Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings Resume 2/17

A recap of some of the points that were discussed during testimony in the Drew Peterson hearsay proceedings.  In the meantime, there will be a week delay before the defense is expected to present their witnesses, reported to be anywhere from twenty down to one, and then closing arguments.

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

 

State police investigator says no evidence gathered at Savio death scene

Illinois trooper describes Drew Peterson investigation

Kathleen Savio kept knife under bed for protection from Drew: testimony

Savio Was Murdered: Pathologist; Peterson’s ex-wife didn’t die in fall

Former prosecutor: Never got Kathleen Savio letter

Savio’s doctor testifies at Drew Peterson hearing;  nothing in Savio’s medical records that indicated she was prone to falling

Sister: Drew Peterson’s 4th wife feared for life

Savio’s beau says he immediately suspected her ex

Savio’s Attorney testifies in Drew Peterson hearing

Witness says he was asked to kill Drew Peterson’s third wife

Peterson’s 2nd wife says he threatened to kill her  

~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

298 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Hearsay Hearings Resume 2/17

  1. Savio’s boyfriend, attorney, sister and classmate (?) all testified that they called ISP right after Savio’s death but never received a return call.

  2. Kathy’s neighbors (the Pontarellis) were the first people to see Kathy’s body. They testified that they immediately noticed things which didn’t look right — Kathy’s hair was not pulled up as she normally wore it (and would have certainly worn it if she were taking a bath), the rug that was normally just outside the tub was missing and there were no clothes — either dirty or clean — in the bathroom.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/drew_peterson_new_evidence_savio_stacy_murders/celebrity/68149

  3. This is absolutely astonishing! As I was reading about Master Sgt. Bryan Falat’s testimony, and how he was disgusted with the death scene investigation, I came across this:

    An Illinois State Police crime scene technician also testified, saying that besides taking photographs and walking around the inside and outside of Savio’s house he collected no evidence and did not look for fingerprints – even as he insisted that he did not conclude the death was an accident until later.

    Bob Deel also acknowledged that he did not see any bruises on Savio’s body or even the cut to her head, saying even if he had “they were insignificant to me.” Deel said he still believes that the death was an accident.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403037.html

  4. Bob Deel also acknowledged that he did not see any bruises on Savio’s body or even the cut to her head, saying even if he had “they were insignificant to me.” Deel said he still believes that the death was an accident.

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

    Yeah and that’s why he is now banned from working in Will County.

    Not because he doesn’t know what he is doing, but what he stands for ……

  5. Having said that, at this stage it is not clear if all these initial investigators are voluntarily making an a.. of themselves & destroying their reputation or if they have no other option to state anything otherwise !!)

  6. Hey Rescue. Thanks for the recap, and I like the picture, too!
    I guess there must have been reporting restrictions on some things during the hearings; eg Jennifer Schoon’s testimony. Perhaps some was even heard in the judge’s chambers. We must continue to hope that eventually we’ll know all.

  7. http://www.mapunion.org/rapsheets/Summer08.pdf

    Don’t you think this story resembles Drew’s for many reasons) ?

    I know of a chief who went after a police officer initially over a “self-assigned police action.” Th at means he attempted to take some police action but didn’t tell his supervisor. Is that bad? Well, it ain’t good, but lots of cops can find themselves in incidents when “cold shots” occur. What that means is sometimes the opportunity affords itself to buy dope from a dealer without an introduction or when off -duty, or meet an informant who has a tip on some stolen property. Overzealous—yes. Criminal—probably not. Stupi—truly, but look at all the circumstances. Some cops just want to be the “star” or maybe get promoted. Anyway, the chief was pissed at him for this, and probably some other things, too. He spread the accusation that the officer was a bad guy and needed to be terminated. With this simple, unsubstantiated statement, this cop was ostracized. The stigma of a “bad cop” was born. The brass at the time went along with this joke as if he had been convicted. Officers shied away from him as the chief told people, including me, that he had audio and video tapes of this officer attempting to commit an illegal act. They tried to get the officer to resign and everything would go away. He refused. The officer was subsequently arrested, a trial was set, and he was also brought up on administrative charges that led to his dismissal. Well, obviously not trusting the intentions of our great leader, MAP defended the officer and fought to get him his job back. The chief again reiterated his statements in a command performance that he had the aforementioned video and audio tapes. I told our hero; fine, show me the tapes. Show me that this officer was a bad boy and this union will back off . Show me, show me, show me, but otherwise I think you are being less than truthful. Can’t show you, he said, it’s evidence for trial. My suspicion became stronger that maybe a damn lie was being told, because our chief in the starring role did not show me the tapes, despite the efforts made by him and the brass to get the officer to resign in order to avoid being charged. Where have y’all heard this before? To make a long story short, at a trial, no tapes of any nature were ever produced or discussed. Score one for the good guys. The judge in this criminal case ruled that the charges were not provable. Later during administrative review, another judge gave the cop his job back,citing insufficient evidence to find him guilty. He did receive a long suspension of time served for his self-assigned police action, so his over the top behavior did not go unpunished. Holy who would ever believe a chief would lie, Batman! Case dismissed. MAP got the officer’s job back and his punishment was a suspension for his time off when he was fi red. We are not saying that this officer was angelic and
    not deserving of punishment. But chiefs cannot tell lies and damn ones just to get a cop who they think is lying and then try to screw you over for other or imagined lies. Did the chief pay for this? Of course not. He’s the chief. The officer’s career was clouded with uncertainty. But as often is the case, the officer came back, aligned himself with the right people, and you guessed it, got promoted. Go figure!

  8. bucketoftea :

    Hey Rescue. Thanks for the recap, and I like the picture, too!
    I guess there must have been reporting restrictions on some things during the hearings; eg Jennifer Schoon’s testimony. Perhaps some was even heard in the judge’s chambers. We must continue to hope that eventually we’ll know all.

    Hey Bucket. As much as I was looking forward to hearing what Jennifer Schoon had to offer, sorry to say, I’ve been told it was little to nothing. I understand that she was questioned along the lines of what Drew and Stacy’s behavior was that weekend. ❓

  9. Stacy Peterson told the lawyer that her husband was angry because he believed she had told a person named “Tom” that he killed Savio, Smith testified.

    Smith, a divorce attorney for Savio, did not further identify Tom, but it is the name of one of Savio and Peterson’s sons and of Thomas Morphey, a friend of Drew Peterson who testified that he helped the former Bolingbrook police sergeant move a blue barrel he believed contained Stacy Peterson’s remains.

    What’s up with Harry Smith? Funny thing, he DID identify the person Stacy meant, and he DID refer to him as he was caught on camera, doing a walk and talk interview after his testimony. He specifically said Stacy thought Drew was mad at her because he believed she had told his oldest son that he had killed Kathy.

    Why is

  10. Stacy Peterson told the lawyer that her husband was angry because he believed she had told a person named “Tom” that he killed Savio, Smith testified.

    Smith, a divorce attorney for Savio, did not further identify Tom, but it is the name of one of Savio and Peterson’s sons and of Thomas Morphey, a friend of Drew Peterson who testified that he helped the former Bolingbrook police sergeant move a blue barrel he believed contained Stacy Peterson’s remains.

    What’s up with Harry Smith? Funny thing, he DID identify the person Stacy meant, and he DID refer to him as he was caught on camera, doing a walk and talk interview after his testimony. He specifically said Stacy thought Drew was mad at her because he believed she had told his oldest son that he had killed Kathy.

    Why is official testimony different than his walk and talk testimony?

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-day-14/

  11. Perhaps he was asked to testify as far as possible verbatim? As in “Drew’s pissed because he thinks I told Tom….”?

  12. rescueapet :

    Stacy Peterson told the lawyer that her husband was angry because he believed she had told a person named “Tom” that he killed Savio, Smith testified.
    Smith, a divorce attorney for Savio, did not further identify Tom, but it is the name of one of Savio and Peterson’s sons and of Thomas Morphey, a friend of Drew Peterson who testified that he helped the former Bolingbrook police sergeant move a blue barrel he believed contained Stacy Peterson’s remains.

    What’s up with Harry Smith? Funny thing, he DID identify the person Stacy meant, and he DID refer to him as he was caught on camera, doing a walk and talk interview after his testimony. He specifically said Stacy thought Drew was mad at her because he believed she had told his oldest son that he had killed Kathy.
    Why is official testimony different than his walk and talk testimony?
    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-day-14/

    Some reporters wrote that he did said Drew’s son Tom, some wrote that it was Tom Morphey, and some wrote that it was just someone named Tom. That’s what I said ealier in the week in my last post. You can’t use was reporters write in their articles as official testimony, because we’re not getting all of the actual testimony….only what the reporters hear and interpret. It’s snowing here, which is very unusual in my part of the country, so I’m sort of stuck at home today, as I don’t want to be on the streets with crasy drivers who can’t handle this stuff..including myself.

  13. bucketoftea :

    Perhaps he was asked to testify as far as possible verbatim? As in “Drew’s pissed because he thinks I told Tom….”?

    Well, since Stacy disappeared a few days later, how did Smith know who she was talking about then? He knew there was a boy named Tom in the Peterson family, so he might have logically come to that conclusion. But, since there is Tom Morphey also he may not have known about, who’s to be sure which Tom it is. If she specifically said “son” in the same convo as “Tom,” then isn’t that what he should have testified to? Since he didn’t testify any further as to who was the Tom person, then why did he elaborate on it when he was yapping to the press?

  14. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311656,00.html

    This was reported on November 14, 2007. Weeks after Stacy disappeared, but searchers still out looking for her.

    Peterson denied that he harmed his 23-year-old wife or had anything to do with her disappearance, saying that “she found somebody else, those were her words.” He also said he had no plans to help search for her because he thought she left willfully. He also said he was a “media sensation” and would attract attention that could harm the search effort.

    “Why would I look for somebody who I don’t believe is missing? She’s just gone. She’s where she wants to be,” Peterson said.

    In the same interview, regarding Kathleen:

    Peterson acknowledged that there were mysterious circumstances surrounding Savio’s death, but said he didn’t know what, if anything, the exhumation would accomplish.

    Wonder what he means by “mysterious circumstances?”

  15. Nother flower to the garden:

    http://www.zimbio.com/Kathleen+Savio/articles/7/Drew+Peterson+Feel+SQUEEZED+Kathleen+Savio

    […]
    State police concluded at the time, that Kathleen’s death was not suspicious.

    Stacy Peterson provided Peterson’s alibi, according to police reports. State’s Atty. James Glasgow reopened the investigation after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance in October of 2007.

    The plot thickens, when several months after Savio died, Peterson replaced his divorce attorney, Alex Beck, with Joseph Mazzone, a former Will County prosecutor, who is chief counsel for a police union.

    Beck has filed paperwork seeking to have his expenses repaid, including for work on the deposition and subpoena shortly before Savio’s death. This means that Drew didn’t even pay his attorney.
    […]

  16. “It’s a shame that her rest in peace has to be disturbed for something like this,” Peterson said when asked about the decision to exhume the woman’s body.

    November 17, 2007

    Peterson described Savio, as he did Stacy, as emotionally disturbed. “She came from an abusive home life, she had abusive stepparents,” he said about Savio. “After she had children, hormones kicked in, and again, an emotional roller coaster with her.”

    What has that description got to do with Kathleen’s “accidental drowning” in the bath tub? Her emotional state did not cause bruising all over her body, a gash in her head, and her dead body being “discovered” in a waterless bath tub.

    Peterson said he feared the legal costs that may be associated with defending himself in these cases. When asked if he was worried that any potential legal proceedings might take him away from his children, Peterson said he did not fear being found guilty and having to face life in prison or potentially the death penalty because his children would be provided for and cared for by his family members.

  17. Someone get me a pair of boots and a bucket.

    Matt Lauer interview: November 14, 2007

    PETERSON: So when I heard screaming, I went inside and there she was in the bathtub.

    LAUER: What did you see? And did it look like an accidental drowning to you at that time?

    PETERSON: I felt the … I didn’t know if she was dead or live, so I felt her pulse and, you know, being a policeman, I basically didn’t want to touch anything or disturb anything.

    But, he basically touched and disturbed everything. That’s an innocent man?

  18. “being a policeman, I basically didn’t want to touch anything.”

    IMO, he “admits” here that he instinctively acted as a police officer and had the foresight to back off disturbing the scene. He had no idea what the cause of her death was, yet continued to compromise the scene and did the opposite of what he told Matt Lauer and the national audience that day.

