Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 16

Ex-Ill. cop’s hearing feels like real murder trial

By DON BABWIN (AP)

JOLIET, Ill. — Family members, investigators, clergy and even a psychic have spent weeks testifying in a northern Illinois courtroom — and Drew Peterson’s murder trial hasn’t even started.

Initially billed as a preliminary step in the case, an extraordinary hearing to determine what hearsay, or second-hand, evidence jurors will be allowed to hear during Peterson’s trial in his third wife’s death has turned into a sort of legal dress rehearsal.

The testimony has exposed serious flaws in the police investigation of Kathleen Savio’s death, Peterson’s deteriorating relationship with his missing fourth wife and perhaps most important: a possible motive.

But none of it may matter if the judge doesn’t allow at least some of the witnesses to testify during the real thing.

“If they don’t get the hearsay stuff in, then they don’t have a shot at this case,” said Terry Sullivan, a Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.

Peterson, a brazen former police sergeant, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio’s death. He is the only named suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but has not been charged in that case. It was after she went missing that investigators exhumed Savio’s body and determined her death was a homicide.

More than 60 prosecution witnesses have testified during the past 3 1/2 weeks. Defense attorneys plan to call about 20 witnesses to contradict statements made by people who said the two women feared Peterson.

“As long as they’re there, it would be tough not to put in evidence that would contradict” the prosecution, said Mark Geragos, a defense attorney who is not involved in the Peterson case but has represented many high-profile clients — including Scott Peterson, the California man convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci.

The hearing is the result of a new Illinois law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence — statements not based on a witness’ direct knowledge — if prosecutors can prove a defendant may have killed a witness in order to prevent him or her from testifying. The law was so closely linked to the Peterson case that some have dubbed it “Drew’s law.”

Prosecutors, with little physical evidence on which to base their case against Peterson, may have to rely heavily on statements that Savio and Stacy Peterson allegedly made to others. The testimony has included claims that Drew Peterson was furious Savio might get a large portion of his pension, and that Stacy Peterson suggested she could threaten to tell police that Drew Peterson killed Savio to extort money from him to keep quiet.

The hearing has at times moved into areas that have little to do with hearsay. A state police investigator said he quickly decided Savio’s death was an accident after her body was found in a bath tub in 2004, so he collected no forensic evidence and didn’t even secure the scene. The pathologist who conducted the post-exhumation autopsy on Savio’s body three years later testified that bruises and the position of her body indicated she was killed after struggling with an attacker.

The mix of those witnesses is part of a broader strategy to make the second-hand evidence more plausible and persuade the judge to allow as much as possible at trial, Sullivan said.

That’s likely why much of the hearsay evidence has focused on Stacy Peterson. A minister who said she was afraid of her husband testified that she told him Drew Peterson was wearing black and carrying a bag of women’s clothes the night before Savio’s body was found. Drew Peterson’s stepbrother said he helped Peterson move a blue barrel out of his house and suspected it contained Stacy Peterson’s remains.

Dozens of other witnesses provided small pieces of what prosecutors contend is a puzzle that will help jurors believe Peterson could have killed Savio.

Drew Peterson’s attorneys, meanwhile, have asked about medication Savio was taking and pointed to a doctor’s report that said Savio complained of dizziness. And while under no obligation to call witnesses in the hearing, they have now decided to do so.

Neither side wants to leave anything to chance, Geragos said.

Prosecutors “want to make sure that when they put evidence in … that there’s nothing that comes back to bite them,” he said.

Attorneys also anticipate challenges to the state’s hearsay law, perhaps to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It’s a perfect storm for both sides to have to deal with it,” Geragos said.

Associated Press Writer Karen Hawkins contributed to this report.

Read at Associated Press

~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

242 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings – Day 16

  1. “If they don’t get the hearsay stuff in, then they don’t have a shot at this case,” said Terry Sullivan, a Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.

    Would Glasgow really put all his eggs in the hearsay basket? It seems to me they must have more evidence.

  2. noway406 :

    “If they don’t get the hearsay stuff in, then they don’t have a shot at this case,” said Terry Sullivan, a Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.

    Would Glasgow really put all his eggs in the hearsay basket? It seems to me they must have more evidence.

    IDK, I still feel as though there’s going to be plenty of testimony that will tie-in Peterson to Kathleen’s murder. It’s unreasonable to assume she died by accident, as the defense is clinging to. The death scene was so compromised by Peterson anyway, that it still would have been a challenge to process it for any evidence, regardless of who killed her. It’s the location of him, the motive, and the means that will have to convict him.

    For me, the hearsay is the vindication for Kathleen that her concerns were correct, since Peterson was obsessed with having those closest to him realize he could kill them at his whim. I expect to see more of the details associated with his time lines, and the uncovering of lies associated with his statements and interviews.

  3. noway406 :“If they don’t get the hearsay stuff in, then they don’t have a shot at this case,” said Terry Sullivan, a Chicago attorney and former prosecutor.
    Would Glasgow really put all his eggs in the hearsay basket? It seems to me they must have more evidence.

    There were several witnesses who didn’t give hearsay, but first-person testimony.

    Connolly — Drew threatened to kill her and make it look like an accident, he broke into her house and silently stood over her bed, he stalked her

    First cop at scene asked Drew if he and Kathy were having any problems and Drew led him to believe that everything was hunky-doory, which could easily be shown to be the main reason why all other law-enforcement officials then treated the scene as an accident and not a homicide.

    Multiple witnesses said that Drew had said that Kathy needed to be gone.

    Coroners statements of crime scene photos show position of Kathy’s body precluded an accidental drowning as well as contusions that could not be done in a fall.

    Financial gain — the attorney testified that he was in the room when Drew’s attorney explained that the judge was going to award Kathy her fair share of the marital assets and that Drew was pretty pissed about it.

    Etc. I think there is a good bit of testimony that has already come out which is pretty damning and isn’t hearsay. I’m sure there’s more, but what was already put forth certainly points to a case of a controlling husband who wanted to keep his women in line.

  4. God, I haven’t noticed the mistake I made. Sorry, atlgranny. I have a flue and do not feel well today ;(.

    I meant if the prosecutors have the phone records confirming that Stacy was really calling Drew on the night he killed Kathleen, it proves that everything what Stacy said to the Pastor was true; additionally, Drew would have no alibi as he said he spent that night at home.
    The records can also show where Drew was looking for help before/after Kathleen’s body was found. I personally think that is the main reason why the investigators did not ever asked for them.

  5. Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about the new hearsay exception or even the public hearing (although I liked the coverage because of my interest in the case). However, I thought it was a very good point that Glasgow would be a fool not to make use of this law and attempt to get as many statements as possible admitted. If the exception is made available to him and there is very little physicial evidence (I won’t mention the bungled investigation) to show that Drew did the crime, he’s sort of obligated to at least try.

  6. cyrhla :

    God, I haven’t noticed the mistake I made. Sorry, atlgranny. I have a flue and do not feel well today ;(.

    I meant if the prosecutors have the phone records confirming that Stacy was really calling Drew on the night he killed Kathleen, it proves that everything what Stacy said to the Pastor was true; additionally, Drew would have no alibi as he said he spent that night at home.
    The records can also show where Drew was looking for help before/after Kathleen’s body was found. I personally think that is the main reason why the investigators did not ever asked for them.

    I don’t think even the phone records will reverse the “marital privilege” that the Judge ruled bars Drew’s statements to the Pastor.

  7. Kathleen’s lawyer reportedly testified that he thought Kathleen was paranoid. Ya think?? I’d be paranoid too if I was getting anonymous letters from people saying I’m the laughing stock of the neighborhood and there were the 17/18-year old friends of my husband’s new teen lover talking about my husband wanting to kill me. Do you think those kids didn’t tell other kids? Then add in my husband actually cutting a hole in the house we once shared while we were separated just to make a point that it’s still his house too. I’d be paranoid too.

  8. I agree with post #4. That is my thought as well cyrhla. The phone records would be tangible physical evidence for the jury to examine. Also it will discredit the skunks claim that he was at home. Why would Stacy be calling him if he was home. His goose is cooked in that case, IMO

  9. It just makes me wonder what could Atty Smith do to protect Kathleen or his other clients for that matter. Kathleen did everything she could do and still she was found dead 😦

  10. Rescue I agree that the hearsay vindicates what Kathleen’s fears were all along.

    I wish that they’d do something in Kathleen’s honor to help women understand the importance to follow through on reporting any instances of DV. There are too many women and people who accept DV as something that they just have to live with. We brush it off as something that will either go away or something we don’t want to face.

    Fear allows the DV abuser to win. Fear keeps the victim at his side and the potential witnesses in silence. Some people don’t report DV that they see in others out of fear the DV will only get worse. One of the biggest hurdles is that many abuse victims are groomed by their abusers to become totally dependent on the abuser for shelter, income, and social contacts. So it is no surprise there that the loss of income becomes a key fear that lets the person stay or not report the abuser.

    We must all work together to teach girls (and boys) at a young age that they can AND SHOULD leave the moment there are signs the relationship is abusive.

    My thoughts today have turned again to feeling for Kathleen and Stacy’s children. I pray they are doing well and wish they didn’t have to go through any of this. 😦

  11. Anna Doman has done at least one speaking engagement that I know of and also an appearance on the TV show “Secret Lives of Women: Loved and Controlled” but of course, the defense put their own spin on that…

  12. facsmiley :

    cyrhla :
    God, I haven’t noticed the mistake I made. Sorry, atlgranny. I have a flue and do not feel well today ;(.
    I meant if the prosecutors have the phone records confirming that Stacy was really calling Drew on the night he killed Kathleen, it proves that everything what Stacy said to the Pastor was true; additionally, Drew would have no alibi as he said he spent that night at home.The records can also show where Drew was looking for help before/after Kathleen’s body was found. I personally think that is the main reason why the investigators did not ever asked for them.

    I don’t think even the phone records will reverse the “marital privilege” that the Judge ruled bars Drew’s statements to the Pastor.

    I got the impression that the “marital privilege” only applied to those things that Drew said to the pastor as well as what Stacy and Drew said to him as a couple. What Stacy said was obviously allowed.

  13. I think Smith could have prepared a will for Kathy, for instance, or at last have her made a statement that she did not have any will in writing. I do not know if it had saved Kathleen’s life, but at least the money would have gone to the children.

  14. http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11963386

    Drew Peterson’s hearsay hearing on break for week

    Associated Press – February 10, 2010 11:04 AM ET

    JOLIET, Ill. (AP) – After a parade of prosecution witnesses, Drew Peterson’s hearsay hearing is taking a break until next week when defense attorneys plan to put on their own witnesses.

    The defense witnesses had been expected to start Wednesday. But spokesman Chuck Pelkie of the Will County state’s attorney’s office says that was put off until next Wednesday after attorneys met with the judge. He declined to say why.

    In more than three weeks of testimony, prosecutors presented 68 witnesses at the hearing to determine what – if any – hearsay evidence will be allowed when Peterson goes on trial in the 2004 death of his third wife.

    Attorneys for the former Bolingbrook police officer have said they intend to call 20 witnesses of their own.

    Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Kathleen Savio’s death.

  15. AtlG – What I had understood from one of the articles was that indeed the Pastor cannot testify as to what Drew told him. However, it also said that the Pastor couldn’t testify about what Stacy told him Drew confessed to her (due to marital privilege). It had said that it would allow him to testify about what she told him she actually saw herself though – him coming in wearing black and throwing clothes in the wash IIRC.

  16. Upscreen I meant “bars the statements Stacy said Drew said” to the Pastor. I think the phone records will stand alone, but they still won’t clear the way for those statements because the marital privilege still applies.

