night of October 28, that she made a phone call to Drew Peterson, her brother-in- law. Is that the pinged phone call, at least as far as we can figure out from the leaks — I mean, we haven’t confirmed that ourselves yet at FOX News, but is that the pinged call that sends them to the canal?

    ELMAN: Yes. She — Cassandra is saying that she was at — she was outside of Stacy and Drew Peterson’s home when she called Drew Peterson, frantic about Stacy, and that that was when — that is the ping that they’re using from his cell phone to — because he was saying he was home, and she knows he wasn’t there because she was outside his house.

  63. rescueapet :
    Just curious – does anyone think this will be brought up to the jury?

    Morphey also accused Peterson and his friend, Steve Carcerano, of paying one of Morphey’s former girlfriends $500 for photographs depicting Morphey in a less than favorable light.
    Brodsky, without success, attempted to distribute the photographs, one of which allegedly showed Morphey smoking marijuana. The woman, Holly Steele, confirmed in September that she sold the photographs to Peterson and Carcerano.
    Carcerano said he remembers accompanying Peterson to purchase photographs of Morphey but did not know the name of the woman they obtained them from. He also disputed the $500 price tag for the pictures but did not give a figure for them.
    Morphey described the picture ploy as “the stunt that they tried to pull in the beginning, buying 10-year-old pictures and trying to make them seem recent.”

    I’ve always wondered how Steve Carcerano fit into all this. He was Drew’s biggest defender and has dropped off the radar. I hope the jury hears about the attempt to buy those pictures – it really shows Drew’s desperation to not have Tom Morphey be belived.

  64. justanotherhen :
    January 24, 2010 at 12:34 pm | #58
    Quote
    ROTFLMAO. Drew is getting the defense he deserves. Shambles, unorganized, off-the-mark.
    But Reem is stunning and beautiful. (Hey, the press release wasn’t my idea.)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well Reem is beautiful and apparently the smarter lawyer in the Brodsky/Odeh partnership (!!)

    And that’s saying something – LOL !!

  65. I’m just wondering what he might testify to. We heard the phone call gaffes on the show, but who knows what else could be on tape, or that Phil recalls from his conversations with Drew. I doubt they want his professional opinion — he isn’t even an actual doctor, right?

  66. I don’t think anything about those Morphey “using” photos will be brought up in court, especially if they are old. If Joel tries to use them to discredit the witness, he had better be prepared to prove when they were taken.

  67. Drew: I was looking for her at a couple spots I thought she might be and I was looking for my car that she was driving.
    —-
    …Drew Peterson claims that Stacy called him at 9 p.m. on Sunday to tell him that she had left him for another man and that she had left her car at Bolingbrook’s Clow International Airport.
    ========

    Has he ever decided “his” or “hers”?

  68. I don’t think Brodsky knew what he was talking about the other day when he said that this pretrial is going to give them a look at the State’s case, but they’re not going to show their hand to give the State a look into their case.

    Are you kidding me? The State has had two years of these guys talking, blabbing, yapping, denying, offering alternatives, and discrediting the witnesses. What’s there to show now? If they had it, he wouldn’t be cooling his jets in confinement, breaking out in a rash, and packing on the pounds.

    Give me a break.

  69. I don’t understand that Brodsky statement either as wouldn’t they know from each others discovery what they have and prepare their cases accordingly ?

    And what major Secret Defense tactic does Joel have left up his sleeve ?

    Could he have possibly found out someone had a drinking, drug problem, bankruptie or traffic violation somewhere in the past ??

  70. “Dr. Phil turns to Court TV correspondent Lisa Bloom. Lisa has been following this case closely and believes that Drew fits the profile of a killer. Dr. Phil asks why.

    “Well, first of all,” Lisa begins, “his story is preposterous, that she ran off with another man. She didn’t take her car. She didn’t come back and talk to her kids. She’s never called her family. She hasn’t used a credit card. She hasn’t used a cell phone. I mean that’s just insulting to all of our intelligence.” She continues, “The second thing is his demeanor and his attitude. He’s almost dancing on her grave, Dr. Phil. He’s doing a little jig in the driveway in front of the reporters. He’s making jokes about posing for Playgirl. Something’s wrong with this guy.”

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

    Lisa Bloom & Dr. Phil. Lisa spoke her mind in the early days.