    That’s not hearsay. That’s a fact.

  19. “After she had children, hormones kicked in, and again, an emotional roller coaster with her.”

    ****

    Drew really seems to have a problem with women and their hormones after they have children. What I want to know is – what woman doesn’t have hormone issues after delivery?? It’s a normal thing that happens to most of us because the hormone levels actually change and get off-kilter for about 6 weeks post-partum. Maybe Drew should get the Big V to stop getting them pregnant or start dating men if that is an issue for him… 😀

  20. TAI @ #26. My answer to that would be that Peterson played up all the negative points he could muster up to make him appear to be the victim. Including the fact that he had lost at least 20 pounds, and the media crush was getting to him.

    Regardless of what he said on national tv, that did not address the fact that his ex wife was discovered by a hoard of people he sent in to see her. Her emotional state was none of his business, since he was divorced from her and they weren’t living together. Her emotional state had nothing to do with her dead body lying in a waterless bath tub, and the national viewers did not need to hear that. That was his Drewspin kicking in to get sympathy. What is important is to learn why he went against everything he was trained to do and know as a police officer, by allowing the circus-like atmosphere to take place as it did. He’s admitted that in any suspicious death, the spouse is always looked upon as a suspect. Tells me he did everything in his power that was the opposite, and that makes him look even more suspect!

    That is not hearsay, that is a fact.

  21. It isn’t the hormones, it’s the attention lavished on the children and all that entails…like not so much time or inclination for “romance.”

  22. Oh – I know it was a method to get sympathy. Many guys have pulled that one out of their pocket with their friends. I’ve heard my female friends cite PMS as why their hubbies/boyfriends were a pain to them on something.

    I was just trying to make a little joke there. :/

    After posting that I also thought back to things Drew has said about the whole “repairs” thing and his own words harping on Christina’s diet. He wants the trophy at his side.

    And I agree with Bucket that he is the kind of person that needs undivided attention and surely seems to have a very active hormonal requirement for “romance” based on his numerous affairs and women he has chased even after Stacy disappeared IMO. I can’t picture him being happy when the doctor says no sex for x weeks after delivery – which often isn’t on the woman’s mind anyway as you are wiped out from tending to the tiny one throughout the night for weeks and weeks. I can’t really see Drew picking up the night feeding for some reason…

  23. You’re totally right about the hormones especially post partum!! I think it’s nature’s way to tell everyone else (dads) to piss off. I like the idea of giving birth in some cultures where you just hang with women for ages afterwards and they look after you. 🙂

    I think it’s just as well Drew wasn’t responsible for caring for the babies in the night….the mind boggles…can you get black onesies?

  24. I found his response to Puccinelli’s question about if he had invested in Christina’s kids pretty insightful. I am pretty certain that Puccinelli meant emotional investment and Drew’s answer was all about the money he spent on them.

    “Oh yeah, I spent about $2,000 accomodating them moving into the house. I bought bunk beds for them and bedding. I wanted the kids to have their own place to sleep – have their own bed – have a feeling of belonging. So yeah, I invested in them quite extensively.”

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/yjzlr8r

  25. Peterson unexpectedly called Dan Abrams and gave an impromptu interview. Near the end, he was asked about Stacy’s relationship with Pastor Schori. It’s the remainder of the response that is interesting.

    Peterson was going to be hauled before the Police Board for using the BB database to do his own searches. Since Peterson is so upstanding and honest, I guess we can all assume none of the recent acquaintances of Stacy’s were the subject of his searches. 😉 (Liar, liar, lying skunk)

    Peterson: “I know Stacy was very infatuated with the guy. If it was a two-way relationship, I can’t comment. Every time she’d go meet with him, she’d be all dolled up in something voluptuous and seductive and her makeup was perfect. And it was odd to go and meet a pastor like that. I don’t know if something was going on, but I didn’t know about these other guys either.”

    On Friday, Oct. 19, Stacy’s friend Scott Rossetto met her at a restaurant. Scott says the two of them had been exchanging flirty texts but they were not involved romantically. According to Scott, Drew showed up at the restaurant.

    Scott Rossetto: Asked me how’d I’d feel if my wife went off with another guy… Just kept staring at her. He sat with us for about a good 15, 20 minutes.

  26. Brodsky blasted Morphey about his variances, as he implied, in his description of the blue barrel.

    How about Drew’s variances about what was missing, along with Stacy:

    Now taking leave from his job — which he was set to retire from on Dec. 16 — Peterson said he talked “for a while” on Monday night to state police investigators searching for his wife.

    He said he found her purse, cell phone and even some clothing gone after she left their two-story brick home on Sunday.

    Wonder what he was burning in the Wawczak’s BBQ grill that Paula has mentioned is on the overhears?

  27. Drew has surely given some inconsistent statements. For example – in the Armstrong book he says that the day before Kathleen was found he was with his family at the Shedd Aquarium but in the interview with Puccinelli (same link as my other post) response was:

    “I was home with Stacy. Stacy had just had her wisdom teeth taken out and I had spent the weekend and the prior week with her basically babysitting her and taking care of her.”

    Not a single mention about the Shedd with the family.

  28. Yes, I remember hearing about the wisdom teeth story too.

    Trouble is (for him, not anyone else), he gave so many interviews and said so many things, it’s easy enough to pile them on. He told so many lies and gave so many versions, he’s his own worst enemy, and his lawyer was his enabler.

  29. He said he found her purse, cell phone and even some clothing gone after she left their two-story brick home on Sunday.
    ——
    Did he mean that she came back and returned all those things as a car? BS.

    Those of you interested in how Drew’s case was solved in 1986 can read my (#9) loooooooooong post (on the lack of video/audio tapes I mentioned yesterday). Sorry for the layout boy I copied it from PDF.

  30. IMO, Drew’s statement on spending the whole day at home with the family contrasts the testimony of Jacqueline Mitchell.

  31. If I ever read this before, I must have subconsciously, thank heavens, put it out of my mind. It must have made me sick for days, so I made myself forget it, LOL.

    (credit – January 22, 2008; By JOE HOSEY Staff writer)

    Joel Brodsky: Good job on television

    Brodsky says his fanbase also gave him good reviews for his television news appearances.
    “I can tell you, I think I do a pretty good job on TV,” he said. “People have told me I do a pretty good job.”

    He attributes his affinity for the small screen to the joy he takes in teaching.

    “It’s almost like I’m explaining the law or teaching a little bit,” he said. “Maybe that’s why I enjoy it so much.”

    Brodsky’s taste for television has him pondering taking it up professionally, albeit part-time.

    “It might be an interesting sideline,” he said. “I still enjoy trying cases. It would be nice if I could mix the both.”

    Fanbase?

  32. thinkaboutit:
    Drew really seems to have a problem with women and their hormones after they have children. What I want to know is – what woman doesn’t have hormone issues after delivery?? It’s a normal thing that happens to most of us because the hormone levels actually change and get off-kilter for about 6 weeks post-partum. Maybe Drew should get the Big V to stop getting them pregnant or start dating men if that is an issue for him

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    the thing has a madonna-whore complex. notice he had Stacy undergoing all sorts of modifications to her body: implants-tummytuck lipo and on and on..AFTER babies were born ? Also, his fixation-fetish on young teens clinches it IMO.

  33. Peterson described Savio, as he did Stacy, as emotionally disturbed. “She came from an abusive home life, she had abusive stepparents,”

    ~~~~~

    oh, sure. The *expert* speaketh…while he is raising his own kids in a dysfunctional violent enviornment and the liklihood that they’ll become
    emotionally disturbed adults….He sure is good at projecting!

  34. Peterson’s attorneys filed a motion in December, 2007, to try and get his belongings back.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt allowed a defense witness to be heard, to “hear from this witness to give the defense an opportunity to present what they believe this court should do.”

    The witness, forensic scientist Ann Chamberlain of Speckin Forensic Laboratories in Okemos, Mich., formerly worked for the Michigan State Police and is a medical examiner for Eaton County, Mich. She was fired from her job with the state police in 2007 after she admitted in a divorce proceeding that she had used state equipment to test her husband’s underwear to determine whether he was cheating on her.

    LOL, think she’s on the defense witness list? 😉

  35. facsmiley February 12, 2010 at 2:07 pm | #44 Quote “I expected all of my wives to be like my mom, meticulous housekeepers, and they weren’t.”

    And look how he turned out…

    ~~~~

    If good housekeeping was his main qualifier for a wife, then he should have trolled Merry Maids for his dates. The fact is Drew idealizes females, has unreasonable expectations and has numerous issues…CORRECTION. He doesn’t have *issues* he has subscriptions!

  36. I believe I came across something in the last couple of days, and I’ll have to see if I can find it again, that Kathleen told the medical people at the ER that her husband was drunk and damaged up the living room. I think that’s the night that he dragged her by her hair into the house, while she was screaming for help.

    Of course, he denied ever being abusive, but it’s no secret he’s haunted bars night after night since Stacy disappeared.

    Until the well ran dry.

  37. Since it seems like a good week to go down memory lane and weigh what we’ve heard before from Drew Peterson upon the new things we’ve read recently. He’s always had the 2 basic things he always responded during interviews. I have no idea and it happens. I included one video as an example. I’m still looking for the one where he tries to answer to why all his wives are accusing him of abuse and he gives the same answer. In this particular video is the one that talks about his lie detector test from the Drew Peterson EXSPOSED book. I can’t see how they try to make him credible and honest from failing 3 questions on the test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kY5DZeQxMI

  38. bucketoftea :
    It isn’t the hormones, it’s the attention lavished on the children and all that entails…like not so much time or inclination for “romance.”

    AND the fact that Drew was no longer the center of attention. I’d say it was HIS hormones that were not in whack. After all-the 6 weeks recommended was a lifetime to him. IMO.

  39. On Dr. Phil he stated

    “I was a policeman. Policeman do not get involved in physical confrontations with their wives, because if you do, you will lose your career,” Drew explains. “I wasn’t about to get involved in any physical confrontation with them and take that chance.”

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/y92vn5z

    First off – everyone knows that policemen do sometimes get physical with their wives and don’t lose their career. Happens all the time in many towns.

    Second – this contradicts his son’s account of the day he dragged Kathleen into the house by her hair. I’d call that a physical. Whether or not she was drunk – it was physical and he didn’t say “I only got physical that time she was trashed to protect her from yada yada yada…”

  40. “I was a policeman. Policeman do not get involved in physical confrontations with their wives, because if you do, you will lose your career,” Drew explains. “I wasn’t about to get involved in any physical confrontation with them and take that chance.”

    ~~~~

    message to the thing: pictures don’t lie. I saw the pic’s of KS taken at the emergency room. Also, didn’t he assault KS in the presence of Alex Morelli, anoher cop?

    The fact is he did beat and threaten his wives and GF’s however it never had an impact on his cop job, thanks in part to his various waterboys.

  41. Sue says there was violence, too. She says Kathy told her she was beaten. Hospital records show Kathy landed in an emergency room on one occasion and the records reflect the story Kathy told her sister.

    Sue Doman: He took her head and took her hair, she had long hair, and he beat her against a wooden table. He was angry at her.

    Hoda Kotb: What kind of injuries did she sustain?

    Sue Doman: She had a laceration on her head. She became dazed. She had black and blue marks all over her.

  42. I will have more when I can find what I was reading earlier. Eric testified that Peterson had dragged Kathleen into the house, screaming, by her hair. I am looking for the news account or piece that describes that incident. I believe it mentions that Drew was drunk, although the testimony only refers to her being drunk.

  43. Hoda Kotb: What kind of injuries did she sustain?

    Sue Doman: She had a laceration on her head. She became dazed. She had black and blue marks all over her.

    Heh, the defense is trying to use Kathleen’s being “dazed” as the reason she may have slipped and fell dead into the waterless bath tub.

    Sickening, isn’t it?

  44. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/641858,6_1_NA09_PETERSON_S1.article

    Peterson’s 3rd wife pleaded for help
    Cop’s 4th wife has been missing for twelve days

    November 9, 2007
    By Jennifer Golz Staff writer

    excerpt

    Other letters and medical records provided by Savio’s family document a history of abuse.

    A 1993 trip to the emergency room for a head trauma was the result of an allegedly drunk Drew Peterson who “began to destroy their home … throwing chairs in glass cabinets, throwing Kathleen against the wall and knocking her unconscious with the dining room table.”