  17. littlemamajo :It just makes me wonder what could Atty Smith do to protect Kathleen or his other clients for that matter. Kathleen did everything she could do and still she was found dead

    Huh? For starters, Smith could have called for a hearing (*) before the judge wherein Kathy could have told the judge about being stalked, having her home broken into, etc! He did NOTHING to protect her when he had a lot of leeway in escalating the pressure on Drew — if he chose to! The problem was that Drew either had a local “mafia” whereby it was well known that Drew was not someone you “messed” with or that Smith was just lazy and looked at Kathleen as a whiner who didn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

    (*) When I was going through my divorce from a controlling SOB, I had a problem with him calling my home number to talk to the kids, EVEN THOUGH I had a separate phone line installed for his use only. He kept saying he “forgot” and would call my line, throwing out expletives as he demanded to talk to the kids. He wouldn’t stop. So, when I told my attorney, he immediately scheduled a hearing before the judge. Once the judge heard the shenanigans, he ordered my soon-to-be Ex to stop calling my number to speak with the kids, threatening to haul him into jail for contempt if he did it again!

    Smith COULD HAVE done a lot of things!! The LEAST he could have done is wear out the phone lines trying to insure that there was a murder investigation started once he heard that Kathy was dead!

  18. But spokesman Chuck Pelkie of the Will County state’s attorney’s office says that was put off until next Wednesday after attorneys met with the judge. He declined to say why.

    ****

    The little naive part of my brain had a moment of insanity and it thought maybe there would be some kind of plea deal in the works including learning the whereabouts of Stacy. Then it went back to realization that a snowball has a better chance in Hades than that actually a happening.

  19. thinkaboutit2 :But spokesman Chuck Pelkie of the Will County state’s attorney’s office says that was put off until next Wednesday after attorneys met with the judge. He declined to say why.
    ****
    The little naive part of my brain had a moment of insanity and it thought maybe there would be some kind of plea deal in the works including learning the whereabouts of Stacy. Then it went back to realization that a snowball has a better chance in Hades than that actually a happening.

    Think, the first think I thought about was a plea deal too. Maybe Drew’s thinking things aren’t looking too good for him about now. I don’t think Stacy will probably ever be found though, unless he tells someone what he did with her.

  20. The recess may be no more than the judge taking time to review testimony and work toward a ruling. We’ll see. Wish someone would let us know who the other two witnesses were yesterday that were never reported about.

  21. I’ve said from the get-go that if they do have those phone records of Stacy calling him repeatedly during the time period she had provided his alibi to the police that it would absolutely be important evidence that would be used against him because it totally pokes holes in his alibi and he’d have a hard time saying he didn’t know she left that out of her statement because he was sitting right next to her as she gave it.

    I just don’t know if they were able to get those records so late in the game. Not sure how long phone companies keep the detailed records including unanswered calls. I certainly hope they got them.

    Drew was such a good record keeper (keeping that donut receipt for so many years) – you’d think he’d have the copies of their detailed phone records in his files as well…

  22. altgranny, I don’t really think Brodsky is calling the shots here, but it’s sure doubtful that he would want to give up the biggest case of his life without seeing it through if Drew would let him, lol.

  23. atlgranny :

    littlemamajo :It just makes me wonder what could Atty Smith do to protect Kathleen or his other clients for that matter. Kathleen did everything she could do and still she was found dead

    Huh? For starters, Smith could have called for a hearing (*) before the judge wherein Kathy could have told the judge about being stalked, having her home broken into, etc! He did NOTHING to protect her when he had a lot of leeway in escalating the pressure on Drew — if he chose to! The problem was that Drew either had a local “mafia” whereby it was well known that Drew was not someone you “messed” with or that Smith was just lazy and looked at Kathleen as a whiner who didn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
    (*) When I was going through my divorce from a controlling SOB, I had a problem with him calling my home number to talk to the kids, EVEN THOUGH I had a separate phone line installed for his use only. He kept saying he “forgot” and would call my line, throwing out expletives as he demanded to talk to the kids. He wouldn’t stop. So, when I told my attorney, he immediately scheduled a hearing before the judge. Once the judge heard the shenanigans, he ordered my soon-to-be Ex to stop calling my number to speak with the kids, threatening to haul him into jail for contempt if he did it again!
    Smith COULD HAVE done a lot of things!! The LEAST he could have done is wear out the phone lines trying to insure that there was a murder investigation started once he heard that Kathy was dead!

    I hate to sound so heated about this, but from the beginning I’ve thought that Kathy’s attorney was a huge part of the problem. When I heard that he submissively backed down when a Will was found and he KNEW that the executor of KATHY’s WILL was Drew’s Uncle, I felt something was really wrong with that picture.

    I still do.

  24. atlgranny :JB would never give up that easily! I suspect there is a witness who couldn’t be available this week. Just my hunch.

    You may be right. However, it looks like if that were the case, the defense would proceed with their 20 in the meantime. Just can’t help but wonder if the prosecution is setting the table for ole Drew though, not that he would plea in any case, but you never know.

  25. All – please note that I admitted that it was a moment of insanity and I full-well know that there is no chance that a plea deal is in the works. It was just my imagination running amok again… 😀

  26. In the attorney’s defense – there are many people who mentally lose it during divorces and women whose husbands leave them for a younger woman often have an even harder time during the process. I know someone who went through this (with absolutely no abuse issues in the marriage) and she was goofy for a long, long time and wouldn’t even listen to the family about what to do. One day she didn’t want anything from her ex-to-be and then she wanted everything from him. She flip flopped and more than 5 years later her ex’s name is still on the house and mortgage and now she can’t sell it if she wanted to and could have made good bank because they divorced just before the peek of the housing bubble.

    I also know someone whose wife lied and turned him in for abuse and rubbed it in his face that she held the upper hand because she was crazy enough to pull that kind of act and threatened that he wouldn’t get to see his kids anymore if he didn’t do things her way. Sometimes there is no way to prove or disprove things but people get UGLY during divorce for sure.

    Divorce lawyers see it all and think sometimes it makes them insensitive to the real issues and focused solely on the proceedings.

  27. Problem with what we hear is that even when someone is on the stand testifying, we only hear a portion of the testimony from publication to publication, and it’s written in the manner the reporter interprets it. One thing I have learned through all of this is you can’t really accept everything you read, or even see on TV, as fact. That’s been incredibly obvious/evident with this hearing, because so much is taken out of context and/or other things are omitted, so I’m pretty much done getting all worked up over what I’m hearing and reading. Especially after last night when it was reported that the defense would start today with their witnesses, and then the article I posted came out minutes ago. Seriously, how can you put any real stock in what’s being reported when it’s only part of the story? Anyway, I’m done posting until next probably, so you guys have fun. 😀

  28. I think once the reporters get a chance to catch their breath and go over the last few weeks, we might seem some really insightful stories. The pen and pad approach and the rush to publish took its toll during these hearings, but hey we all wanted to know what was going on and we wanted it ASAP. I’m looking forward to some good summations and editorials.

    And CFS, I hope you hang around during the interim!

  29. Thanks Facs. 🙂 I’ve always checked in and will continue to do so, but while these past few days have been exhilarating, they’ve also been frustrating trying to sort things out credibly. I’m as guilty of anyone here getting caught up in the “he said she said” parts and wanting to discuss them to the hilt, only to discover we only have a portion of the story. Like you said, after the dust settles, we may get the complete lowdown. If the hearing resumes next week, I feel sure I’ll be back, or if any unexpected breaking news comes in. Until then, I’ll just stop by occasionally to see what you guys have to say. Just have too much else to do that I NEED to be doing right now anyway.

  30. The only way we can get information is via the media right now. The thing that is really tough now is that it seems like only 2-3 people write about stuff and then the AP takes it and the same exact story is put out there on multiple sites instead of getting more viewpoints.

    The media is notoriously bad for getting facts wrong and not giving all of the information. Reporters are inherently biased by their own beliefs so they will write about the things they find important. Unfortunately, unless you can get down to the courthouse – this is the best we have.

    As far as discussing it now – that’s all part of the deal on discussion boards/blogs isn’t it? We state our opinions. We collectively consider theories. And in the end the court case is the court case and our conversations have nothing to do with it. We can always wait until after the trial to discuss but that isn’t our nature or we wouldn’t be here. 🙂

  31. Glasgow still has two more witnesses (L & P?) that he planned to put on the witness stand after the defense puts on their 20 witness ‘Fantasia’.

    DP still has to deal with the ‘Savio Murder Trial’, Gun Charge Trial, the re-opened Savio Probate Trial, the Savio Wrongful Death Trial, and after all that, the pending Stacy charges (Trial). Did I forget the JPMorganChase Trial, Country Mutual Insurance Trial, … then there are the Savio insurance companies, Mortgage fraud, mail and wire fraud, IRS, probably child custody and who knows what else awaits DP.

    I’m thinking that this recess until Feb 17 could give DP and company some time to come to their senses and do what is right. It takes money to defend all this legal stuff and could keep lawyers busy for a very long time.

    IF JB, AA, GL all feel really charitable, they could forever provide pro bono services to the poor, poor, retired BBPD (I can’t say sergeant)victim of everyone in the whole wide world (including Taiwan?)… and the world-wide-internet!

  32. judgin — ROFLOL! Poor, poor pitiful Drew. Just seeing his tail in jail for almost a year has been a real treat. He never thought that would happen.

    Bucket — post #51. That went right over my head! (Which isn’t surprising these days.) “D-noticed”?

  33. cyrhla :

    bucketoftea :Is it possible that the judge has D-noticed some details?

    Does it mean he was not only selling drugs but also arms?

    IMO, DP would do anything that could earn him power and $$$$s. All DP had to do when he stopped a car is confiscape ‘take’ the weapon, drugs, etc. from the driver… and maybe let the guy go… for some kind of ‘favor’.

  34. Folks, let this be a reminder that these admins will not tolerate constantly having to remind certain individuals of the rules of this blog.

    In that regard, if you see a comment of yours pending, be mindful that another venture into breaking the rules will result in a permanent ban.

    We would appreciate your cooperation.

  35. I’m sorry. It stands for “delete”. Not to be reported. Sorry! Must be a Brit thing…been here so long I forget sometimes which are US and which are UK expressions.

  36. What I mean to say is that perhaps the judge has imposed some reporting restrictions, which wouldn’t be surprising considering the nature of the hearings.

  37. After those 3 weeks of lots of info, the silence now is difficult to stand. I wonder what might have happened and which side asked for the break.

  38. cyrhla :

    After those 3 weeks of lots of info, the silence now is difficult to stand. I wonder what might have happened and which side asked for the break.

    Yeah, it might be like a big letdown, but it’ll get hectic again if and when the defense starts their parade of witnesses. It won’t be boring.

  39. rescueapet :

    cyrhla :
    After those 3 weeks of lots of info, the silence now is difficult to stand. I wonder what might have happened and which side asked for the break.

    Yeah, it might be like a big letdown, but it’ll get hectic again if and when the defense starts their parade of witnesses. It won’t be boring.

    A parade of one witness. 😉

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2040689,Peterson-hearing-break-JO021010.article

    The defense said it has 20 witnesses of their own, but may call as few as one.

  40. It is not the matter of boredome. I do not treat being here as entertainment. I feel something important happened. I will not be surprised if Drew pleads guilty or was offered a deal for revealing some sort of information and the place where he hid Stacy for exchange.

  41. Maybe the defense feels they fared well with the testimony and don’t expect the Judge to rule against them. That would explain why they don’t want to risk having their witnesses be cross-examined and discredited.