  71. PHIL: Because there are those obviously who say you called her, you didn’t call her because you knew she couldn’t answer, but you’re saying you didn’t call her because you were giving her space.

    DREW: Correct.

    Bychowski said Drew Peterson told her he last spoke with Stacy that Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007, when she returned his call to say she had left him for another man and took $25,000, some new clothes, as well as the titles to their house and a car.

    Didn’t DP say he could not give Chrissy the car because the title was in Stacy’s name?
    If they had that home equity loan, wouldn’t the bank have the “title”?

  72. Dr. Phil was in Drew’s home for a tour of what investigators were looking at in the bedroom. Dr. Phil also interviewed the children. I think he’s done three shows so far and has never been very positive about Drew Peterson in his uncensored portions of the program.

    “Defies logic”
    Good closing remarks.

  73. I can see the Prosecution is preparing for a big slam dunk, whilst Joel Brodsky is busying himself with someones bad driving record (!!)

  74. womenscornedposton4m :

    PHIL: Because there are those obviously who say you called her, you didn’t call her because you knew she couldn’t answer, but you’re saying you didn’t call her because you were giving her space.
    DREW: Correct.

    Bychowski said Drew Peterson told her he last spoke with Stacy that Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007, when she returned his call to say she had left him for another man and took $25,000, some new clothes, as well as the titles to their house and a car.

    Didn’t DP say he could not give Chrissy the car because the title was in Stacy’s name?If they had that home equity loan, wouldn’t the bank have the “title”?

    Good catch. I didn’t remember that comment. I wonder if Stacy did have those documents pulled for the attorney she was going to see. And are they still “missing.”

  75. Didn’t DP say he could not give Chrissy the car because the title was in Stacy’s name?
    If they had that home equity loan, wouldn’t the bank have the “title”?

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

    Poor Chrissy,

    She waited so long, got so close and still ended up the bridesmaid and never the bride (!!)

  76. BTW – One wonders what Judge White was thinking when he heard Sgt.Collins testimony.

    I bet he nearly fell off his chair (!!)

  77. I hate to give too much credit to Drew, but is it possible he wanted Sharon to know the title to the house was missing, so she would possibly repeat the information? Sharon’s recollection of the day could then give support to DP’s $200,000 plus withdrawl of funds from the account. Unfortunately, instead of DP’s “play the victim” plan, he looked even more guilty of Stacy’s disappearance.

    Just a thought.

  78. Was there ever an exact date given for the tranfer of the $250,000 to Stephen’s account? I know it came out int he media early December. but I thought the actual transfers were much earlier. Just curious where it fits in the newer timelines.

  79. Facs- Thanks for the info. Joe Hosey has followed this case closely since the beginning. He makes a good source for Fox.

  80. Facs-
    The Geraldo Fox news brief has him reporting live from Haiti with Sean Penn. Just wondering where Joe Hosey will fit in.

  81. Blech – there were a lot of opinions being spouted as fact in that segment. Not good coverage at all. Too much makeup and shrieking. I want my three minutes back.

  82. I think it’s safe to say that Kimberly G. does not like Drew Peterson. LOL

    I agree, it was a lot of opinion. Joe Hosey at least had the opportunity to voice the botched investigation information on national TV.

    47 more witnesses to go. Will they finish in 2 weeks?

  83. docsdaughter :

    womenscornedposton4m :

    PHIL: Because there are those obviously who say you called her, you didn’t call her because you knew she couldn’t answer, but you’re saying you didn’t call her because you were giving her space.
    DREW: Correct.

    Bychowski said Drew Peterson told her he last spoke with Stacy that Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007, when she returned his call to say she had left him for another man and took $25,000, some new clothes, as well as the titles to their house and a car.

    Didn’t DP say he could not give Chrissy the car because the title was in Stacy’s name?If they had that home equity loan, wouldn’t the bank have the “title”?

    Good catch. I didn’t remember that comment. I wonder if Stacy did have those documents pulled for the attorney she was going to see. And are they still “missing.”

    This turned out to be a lot of BS also what he told Sharon.Even Brodsky denies that 25,00 dollars was ever missing in an interview.He did say however a couple thousand was.I can’t remember which interview that was.There’s been so many I lost track of that one.Possibly Larry King. Drew wasn’t with him I remember that much.

Comments are closed.