    Bolingbrook Police’s dispatch report that night indicated the “problem resolved,” as Savio left the residence to spend the night at her sister’s. But less than an hour later Savio sought treatment at the emergency room.

    I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.

  45. I can’t really see Drew picking up the night feeding for some reason.

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

    Drew would have been busy doing his millionaire-cop and street-death-squad thing during his night shift, so he would have never been home to feed any babies anyway !!

  46. …an allegedly drunk Drew Peterson who “began to destroy their home … throwing chairs in glass cabinets, throwing Kathleen against the wall and knocking her unconscious with the dining room table.”

    Looks like there are two sides to that story!

    BTW, I don’t recall her ER report mentioning anything about Kathleen being inebriated.

    “Gait steady. Speech clear…”


  47. Sue Doman: She had a laceration on her head. She became dazed. She had black and blue marks all over her.

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

    Pretty similar injuries to her body 10 years later.

  48. I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.

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

    Yes that’s the one, backed up by hospital reports and an eye witness (his own son).

    That’s pretty powerful stuff….

  49. I wonder if it was not another journalist’s mistake with Kathleen being drunk. Maybe Erik said it had been Drew. I think it would be great to have the trapecript or ask someone who was there in court on the day Erik testified.

  50. justanotherhen :I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes that’s the one, backed up by hospital reports and an eye witness (his own son).
    That’s pretty powerful stuff….

    Do we know if these are actually the same incidents? I don’t recall hearing any actual dates listed for the testimony to be able to compare to the medical report that was out on AMW before.

  51. cyrhla :I wonder if it was not another journalist’s mistake with Kathleen being drunk. Maybe Erik said it had been Drew. I think it would be great to have the trapecript or ask someone who was there in court on the day Erik testified.

    It is very challenging having to rely on media reports. They sometimes really mix things up or get things completely wrong.

  52. “Eric Peterson said it was apparent that Savio was drunk the night Drew Peterson dragged her around.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2004329,Peterson-hearsay-day2-stepbro-JO012110.article

    Eric was about 14 or so when this incident happened and “apparently” was sent up to his room during it. Did Drew explain later to him that Kathleen was drunk? I wonder just how much he saw and/or understood and how influenced he was by the master manipulator.

  53. thinkaboutit2 :

    justanotherhen :I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes that’s the one, backed up by hospital reports and an eye witness (his own son).
    That’s pretty powerful stuff….

    Do we know if these are actually the same incidents? I don’t recall hearing any actual dates listed for the testimony to be able to compare to the medical report that was out on AMW before.

    Yes the dates are there and corresponding.

    Also the fact Thomas was a baby of only a few months old, which is also mentioned in the hospital report re post natal vitamins Kathleen was taking at the time.

  54. rescueapet :If I ever read this before, I must have subconsciously, thank heavens, put it out of my mind. It must have made me sick for days, so I made myself forget it, LOL.
    (credit – January 22, 2008; By JOE HOSEY Staff writer)

    Joel Brodsky: Good job on television
    Brodsky says his fanbase also gave him good reviews for his television news appearances.“I can tell you, I think I do a pretty good job on TV,” he said. “People have told me I do a pretty good job.”
    He attributes his affinity for the small screen to the joy he takes in teaching.
    “It’s almost like I’m explaining the law or teaching a little bit,” he said. “Maybe that’s why I enjoy it so much.”
    Brodsky’s taste for television has him pondering taking it up professionally, albeit part-time.
    “It might be an interesting sideline,” he said. “I still enjoy trying cases. It would be nice if I could mix the both.”

    Fanbase?

    I think by “fanbase” he must be talking about that nose picker in the mirror.

  55. He (Joel Brodsky) attributes his affinity for the small screen to the joy he takes in teaching.
    “It’s almost like I’m explaining the law or teaching a little bit,” he said. “Maybe that’s why I enjoy it so much.”

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

    Joel in his role of teaching and explaining the law – LOL !

  56. thinkaboutit2 :

    justanotherhen :I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes that’s the one, backed up by hospital reports and an eye witness (his own son).
    That’s pretty powerful stuff….

    Do we know if these are actually the same incidents? I don’t recall hearing any actual dates listed for the testimony to be able to compare to the medical report that was out on AMW before.

    Wow, I hope there weren’t similar incidents as graphic as this.

    1993 was approximately 17 years ago. Somewhere I saw information that Eric is about 31 or 32, and adding 17 years ago to his approximate age at the time, makes him approximately 31 or 32. That’s the best I can do.

  57. coffee: I think by “fanbase” he must be talking about that nose picker in the mirror.

    …and scratching his balls.

  58. If they have the video tape that Stacy was said to have taken with Katheen’s camera while Drew was holding her down….pictures speak volumes.

  59. charmed4sr :
    If they have the video tape that Stacy was said to have taken with Katheen’s camera while Drew was holding her down….pictures speak volumes.

    Great point, charmed.

  60. Wow, I hope there weren’t similar incidents as graphic as this.

    1993 was approximately 17 years ago. Somewhere I saw information that Eric is about 31 or 32, and adding 17 years ago to his approximate age at the time, makes him approximately 31 or 32. That’s the best I can do.

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

    Drew and Kathleen were married in 1992.

    This incidence took place in 1993 when the two older boys (Eric & Steven) were visiting.

    Son Thomas was only a baby of approx 4 months old which is verified by the mention of post natal vitamins in the hospital report.

  61. cyrhla :
    Don’t you think that if Kathleen had been drunk, it would have been in the hospital report?

    Absolutely !

    It’s hard to believe a hospital would painstakingly note someone taking post natal vitamins, yet make no mention of someone being drunk (!!)

    It’s also hard to believe a responsible young mother like Kathleen, with a barely 4 month old baby would be a raging drunk and be the cause of such a ruckus in her own home.

  62. rescueapet :

    thinkaboutit2 :

    justanotherhen :I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes that’s the one, backed up by hospital reports and an eye witness (his own son).
    That’s pretty powerful stuff….

    Do we know if these are actually the same incidents? I don’t recall hearing any actual dates listed for the testimony to be able to compare to the medical report that was out on AMW before.

    Wow, I hope there weren’t similar incidents as graphic as this.
    1993 was approximately 17 years ago. Somewhere I saw information that Eric is about 31 or 32, and adding 17 years ago to his approximate age at the time, makes him approximately 31 or 32. That’s the best I can do.

    ———————————————————————————– Well there you go. Not only is all the accounts of abuse are not some crazy fabricated thing Drew has no explanation for why his x wives would say that,but actual medical records and witnesses sworn testimony to say otherwise.

    I never realized there were so many witnesses that were saying the same thing coming from completely different walks of life as far as the abuse Kathleen experienced by him.

  63. PETERSON: I felt the … I didn’t know if she was dead or live, so I felt her pulse and, you know, being a policeman, I basically didn’t want to touch anything or disturb anything.

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

    That statement has always bothered me (about him taking her pulse).

    Kathleen obviously looked pretty dead to even the untrained eye of Mary Pontarelli as she started screaming, ran out of the bathroom and started pounding her fists on Kathleens bed.

    To Steve Carcerano she also looked pretty dead as to him she looked like an “exercise ball”

    Hmmmm, did Kathleen look anything like an “exercise ball” in life ??

    And then there’s Drew, a veteran Police Officer who can’t tell he’s looking at a long deceased body……..

  64. justanotherhen :Wow, I hope there weren’t similar incidents as graphic as this.
    1993 was approximately 17 years ago. Somewhere I saw information that Eric is about 31 or 32, and adding 17 years ago to his approximate age at the time, makes him approximately 31 or 32. That’s the best I can do.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Drew and Kathleen were married in 1992.
    This incidence took place in 1993 when the two older boys (Eric & Steven) were visiting.
    Son Thomas was only a baby of approx 4 months old which is verified by the mention of post natal vitamins in the hospital report.

    Then Kris came along a year or two later, and they even stayed married for about 10 years afterward. Doesn’t it make anyone wonder why she stayed so long with that a**hole, and even had another child with him? Could she have loved him that much, or been too afraid to leave? It’s just hard to comprehend.

  65. And another thing that bothers me:

    A neighbor has recently stated he saw the light on at Kathleens home around 2 am the night she died, so if Kathleen had an accident, falling over in the tub and died, the light must have stayed on for another day and a half until (at the very earliest) the locksmith opened the door, yet I’ve never heard anyone mention anything about seeing lights on at Kathleens house for a long period of time or that the lights were on when Kathleen was found, so were the lights on when Kathleen was found or did she turn them off after she fell over and died ??

  66. To Steve Carcerano she also looked pretty dead as to him she looked like an “exercise ball”

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

    Funny too, in the last week, we never saw any testimony from Steve Carcerano re finding Kathleen looking like an exercise ball –

    Hmmmmmmm

  67. JAH, I thought about that too, and if no one saw it on the next night, Drew evidently must have turned it off when he left. I think he probably also must slipped out the front door, locking the only lock he could from inside before he closed the door behind him, since only one out of three locks were locked, and there was no sign of break-in or forced entry.

  68. justanotherhen :To Steve Carcerano she also looked pretty dead as to him she looked like an “exercise ball”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Funny too, in the last week, we never saw any testimony from Steve Carcerano re finding Kathleen looking like an exercise ball –
    Hmmmmmmm

    The defense may call him yet….but it would surprise me.

  69. rescueapet :Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    Hey Rescue. No, don’t go to any trouble. Just wondered what he might have had to say since he’s living in Kathleen’s house now. Truthfully, I was surprised to see him listed as witness for the hearsay hearing, but he may have known or heard something that was relevant in some way. It’s no big deal though, so please don’t pursue it on my account. Thanks for the offer though.

  70. cfs7360 :

    rescueapet :Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    Hey Rescue. No, don’t go to any trouble. Just wondered what he might have had to say since he’s living in Kathleen’s house now. Truthfully, I was surprised to see him listed as witness for the hearsay hearing, but he may have known or heard something that was relevant in some way. It’s no big deal though, so please don’t pursue it on my account. Thanks for the offer though.

    Carcerano living in Kathleen’s house? Are you sure? I thought it was a couple who ended up allowing the ISP to take their bathtub as evidence in 2008.

  71. atlgranny :

    cfs7360 :

    rescueapet :Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    Hey Rescue. No, don’t go to any trouble. Just wondered what he might have had to say since he’s living in Kathleen’s house now. Truthfully, I was surprised to see him listed as witness for the hearsay hearing, but he may have known or heard something that was relevant in some way. It’s no big deal though, so please don’t pursue it on my account. Thanks for the offer though.

    Carcerano living in Kathleen’s house? Are you sure? I thought it was a couple who ended up allowing the ISP to take their bathtub as evidence in 2008.

    No. Not Carcerano. Rodolfo Hernandez

  72. rescueapet :
    Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    I could of sworn Steve Carcerano did tesify at the hearsay hearings.

  73. justanotherhen :

    thinkaboutit2 :

    justanotherhen :I believe this is the incident Eric Peterson testified about at the hearsay hearings.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yes that’s the one, backed up by hospital reports and an eye witness (his own son).That’s pretty powerful stuff….

    Do we know if these are actually the same incidents? I don’t recall hearing any actual dates listed for the testimony to be able to compare to the medical report that was out on AMW before.

    Yes the dates are there and corresponding.
    Also the fact Thomas was a baby of only a few months old, which is also mentioned in the hospital report re post natal vitamins Kathleen was taking at the time.

    Thanks JAH – I didn’t get to follow the reports on the trial that closely.

  74. I guess your wondering what was reported what he said. I know I read an article on it. Theres just so many different versions that leave some testimony out and some that go into detail about it.

  75. givarat :

    rescueapet :Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    I could of sworn Steve Carcerano did tesify at the hearsay hearings.

    I’m putting money on him being the defense witness even if there is just one…

  76. I say that about Steve because he was the one who was with Drew when Kathleen was discovered by everyone and he still seems to be friends with Drew.

  77. cfs7360 :

    rescueapet :Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    Hey Rescue. No, don’t go to any trouble. Just wondered what he might have had to say since he’s living in Kathleen’s house now. Truthfully, I was surprised to see him listed as witness for the hearsay hearing, but he may have known or heard something that was relevant in some way. It’s no big deal though, so please don’t pursue it on my account. Thanks for the offer though.

    Wait – Steve Carcerano is living in Kathleen’s house?? Didn’t Drew sell it when she passed away and didn’t Steve already have a house right around there at that time??

  78. givarat :

    rescueapet :
    Hi, CFS. No, nothing about his testimony. I can try and find out, if you have an interest in knowing what he was called to testify about.