    I still believe that the big guy is the one who makes the decisions, because he thinks he’s a doctor, lawyer and Indian chief. What he decides is what will happen. If I’m wrong, well, so be it, but I don’t think I am.

  42. Peterson hearing to break for a week

    February 10, 2010

    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
    JOLIET – Sixty-eight witnesses and more than three weeks in, Judge Stephen White has called for a week-long break in the Drew Peterson hearsay hearing.

    When the proceedings continue Wednesday, prosecutors are expected to rest their case. The defense said it has 20 witnesses of their own, but may call as few as one.

    Both sides will then present closing arguments. Dozens of men and women have taken the witness stand since Jan. 19 to speak ill – or tell of others speaking ill – about Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant set to stand trial for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Savio turned up drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. She and Peterson were in the midst of a contentious divorce, and she was due to take a significant portion of his assets in the coming weeks.

    Despite the suspicious circumstances surrounding her death, the state police determined Savio had accidentally drowned and effectively closed the case.

    The case stayed closed for more than three and a half years until Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished. Within two weeks of Stacy disappearing, State’s Attorney James Glasgow declared Savio was the victim of a homicide that was staged to look like an accident, and put the state police back to work at finding out what really happened in her bathroom the night she died.

    The state police have also been trying to figure out what happened to Stacy. In the two years and three months since she vanished, they have failed to find her and believe Peterson may have killed her.

    Regardless of what the state police believe, Peterson faces no charges in connection with Stacy’s disappearance. Prosecutors still attempted to prove he killed her to keep her from testifying against him at the Savio murder trial.

    After digesting all the hours of testimony, evidence and closing arguments, White will decide which of 15 hearsay statements that prosecutors want admitted will make it into the trial. He may keep his decision under seal until the trial gets under way.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2040689,Peterson-hearing-break-JO021010.article

    The complete story

  43. Now that things have quieted down, I wish the reporters who have been at court every day for almost a month would do a story about the lawyers, like the Tribune did early in disappearance of Stacy Peterson. They did a story about Brodsky, and how he holed up in his house with a gun after a fight with his wife. Well, he said that wasn’t how it happened, but….

    How about when will we get the real truth about the chicken wings and bar establishment, and how Drew was used as a bargaining chip to promote it in exchange for at least one interview.

    I’d like to read about that.

  44. I’m wondering if DP needs a way to save his face with his sons… If he could blame the establishment, Glasgow, or the system for ‘making him out to be the guilty one’… the ‘bad guy’ (poor victim)and tell his sons he had no choice cuz no one came to his lying support, and he had no money to defend himself, etc.

  45. cyrhla :It is not the matter of boredome. I do not treat being here as entertainment. I feel something important happened. I will not be surprised if Drew pleads guilty or was offered a deal for revealing some sort of information and the place where he hid Stacy for exchange.

    I hope you didn’t think I was saying people are here out of boredom or here just for entertainment. It is indeed something important and some of us have come to care about people who we may never have (and never will) meet.

    I’d wonder if a deal was offered. I could easily see that as a real possibility. I just highly doubt that Drew would accept the deal. I don’t know though – sometimes you hear of people doing so to get less time behind bars even when they are innocent because it is costly to keep defending yourself.

    I have come to realize that in this particular case anything is possible…

  46. judgin :I wonder if Judge White has a headache.. LOL

    Well in one of the artciles it said he planned to retire in October… I don’t recall that being mentioned when he was first given this case…

  47. A part is thinking that the judge may allow only Stacy’s statements related to Kathleen’s death and threats against Kathleen specifically (like the testimony of one of Stacy’s friends gave regarding a conversation way back in 2002 and Pastor Schori’s testimony about Stacy saying she saw Drew come in that night dressed in black and put clothes in the wash). They already have two live witnesses (ex-wife #2 and ex-fiance) who will give direct testimony of how Drew was controlling and scared her in their relationships so that kind of evidence will already make it into the trial. Not sure why I think that but for some reason that is what my brain keeps showing me. Kind of a middle ground for a judge. That way the judge isn’t convicting him of murdering Kathleen before the trial for him in her murder and it would exclude evidence of a different crime that he hasn’t been convicted of that there is no physical evidence that it had actually occurred. I think that a judge would think that would make it more appeal-proof. Just my thoughts (JMT).

  48. judgin :I’m wondering if DP needs a way to save his face with his sons… If he could blame the establishment, Glasgow, or the system for ‘making him out to be the guilty one’… the ‘bad guy’ (poor victim)and tell his sons he had no choice cuz no one came to his lying support, and he had no money to defend himself, etc.

    I still can’t see Drew doing that — he is just too narcissistic.

  49. Whew, if a deal was offered, let’s just hope the remaining attorneys don’t violate their ethics and commit wrongdoing by neglecting to advise their client of that, like the disgraced Attorney Carroll did with other clients.

    I was wondering if the State was planning on using the overhears in these daily hearings, but, for some reason, there was an agreement reached about them and there wasn’t the need to do that with the public being involved.

    Think I’m going to get a few questions off to Karen Conti.

  50. thinkaboutit2 :

    judgin :I wonder if Judge White has a headache.. LOL

    Well in one of the artciles it said he planned to retire in October… I don’t recall that being mentioned when he was first given this case…

    I thought the same thing. When they were juggling judges in the beginning, I thought they had to insure that they were going to be around to hear the case in order to agree to take it. It would be a total shame to have this thing go forward and have to switch judges again.

  51. atlgranny :
    One thing I know — IF Drew took a plea deal it would mean that he can’t appeal in the future.

    Maybe that is why they gave him a week to think it over?

  52. I’ve been wondering about a statement Joel made yesterday, that Drew would have been a millionaire anyway after his divorce from Kathleen, which begs the question:

    Are all Police Sergeants in Bolingbrook or anywhere else for that matter in the millionaire category ??

    Are Drews collegues and Superiors at the BBPD all millionaires ??

  53. cyrhla :

    atlgranny :One thing I know — IF Drew took a plea deal it would mean that he can’t appeal in the future.

    Maybe that is why they gave him a week to think it over?

    I suppose that could be, but highly doubt it. Drew is a crap-shooter. He honestly believes he can outwit anyone and everyone. Just from the few comments I’ve seen by the press, his ego was still there in the courtroom — smoldering, perhaps, but it was still there. (i.e., he was taking copious notes, he obviously brought up Connolly taking coke, etc.)

    Naw….my money is on Drew taking this to the end. A narcissist is a narcissist is a narcissist.

  54. cyrhla :
    If he had been a millionaire anyway, why did he kill Kathleen? To have two millions?

    I understood Joels statement to be, regardless of his divorce from Kathleen, Drew was a millionaire anyway……..

    So a much divorced small town Police Sergeant with a string of children can amass a million dollars ??

    BBPD must pay exceptionally well !!

  55. cyrhla:If he had been a millionaire anyway, why did he kill Kathleen? To have two millions?

    ~~~~

    for some people, no matter how much they have, it’s never enough. They’re emotionally involved with money, how to get it and keep it and take it from others.
    They love money more than anything. Gotta wonder what kind of values the thing was raised with.

  56. Joel needs to be very careful with public statements like that as people may start to wonder how Drew can be such an affluent Police Sergeant (!!)

  57. Why do I keep hearing the guy from Slumdog Millionaire in my head saying “Who wants to be a millon-aire” in his accent??

  58. That is just my wishful thinking, atlgranny.;) I know how Drew is but as he takes care about his a** only, maybe that is the only way he can save it (a little bit).
    I think we do not know about all the evidence the prosecutors have. They may have microbiological and DNA test results, not favorable for Drew in connection with all the testimonies.Just a possiblity.

  59. justanotherhen:I understood Joels statement to be, regardless of his divorce from Kathleen, Drew was a millionaire anyway……..

    So a much divorced small town Police Sergeant with a string of children can amass a million dollars ??

    BBPD must pay exceptionally well !!

    ~~~~~~
    many people are asking exactly that; how could he have amassed so much wealth on a beat cops wages…..
    Buffoonsky really should not have commented; all he did was raise even more suspicion and curiousity.

  60. justanotherhen :
    Joel needs to be very careful with public statements like that as people may start to wonder how Drew can be such an affluent Police Sergeant (!!)

    And imagine a pile of applications for the position of a BB police officer!

  61. cyrhla :

    justanotherhen :
    Joel needs to be very careful with public statements like that as people may start to wonder how Drew can be such an affluent Police Sergeant (!!)

    And imagine a pile of applications for the position of a BB police officer!

    LOL !!!

  62. Brodsky actually said Drew has been working hard for all his life and run many business, if my memory serves me well… Whatever it means. IMO.

  63. writerofwrongs :justanotherhen:I understood Joels statement to be, regardless of his divorce from Kathleen, Drew was a millionaire anyway……..
    So a much divorced small town Police Sergeant with a string of children can amass a million dollars ??
    BBPD must pay exceptionally well !!
    ~~~~~~many people are asking exactly that; how could he have amassed so much wealth on a beat cops wages…..Buffoonsky really should not have commented; all he did was raise even more suspicion and curiousity.

    Maybe there’s an IRS audit around the corner…

  64. cyrhla :
    Brodsky actually said Drew has been working hard for all his life and run many business, if my memory serves me well… Whatever it means. IMO.

    Yes Drew has been very enterprising and resourceful in his working life.

    Despite all his divorces, wives and kids, he can still keep nearly a third of his annual gross salary at home in cash as well at any give time (the money Stacy “ran away” with for example)

    How does he do it ??

  65. cyrhla:

    Brodsky actually said Drew has been working hard for all his life and run many business, (snip)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    something tells me that Drew has problems he may not even be aware of at this point.

  66. hen:How does he do it ??

    ~~~~~
    why, the old-fashioned way, of course 😉 and I am sure a forensic accountant can help answer this question.

  67. I just had a thought…has Drew got a woman who will say he was with her the night Stacy was ringing and ringing? Just a thought.

  68. bucketoftea :
    I just had a thought…has Drew got a woman who will say he was with her the night Stacy was ringing and ringing? Just a thought.

    I was thinking about the same, bucket. Such a narrow escape with one key wittness providing abili to him as it happened to one of his supporters.

  69. Drew has been starving for many years to save this million. Look how much he has gained on weight since he went to prison and started eating healthy.

  70. rescueapet :
    Now that things have quieted down, I wish the reporters who have been at court every day for almost a month would do a story about the lawyers, like the Tribune did early in disappearance of Stacy Peterson. They did a story about Brodsky, and how he holed up in his house with a gun after a fight with his wife. Well, he said that wasn’t how it happened, but….
    How about when will we get the real truth about the chicken wings and bar establishment, and how Drew was used as a bargaining chip to promote it in exchange for at least one interview.
    I’d like to read about that.

    Yes, I’ve been wondering about that too !

    As lead Council how is Joel going to get up in Court and sanctimoniously discredit witnesses for the Prosecution with his own less than stellar reputation.

  71. KAREN CONTI RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS.
    *******************

    Q. “The state said that as long as they can work out details with Peterson’s defense team during a court appearance this morning, they have called their last witness in the marathon hearing to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at the former Bolingbrook cop’s murder trial.”

    A. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THIS MIGHT BE. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE HAVE WORKED OUT A STIPULATION AS TO SOMEONE’S TESTIMONY. SOMEBODY WHO COULDN’T BE PRESENT, BUT THAT THE DEFENSE FEELS IT DOES NOT NEED TO CROSS EXAMINE. WITHOUT MORE DETAILS, I AM ONLY GUESSING.

    I asked Karen Conti about why the Lenny & Paula “overhears” weren’t used in these hearings.