    I could of sworn Steve Carcerano did tesify at the hearsay hearings.

    So what did he testify to since he was defending Drew from day one and parroting whatever Drew wanted him to say ?

  79. JAH, I asked about the testimony of Rodolfo Hernandez, who IS living in Kathleen’s house. Carcerano has NOT testified yet, that I’m aware of. Somehow this got all twisted. Carcerano does not live in Kathleen’s house, not did he testify, but Rodolfo Hernandez did testify and is the one living in Kathleen’s former home. Hope this clarifies everything. 😀

  80. cfs7360 :
    JAH, I asked about the testimony of Rodolfo Hernandez, who IS living in Kathleen’s house. Carcerano has NOT testified yet, that I’m aware of. Somehow this got all twisted. Carcerano does not live in Kathleen’s house, not did he testify, but Rodolfo Hernandez did testify and is the one living in Kathleen’s former home. Hope this clarifies everything.

    Thank you cfs !!

    I didn’t think I’ve seen Carceranos name on the list of hearsay witnesses either, which is strange considering he was supposedly with the group that first went in to the house and they’ve already testified.

    IMO The Prosecution still has a few big surprises in store – LOL !!

  81. Accused Wife-Killer Tests Illinois’ New Hearsay Law

    Lynne Marek
    The National Law Journal
    February 16, 2010

    Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook, Ill., cop now accused of killing his third wife and a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, will have an opportunity to respond this week to the hearsay evidence presented against him in a pretrial hearing.

    During 15 days that stretched from January into February, friends and relatives of the late Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in her bathtub in 2004, and Stacy Peterson, who disappeared last year, have testified in state court in Joliet, Ill., that the women said their husband on several occasions threatened to kill them, according to local news reports. Drew Peterson has pleaded not guilty.

    Such hearsay evidence is often inadmissible, although there are exceptions to that standard in federal and common law and in a number of states. In response to the Peterson case, Illinois passed a law last year allowing hearsay statements from a person who is shown at a pretrial hearing by a preponderance of evidence to have been murdered by the defendant. To date, the new law hasn’t been extensively tested, so there’s little precedent for knowing how Judge Stephen White will rule.

    Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky of Chicago-based Brodsky & Odeh, maintains that the law is unconstitutional and “a mistake” despite a state court ruling last year that the law should stand.

    “It allows gossip and innuendo and things people say during a heated divorce that aren’t true to come into court as evidence,” Brodsky said. “Nobody should ever be convicted without being able to confront the declarant.”

    Brodsky plans to present only one or two witnesses Wednesday when the hearing resumes. He said a number of other statements from the defense will be entered into the record. There were 68 witnesses put on the stand by the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office, said Chuck Pelkie, a spokesman for that office.

    “If we lose the case, then we can take it up on appeal, but we don’t plan on losing,” Brodsky said about the admission of hearsay statements. He added that he may also seek a change of venue for the subsequent trial. The judge put off that question until after an attempt to select a jury.

    Pelkie declined to comment on the law or the potential outcome of the pretrial hearing.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202443284478&Accused_WifeKiller_Tests_Illinois_New_Hearsay_Law

  82. “It allows gossip and innuendo and things people say during a heated divorce that aren’t true to come into court as evidence,” Brodsky said. “Nobody should ever be convicted without being able to confront the declarant.”

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

    Looks like Joel bases his strategy on innuendo and gossip he himself reads on the Internet rather than having a solid case based on Drews innocense.

  83. “If we lose the case, then we can take it up on appeal, but we don’t plan on losing,” Brodsky said about the admission of hearsay statements. He added that he may also seek a change of venue for the subsequent trial. The judge put off that question until after an attempt to select a jury.

    I think this answers any questions on how Brodsky wants to proceed in this case.

  84. I always thought Carcereno would testify on behalf of the Defense, not the Prosecution. He was Drew’s one remaining “friend” — right? (Or am I forgetting something again.)

  85. cfs:
    Then Kris came along a year or two later, and they even stayed married for about 10 years afterward. Doesn’t it make anyone wonder why she stayed so long with that a**hole, and even had another child with him? Could she have loved him that much, or been too afraid to leave? It’s just hard to comprehend.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Unless you have lived it, it is hard to comprehend why someone in that situation would remain. Suffice it to say Kathleen was devastated. New baby and newly wed, nice big wedding to charming Drew and now she’s a punching bag. She probably blamed herself and the thing only re-inforced this with his mantra ” it’s all your fault because you are a..( fill in the blank with your choice of label )” Drew is good at that; they’re either crazy drunk druggie streetperson hooker headcase

    No one wants to face the reality that their marriage is over, especially when this reality hits you across the head when you’re still basically a newlywed, and what about the baby. No support system? No problem. You just stay put.

    Women have been conditioned to be the fixers in relationships. It’s a cultural and social thing and I am certain K wanted to give it her very best for the sake of her boys until she could not permit this flagrant cheating and abuse and filed divorce but Drew doesn’t let go. He views women as property and how dare they try and leave the worlds greatest lover. He was not about to let her have a life of her own because he is egotistical and a misogynist, greedy and violent. He was permitted, though, to have a new life, new wife, family and house but not Kathleen.

    What the thing did is so very outrageous on so many levels, including how Bolingbrook did nothing about this ongoing situation of an out of control rogue cop and what appears IMHO as an organized network of enablers making things all nice-nice for Drew who then proceeded to rob Kathleen’s estate blind.
    Even in death he abused her. He is a world class evil rotten POS and when he is found guilty and sent to the big house, I would like to send him off with a shower.
    Perhaps a little french maids outfit and matching kneepads ? Any ideas?

  86. “If we lose the case, then we can take it up on appeal, but we don’t plan on losing,”

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

    Can Joel Brodsky show us some cases where the Defense planned on losing ? – LOL !!

  87. He added that he may also seek a change of venue for the subsequent trial.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    he’s accepted the fact that his clent will be found guilty.

  88. writerofwrongs :
    He added that he may also seek a change of venue for the subsequent trial.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    he’s accepted the fact that his clent will be found guilty.

    He’s not very transparent is he ? – LOL

  89. givarat :

    “If we lose the case, then we can take it up on appeal, but we don’t plan on losing,” Brodsky said about the admission of hearsay statements. He added that he may also seek a change of venue for the subsequent trial. The judge put off that question until after an attempt to select a jury.

    I think this answers any questions on how Brodsky wants to proceed in this case.

    No lawyer goes in with a plan on losing. Derr. So I wonder if he plans to take it up on appeal after losing during this hearing or only if they lose the whole thing and he is convicted. Appeals on evidence to be admitted at trial can last over a year and since it would be the defense taking it up to the courts it would mean Drew would sit and wait in jail during the appeals process because if the judge already had ruled the evidence admissable – that means he believes Drew made the witness unavailable and therefore the likelihood of his bond being lowered during the appeal is pretty much zero.

  90. thinkaboutit2 :

    givarat :

    “If we lose the case, then we can take it up on appeal, but we don’t plan on losing,” Brodsky said about the admission of hearsay statements. He added that he may also seek a change of venue for the subsequent trial. The judge put off that question until after an attempt to select a jury.

    I think this answers any questions on how Brodsky wants to proceed in this case.

    No lawyer goes in with a plan on losing. Derr. So I wonder if he plans to take it up on appeal after losing during this hearing or only if they lose the whole thing and he is convicted. Appeals on evidence to be admitted at trial can last over a year and since it would be the defense taking it up to the courts it would mean Drew would sit and wait in jail during the appeals process because if the judge already had ruled the evidence admissable – that means he believes Drew made the witness unavailable and therefore the likelihood of his bond being lowered during the appeal is pretty much zero.

    You’ve got to wonder where Joel is at when he makes these statements or gets these bits in the paper.

    Wouldn’t he be much better off to say absolutely nothing and let us guess how smart he is ??

  91. hen You’ve got to wonder where Joel is at when he makes these statements or gets these bits in the paper.

    Wouldn’t he be much better off to say absolutely nothing and let us guess how smart he is ??

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    doncha know he’s working on his big break in TV ? He’s hoping to get discovered.

  92. Writer, thank God I’ve never had to live in it as Kathleen did. I can easily sit here and say I would never have put up with a moment of it, and I probably wouldn’t have, but we’re not all the same, and I have no idea what it was really like to be in her position. Who knows how many other women he cheated on her with until he got Stacy pregnant, and then HE wanted the divorce, or so he said. It’s just a tragic story with an even more tragic ending that’s lived every single day by women all of the country, but thank goodness Drew is hebind bars now, and I hope he never again has the opportunity to even get close to another women in a physical way. He’ll probably shrivel up and die if he has to live the rest of his life without one. Good riddance is all I can say.

  93. atlgranny :I always thought Carcereno would testify on behalf of the Defense, not the Prosecution. He was Drew’s one remaining “friend” — right? (Or am I forgetting something again.)

    I would imagine that he would be a hostile witness for the prosecution, if his allegiance is still with Drew. He may have seen the light as so many others of Drew’s friends have, but I’m not aware of it if he has.

  94. Yeah, it’s really strange to hear Brodsky talking about the possibility of losing the case, when he strenously maintained that Drew would never even be charged. Love the irony in that statement.

  95. atlgranny :
    I always thought Carcereno would testify on behalf of the Defense, not the Prosecution. He was Drew’s one remaining “friend” — right? (Or am I forgetting something again.)

    Regardless of whose friend he is, the Prosecution could have subpoenaed him, especially since he was (according to him and Drew) one of the first people to enter Kathleens house together with Mary Pontarelli, her son & husband, but since he wasn’t called the same day, there must be a very good reason which no doubt we will find out sooner or later.

  96. I don’t know…maybe Carcerano will be testifying next week. Perhaps the week’s intermission is required to bring him from Nevada?(he’s in some kind of financial trouble there, isn’t he?) I know we must wait and see, but can’t help surmising…(we’ve had lots of practice)

  97. atlgranny :Yes, but if Drew accepts a plea deal then there will be no appeal.

    I really doubt Drew will plead out. In his mind he believes that they cannot prove he has done anything wrong. I think even if Joel would snap to his senses and say “hey Drew, your toast, lets try to see what we can get on plea bargin” Drew would tell him no way. I just cannot for the life of me understand why these other attorneys would jump on the band wagon.

    As for the owner of Kathleen’s home, he could testify to the condition of the house, problems with the drain, any thing that was found in the house after closing, placement of locks. Things that may not seem important, but could be.

  98. It would still be interesting to know what the new residents had to say. I thought maybe they’d be required to confirm that the bath was removed by LE? But now? Did they find secret hidey-holes around the house? $25,000 in cash? LOL

  99. I think Drew was given enough time to repair all the holes, remove recording equipment from the basement and hid everything he wanted to hide, bucket. Half a year was enough as he started at once. LOL

  100. Woke up to a beautiful winter wonderdland! Sun is shining on snow-laden trees, creating that shimmering beauty you only see right after a fresh snowfall. We’re not used to this here. Daughter in Charleston, SC even had snowfall! First time since 1989 they had snow!

  101. Congratulations on your snow, AltG. It is beautiful, isn’t it? Bright and quiet. Those of us who don’t get it very often are in the best position to enjoy because we don’t usually have all the nightmare of inconvenience suffered by those further north where they get it all the while.

  102. I grew up in the North and don’t miss the snow one bit! Yet, crisp clear mornings like this with blue skies and shimmering white landscapes almost make me yearn for it. The good thing about The South is that everyone stays home and nobody expects you to keep appointments, so it’s always a good excuse to curl up with a cup of coffee and be lazy. (Except my son, who is a firefighter. I woke up at 6:20 to hear him spinning his tires in the driveway, trying to get out. Spent the next half-hour praying for his safe arrival at firehouse. He made it, but said he was white-knuckled the whole way as it was 22 degrees and the roads were icy. He’ll have a tough day with accidents and idiots!)

  103. That’s why we love ’em. Brilliant public heroes. 🙂

    Snow days should always be about enjoying them. And hot chocolate. It’s a great idea to stay off the roads, and I hear ya about people who don’t respect the conditions…scary!

  104. “First Responders” aren’t given the luxury of saying the roads are too icy to get to work! 🙂 God love ’em!

  105. Hi everyone. We’ve learned something from Joe Hosey that came out of the recent hearings. He, as you know, attended the hearings on a daily basis. We emailed him to ask him whether any one witness in particular had anything interesting to offer. Joe Hosey is working on a story to be coming out, which will include this information.

    Joe Hosey: One thing, the claim adjustor said Patrick Collins told him the coroner determined Savio’s death was an accident about three weeks before the inquest was held.

    According to my notes, Collins returned the call to Steadman on 4/21/04 and told him “the coroner has ruled the death an accidental drowning.”

    Steadman had called because he was investigating a death claim for a large insurance policy.

    If I’m not mistaken, the inquest was not convened until May 7.

    BTW, this is Joseph Steadman — Senior claim adjuster at Old Republic Life Insurance; testified on February 8

  106. What am I missing here? I thought the coroner DID rule it an accidental drowning from the beginning and the cornoer’s inquest was just used to confirm his findings.

    No?

  107. Joe Hosey: One thing, the claim adjustor said Patrick Collins told him the coroner determined Savio’s death was an accident about three weeks before the inquest was held.

    According to my notes, Collins returned the call to Steadman on 4/21/04 and told him “the coroner has ruled the death an accidental drowning.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ..and the plot gets thicker by the second. IMHO there is a reason why the other investigator Bryan F. was ” reassigned” and not Collins.

  108. So Collins took it upon himself to tell the insurance company about a manner of death weeks before the inquest determined what it was? Also he spoke for the coroner who had made no such determination at that date?

    Whoah. Can’t wait for this story, Joe…

  109. But O’Neil says the coroner’s jury ruled it an accident even though they were given the option of declaring the manner of death undetermined.

    “They should have at the very least said it was undetermined,” he said. “That was our opinion at the Will County Coroner’s Office.”

    http://cbs2chicago.com/westsuburbanbureau/kathleen.savio.peterson.2.671627.html

    Of course this could be some back-pedalling and passing the buck on his part, but even O’Neil has said that he wasn’t convinced it was an accidental death.

  110. I cannot, personally, get past the fact that the crime scene tech, Deel, overlooked the head gash and bruises, and still, till this time, believes her death was an accident. Collins said he relied on him to determine whether the scene needed to be treated as a crime.

    I cannot wait to hear what his explanation for that is going to be. Just what would this poor excuse of a crime scene tech look for if he was asked to process a scene where it was thought a killer might have covered up evidence and staged an accident?

    “There wasn’t really anything to look for,” he said of evidence in the bathroom.

    Savio’s fingernail clippings — sometimes a source of crime scene DNA — were never tested, Deel said.

    Deel said he also did not notice that night any of the documented injuries Savio suffered, but said it would not have changed his investigation.

    “The bruises on the body are insignificant to me,” he said.

    He contradicted earlier testimony by head investigator Sgt. Patrick Collins, who said he decided after speaking with Deel within 40 minutes of being on the scene that Savio’s death was accidental.

    The lead investigator in the death of Drew Peterson’s third wife says he never considered it was anything but an accident.

  111. I wonder if they still have the (original) fingernail clippings stored. As they did not check DNA of them, I guess they did not also examined the DNA taken during the autopsy. As this material must be stored, I guess it has been checked now. The results of the “exotic” microbiological tests may also help reveal how Kathleen was murdered. Now I do not wonder, that Glasgow had to base the case on the hearsay law.
    BTW, finding Stacy’s body is not in the interest of some people and they may disturb in the investigation. I hope Glasgow commissioned all the test to be run outside the local agencies.

  112. I hope Glasgow commissioned all the test to be run outside the local agencies.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    why do I smell a great big blue dead rat?

  113. writerofwrongs :I hope Glasgow commissioned all the test to be run outside the local agencies.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    why do I smell a great big blue dead rat?

    Didn’t Michael Baden have some tests done by outside labs when he did the follow-up autopsy?

  114. Joe Hosey: One thing, the claim adjustor said Patrick Collins told him the coroner determined Savio’s death was an accident about three weeks before the inquest was held.

    According to my notes, Collins returned the call to Steadman on 4/21/04 and told him “the coroner has ruled the death an accidental drowning.”

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

    And what do you know –

    Is that when the plan was in place, considering that was the same time Drew started crowing: “you’ll see it will be ruled an accident”

  115. I’m still more irate/confused about the judgment of Deel, the crime scene tech. It sounds like everyone was deferring to him as the expert and he’s the one who said he never saw any injuries on Kathleen and that he considered her death an accident from the get-go. What kind of investigation is it when you make up your mind before gathering evidence?

  116. I just want to get back to a house question re the purchase of Kathleens house by Rodolfo Hernandez.

    Was that house already Drews to sell at that stage, considering when Kathleen died none of the financials were finalized and wouldn’t the house (or her financial part/interest) have gone to her estate first to be sorted out and therefore what paperwork did Drew submit the house was his to sell so quickly ??

  117. facsmiley :
    I’m still more irate/confused about the judgment of Deel, the crime scene tech. It sounds like everyone was deferring to him as the expert and he’s the one who said he never saw any injuries on Kathleen and that he considered her death an accident from the get-go. What kind of investigation is it when you make up your mind before gathering evidence?

    It all sounds and looks like one great big scam to me, but the big question is going to be who was in it and who was made to be in it ??

  118. justanotherhen :

    facsmiley :I’m still more irate/confused about the judgment of Deel, the crime scene tech. It sounds like everyone was deferring to him as the expert and he’s the one who said he never saw any injuries on Kathleen and that he considered her death an accident from the get-go. What kind of investigation is it when you make up your mind before gathering evidence?

    It all sounds and looks like one great big scam to me, but the big question is going to be who was in it and who was made to be in it ??

    Facs — I’m totally in agreement about Deel. Something smells really fishy — he admits that he had never done a homocide investigation before [mod edit–it was collins who said this was his first homicide investigation, not Deel] and then smugly says that he still believes it was an accidental drowning. There’s something else here as the overwhelming evidence is that he deliberately didn’t do his job. WHY? The guy should have been fired a long time ago, but his recent testimony should have his superiors taking another strong look at why he didn’t pay attention to elementary clues that seemed to be evident to even innocent bystanders. For example, how well did he know Drew before Kathy showed up dead in her bathtub?

    JustAnother — Again, agree that it seems there was collusion on this from the beginning. Deel aside, for officer Collins to quickly defer to Deel’s slipshod opinion — after asking Drew if he and Kathy were having any problems — just seems too scripted. In hindsight, Collins seems to be throwing Deel under the bus but other testimony (forget the name) from the assistant investigator who said he raised questions from the get-go and was taken off the case show that there seems to have been a plan from the beginning.

    I’m sure we’re not the only ones to have serious issues with all this.

  119. The way Kathleen’s death investigation was handled, and the contacts between these investigators and Peterson from the days prior to and up to the coroner’s inquest, are a major deal, IMO. I am certainly not going to speculate why Deel, Collins, the Harvey cop on the coroner’s panel, and even Hardy, acted the way they did.

    But, and I say, but, if there’s the remotest possibility that one, some, or all of them talked with Peterson in a way that caused them to further along her death ruling as an accident, then that is a major blow to the defense for obvious reasons. I would think a jury is going to have to hear the complete scenario as to why certain guys did what they did, since they look as suspicious as the murder suspect at this point.

    It would be interesting to know why Peterson himself referred to them as idiots.

    It’s not right, and I’m not going to do it, to accuse any of these people of wrongdoing yet, until all the facts are out about it, but I would expect to hear more about this.

  120. Reascue, could you ask Joe Hosey if Collins and Deel were asked during their testimonies if they had knew Drew prior to Kathleen found dead?

  121. “The results of toxicology tests being done on the body of Kathleen Savio are taking longer than normal because of the complexity of requested tests. “Following the autopsy conducted Nov. 13 on Kathleen Savio by independent pathologist Dr. Larry Blum, toxicology testing was requested on various samples,” said Patrick O’Neil, Will County coroner. About a month later, O’Neil said, Blum requested additional toxicology testing that O’Neil said were “exotic” and “very complicated.” The complexity of the testing, coupled with the December request, has pushed back the anticipated release of the full autopsy report, he said.”

    As quoted in http://www.acandyrose.com/kathleen_savio.htm and attributed to an article (now a dead link) in the Chicago Suburban News dated 1/16/2008.

  122. Gosh! It had escaped me that the cop on the coroner’s jury was from Harvey. Harvey being the PD surrounded by the FBI and from whence hailed officers that were providing security for drug shipments in partnership with some from other agencies including Illinois State Police.

    It’s a coincidence that that was the kind of thing I thought DP involved with, what with a non-secure airfield and a truckstop around the corner.MOO, of course.

  123. facsmiley :
    I’m still more irate/confused about the judgment of Deel, the crime scene tech. It sounds like everyone was deferring to him as the expert and he’s the one who said he never saw any injuries on Kathleen and that he considered her death an accident from the get-go. What kind of investigation is it when you make up your mind before gathering evidence?

    IMO – By saying he (Bob Deel) didn’t see any head wound, blood, bruising, nothing wrong with how Kathleen was found in the tub, etc and if he did it was meaningless/insignificant anyway (!!), he was basically saying the (initial) investigation was total BS without him actually saying those words.

    He’s throwing who ever is responsible for this mess under the bus without actually saying so, as did Sergeant Collins and the locksmith put in his 2 cents as well.

    By the strength of their statements they are effectively blowing the Defense out of the water as they are making it very clear the investigation to determine an accidental death did not exist !!

    So where does that leave Drew and Joel ??

  124. bucketoftea :
    Gosh! It had escaped me that the cop on the coroner’s jury was from Harvey. Harvey being the PD surrounded by the FBI and from whence hailed officers that were providing security for drug shipments in partnership with some from other agencies including Illinois State Police.
    It’s a coincidence that that was the kind of thing I thought DP involved with, what with a non-secure airfield and a truckstop around the corner.MOO, of course.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!

  125. Bucket — can you explain for us who don’t live in the area what you mean by: “…Harvey being the PD surrounded by the FBI…”

    THX!

  126. More from A Candy Rose site:

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: “And I should tell the viewers that after you called me with this — and frankly, I missed it, and I thought it was extraordinary – – good work, Mark — but we went back and looked at the transcript from the coroner’s jury, the one from May 1. And just so that the viewers know, is that the Illinois State Police, Herbert Hardy, was testifying, and he says, in part, “The only thing we’re waiting for now is some phone records, to find out if certain phone calls were made when they said they were made.” – “There’s another part where even a coroner’s juror member said to the witness, to the Illinois State Police witness, “Are they verifying the phone records, correct, that the calls were made?” The witness, “Yes, those take quite a while to get. So yes, we’ve got phone records coming from her phone, his phone, Steve’s phone and the rest of it. So yes, we still have to verify that.”

    …/…

    MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD HOMICIDE DETECTIVE: “Now, the Illinois State Police agents that are [were ?] working on this, the detectives, they supposedly told the coroner’s inquest jury that they had phone records, but they were not — they had not yet received them as of May 1 [2004]. And of course, we know Kathleen Savio died March 1 [2004]. And in that — in those documents — in that testimony and in those documents, it states that, Well, we don’t believe that those phone records will give us any other outcome. Well, I started doing some research. Well, first, we know Drew Peterson and Stacy had Nextel. They keep those records for five years, luckily. But I cannot find anything at the county courthouse. I checked with them. There was no search warrants served in the name of Kathy Savio, Drew Peterson or Stacy Peterson in the year 2004.”

  127. “Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the laws of Illinois and should be held to a higher standard”.

    In view of what’s been going on in Bolingbrook , it’s hard to read something like this !

  128. An Illinois State Police crime scene technician also testified, saying that besides taking photographs and walking around the inside and outside of Savio’s house he collected no evidence and did not look for fingerprints — even as he insisted that he did not conclude the death was an accident until later.

    Bob Deel also acknowledged that he did not see any bruises on Savio’s body or even the cut to her head, saying even if he had “they were insignificant to me.” Deel said he still believes that the death was an accident.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584847,00.html

    Sorry, I said that Deel deemed her death an accident from the get-go but actually Deel says he didn’t immediately conclude that her death was accidental..he just treated it that way after initially bagging her hands…for some reason.

  129. justanotherhen :

    “Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the laws of Illinois and should be held to a higher standard”.

    In view of what’s been going on in Bolingbrook , it’s hard to read something like this !

    I don’t think that’s fair, JAH. BB did not handle the investigation. Because the death involved the ex of one of their officers, they turned it cover to ISP. They did the investigation.