    A. IF THE WORDS THAT WERE OVERHEARD WERE DREW PETERSON’S OWN, THEN THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT HEARSAY BECAUSE THEY ARE THOSE OF A PARTY. THEREFORE, THEY WILL BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL NO MATTER WHAT JUDGE WHITE RULES. THE ONLY REASON TO PLAY THEM FOR THE JUDGE WOULD BE TO BOLSTER THE PROSECUTION’S POSITION THAT PETERSON KILLED STACY AND/OR KATHLEEN AND THEREFORE ALL THE OTHERE EVIDENCE THAT IS HEARSAY SHOULD COME IN. THE PROSECUTION MAY FEEL AS IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THE JUDGE ALREADY . BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHY WOULDN’T THEY PUT THAT EVIDENCE ON JUST TO BE SURE? THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE HAD TO TURN OVER THE TAPES TO THE DEFENSE BY NOW ANYWAY SO THERE IS NO SURPRISE ELEMENT ADVANTAGE.

    Q. It’s being reported that Judge White plans on retiring in October. If the trial doesn’t start by then, or even if it has started, how does that affect it?

    A. IF THE TRIAL HAPPENS AFTER JUDGE WHITE RETIRES, IT WILL GO TO ANOTHER JUDGE AND THAT JUDGE WILL BE BOUND BY JUDGE WHITE’S RULING. IT MAY EVEN BETTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS THAT ANOTHER JUDGE PRESIDES OVER THE ULTIMATE TRIAL AS THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE THERE ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THAT JUDGE WHITE’S RULING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER SHOWS HE ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND AND CANNOT BE FAIR (EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WILL BE TRUE).

    Q. Are we to expect “closing arguments” after this session of hearsay testimony?

    A. YES. THEY MAY NOT BE CALLED CLOSING ARGUMENTS BUT SURELY THE JUDGE WILL ALLOW BOTH PARTIES AMPLE TIME TO EITHER SUBMIT WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WITH TRANSCRIPT CITATIONS NOTED OR TO ORALLY ARGUE THE EVIDENCE THAT EACH SIDE BELIEVES PROVES THEIR POSITION.

    I asked Karen about the hearsay evidence so far, and said I wasn’t personally that overwhelmed by it, but was interested in seeing the State’s evidence, etc.

    A. BUT, DO WE HAVE THIS KIND OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE? IT COULD BE THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE BECAUSE WE REALLY DON’T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE WHEN PETERSON IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE THE CRIME. WE KNOW NOW THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A CRIME SCENE SO THERE IS NOTHING TO BE HAD AS FAR AS PROOF THERE EXCEPT A BUNCH OF STRANGE THINGS (POSITION OF THE BODY, DRY BATHTUB, NO TOWEL OR CLOTHES, ETC.) THIS IS THE WEAKNESS IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE. WITH JURIES TODAY VERY CSI-SAVVY, THEY EXPECT SOME COLD HARD FACTS—BLOOD AND PRINTS AND FIBERS. TAKE AWAY ALL THIS HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND I THINK THAT THE PROSECUTION IS IN TROUBLE.

  72. cyrhla :Drew has been starving for many years to save this million. Look how much he has gained on weight since he went to prison and started eating healthy.

    Thanks. You just caused me to spit my iced tea all over my screen!

  73. Thanks, Karen. It does not sound optimistic but the time will show…

    And forgive me, atlgranny. When I save some bucks, I will buy you new ice tea and monitor.:)

  74. As for Brodsky, Rescue, it would great if the journalist elaborated a little bit on his disciplinary issues as well, though I know it is of no importance and has nothing to do with Drew.

  75. 🙂 Had paper towels within reach (and insurance on this little machine)!

    I’m no attorney, but as a jurist, I’d be impressed with things like Drew’s background; his owning locksmith tools and being found in an ex-wife’s house standing over her in the middle of the night; telling same ex-wife he could kill her and make it look like an accident and her testimony that he stalked her. Not to mention the ex-fiance and her testimony about the problems she had with Drew’s anger. Then there’s the neighbors who saw how Drew treated Kathy. Not to mention the photos of the crime scene showing position of the body, lack of clothing, Drew’s claim that he was getting along just fine with Kathy……….

    Oh, I’m thinking that if I were on the jury, I’d be pretty well convinced by stuff like that. CSI isn’t the only thing that people will look for. There is always the underlying desire to see justice done and smelling a rat can come across loud and clear in this case.

  76. BUT, DO WE HAVE THIS KIND OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE? IT COULD BE THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE…..

    This I can agree with, but, on the other hand, going back to the night Kathleen was discovered, how could any evidence collected not have been ripped apart by a defense lawyer? Without repeating it all, he mucked it up on purpose to eliminate the evidence pointing to him. I would expect any credible defense attorney to find fault with the evidence if any of it related to him. He was in the room with his dead ex prior to any law enforcement official. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see through that scheme.

    That being said, my feelings are that the State has to pile on all the reasons Peterson benefited from Kathleen’s death, first off. We know that is not a problem, that’s very well known.

    If Peterson was so sure footed about what he did and that he was going to get away with it, why, then, did he bother with coaching Stacy to be his alibi? Even if she innocently spurted out that he was missing for a time, if he was in the house and merely out of range of her calls for him, what’s the big deal? Doesn’t that bring up the possibility that he damn well knows he can’t account for all of his time and he needed someone to fill in the gaps? There was the possibility, in his mind, that he would be looked at as a suspect, and he covered up where and when he needed to. Those are the issues that I’d look to the State to pick apart.

    If he has decades of experience as a police officer, including being in a supervisory position, I think he needs to fess-up to more than the bullcrap that he masterminded a strategic plan to get into the house because, otherwise, she would have been enraged and accused him of things. Defies logic. If she wasn’t responding in the first place, common sense would tell you she was incapacitated and couldn’t get to the door on her own power. When it was so easy, so logical, to dial 911 for a well being check, why, instead, did he plan an invasion into her house beginning earlier in the day?

    I personally think that the jury should hear why he did not even consider foul play, as an experienced, seasoned, supervisory police officer, and take the necessary steps to preserve the scene to start the search for a possible killer or stalker. Instead of letting an intruder take the fall for her killing, he planned it as an accident, Why? How? If he let the investigators do their work without any intervention from him, and they determined that she met with foul play, if he was so sweet and innocent, he could have nipped that in the bud with phone logs immediately, and let his wife be interviewed freely.

    I’d like the jury to hear how he can explain why his ex-wife, who couldn’t stand the sight of him, would allow a will to be found only by him, when she could have directed her own family members to it when she was still living and breathing.

    The jury should hear why a man who had no rights to his ex-wife’s house, personal belongings, or house furnishings, was allowed to clean it out and keep the property as though he was entitled to it, while she was in the process of being buried.

    I would expect Sgt. Collins to be grilled, ad nauseum, as to why he allowed a potential investigation to go so right for the first and foremost suspect, the spouse. Naive or inexperienced isn’t acceptable. His contacts with Peterson will need to be fully laid out for the jury so they can make their own conclusions, and decide whether Peterson was given enough leeway so that he could spin his web without interference.

    I think if we give this a lot more thought, there’s plenty of questions and answers that the jury needs to decide.

  77. IMO Everyone seems so blinded by the emphasis on the “hearsay” evidence in this case, as if that is all there is.

    Kathleens written/oral statements and Stacy’s knowledge of these events are only important for the fact these two women are no longer here to verify for themselves (obviously), but this case is about the fact Kathleen was murdered, which doesn’t hinge on these hearsay statements alone.

    The main suspect is a Police Officer with ways and means to corrupt/sabotage the initial investigation to his own advantage, which is what both the still living and now dead have already testified to time and time again ( I can kill you and make it look like an accident) and Kathleen WAS killed and it made to look like an accident (!!)

  78. Additionally, Drew was stalking some of the witnesses, for instance Sharon (same story with ninja suit), Lenny’s son and Thomas Morphey.

  79. I’ve said this before and I’m going to say it again.

    That tree that is outside of your house is standing tall. There’s a storm going on, with loud thunder and lightening. You hear a thunderous boom and see a flash.

    The next morning, that tall tree is splintered and damaged. You didn’t see it happen, but from what you know of the circumstances from the night before, you can reasonably assume that lightening struck the tree about the time you heard the boom.

    Lightening strike? Maybe not, but absent any other explanation, you assume the knowledge and information you have is reasonable enough in order to get you to that logical conclusion. Unless you were there to see it happen, or watched later as it had been filmed, you will never be 100% sure!

    This, I might add, is my interpretation of a jury coming to a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.

  80. Sgt Collins already testified the initial investigation was more or less total BS as he didn’t really investigate anything and by way of his utterly bizarre denials so did Bob Deel and the locksmith really didn’t know if he was coming or going as sometimes he charges the BBPD and sometimes he doesn’t (depending on who’s asking I suppose – LOL !).

  81. Blum also testified that Savio could have been rendered unconscious by a choke hold that cuts off blood to the brain but leaves no injuries to the neck. That builds on earlier testimony from a police training officer who said he taught Peterson a similar neck hold that could knock someone out and even kill them.

    Okay, doesn’t prove that Drew Peterson is the one that put a choke hold on her. But, if I was a jurist looking for something to help clear this man of the crime he’s being accused of, I’d have a damn hard time casting aside the fact that he was specifically trained in this specific hold.

    Come on, you guys are smart here, I’m sure someone can come up with some more!

  82. justanotherhen :

    IMO Everyone seems so blinded by the emphasis on the “hearsay” evidence in this case, as if that is all there is.

    I keep noticing that too. So many comments from people looking at what was presented in the hearsay hearing and then stating that no good concrete evidence was heard.

    I realize that we heard a lot besides the hearsay (and photos were presented as well) but still the judge is still going to use what was presented to make a ruling only on those 15 hearsay statements.

    Why should the prosecution give away their whole case at this point? After all, wasn’t Joel gloating that this hearing was going to give the defense a ‘preview of coming attractions’? I don’t think that was lost on the prosecution and I somehow think they haven’t shown all their cards. Didn’t they have more than 600 possible witnesses lined up? So we’ve only heard from 1/10th of them.

  83. I do think that without the hearsay they have already showed some direct testimony that will be effective in a trial.

    – Drew’s knowledge of potential financial losses in divorce settlement and prior evidence of a horrible relationship between Drew/Stacy and Kathleen based on the police records as well as what he had told his copr friends before her death vs. what he told the police officer the night Kathleen was found.

    – Testimony by Drew’s ex-wife about waking up in bed with Drew standing over her when her house was locked, Drew pointing a gun at her multiple times, and telling her he could kill her and make it look like an accident.

    – Testimony by Drew’s ex-fiance about how he followed her after their split and pushed her over a cocktail table and pinned her down.

    – Testimony by cable workers about Drew’s comments regarding $25K to take care of Kathleen.

    – Pictures from crime scene vs. special treatment Drew received during investigation.

    – Phone records??? Still wonder if they have any phone records of Stacy calling Drew during any time she was supposed to be his alibi.

    – Drew’s own admittance that he cut a hole in the wall to gain entry to the house.

    – Drew’s son’s account of Drew roughing up Kathleen when she was drunk (meaning he did get physical with her instead of handling it in another way).

    – Drew’s actions of clearing out Kathleen’s house literally immediately after the funeral – shows no compassion or care about Kathleen or rush to get money from sale of assets.

    Most is circumstantial indeed but may be enough to remove reasonable doubt from a jury.

  84. rescue said: “If Peterson was so sure footed about what he did and that he was going to get away with it, why, then, did he bother with coaching Stacy to be his alibi?”

    I figured Drew thought he had an iron-clad alibi because Stacy was asleep. She would comfortably testify that she was with him all night.