  130. rescueapet :

    justanotherhen :
    “Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the laws of Illinois and should be held to a higher standard”.
    In view of what’s been going on in Bolingbrook , it’s hard to read something like this !

    I don’t think that’s fair, JAH. BB did not handle the investigation. Because the death involved the ex of one of their officers, they turned it cover to ISP. They did the investigation.

    Sorry, I should have said Illinois or anywhere for that matter.

    I was thinking of Drew when I said Bolingbrook (!!)

  131. Deel says he didn’t immediately conclude that her death was accidental..he just treated it that way after initially bagging her hands…for some reason.

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

    IMO – that shows Bob Deel was stopped by someone from a proper investigation.

    It doesn’t make sense to bag the hands and then suddenly abandon procedures to see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing !!

  132. justanotherhen :

    IMO – that shows Bob Deel was stopped by someone from a proper investigation.

    JAH – we don’t know that and to say so is only speculation, which is discouraged on this blog. Even opinions should be based on more than a hunch. We just know that things were royally frigged up and that Deel stopped short of treating the scene as a crime scene. We don’t know why. To pretend to know does a big disservice to ourselves and others.

    Unless you have some access to emails or phone conversations between these parties hinting at some conspiracy, or some quotes from these people saying why they did what they did – cuz if that’s the case, let’s see them! 🙂

  133. I would not say everything WAS Ok in BB.

    “Their has been several times throughout my marriage to this man where I ended up in the emergency room in Bolingbrook for injuries, and I have reported this only to have the police leave my home wthout filing any reports.”

    In spite of it, Drew Peterson was promoted to the rank of Seargant in 1999 and he could be a Leutenenant if not the affair with Stacy. Forgive my sarcasm. Weren’t BB officers first on the scene and didn’t they (or rather they chiefs) have any influence on the investigation run by ISP? I guess, they were not to cover for Drew but for some reason stayed indifferent. I hope one day we will learn why.

    Additionally, I read the information BB (http://www.bolingbrook.com/info/pdf/vb_age&min_11_20_07.pdf start from p.14-17) issued after Stacy went missing and what I found omitted on purpose [Mod edit] is the period when Stacy worked for the village. No word about her ever working there. I found it strange as Drew’s (very short) bio is given there.

    I tried to recall who involved in the case talked to the press and wanted to explain anything, and who did not. Collins, Deel and Tomczak did not want to. Tomczak promised to send a letter with the explanation and he has never done it.

  134. hen:
    Remember the whole Watergate disaster started with a picked lock too and see how that turned out !!

    ““`

    I believe this investigation is going to uncover much more including corruption. I have other suspicions and I am hoping nothing is swept under the rug in order to * serve and protect* certain individuals. No more. Anyone who played a role to any degree in Kathleen’s killing and estate looting must be held accountable. Likewise Stacy. The thing, Billybob’s future little wifey-poo, did not act alone.
    God Bless everyone here and Kathleen and Stacy’s loved ones.

  135. fac:
    What kind of investigation is it when you make up your mind before gathering evidence?

    ~~~~
    in my opinion, no investigation.

  136. Again, from A Candy Rose:

    Mr. PETERSON: “I was one of the first people there. And I was actually the watch commander of our town at the time that it happened. And I went ahead and met with her best friend because I haven’t seen her for a couple of days, which was very unlike her, to not be seen or heard from. So I was planning the next day to go into her home, you know, with her neighbor, and see if she was OK, but her neighbor was upset and her best friend was upset, same person. And she wanted to go in that night. So we called the locksmith, went into the house. I didn’t go in the house. I waited outside. Her friend…”

    Drew was “Watch Commander” the night then went into Savio’s house to find her. So, he was the police officer in charge.

  137. Again, from A Candy Rose (www.acandyrose.com/kathleen_savio.htm)

    11/08/2007 Mike Puccinelli (cbs2chicago.com) Reporting (VIDEO):

    “Coroner reviews study of Cop’s 3rd Wife’s Death”
    “Today officials released a document relating to the death of his 3rd wife. It’s 28 page transcript of an inquest where Kathleen Savio’s family believes Drew Peterson got away with murder.” – “The only police officer called to testify that day about that possibility, saying quote, CORONER: “Any signs of a struggle noted at the scene?” or defense wounds?” – POLICE OFFICER: “No, there was not” – CORONER: “Any signs of a struggle or defense wounds?” – POLICE OFFICER: “No, there was not.” – “But the report also notes that the police officer was never at the death scene and was not present for the autopsy where eight separate injuries were noted on Savio’s body.”

  138. Drew was “Watch Commander” the night then went into Savio’s house to find her. So, he was the police officer in charge.
    ~~~~

    well isn’t that convenient

  139. Comments are again open.

    We ask you to heed the many reminders that have been given to observe the rule about rampant speculation. Please refer to the “Rules for Commenting” if you are unfamiliar with them. Our gratitude to those who understand the rules for commenting and have tried to adhere to them.

  140. Well, I’ll jump in and say that we asked Joe Hosey as Cyrhla requested, if Collins or Deel knew Drew before Kathleen died and he replied that based on their testimony they didn’t know Drew existed until that point. So, that’s what they have said.

    If anyone else has heard differently, they are welcome to post it.

  141. facsmiley :
    Well, I’ll jump in and say that we asked Joe Hosey as Cyrhla requested, if Collins or Deel knew Drew before Kathleen died and he replied that based on their testimony they didn’t know Drew existed until that point. So, that’s what they have said.
    If anyone else has heard differently, they are welcome to post it.

    I am really confused on Steve C’s testimony if it ever happened Facs. I just could of sworn I read something lol. Maybe it was an old article I got confused to be recent.I can’t find nothing.So I am lost. Because the main things that caught my attention was Steve didn’t describe Kathy as looking as he he originally stated.God the image just sickens me. (A beach ball?)Then I thought I read he explained Drew accosted him as he was driving by. Anyway I just can’t see that he would be advantageous to the defense. If that’s why he’s on the defense witness list. Is that list available? I may have missed something. I know he was one of Drews buddy’s but that doesn’t mean Steve had a hand in this. My main mission is to find Stacy. Or to find out why she can’t be found.My opinion is Steve C will testify what he has already.I don’t see how the defense would benefit to call him.

  142. I’ll just add that there is a blue wall but that doesn’t mean everyone is guilty behind it. I’m really impressed with the police officer who came forward to say things weren’t right with the investigation.

  143. I am generally of good opinion of cops; however, my experience in this matter is very limited. Some of them from the West Point area guided me for 15 miles at night to show me the way to my hotel and I was really impressed. I was 20 years younger then ;).

  144. LOL That doesn’t hurt. I think I’ve said before about how a detective “sorted out” a stalker for me in 20 minutes flat, and did it in front of me which gave me great confidence. Another time I was broken down on the side of the highway with 2 toddlers in hot weather. The policeman saw us coming the other direction, and when he took the off ramp to turn around, he stopped to buy cold drinks because he’d noticed the children with me. He parked his car with lights flashing and led us up on the verge and waited until the tow truck arrived. How many guys do I know who would think of bringing drinks, I asked myself.

  145. bucket:
    Thanks Facs, Rescue. Is it OK to say I don’t necessarily believe them?

    ~~~~~
    me either, IMHO because I don’t believe in coinsidences…

  146. The bad cops ruin it for the good cops and IMHO it’s because of a lack of recourse.
    Perhaps cops should be licensed and made to adhere to codes of conduct like other licensed professionals are required to do in IL. just food 4 thought.

    There are many many caring decent cops and I have known many ! God Bless them, too

  147. IMO, if they did not know Peterson before, the case becomes even more suspicious because I do not think a cop covers another cop just because of professonal courtesy (Falat is a good example of it).
    I have once heard some gossips about Peterson having an affair with a woman from police forces but it has never been confirmed.

  148. I think Peterson has one of many problems that may prove to be his downfall. IMO, one in particular is the idea that he did not carry out his scheme without someone else being involved. I don’t necessarily mean the investigators either!

    If he dragged in Stacy at the time of Kathleen’s murder, without ever really knowing how she would eventually react with that horror of a secret, he had to have been stupid enough to involve others. He’s not the mastermind of deceit some would believe. He’s a head case that relied too heavily on those that were weak and vulnerable, because I truly believe some ONE will expose him. He was too busy choosing people who he thought he could control with dirty secrets to really see they’ll be his undoing.

    Kathleen made no secrets about admitting she knew things and had dirt on Peterson. Even Vicki Connolly said similar things about him. Stacy used words to the same effect.

    Mims. Robinson. Both street rats that he said he befriended and took into his inner circle. Didn’t take Mims long to see the light of day. Morphey was his pick for Stacy’s demise. He freaked right away when he considered what he helped Peterson do.

    Lenny and Paula moved around freely with him, and supposedly managed to catch him saying things that don’t exactly portray him to be a reserved, innocent chap.

    I hold out hope that one of these street rats, or whatever you want to call them, holds information that’s been given to the State and will be his demise.

  149. rescueapet :I think Peterson has one of many problems that may prove to be his downfall. IMO, one in particular is the idea that he did not carry out his scheme without someone else being involved. I don’t necessarily mean the investigators either!
    If he dragged in Stacy at the time of Kathleen’s murder, without ever really knowing how she would eventually react with that horror of a secret, he had to have been stupid enough to involve others. He’s not the mastermind of deceit some would believe. He’s a head case that relied too heavily on those that were weak and vulnerable, because I truly believe some ONE will expose him.

    If there’s one thing every can agree on, it’s that Drew is cocky and over-confident. I believe he never for a moment thought that his plan regarding Kathy would unravel. He left Stacy sleeping and figured that he’d come back and find her still sleeping with the perfect alibi already in hand. Stacy could confidently testify that they were in bed together all night. He had not anticipated that she’d wake up and try to find him and then catch him at the washing machine dressed in black with women’s clothing in his hands. No, he brought Stacy in reluctantly because his cocky arrogance never imagined he’d get caught.

    Another example of the cockiness is that he never thought the crime scene through. How many years did he know Kathy and yet he didn’t realize that she ALWAYS wore her hair up, especially if she was taking a bath? Or that someone would miss the rug she kept outside the tub? Or that someone would wonder where her clothes were?

    His over-confidence all the way around is going to be his undoing.

  150. If Stacy actually did tell a number of people (as they testified) that Drew would kill her if she went to the BBPD with what he did and that “they would flip”, then I doubt that “the Blue Wall” was an accomplice in Kathleen’s murder. The fact that she went to Harry Smith and discussed holding it over his head as leverage in the divorce would also lead one to believe that the force was not aware that he had killed Kathleen. That said, some of them must have had suspicions but since they weren’t handling the investigation (ISP did) suspicions didn’t matter.

    It’s pretty clear that Drew wasn’t treated like an ordinary citizen during the investigation (that word should be in quotes) and how much of it was due to the fact that he was a cop and how much of it was due to his manipulative personality is hard to guess. We do see that it was the case.

  151. I, in fact, would bet that the sight of him from the eyes of some of his fellow co-workers makes them sick. There’s many young men and women in the police department, and they weren’t born and bred to be Drew’s pets on the job.

    Just sayin……

  152. cyrhla :

    IMO, if they did not know Peterson before, the case becomes even more suspicious because I do not think a cop covers another cop just because of professonal courtesy (Falat is a good example of it).

    But then you’re assuming that it was an intentional cover-up by the ISP when in truth it could all have been one collosal fuck-up, with each party now embarrassed and trying to shift the blame to another, which in my opinion is the more likely scenario. Let’s not underestimate the essential laziness and ineptitude of regular people. It’s far more widespread, albeit far less romantic, than conspiracy.

  153. facsmiley :

    atlgranny :
    His over-confidence all the way around is going to be his undoing.

    From your keyboard to Judge White’s ears…

    I think Judge White saw through him and JB from the get-go. After all, he effectively shut down their incessant sideshow pretty quickly into his tenure on the case.

    For me, the fact that Drew was so cocky and confident that he’d have no jail time has been confirmation that the case is much deeper and convincing than any of us realize. The judge wouldn’t have agreed to a $20M bond if there was no substance. That warms the cockles of my itty bitty heart on this Valentine’s Day! 🙂

  154. cyrhla :

    Glasgow would not take over the case if it was just someone being lazy at work. IMO.

    AFAIK Glasgow is lead counsel for the prosecution of Drew Peterson who is charged with the murder of Kathleen Savio. No one else has been indicted and certainly no one is being tried on conspiracy charges.

    Naturally, Glasgow is going to have to show that the findings of the original Coroner’s jury were incorrect because he’ll need to establish that Kathleen was murdered before he tries to prove who murdered her, and in order to do that he’ll need to show that her death investigation and inquest were mishandled. But based on the motions and arguments that have been presented so far, I’ve seen no idication that Glasgow intends on trying to show that all of Illinois Law Enforcement had pledged to “serve and protect” Drew Peterson.

  155. bucketoftea :
    Thanks Facs, Rescue. Is it OK to say I don’t necessarily believe them?

    Colins or Deel didn’t say they knew or didn’t know each other.

    Joe Hosey said: based on their testimony they didn’t know Drew existed until that point.

  156. Facs, come on… have I ever said this is a conspiracy plot involving all the ISP officers? Never. And I have never said Glasgow is of bad opinion of the whole ISP. Please, do not overinterpret the things I said, please.
    I am personally not of bad opinion of the ISP. I am of bad opinion of those who – IMO – helped Drew, ignoring witnesses and not following the procedures, and I would like to know the real reason why they did so. I do not believe it was the coincidence that there was Hardy testifying (lying) before the coroner’s jury. Pratl in its composition and influencing the rest of the jury. And Collins-Fortune-Teller predicting the decision of the CJ before it was ever made.
    In fact, there were personal changes within the district.
    To indict anyone they first must prove Kathleen was killed. If they don’t, all these people will never take any responsibility.

  157. Joe Hosey: One thing, the claim adjustor said Patrick Collins told him the coroner determined Savio’s death was an accident about three weeks before the inquest was held.

    According to my notes, Collins returned the call to Steadman on 4/21/04 and told him “the coroner has ruled the death an accidental drowning.”

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

    Regardless of what type of investigation it was, good, bad or indifferent, if Joe Hoseys notes are correct there is still the minor problem of investigators knowing the outcome of the coroners ruling three weeks before it took place.

    Unless everybody took some bad drugs that day, how can that be explained away ?

  158. Again, from A Candy Rose:

    Mr. PETERSON: “I was one of the first people there. And I was actually the watch commander of our town at the time that it happened. And I went ahead and met with her best friend because I haven’t seen her for a couple of days, which was very unlike her, to not be seen or heard from. So I was planning the next day to go into her home, you know, with her neighbor, and see if she was OK, but her neighbor was upset and her best friend was upset, same person. And she wanted to go in that night. So we called the locksmith, went into the house. I didn’t go in the house. I waited outside.

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

    This is interesting, here is Drew stating he wanted to go into the house the NEXT day, but MARY WANTED TO GO IN THAT NIGHT.

    Goodness me, here he is putting it all on Mary, he only went into the house on Mary’s insistence.

    She made him do it – LOL !

  159. Cyrhla, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but at the same time, when you continue to couch your opinions as if they are facts your lose credibility. You’ve just written that Hardy lied on the stand. Do you know that he did? You’ve also stated that you thought his interviews with witnesses at the time were ‘faked’. Again, based on what evidence?

    I’d like to know what the truth is as well about what looks to be a seriously flawed investigation. But I’m not going to jump to conclusions about each person who performed in a way I don’t like and assume that they all knew each other and that they were all working together, in some sort of orchestrated agreement or plot, which actually is what you seem to be saying, if you read back your comments.

    At some point I do hope there is a way to call out all the people who failed Kathleen and Stacy. For now I’m just glad to see Drew Peterson charged and I’m glad to see the facts coming to light…whatever they eventually lead us to.

  160. For reference here’s the post I made about Hardy’s testimony:

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/transcript-testimony-of-officer-from-kathleen-savios-death-inquest-he-was-never-at-the-scene/

    I am TOTALLY NOT defending the role Hardy played in Kathleen’s death investigation. I just love the reasoned and thoughtful discussion we have on this blog (when we aren’t laughing at the antics of Boobsky and company) and want to see it continue in that way.

  161. Well said, Facs.

    justanotherhen : Regardless of what type of investigation it was, good, bad or indifferent, if Joe Hoseys notes are correct there is still the minor problem of investigators knowing the outcome of the coroners ruling three weeks before it took place.

    Unless everybody took some bad drugs that day, how can that be explained away ?

    Investigators? It was Collins who relayed that to the insurance man. One guy.

    Drugs taken that day? Leave me out of that one. That’s your baby. Good luck with that.

    Hellooooooooo National Enquirer.

  162. facs:

    At some point I do hope there is a way to call out all the people who failed Kathleen and Stacy. For now I’m just glad to see Drew Peterson charged and I’m glad to see the facts coming to light…whatever they eventually lead us to.

    ~~

    we have to do more that hope. We must demand accountability, even if it’s politically unpopular. Thats why sites such as this one and other blogs are so important because they culprits are not able to operate in darkness.

  163. Facs, I know the tapescript almost by heart. Wasn’t Hardy lying saying the he and Girten interviewed people from the neigbourhood while they did not? My (logical, IMO) question (not statement) was IF there were actually no interviews, were the reports “faked” as I thought they should have been placed in the documentation.

  164. writerofwrongs :

    we have to do more that hope. We must demand accountability, even if it’s politically unpopular. Thats why sites such as this one and other blogs are so important because they culprits are not able to operate in darkness.

    Writer, if that is what what our blog means to you then that is great. I’m glad you think of it in that way even though we humbly describe ourselves as “News and discussion about the cases of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson, wives of Drew Peterson.”

    Still, we each come to this case from our own individual motives and we each have our own point of view. Is it fair to dictate to everyone here what they must do? I don’t think so and that is not the intention of the blog, although I find your mission a noble one and wish you luck!

  165. Okay, okay…..maybe someone with more skill at digging can help me with this one.

    I’ve read here more than once that Joe Hosey’s issue seems to be that Collins testified the coroner determined the death was an accident three weeks before the inquest. Right?

    I could swear that there was testimony just this week that the assistant coroner (or someone from the coroner’s office) made a statement at the scene that it looked like an accidental drowning. There also seemed to be testimony that the coroner, at autopsy, (which is done within what…..a day?) said that it looked to be accidental. Am I imagining this?

    If I’m right, why is there such shock that Collins would say the coroner had determined that it was an accident before the inquest? I had always thought that the inquest was just confirming what had already been “decided” and that the coroner had said from the outset that it was an accidental drowning.

    I tried to look this up yesterday when this first came up, but (unfortunately) I’ve been working this weekend and have to try and grap snippets of time when I can.

  166. Here’s Herbert Hardy’s testimony at the inquest

  167. atlgranny :

    I’ve read here more than once that Joe Hosey’s issue seems to be that Collins testified the coroner determined the death was an accident three weeks before the inquest. Right?

    Wrong. If you go back upscreen, what I said was, Joe Hosey’s notes indicate that Mr. Steadman (the insurance man handling the matter of Kathleen’s life insurance policy) was informed by Collins that her death was ruled an accident, three weeks prior to the inquest. An insurance company expects an inquest to be completed before they make a decision regarding their payout. So, logic would tell you that they were prematurely informed of a decision that hadn’t yet taken place.

    The doctor who performed Kathleen’s autopsy was not the coroner. The coroner (Patrick O’Neill) would hardly sign off on her death being an accident prior to holding HIS coroner’s inquest. He has openly said he did not agree with the death panel’s conclusion. At least now he does.

  168. By the way, I believe even Dr. Baden didn’t take issue with the way the autopsy was completed. Her injuries were noted, and her death was correctly determined to be a drowning. The doctor who performed the autopsy was given certain information at the time he did his autopsy. Since that is a complicated issue, I am not going to begin to analyze what he did and did not do.

    There was no dispute Kathleen drowned. The dispute is how it happened. That is why there was an inquest held. By the coroner. The guy who signs off on rulings regarding how a person like Kathleen got dead in a waterless bath tub.

    I sure hope this is clear now.

  169. rescueapet :By the way, I believe even Dr. Baden didn’t take issue with the way the autopsy was completed. Her injuries were noted, and her death was correctly determined to be a drowning. The doctor who performed the autopsy was given certain information at the time he did his autopsy. Since that is a complicated issue, I am not going to begin to analyze what he did and did not do.
    There was no dispute Kathleen drowned. The dispute is how it happened. That is why there was an inquest held. By the coroner. The guy who signs off on rulings regarding how a person like Kathleen got dead in a waterless bath tub.
    I sure hope this is clear now.

    You know Rescue, you’re right. There never has been a dispute that Kathleen drowned, especially where Drew is concerned, even when maybe there should have been question(s), under otherwise normal circumstances. One thing that has always bothered me about the discovery of the body is when Drew called Anna about 1:00 a.m. right after they found her, and told her Kathleen was dead, and that she had DROWNED in the bathtub….not hit her head and maybe had a brain hemorrhage, or broke her neck, or gashed her head and bled to death, maybe had a troke or aneurysm, or anything else except that she DROWNED, even though the tub was dry. I’ve always wondered why he used those particular words, (and exact words, according to Anna) instead of something/anything else if he had not had first hand knowledge of her drowning, as in he drowned her. Was he trying to sound knowledgeable and experienced, and was voicing his opinion, or had it already been declared a drowning at the scene? Or was it just a big mistake on his part in telling Anna the cause of death prematurely? Does anybody really know? Not that it really matters, as I’m sure the prosecution will proceed very capably without my concerns. However, if this has recently been discussed and expounded upon, my apologies. I’ve just never understood how and why he could/would tell Anna she drowned.

    From a Greta interview on 10/31/07
    GRETA: What do you know about that, how did you hear about your sister being dead in the bathtub.

    ANNA: Drew called me about one in the morning.

    GRETA: Saying what?

    ANNA: He said Anna you up and I said yeah and he said I got really bad news. He said anybody home and I said yeah my boyfriends home and he said Kitty’s dead.

    GRETA: And did you say what happened?

    ANNA: I dropped the phone. I was so upset and then I picked it up and I was crying and he said she drowned in the bathtub. I had no idea what happened. I called my other siblings and got in a car and went over.

    GRETA: According to the death certificate which we have here it says it was an accident. Do you believe that?

    ANNA: No. How does a healthy forty year old woman with no drugs in her system, no alcohol, pass out in the bathtub which is a little oval corner bathtub, a whirlpool tub, the bottoms not even big enough to stretch your legs out? And she’s taller than me, I’m 5′ 3″ and she was about 5’5″, 5’6″. How did she scrunch down under the water?

  170. fac:
    Still, we each come to this case from our own individual motives and we each have our own point of view. Is it fair to dictate to everyone here what they must do? I don’t think so and that is not the intention of the blog, although I find your mission a noble one and wish you luck!

    ~~~~

    I do what I can. I am here because of a terrible injustice done to a fellow human being and because it happens too often.

  171. ANNA: Drew called me about one in the morning.

    GRETA: Saying what?

    ANNA: He said Anna you up and I said yeah and he said I got really bad news. He said anybody home and I said yeah my boyfriends home and he said Kitty’s dead.

    GRETA: And did you say what happened?

    ANNA: I dropped the phone. I was so upset and then I picked it up and I was crying and he said she drowned in the bathtub. I had no idea what happened. I called my other siblings and got in a car and went over.

    Good point CFS. Sounds like something that only the murderer would know at that early in the investigation.

  172. Here’s the little chestnut about the uniform:

    Herbert Hardy’s testimony at the inquest:

    Q. Any indication why they had to call a locksmith ?
    Wouldn’t the x-husband have had a key to the residence ?

    A. He did not have one.

    Q. So the locks were changed at some point ?

    A. They may have been. I don’t know that.

    Q. Oke. And he was — was he there in uniform and with the kids with him or —

    A. I don’t know if he was there in uniform or if the children were with him at the time.

  173. I found an old Newsweek Magazine article back from 11/30/20007, that could very well have been written these past weeks. Pretty accurate information.

    Didn’t know that the lying skunk was such an authority. Or, maybe I just forgot what a guy he is.

    Peterson lashed out at the families of his third and fourth wives. “I want it out there that these two women had very abusive childhoods,” he said.

    The moral authority, heh? What kind of life would he call what his children with Kathleen and Stacy have had to endure?

    Peterson, not surprisingly, sees things differently. He said the only reason he is under suspicion is because “the spouse is always a likely suspect.” But he noted that in his nearly three decades as a suburban Chicago cop he became known as someone who could defuse tense domestic disputes. “They used to call me the old ‘silver tongue’,” he said. “I could go into domestic situations, and by the end I had everyone hugging each other.” (A fellow officer, though, told NEWSWEEK that Peterson’s career was unremarkable. “He was average,” said Lt. Ken Teppel.) Peterson maintains he’s the wronged party in all of this. “It kind of hurts,” he said. “I’ve led a pretty honorable life.”