    Her waking up and looking for him totally blew his plan. Her finding him walking in the door all dressed in black and putting woman’s clothing in the wash? Well, that really blew his plan. He had to think quick and came up with a new alibi wherein he found Kathy dead and had to get Stacy to go along with it.

  85. First of all, it’s the State vs the defense regarding Kathleen’s manner of death. One or the other is going to prevail. If the State has credible experts who can “ring the bell” ;-), then the jury will determine that she died a violent death at the hands of another. If they can believe the defense’s expert and come to the conclusion it was an accident, then it’s over. Finished.

    If they decide it was a violent death, then they must decide if the man in custody is the true killer, or whether the real killer got away. That is indisputable.

  86. I remember in the beginning (a long time ago LOL) the State was saying the (2nd)investigation was getting very big with more and more officers investigating for months and months and Drews time line was getting so big it out ran the Board and ended up the size of a large book.

    If they only had that little bit of “hearsay” or the case only hinged on “hearsay” the investigation would have never gotten that big or taken so long and Drew wouldn’t be in custody with $ 20.000.000.00 bond on his head !

  87. rescueapet :Altgranny @ #125 – Awesome! Excellent point.

    Well, not so fast…. 🙂

    One thing that really nags at me is the recent testimony by Stacy’s classmate back in 2002. He said that Stacy told him she had talked Drew out of killing Kathy. Makes me wonder….

    …was Stacy naive enough to think that she had the power to prevent Drew from killing Kathy forever, or

    …did Stacy somehow loathe Kathy enough (due to Drew planting lots of untrue stories about Kathy in her head) that she could somehow come to believe that Kathy was truly a menace and somehow look the other way when she found Drew coming in the door with woman’s clothing in his hand?

    Hmmm…..I really see Stacy as a young and impressionable woman who found Drew to be her “White Knight.” She fell hook, line and sinker and at that point in her life Drew could do no wrong. I can’t see her being complicit in this in any way.

  88. JustAnother — You’re right. That TWENTY MILLION dollar bond is unheard of. There has to be something very compelling to have a judge hold someone on that kind of bond. (And I don’t think that the testimony saying Drew tried to have Kathy killed for $25K would be enough to insure that Drew had no way of getting out on bond.)

    No. Something else has to be coming down the pike.

  89. ATL granny, isn’t it a moot point since the last Mrs. Peterson is missing and most certainly dead? The state is in no position to try her for any possible misdoings or sins of omission, but Drew Peterson is charged with murder and that’s where we are now.

  90. One thing that really nags at me is the recent testimony by Stacy’s classmate back in 2002. He said that Stacy told him she had talked Drew out of killing Kathy. Makes me wonder….

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

    IMO that statement was used in Court to illustrate Drew was thinking as far back as 2002 of killing Kathleen and not so much for the fact Stacy “talked him out of it”.

    At that young age Stacy would not have been able to see the bigger picture of what was on Drews mind as far as the real reason he wanted to have Kathleen out of the way.

  91. facsmiley :ATL granny, isn’t it a moot point since the last Mrs. Peterson is missing and most certainly dead? The state is in no position to try her for any possible misdoings or sins of omission, but Drew Peterson is charged with murder and that’s where we are now.

    Hrmm…..good point!

  92. How did Kathleen’s killer get into her home to kill her?

    Did Kathleen’s killer know which window or door had no deadbolt and he was able to open it from the outside to get in and surprise Kathleen?

    It appears that the front entrance door or whichever door the locksmith opened, had not been deadbolted shut.

    There was testimony that Kathleen always had three locks deadbolted when she was inside.

    How did the killer exit the house after Kathleen was murdered?

    When DP had the locksmith open the front door? Did he know the door was not deadbolted shut?

  93. Good questions Judgin and some of the same ones I’ve been tossing around my head lately. Maybe it was as simple as ringing the doorbell and getting her to come out. Then to just lock the last door upon leaving.

  94. judgin :How did Kathleen’s killer get into her home to kill her?
    Did Kathleen’s killer know which window or door had no deadbolt and he was able to open it from the outside to get in and surprise Kathleen?
    It appears that the front entrance door or whichever door the locksmith opened, had not been deadbolted shut.
    There was testimony that Kathleen always had three locks deadbolted when she was inside.
    How did the killer exit the house after Kathleen was murdered?
    When DP had the locksmith open the front door? Did he know the door was not deadbolted shut?

    There has been testimony from several sources that Drew had more than one set of locksmithing tools himself. I believe that even his second wife mentioned it in her testimony yesterday.

  95. judgin :
    How did Kathleen’s killer get into her home to kill her?
    Did Kathleen’s killer know which window or door had no deadbolt and he was able to open it from the outside to get in and surprise Kathleen?
    It appears that the front entrance door or whichever door the locksmith opened, had not been deadbolted shut.
    There was testimony that Kathleen always had three locks deadbolted when she was inside.
    How did the killer exit the house after Kathleen was murdered?
    When DP had the locksmith open the front door? Did he know the door was not deadbolted shut?

    Yeah, the killer must have known a lot of things about Kathleens house and Kathleens habits.

    Drew or Joel has also stated Drew called the locksmith because he did not want to damage the door which would have cost $ 400.00 to replace (!!)

  96. BTW What is happening with the 20 witnesses for the Defense.

    Are they still going to be heard or is that all off now ??

  97. Yeah – called the locksmith that time to save $400 for the door that time but cut a hole in the wall to gain entry a different time.

  98. JAH – They said there may be as few as one defense witness tetifying now. 20 is probably their total number of witnesses for the big trial.

  99. I wish that the prosecution would have shown that they found a locksmith set during their search warrants or a receipt for one. No one was put on the stand to say they sold him one either.

  100. I ran across an old article that is worth a read. I was actually trying to find the article when James Glasgow said the state prosecution didn’t actually need the hearsay statements to convict Drew. It’s very hard to find these articles now with all the new news about the current hearing going on. If anyone runs across that one please let me know.

    This is an interview with a Thomas Glasgow, not to be confused with James Glasgow. here is an excerpt from the interview and a link to the whole.

    THOMAS GLASGOW: Well to weigh the entire case on those statements I think would be a foolish tact by the prosecution. When it goes up on appeal, and it will be appealed if he’s found guilty–

    [GRAPHIC: Kathleen Savio]

    THOMAS GLASGOW: –you’re going to have the appellate court look at this and see whether or not there’s overwhelming evidence to determine whether or not the person was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s one of the things that they will look at to determine weighing this hearsay evidence that has been added in.

    http://www.glasgowlaw.net/CM/VideoTranscript/DrewPetersonVideoTranscript14.asp

  101. There was early reports (back a couple of years ago, as well as Victoria’s testimony yesterday) that Drew owned several sets of lock picks. Supposedly he used it “in his work.” The speculation was that Drew called in a locksmith to open Kathy’s door for several reasons – 1) it would camouflage any hatch marks he may have created when he picked the lock to get in and 2) he needed to APPEAR to be an “outsider” looking in and contacted her neighbors to go in and “check on her first” before he came in.

  102. 2) he needed to APPEAR to be an “outsider” looking in and contacted her neighbors to go in and “check on her first” before he came in.

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

    Which he wasn’t supposed to do AT ALL, since he was on duty and in uniform.

    That was so much against basic Police procedures it’s not even funny and the fact that wasn’t picked up straight away in the initial investigation makes everything all the more hinky, in fact it set the tone there was something very, very wrong with this investigation from the very first second !!

  103. thinkaboutit2 :
    JAH – They said there may be as few as one defense witness tetifying now. 20 is probably their total number of witnesses for the big trial.

    Oh, thank you TAI.

    That’s too bad, I would have loved to have seen what his side was going to testify to !

  104. When Victoria Connolly was on the stand yesterday and said she woke up to find Drew standing over her, she apparently was asked how he got in. Her response was quoted by an AP reporter as: “Connolly did not know if Peterson had made a set of keys or used the locksmith tools she said he carried.”

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6859107.html

    givarat — I agree that it’s hard to go back and find old articles. I haven’t checked ACandyRose’s site lately. She might have a good catalogue of past articles.

  105. justanother — I think that’s why there is so much more to this case than just the hearsay. There is copious amounts of information that, when lined up, give you little doubt that Peterson had a long history of flouting his position as a police officer and used that “power” to keep weaker people in line. Be that his step-brother or his friends or his wives, there is a distinct pattern of control and intimidation that is hard to get past.

    I think this case has a lot to offer even without the hearsay evidence. But, then again, I’m not an attorney!

  106. I am curious about something that has to do with Vicki Connolly that I expected to hear about, but didn’t.

    There’s a rumor, or I may have even seen it somewhere on the Internet, that Vicki Connolly was involved in a major car accident, critically injured, that happened under suspicious circumstances. I know nothing about this personally, or otherwise, other than what I’ve heard.

    I think I’ll go searching for the source where I may have read it, unless someone who reads here knows about this.

  107. I don’t think this is the place where I first saw this, but here’s one:

    http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2009/05/drew-peterson-from-cathouse-to-big.html

    “Nobody Actually Thinks You’re Sexy” Peterson will be cavorting with lifers instead of hookers if the prosecution succeeds in convicting him of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, the wife who was found dead in the bathtub (not the wife who went missing in 2007 . . . or the one who had her car brakes tampered with . . . or the one who says he wasn’t really that bad a character when she was married to him).

  108. rescueapet :I am curious about something that has to do with Vicki Connolly that I expected to hear about, but didn’t.
    There’s a rumor, or I may have even seen it somewhere on the Internet, that Vicki Connolly was involved in a major car accident, critically injured, that happened under suspicious circumstances. I know nothing about this personally, or otherwise, other than what I’ve heard.
    I think I’ll go searching for the source where I may have read it, unless someone who reads here knows about this.

    I remember something like that, but can’t remember if it was Vicky or the first wife.

    Here’s something that made my head spin. It’s been a while since this was all front-page news, so my brain might be sketchy…

    I was quite surprised to see that Vicky testified that Drew had several affairs and even mentioned a young woman across the street (a babysitter?). I remember there was a young man that was found hanged in his garage and Drew was the first one to find him. He was on duty at the time and this was a neighbor. Speculation was that Drew had been having an affair with this young lady and the brother had confronted him not long before he was found dead. The fact that Drew was the first one to the scene made several local people highly suspicious. Don’t know if that information can be easily found at this point.

  109. Connolly’s interview weeks after Stacy disappeared:

    By Erika Slife
    November 16, 2007

    For the last two weeks, Vicki Connolly has watched in disbelief and with conflicting emotions as controversy swirls around her ex-husband, Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson.

    She doesn’t know whether he had anything to do with the disappearance of his current wife, Stacy Peterson, who has been missing since Oct. 28, or the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who died mysteriously in 2004.

    But in the first interview granted by one of his ex-wives since Stacy’s disappearance, Connolly, 48, said Thursday that during their marriage an increasingly controlling Peterson told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident. While she couldn’t believe he would ever do it, something prompted her to confide in Bolingbrook police officers who she considered friends. “So they would know he said these things to me,” she said.

    She said Peterson would hit her but not hard enough to go to the hospital, and not often enough for her to expect it. It made it worse, she said, that she never knew it was coming. “It was mind games; it was head games,” she said.

    Peterson, who did not return phone calls Thursday, has denied being abusive to Savio or Stacy Peterson.

    Police have described Peterson, 53, as a suspect in 23-year-old Stacy’s disappearance and are reinvestigating Savio’s death. Will County State’s Atty. James Glasgow said her death appeared to have been staged as an accident. Savio’s body was exhumed Tuesday.

    Peterson, who is not charged with any crimes, has denied involvement in both cases.

    “He has the experience, the knowledge, the means, and the mind to do that,” she said, her voice trailing off. “That’s all I’ve thought about. … I’m still working through it. I’ll be honest.”

    This much Connolly knows: She was married to Peterson for 10 years, beginning in 1982. They raised each other’s children from previous marriages. They operated a bar together. She stuck by him through his infidelities and during legal problems in the 1980s – until she finally “caught him cheating on me with someone with my own eyeballs.”

    “The thing with Drew Peterson, and I’m sure if [Savio and Stacy Peterson] were here to comment they would say the same thing, when it was good, it was wonderful, it was great,” Connolly said. “But when it was bad, it was really bad.”

    She met Peterson in a Bolingbrook bar in the early 1980s. She was there with her friends to see a favorite band.

    “This man, just oozing of confidence, he wanted to dance with me and buy my girlfriends drinks,” she recalled. “And he set his eyes on me and it was like he was going to get me. He couldn’t get me to move in with him fast enough.”

    At the time, she was married, a relationship that was already ending. She said it was only three or four months after her divorce that she moved in with Peterson. He was so persistent, she said.

    “He thought he took me away to a better life. He definitely felt that way. It’s ironic,” she said. “In his eyes, he did believe that.”

    It’s a pattern Peterson continued in his next two relationships, she said.

    Several days after his wife’s disappearance, Peterson told the Tribune that when he met Stacy, he had an “uncontrollable need to take care of her.” On Wednesday, Peterson told the “Today” show that both Stacy and Kathleen came from troubled homes.

    Henry Savio, Kathleen’s older brother, disputed that assertion. “No, we’re OK,” he said. “She was a very strong woman.” He added that Kathleen owned her own condo and worked as an accountant.

    Connolly said she also was well off when she met Peterson. She had a steady job at a bank and drove a new car. But she thought it was romantic that he wanted to save her.

    In hindsight, his motive is now clear, she said.

    “I believe that man had a disease to his ego. He’s a legend in his own mind,” she said.

    The couple’s honeymoon ended about two years after they were married. He worked with the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad as an undercover narcotics officer. He was a talented officer, she said, and his success poisoned his outlook.

    “He really led a double life. But what fed his ego was his line of work, how he could deceive people,” she said. “When he’d come home, he’d be the exact opposite. He could do it and he could do it with no problems.”

    His zeal for his job, though, led to a brief downfall. According to court documents, Peterson was fired in 1985 after the Bolingbrook Fire and Police Commission found him guilty of official misconduct, disobedience, failure to report a bribe and self-assigned police action. At the time, he was working on a case against a reputed drug dealer.

    Connolly declined to comment on the case, but she said it was during this time she learned of his first of many affairs. But she forgave him.

    In 1986, Peterson was reinstated after a Will County judge overruled the commission’s decision. And his controlling behavior intensified, she said.

    “We had bugs in our house. He put a microphone in our kitchen and taped our conversations. He was cheating so much he wanted to make sure I wasn’t,” she said. “His whole thing with us is that, ‘I need to know my family is safe at home and you’re not going to be doing anything you shouldn’t be doing’ – and that enabled him to do whatever he wanted.”

    When tensions would boil over, the police came to the house a few times, she said, but added, “the police were our friends,” and no reports were filed.

    Finally, about 1992, she had enough. By this time, he was already having an affair with Savio, she said, and it was easy for them to divorce. She called it amicable.

    Now, although remarried and living on a farm Downstate, she still feels resentment when looking back on her life with Peterson.

    “We had such a great life and he blew it. It wasn’t good enough for him. He had four great wives who did everything for him. And it was never enough for Drew Peterson.”

    ———-

    eslife@tribune.com

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Hh4_mkPzZT8J:archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/nov/16/news/chi-peterson_16_nov16+Peterson%E2%80%99s+second+wife+recalls+threats+She+recalls+he+threatened+to+kill+her,+make+it+look+like+an+accident&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1

  110. You know how Brodsky is stuck on the statement about these witnesses not coming forward and telling the police????

    Connolly, 48, said Thursday that during their marriage an increasingly controlling Peterson told her he could kill her and make it look like an accident. While she couldn’t believe he would ever do it, something prompted her to confide in Bolingbrook police officers who she considered friends. “So they would know he said these things to me,” she said.

  111. His zeal for his job, though, led to a brief downfall. According to court documents, Peterson was fired in 1985 after the Bolingbrook Fire and Police Commission found him guilty of official misconduct, disobedience, failure to report a bribe and self-assigned police action. At the time, he was working on a case against a reputed drug dealer.

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

    official misconduct, disobedience, failure to report a bribe and self-assigned police action.

    That seems to describe him pretty good, especially the self assigned Police action.

    First Officer on the scene here, there and everywhere including at Kathleens death scene, etc etc etc

  112. Well Vicky Connolly was in a near-fatal car accident according to her daughter, Lisa Ward, when she had given interviews about Drew abusing her as a child while her mom was in the hospital recovering from the crash.

    http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=3490

    I’d imagine that since there is no way to prove that was Drew – even if she suspected it was him it wouldn’t make it into the hearsay hearing or the trial IMO.

  113. thinkaboutit2 :Well Vicky Connolly was in a near-fatal car accident according to her daughter, Lisa Ward, when she had given interviews about Drew abusing her as a child while her mom was in the hospital recovering from the crash.
    http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=3490
    I’d imagine that since there is no way to prove that was Drew – even if she suspected it was him it wouldn’t make it into the hearsay hearing or the trial IMO.

    TIA — What is there to prove? Lisa is still alive so she can testify at the trial that Drew tried to molest her. It would be her word against his.

    Let’s all remember one big lie that Drew always repeats in one way or another…

    EVERYONE who has anything negative to say about him is either a drunk, a druggie or out to write a book. It doesn’t matter, he always has a quick retort to make you think they’re not trustworthy. (While, of course, he thinks he is trustworthy!)

    Night all!

  114. Expert: ‘Drew’s Law’ a ‘Dangerous Law’

    Updated: Wednesday, 10 Feb 2010, 9:15 PM CST
    Published : Wednesday, 10 Feb 2010, 9:15 PM CST

    By Craig Wall, FOX Chicago News

    Over the past three and a half weeks, prosecutors have laid out their case against Drew Peterson, in an extraordinary pre-trial hearing that’s raised serious debate about the state’s new hearsay law.

    Testimony from more than five dozen witnesses during the hearing has painted Drew Peterson as a husband bent on control and willing to use violence or threats of violence to get his way. But much of the statements are hearsay, or second hand. The are only being presented because the state passed a new law, dubbed “Drew’s Law,” to let hearsay evidence in. Legal experts, not connected to the case, say the problem with hearsay evidence is it does not allow the defendant to confront and challenge his accuser.

    “It’s a dangerous law, it’s one that I think the intent is to hold people responsible for their bad acts, but on the other hand, I think, if abused, can result in failures of the system,” said Attorney Terry Ekl.

    Peterson is is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio in 2004. He’s suspected, but not charged, with killing his fourth– and still missing wife– Stacy Peterson, in 2007. The prosecution’s case is based largely circumstantial and hearsay evidence. It comes from relatives, friends and clergy. They testified that the two women told them about Peterson’s threats, or actions, that prosecutions contend show Peterson was responsible for their death or disappearance.

    “At least some of these statements are made by party to a divorce and frequently parties to divorce go around and say awful things about the other side that are not true,” Ekl says.

    But Attorney Dean Polales says “Drew’s Law” is based on a United States Supreme Court ruling.

    “That decision, which came down in 2008, said if a defendant procures the absence or unavailability of a witness for the purpose of preventing their testimony, then the defendant forfeits his right to confront the witness and therefore the protection of the hearsay rule,” Polales said.

    Judge Stephen White, who is presiding over the case, has to evaluate the reliability of 15 hearsay statements and then decide which of them will be allowed in at trial.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/drew_peterson/drew-peterson-legal-experts

  115. AltG – I was talking about no way to prove that Drew did something to her car. I think it is possible that Lisa Ward will be called to testify about the abuse of her mom that she witnessed and possibly the abuse that she said he did to her. I should have clarified that.

  116. I missed the Fox News Chicago broadcast, but I heard the tail-end of a remark that Judge White may be sealing his decision on what is or isn’t going to be allowed into the trial.

    Channel 9 reported that the week off is a mystery, and none of the parties would discuss it.

  117. rescueapet :
    I missed the Fox News Chicago broadcast, but I heard the tail-end of a remark that Judge White may be sealing his decision on what is or isn’t going to be allowed into the trial.
    Channel 9 reported that the week off is a mystery, and none of the parties would discuss it.

    That’s good !

    I hope Judge White keeps his decision sealed or otherwise an enormous amount of bleating or gloating is to be expected depending on what Judge White wants to keep in or out (!!)

  118. As much as I want to know what the decision was – it is probably the best decision for the case if he does keep it sealed.

  119. It’s a dangerous law, it’s one that I think the intent is to hold people responsible for their bad acts, but on the other hand, I think, if abused, can result in failures of the system,” said Attorney Terry Ekl.

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

    What a bizarre statement by an Attorney of all people, as abuse of ANY system causes failure in a system and as such doesn’t make the Hearsay Law a specifically dangerous law in itself anymore than abuse in any other area of the Law !

  120. rescueapet :
    I hope Judge White keeps his decision sealed too. Then no one can draw any conclusions about his decision.

    Well I suppose if Joel keeps very quiet we know what the Judges decision was anyway – LOL !

  121. Re: Atlgranny February 10, 2010 at 8:23 pm | #152

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/ex-peterson-co-worker-says-he-was-asked-to-kill-savio.html

    Prosecutors: Peterson, Savio were fighting over $893,000

    February 9, 2010 5:25 PM

    “She said that during their marriage, Peterson had affairs with other women on several occasions and at one point had an affair with a baby sitter across the street from the home they shared.”

    Monica, the girl that lived across the street from Drew and Vicki. DP supposedly would sneak her into the house when Vicki wasn’t home. Monica’s brother Steve Rays, Reyes, or Rheas did not like this and had words with Drew to stay away. Steve was found hung.

    Gretawire had these posted comments that said that he was found in the garage and Drew was the first on the scene. However, it was also said Steve was found hanging from the rafters in his bedroom in the basement of his home.

    http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/13/wednesday-gretacast-2-with-sgt-petersons-friend-ric-mims/#comment-209728

    “Comment by shari December 17th, 2007 at 12:58 pm I was steve rays best friend. he picked me up from school everyday. rick mims did not hang out with us. He knows nothing about steve. drew would come to steves garage all the time in the evening. he came to hassle us, flirt with us girl, and try to get us to smoke pot with him. I was with steve the night he died. when i left him at four in the morning he was ok. Iwas the closesest person to steve. I know he asked his grandmother for asprin around five. I loved steve with all my heart. It kills me to think he was murdered, if he was. If he killed himself it was something he wanted. If he was murdered by that animal its a horror. Rick MIMS never hung out with us. we all thought he was an idiot , and would never have let him around. steve died january 2nd, 3rd, or 4th of 1986. RICK MIMS was more on DREW PETERSONS level. he was hanging in his bedroom by his boot stings. the room had a false ceiling, he was hanging by a pipe. I pray to GOD the truth will come out. I pray for monicas sake, and his parents, denise, joy, and danny. They will get peace from the truth. TRUST me, rick mims never hung out with us. Steve left a note, and anything mims knows he never heard from steve or anyone who hung out with us. Steve and monica were great people. PLEASE GOD let the truth come out.”

    http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/13/wednesday-gretacast-2-with-sgt-petersons-friend-ric-mims/#comment-209359

    “Comment by Larry December 17th, 2007 at 11:50 am The man who (supposedly ) hung himself name was Steve Rhea. I was a close friend of his. He died in January of 1986. He lived on nottingham dr. in Bolingbrook…Dp supposedly lived on Mayfield (the next street over).The report I had always heard was that he hung himself in his bedroom closet which alway’s sounded a little odd to me. doesn’t sound like a lot of room to hang yourself. The garage sounds like a more likely scenario..He could be hung from a rafter or I-beam…I also know DP used to hang out in that garage with them.I also know that Steve did not approve of DP’s relationship with his sister Monica and confronted him about it. A short time later…he was found dead….coincidence? Dp was also one of the first officers on the scene…..coincidence?”

  122. Rut_roh Joel has competition…

    Wing Wednesday | Wings just 50¢ each‏
    From: Pizza Hut (PizzaHut@pizzahutoffers.com)

  123. Good Morning.

    Atlgranny, I ‘investigated’ the case with Steve Rays some time ago. Steve Rays was 14 when he was found hung (in his bedroom or the garage was never cleared) in January 1986. They said he had commited suicide under the influnce of drugs.
    Monika Rays was living across the street. Betty Rays, their mother, a school bus driver, was actively fighting with drug abuse after that.

    That was Ric Mimms who said Drew was the first person on the scene, but how could that be if Drew did not work at the BBPD at this time and was reinstalled in March 1986?

    Anyway, this is what Ric Mimms said to Greta on the case:

    —–

    MIMS: This thing we’re trying to put all the dates and everything together, this afternoon, it happened right when Drew was married to Vicki and he would sneak Monica in the house.

    GRETA: Whose Monica? Monica was the girlfriend?

    MIMS: Yeah and right and her brother, the family lived like across the street and down the street from them. I knew the brother was very upset with them dating and I, were going back now when I was in my twenties maybe, not even that old when all this happened but with the patterns of Drew, anything with his girls that he was dating with or anything it seems that somebody dies around there.

    GRETA: Let me ask you though, there’s no proof that Drew did anything with the brother who died, the brother of the girlfriend?

    MIMS: Right, there’s no proof yet but were working on a story to find out the details on it. It’s just a little suspicious.

    (SNIP)

    GRETA: Okay the guy who committed suicide, was it a big surprise or had he been, had he been depressed and had troubles before that?

    MIMS: No, it was a shock to all of us, this was a group of kids I grew up with and it was a shock to all of us.

    (SNIP)

    MIMS: I don’t know all the details of that, I mean we were kids back then Greta, so I’ve asked a friend of mine who does some research at the local papers to help me with this and we’re getting names and we’ve contacted the girlfriend. She didn’t want to talk to nobody but I’m going to get in touch with her here shortly maybe she’ll talk to me about it because we were all fiends and just see, because what I’m afraid is this turning into a pattern for him.

    (SNIP)

    GRETA: Did he ever say anything about his girlfriend’s brother, the one whose about your age, with you?

    MIMS: Yeah we’ve talked about it because I can’t believe he killed himself and he’s like yeah he had a drug problem and you know and was depressed, and I was like that’s not the Steve we knew. He said I don’t know, I was one of the cops first on the scene and he was hanging in the garage.

    GRETA: He was one of the first cops on the scene?
    —–

    I do not know if Drew killed Steve. I do not know if he had anything to do with Rachael Melon case as well, but I think all the investigations of suspicious deaths in which Drew took part should be checked. Particularly those where Drew was the first officer on the scene. I guess he could only show off but for the sake of the families, they should and maybe they did.

  124. [Snip of June 26, 2009]

    He (Brodsky) wanted prosecutors to provide detailed descriptions of such matters as (1) how Peterson allegedly drowned his third wife, Kathleen Savio;
    (2) whether he used any weapons or tools to kill her;
    (3) exactly where and when the alleged 2004 murder occurred;
    (4) and how Peterson may have gained entry to her home.

  125. The couple (Paula and Lenny)said Thursday that Peterson “disposed” of what they believe was evidence during a visit to their home in December.

    “He disposed of things in my presence on my property,” said Paula Stark. “(Peterson) knows what he disposed of at my house,” Stark said. “That’s on the tape, and that’s something I won’t take to my grave.”

    —-
    I do not know what it was but it would be great to learn. Hard evidence, not hearsay.

  126. That is what I was thinking about too, bucket. 🙂
    I wonder how he is going to explain the nightstands missing from the bedroom and asking Sharon to repark Stacy’s car.

  127. I really don’t worry too much about the prosecution; I think they’ve got him, but so many little things I’m still curious about. I think everyone else here has a few things they want to know. (did I say few? LOL)

  128. bucketoftea :
    I really don’t worry too much about the prosecution; I think they’ve got him, but so many little things I’m still curious about. I think everyone else here has a few things they want to know. (did I say few? LOL)

    Yes, I do… does anyone remember early on in the first week where it was stated that Drew did some landscaping on that Sunday? Anyone have a link to that?

  129. BTW, Fox reported a few nights ago that someone was ejected from the courtroom and banned from all further hearsay hearings. We got an email from a person who was there and they tell us it was one of those audience people who attend every day; a homeless man, kind of religious chap who took a lot of notes and obsessed over the case. Last week it sounds like he snapped and yelled at Drew that he was going to burn in hell.

    Well, he could be right about the last part, but obviously the court can’t operate with those sorts of shenanigans going on.

  130. Whew. I think it’s worth mentioning then, from my own observations, that there were at least two women baliff’s in the courtroom to keep a watchful eye on the proceedings, so I guess it was those two women who had to protect Drew from what could have been a nasty attack on him. That is a picture in my mind that I would like to remember. Women keeping the peace in Drew Peterson’s court proceedings.

    Ha, ha.

  131. rescueapet :
    Whew. I think it’s worth mentioning then, from my own observations, that there were at least two women baliff’s in the courtroom to keep a watchful eye on the proceedings, so I guess it was those two women who had to protect Drew from what could have been a nasty attack on him. That is a picture in my mind that I would like to remember. Women keeping the peace in Drew Peterson’s court proceedings.
    Ha, ha.

    I’m thinking they’re better women than I, LOL. Not sure I could have put my heart into that directive). I think that’s exactly what Drew would expect-women protecting him, working for him, laying their lives down for His Majesty if it came to that. After all, per Drew, they’re ‘just women.’
    MOO, from my Texas pasture.

  132. ruger44 :

    bucketoftea :
    I really don’t worry too much about the prosecution; I think they’ve got him, but so many little things I’m still curious about. I think everyone else here has a few things they want to know. (did I say few? LOL)

    Yes, I do… does anyone remember early on in the first week where it was stated that Drew did some landscaping on that Sunday? Anyone have a link to that?

    Gee, I really don’t remember hearing that. I do know that one of the teens was picked up by a band mate’s mom, who mentioned that Peterson was inside of the garage, doing whatever it was he was doing, but don’t recall anything about yard work.

  133. I don’t remember when he said he’d been landscaping, but I think it was during the week following his disappearing of Stacy.

  134. Actually, the closest thing to this that I can recall is that Paula said she caught Peterson trying to ditch something in their yard, or burn something. Peterson is aware that Paula knows what he was trying to be rid of, and I believe she said it’s mentioned on the overhears, the wire she was wearing.

  135. Heh. I found a very early article, days after Stacy disappeared. Take a look at this:

    Meanwhile, Sgt. Peterson has taken time off to care for the couple’s young children, Teppel said.

    Reached at the couple’s home in Bolingbrook, Peterson referred questions to his lawyer, who couldn’t be reached for comment.

    But Peterson bristled at a suggestion she may have met with foul play. “She’s just missing,” he said.

    A little rattled, without enough time to concoct a decent response? Why he gets credit for being so “smart” is beyond me.

    Like when the neighbors immediately noticed there were no tossed aside clothes and/or towels for Kathleen’s dry tub bath.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/627832,CST-NWS-boling31.article
    October 31, 2007
    BY STEFANO ESPOSITO AND DAN ROZEK Staff Reporters

  136. Rescue — a very predictable trait of a narcissist or a sociopath is that they believe they’re the smartest people around. They don’t see the holes in their thought processes. That there were no towels or clothes in the bathroom is a HUGE mistake on Drew’s part.

  137. Forgot — someone mentioned yesterday that it was Kathy’s house, not Drew’s and he shouldn’t have been in there clearing out her stuff. Well, it had been their marital home — it wasn’t a house she had purchased before their marriage. She would have been given the home in the divorce, but it had initially in both their names.

    And, yes, the idiot should never have been allowed to go in there and clean out the house, but being the bully that he is, I can imagine he would have threatened to have anyone who came close to the house arrested since it was now officially “his” house again!

  138. cyrhla :That was the same with the nightables. He thought nobody would notice their absence.

    I forgot about that! What was the story behind that? I came into the conversation about a month after Stacy went missing. I remember a bunch of hullabaloo about the nightstands, but forget what the issue was.

  139. atlgranny :

    cyrhla :That was the same with the nightables. He thought nobody would notice their absence.

    I forgot about that! What was the story behind that? I came into the conversation about a month after Stacy went missing. I remember a bunch of hullabaloo about the nightstands, but forget what the issue was.

    The investigators noticed (between two search warrants) that the night tables are missing and asked Cass or Sharon to describe the bedroom. Drew rearranged it soon after Stacy went missing.

  140. “When asked if she removed anything from the house before leaving, he told FOX News she took cash, a passport and a bikini.”

    Don’t forget Drew’s uncanny mental swimwear inventory powers. He says he didn’t actually see Stacy leave the house…but amazingly was aware that a single bikini was missing.

  141. In reading over early newspaper accounts, the same remark, over and over, comes back to haunt from Peterson about Stacy’s disappearance, and it’s driving me crazy. It’s one of those kinds of things that makes you think the meaning is there somewhere. But, where?

    “I believe she’s not missing,” he said. “She’s where she wants to be. I have no reason to suspect foul play.”

    She’s where she wants to be…….

    Since he thought that Rossetto was her “lover,” I cannot get it out of my mind that somewhere near where that man was lies Stacy.

  142. justanotherhen:

    I remember in the beginning (a long time ago LOL) the State was saying the (2nd)investigation was getting very big with more and more officers investigating for months and months and Drews time line was getting so big it out ran the Board and ended up the size of a large book.

    If they only had that little bit of “hearsay” or the case only hinged on “hearsay” the investigation would have never gotten that big or taken so long and Drew wouldn’t be in custody with $ 20.000.000.00 bond on his head !

    ~~~~~~~

    I agree completely. IMHO heresay represents but a small segment of the states case.

  143. Well, now I know where the defense got the idea from to proceed with the gun charges against Drew as “vindictive prosecution.” Like I’ve said before, I think Peterson is running the show.

    excerpt – credit to Joe Hosey

    Peterson was indicted by a grand jury and fired from his job with the Bolingbrook department after allegations arose that he was trading secrets about his undercover narcotics unit to a drug dealer in exchange for drugs.

    The charges later were dropped and Peterson got his job back.

    The way he tells the story, it was the case of a prosecutor having it in for him.

    “He shotgunned me,” Peterson said.

    A special prosecutor appointed to the case dropped the charges, saying the case was unprovable.

    Confronted with this, Drew Peterson is quick to admit his life was interesting long before Stacy showed up in it.

    “I had drama before Stacy, and Stacy just added to it,” he said. “I believe, like I tell everyone, she’s not missing. She’s gone on her own. And it’s not by (anything) that I did.”

  144. facsmiley :“When asked if she removed anything from the house before leaving, he told FOX News she took cash, a passport and a bikini.”
    Don’t forget Drew’s uncanny mental swimwear inventory powers. He says he didn’t actually see Stacy leave the house…but amazingly was aware that a single bikini was missing.

    ROFLOL!

  145. rescueapet :Well, now I know where the defense got the idea from to proceed with the gun charges against Drew as “vindictive prosecution.” Like I’ve said before, I think Peterson is running the show.
    excerpt – credit to Joe Hosey

    Peterson was indicted by a grand jury and fired from his job with the Bolingbrook department after allegations arose that he was trading secrets about his undercover narcotics unit to a drug dealer in exchange for drugs.
    The charges later were dropped and Peterson got his job back.
    The way he tells the story, it was the case of a prosecutor having it in for him.
    “He shotgunned me,” Peterson said.

    A special prosecutor appointed to the case dropped the charges, saying the case was unprovable.
    Confronted with this, Drew Peterson is quick to admit his life was interesting long before Stacy showed up in it.

    “I had drama before Stacy, and Stacy just added to it,” he said. “I believe, like I tell everyone, she’s not missing. She’s gone on her own. And it’s not by (anything) that I did.”

    You can bet that Peterson is running the show, but both he and JB are narcissists, so it’s hard to tell them apart at times. Their left-field comments about anything Peterson touches sound like an echo chamber. DP charges that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is nuts — his firing and the gun charges are no different.

  146. Yes, the bikini was a funny things to say. First thing each husband would notice ;).
    Along with the passport and 25,000 bucks it sounds like a travellers kit.

  147. I thought that Drew and Alex Morelli had a falling out before Stacy went missing. Does anyone recall when it was first reported that Morelli and he stopped being friends?

  148. Yes, the bikini was a funny things to say. First thing each husband would notice 😉

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

    I bet Stacy had a lot of clothes and Drew would notice straight away only a bikini was missing – LOL !

  149. Peterson was indicted by a grand jury and fired from his job with the Bolingbrook department after allegations arose that he was trading secrets about his undercover narcotics unit to a drug dealer in exchange for drugs.
    The charges later were dropped and Peterson got his job back.

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

    I always wondered how he got off that charge so easily too.

    He put a mans life in danger (one of his collegues no less) and as a result the whole operation had to be called off, yet the charges against him were dropped and he got his job back.

  150. justanotherhen :
    Peterson was indicted by a grand jury and fired from his job with the Bolingbrook department after allegations arose that he was trading secrets about his undercover narcotics unit to a drug dealer in exchange for drugs.
    The charges later were dropped and Peterson got his job back.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I always wondered how he got off that charge so easily too.
    He put a mans life in danger (one of his collegues no less) and as a result the whole operation had to be called off, yet the charges against him were dropped and he got his job back.

    I cannot find a source right now, but I read somewhere before that there were camera or tape records of this incident and then when it came to the court proceeding, it appeared they vanished (or had never existed).

  151. cyrhla :

    justanotherhen :
    Peterson was indicted by a grand jury and fired from his job with the Bolingbrook department after allegations arose that he was trading secrets about his undercover narcotics unit to a drug dealer in exchange for drugs.
    The charges later were dropped and Peterson got his job back.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I always wondered how he got off that charge so easily too.
    He put a mans life in danger (one of his collegues no less) and as a result the whole operation had to be called off, yet the charges against him were dropped and he got his job back.

    I cannot find a source right now, but I read somewhere before that there were camera or tape records of this incident and then when it came to the court proceeding, it appeared they vanished (or had never existed).

    TRULY ??

  152. hen:I always wondered how he got off that charge so easily too.

    He put a mans life in danger (one of his collegues no less) and as a result the whole operation had to be called off, yet the charges against him were dropped and he got his job back.
    ~~~~~

    yes very curious indeed..in view of the seriousness of the allegations

  153. The guy has a hard time keeping it all straight.

    excerpt – credit foxnews.com

    “I believe she’s with someone else, but I believe she’s safe,” Drew Peterson said. He said she told him she was leaving, taking some clothes and money from a safe in the couple’s home.

  154. I do remember Drew gloating “they couldn’t prove it” about this incident.

    Pretty much the same thing he said about Kathleens death : “prove it” and what do you know, there happens to be no hard evidence to be found here either.

  155. Has any one actually proven that the Alex Morelli who owns the Oswego landscaping company and the Alex Morelli who was Drew’s former partner are one and the same?

    Just having the same name isn’t really sufficient proof, and I don’t want to be tossing around any aspersions on this Oswego Morelli and his business unless there is proof that they are the same person.

  156. A few posts are being put into pending until we are sure about the landscape company ownership.

    Thanks for your patience.

  157. I really don’t like the idea of this “wild” speculation that having a landscaping business somehow means that this owner, whoever he is, had a hand in helping Peterson dispose of his missing wife’s body. Even if it is Peterson’s cop partner.

    Let’s keep this wonderful blog, and the bloggers on it, credible, and stick to what we know.

    JMO.

  158. In looking back for some of the information people were looking for, I came across something that I had almost forgotten about. It is information about the 3rd trucker who had said Drew confronted him to carry a package somewhere about a week or so before Stacy went missing. The guy was driving a hazmat truck and he was so concerned that he actually called 911 and the FBI and documented it in his log sheet when the incident occurred.

    http://tinyurl.com/3kfqgk

    I guess it wasn’t the kind of evidence they were looking at for the hearing but thought that since we were thinking back to old stuff that we all were kind of still wondering about thought I’d throw it out here again.

  159. thinkaboutit2 :

    In looking back for some of the information people were looking for, I came across something that I had almost forgotten about. It is information about the 3rd trucker who had said Drew confronted him to carry a package somewhere about a week or so before Stacy went missing. The guy was driving a hazmat truck and he was so concerned that he actually called 911 and the FBI and documented it in his log sheet when the incident occurred.

    http://tinyurl.com/3kfqgk

    I guess it wasn’t the kind of evidence they were looking at for the hearing but thought that since we were thinking back to old stuff that we all were kind of still wondering about thought I’d throw it out here again.

    TAI – The third trucker thing was different than what you recall. I’ll find it, and get back to you. I know, it’s confusing.

  160. That’s on my list of things I want to know more about, too, Think! I’m not convinced it was directly Stacy-related, I’m thinking it’s maybe more likely to do with his usual “moonlighting”.

  161. Me, too, Think & Bucket. I’ve always felt that 20M bond was about more than two murdered women.

    But, that is only my opinion.

  162. http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/12/16/drew-peterson-update-the-third-trucker-writes-the-colbyfiles/#more-241

    “Allan is the trucker – not one of the two Illinois Police disclosed claimed they were asked by Drew Peterson to carry a package – but another trucker who contacted me when I was in Bolingbrook to say he had an incident happen at the same “55″ truck stop 13 days before Stacy Peterson disappeared and that he was 100 percent certain it was with Drew.

    So concerned that day was this seasoned hazmat trucker, he called 9-1-1 (a call the Bolingbrook PD confirmed to Fox took place) and the FBI. Allan even noted it in his trucker log that two men flashing badges had blocked the exit to the truck stop and he believed he and his hazardous materials load were being threatened.

    Some of you have asked why is this relevant if it took place BEFORE Stacy disappeared. Well first, Allan Scott thought it significant enough to report it to the authorities that day. He noted it in his log. He escaped to what the log refers to as a “safe haven”. When he saw Drew’s photo in the media AFTER Stacy’s disappearance, he was certain something about the interaction he had with the man blocking his exit – a man he still believes 100% was Drew -was not right.”

  163. This story is legit. The one about the “two” truckers was bogus.

    Allan is the trucker – not one of the two Illinois Police disclosed claimed they were asked by Drew Peterson to carry a package – but another trucker…

  164. That story has always bothered me. I just don’t think an experienced HazMat driver would call police, FBI and make log notes if there wasn’t a real good reason.

    Again, just my little fevered brain’s opinion/thought

  165. facsmiley :

    Maybe she said she was asleep the night Kathleen died and didn’t hear anything?

    Naw, I wouldn’t think that, because the State bothered to have her testify at the hearing for a reason, and it wasn’t to say she was sleeping. Argh, I wish we had more information.

  166. facsmiley :This story is legit. The one about the “two” truckers was bogus.

    Allan is the trucker – not one of the two Illinois Police disclosed claimed they were asked by Drew Peterson to carry a package – but another trucker

    Allan Scott, the trucker, first appeared on the newscast with Jamie Colby, then Geraldo. Upon further research, I found that he was ligitimate. I did find where he was from and where he was going, but I’m not posting that information. Every hint that this trucker was on the Jamie Colby show, then Geraldo totally disappeared from online except what was posted upthread… This can be no accident since he held valid time-stamped and substantiated documents in his hand to prove his reported claim about DP prior to Stacy’s disappearance. This claim is similar to the statements made by Tom Morphey prior to finding out on tv that Stacy was missing. It is my opinion that Glasgow may have this man listed as one of the 805 witnesses for the upcoming DP murder Trial.

  167. So what I find interesting, is that even though Drew claims that Stacy called him at 9pm, to let him know the car was parked (at Clow airport). When asked by Dr. Phil (at 8:20 into the below video) what he was doing by the canal (when Cass called him at 11pm) he says he was in that area looking for his/Stacys car.
    Why go looking for the car 2 hrs. after you were told where it was at?

    youtube video

  168. rescueapet :

    facsmiley :

    Maybe she said she was asleep the night Kathleen died and didn’t hear anything?

    Naw, I wouldn’t think that, because the State bothered to have her testify at the hearing for a reason, and it wasn’t to say she was sleeping. Argh, I wish we had more information.

    Excellent point.

  169. rescueapet :Heh. On February 3, Jennifer Schoon, Stephen Peterson’s ex-girlfriend, testified. Not a word about her testimony was reported.

    (back from my meeting :-))
    STEVEN Peterson’s ex-girlfriend? How old would Steven have been when Kathy died? I wonder what she would have testified to. Honestly, how important could it have been if none of the reporters bothered to mention it?

  170. ruger44 :So what I find interesting, is that even though Drew claims that Stacy called him at 9pm, to let him know the car was parked (at Clow airport). When asked by Dr. Phil (at 8:20 into the below video) what he was doing by the canal (when Cass called him at 11pm) he says he was in that area looking for his/Stacys car.Why go looking for the car 2 hrs. after you were told where it was at?
    youtube video

    Very interesting. Yet, how do you know he was near the canal at 11? I thought that when she called him he was out of breath, but I don’t remember him saying where he was. (Weren’t both cars in the driveway at that time?)

    [Can you tell my memory is going? :-)]

  171. ATL – Jennifer Schoon and Stephen were living in the basement of the Peterson home at the time Kathleen died.

    If the prosecution called her to testify to something, I would guess it had to do with what she saw, heard and remembered from that time.

  172. atlgranny :

    ruger44 :So what I find interesting, is that even though Drew claims that Stacy called him at 9pm, to let him know the car was parked (at Clow airport). When asked by Dr. Phil (at 8:20 into the below video) what he was doing by the canal (when Cass called him at 11pm) he says he was in that area looking for his/Stacys car.Why go looking for the car 2 hrs. after you were told where it was at?
    youtube video

    Very interesting. Yet, how do you know he was near the canal at 11? I thought that when she called him he was out of breath, but I don’t remember him saying where he was. (Weren’t both cars in the driveway at that time?)

    [Can you tell my memory is going? :-) ]

    Cell phone pings put Drew near the canal AND he admitted to being there on the Dr. Phil show.

  173. If I wasn’t looking at this stuff every day, I wouldn’t remember half of it. As it is I DO only remember about half…but I’ve gotten really good at searching! LOL

Comments are closed.