    Yeah, honorable would NOT be selling out the name of an undercover officer to a drug suspect.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/73095/page/1

  174. @givarat: Good point CFS. Sounds like something that only the murderer would know at that early in the investigation.
    ———————————————-
    That’s what I’ve been saying for two and a half years now. Surely the prosecution has taken Anna’s statement into account, and no doubt they have. My contention has always been, how could he have known drowning was the cause of death immediately after finding her, unless he drowned her? Of course, I don’t know every single detail except what has been reported, but it’s just been a nagging question since the beginning. Others may know much more than I.

  175. Aikin also recounted a January 2007 visit that the Petersons paid to her California home. The couple fought frequently during their stay, becoming so angry at one another at one point that Aikin asked them if they wanted to be married anymore.

    When both said they did, she encouraged them to “hold each other and ask forgiveness.”

    http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-minister-testify-about-talk-with-stacy-jan26,0,4618994.story

    Looks like “old silver tongue” wasn’t so good at keeping up domestic bliss at home…

  176. He can’t kid us about leaving a scene with the warring partners “hugging”…just trying out the new choke hold Drew showed him…

  177. bucketoftea :
    He can’t kid us about leaving a scene with the warring partners “hugging”…just trying out the new choke hold Drew showed him…

    Yes it was all huggie and lovey dovey and “silver tongued” in 1993 when the whole house was busted up and Kathleen ended up in hospital with a head wound and bruising all over her body.

    Son Eric testified: “it was like a train going through the place”

  178. Speaking of domestic violence in the Peterson household, this is what Herbert Hardy testified to:

    Q. Oke, is your department aware of any domestic disturbances between Kathleen and Drew while they were still married?

    A. Yes, according to reports from Bolingbrook there were many instances of where the Police had shown up.

    Q. Physical altercations and things ?

    A.I don’t know if so much physical. It was more he’s late bringing the children, he won’t leave, that kind of thing.

  179. bucketoftea :
    That could very well be what Glasgow referred to when he said Drew knew something only the killer would know.

    This is a quote from an article I found here at JC. on what Glasgow did say.

    Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/stacy-peterson-and-kathleen-savios-voices-to-be-heard/

  180. givarat :

    bucketoftea :That could very well be what Glasgow referred to when he said Drew knew something only the killer would know.

    This is a quote from an article I found here at JC. on what Glasgow did say.

    Glasgow has said Savio’s death was “staged to look like an accident” and that Peterson knew facts about the manner of death only the killer could have known.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/stacy-peterson-and-kathleen-savios-voices-to-be-heard/

    There you go.

  181. cfs: That’s what I’ve been saying for two and a half years now. Surely the prosecution has taken Anna’s statement into account, and no doubt they have. My contention has always been, how could he have known drowning was the cause of death immediately after finding her, unless he drowned her? Of course, I don’t know every single detail except what has been reported, but it’s just been a nagging question since the beginning. Others may know much more than I.

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

    Too right, how could it be so obvious to Drew Kathleen had drowned in this tiny tub, if it was physically impossible to drown in such a tiny tub in the first place.

    It was not like he found Kathleen next to their swimming pool !!

  182. (May 8, 2009)

    On The Early Show on Friday, another Peterson lawyer, Joel Brodsky, said forensic evidence his side will introduce will show that Savio’s death was indeed an accident.

    This, I don’t get. Because, if the investigation was such, as we’ve been led to believe, that no evidence was collected, how is the defense going to conjure up forensic evidence? How could they have evidence that no one else has? Unless Abood does a re-enactment of a slip and fall on a bar of soap that self destructs like a Mission Impossible episode, bounces around off the courtroom walls for a minute or two, bruising himself up in Kodacolor (what color is this bruise, your Honor, is it deep blue or light blue, yellow or gold), and then zooms into a mock-up waterless tub face down, all the while holding his breath.

    Whew, I’d like to be in court to see that.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/08/earlyshow/main5000814.shtml

  183. cfs7360 :
    Exactly JAH.
    Happy Valentine’s to you too Giv, and to everyone else as well.

    At least that answers your question cfs – LOL !

    I am still wondering if the light was on in Kathleens bathroom when she was found (!!)

  184. In an appearance on The Early Show last month, 16-year-old Thomas Peterson appeared alongside Drew and defended him, saying, “I highly do not believe that my dad had murdered my mom. Because, first off, he wasn’t there, he was with us during that period of time.”

    This is a sad, sick thing to do to this kid. If he is going to be made to recall the day of his mother’s death in a way that is to give his father an alibi, how is it that the defense is going to get around the memories he must have of the explosive relationship his parents had? It is my understanding that one of the boys at the time, I believe it was Kris, even wrote a letter to Santa Claus asking that his father stop hurting his mother. That can’t be ignored, then, if Tom is going to give an alibi that pinpoints his father’s every move for an entire weekend. It’s just not going to be believed. I think the defense is living in a fantasy world of make-believe.

  185. justanotherhen :

    cfs7360 :
    Exactly JAH.
    Happy Valentine’s to you too Giv, and to everyone else as well.

    At least that answers your question cfs – LOL !

    I am still wondering if the light was on in Kathleens bathroom when she was found (!!)

    JAH – Since it hasn’t come out in testimony that we know of, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if it’s an issue or not that will come up. I doubt anyone here knows the answer to that.

  186. On The Early Show on Friday, another Peterson lawyer, Joel Brodsky, said forensic evidence his side will introduce will show that Savio’s death was indeed an accident.

    This, I don’t get. Because, if the investigation was such, as we’ve been led to believe, that no evidence was collected, how is the defense going to conjure up forensic evidence? How could they have evidence that no one else has?

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

    Maybe Joel has the forensic evidence that was never collected, which would make a unique case in the legal history of illinois – LOL !

  187. justanotherhen :

    cfs7360 :Exactly JAH.Happy Valentine’s to you too Giv, and to everyone else as well.

    At least that answers your question cfs – LOL !
    I am still wondering if the light was on in Kathleens bathroom when she was found (!!)

    JAH, you know, I’ve wondered that too, and since I haven’t heard it mentioned, I’ve sort of come to believe that maybe it was. Steve doesn’t mention turning the light on, but he doesn’t mention that it was on either, that I’ve seen or remember seeing. The natural thing would have been for it to be on, so maybe it was, but it looks like the neighbors (especially the Pontarelli’s (sp?) would have noticed and mentioned that it on two nights in a row, especially since Nick had seen it on the previous night at 2:00 a.m. on the way home from somewhere with his parents.

  188. rescueapet :(May 8, 2009)

    On The Early Show on Friday, another Peterson lawyer, Joel Brodsky, said forensic evidence his side will introduce will show that Savio’s death was indeed an accident.

    This, I don’t get. Because, if the investigation was such, as we’ve been led to believe, that no evidence was collected, how is the defense going to conjure up forensic evidence? How could they have evidence that no one else has? Unless Abood does a re-enactment of a slip and fall on a bar of soap that self destructs like a Mission Impossible episode, bounces around off the courtroom walls for a minute or two, bruising himself up in Kodacolor (what color is this bruise, your Honor, is it deep blue or light blue, yellow or gold), and then zooms into a mock-up waterless tub face down, all the while holding his breath.
    Whew, I’d like to be in court to see that.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/08/earlyshow/main5000814.shtml

    You certainly have a gift for expression, lol. The only thing I could think of that he may have meant Rescue, was what their pathologist had to say about the first autopsy report, and we know he’s just blowing smoke about it anyway, because that’s all he can do. Enjoyed your post.

  189. rescueapet :

    In an appearance on The Early Show last month, 16-year-old Thomas Peterson appeared alongside Drew and defended him, saying, “I highly do not believe that my dad had murdered my mom. Because, first off, he wasn’t there, he was with us during that period of time.”

    This is a sad, sick thing to do to this kid. If he is going to be made to recall the day of his mother’s death in a way that is to give his father an alibi, how is it that the defense is going to get around the memories he must have of the explosive relationship his parents had? It is my understanding that one of the boys at the time, I believe it was Kris, even wrote a letter to Santa Claus asking that his father stop hurting his mother. That can’t be ignored, then, if Tom is going to give an alibi that pinpoints his father’s every move for an entire weekend. It’s just not going to be believed. I think the defense is living in a fantasy world of make-believe.

    Agreed. That just hurt all over to even watch when he did that.

  190. Rescue, if either of those boys, and even Stephen, are reading about the testimonies from this hearing, you can’t tell me there isn’t some doubt creeping into their minds about their father, no matter how much they want to believe everything he’s told them. Sad, sad, sad.

  191. Another thing that comes to mind is the fact there was blood in the tub, so why would Drew think of drowning as a first observation to mention to his sister in law ??

    Doesn’t make any sense !

  192. Yes it does JAH. It makes perfect sense to me anyway. He knew he drowned her, and I think it was a major faux pas that he told Anna she drowned. I’ve always said he was not nearly as smart as some tried to credit him with being.

  193. Drew Peterson is one of the biggest fools to ever grace a television camera. Nothing he says is believable and never has been. It’s like he thinks everyone is foolish enough to believe his lies, regardless of how preposterous they are. Some people are foolish enough to believe him however, but the majority aren’t.

  194. cfs7360 :
    Yes it does JAH. It makes perfect sense to me anyway. He knew he drowned her, and I think it was a major faux pas that he told Anna she drowned. I’ve always said he was not nearly as smart as some tried to credit him with being.

    That’s exactly what I meant too !

  195. justanotherhen :

    cfs7360 :Yes it does JAH. It makes perfect sense to me anyway. He knew he drowned her, and I think it was a major faux pas that he told Anna she drowned. I’ve always said he was not nearly as smart as some tried to credit him with being.

    That’s exactly what I meant too !

    Good deal. 😀

  196. Stammer, stammer, stutter, stutter. That one is definitely a classic. Loved the post Facs made the other day detailing that video in frames.

  197. cfs7360 :

    justanotherhen :

    cfs7360 :Yes it does JAH. It makes perfect sense to me anyway. He knew he drowned her, and I think it was a major faux pas that he told Anna she drowned. I’ve always said he was not nearly as smart as some tried to credit him with being.

    That’s exactly what I meant too !

    Good deal.

    LOL,

    Yeah not to smart to tell the relatives Kathleens drowned, when she is sitting in a tub with blood and only the killer could have known it was drowning – OOPS !!

    That’s like the time Drew said on t.v. he told the little ones their mother is not coming back – OOPS again !!

  198. Some observations of testimonies in reference to Brodsky’s requests for evidence at:
    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-day-16/#comments
    cyrhla February 11, 2010 at 4:53 am | #171
    [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.
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    (4) and how Peterson may have gained entry to her home.
    Personally, I want to hear what Rodolfo Hernandez, who testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010,had to say. Hernandez is the 11/22/04 purchaser/current owner and resident of Kathleen Savio’s home.. I wonder if, in his testimony, he could tell the judge which BASEMENT WINDOW old sneaky snake DP crawled into and maybe exited when he killed Kathleen… IMO, DP had the opportunity to ‘replace’ the ‘secret’ trick window lock when he took possession of Kathleen’s home. It could most likely be the newest window lock. IMO, DP has proven he likes to use his military training to sneak in and out back doors and secret places, hopping over fences, etc. to get where he wants to go. It has been acknowledged by DP that he lived in Kathleen’s basement and (I read) sneaked Stacy in to be with him.

  199. rescueapet :Unless Abood does a re-enactment of a slip and fall on a bar of soap that self destructs like a Mission Impossible episode, bounces around off the courtroom walls for a minute or two, bruising himself up in Kodacolor (what color is this bruise, your Honor, is it deep blue or light blue, yellow or gold), and then zooms into a mock-up waterless tub face down, all the while holding his breath.

    Whew, I’d like to be in court to see that.

    Didn’t you say that after Abood’s ridicuous line of “what color is this” cross-examination questioning that on your way out you overheard even a bailiff giggling and saying “what color is THIS?” LOL

  200. (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;

    Testimony by the officer who taught DP the ‘choke’ hold and ‘arm bar’ that he believes DP used as shown in the picture of Kathleen’s death scene. IMO, DP drowned Kathleen not in the bathtub that would take time to fill, but in the comode that had enough ready water and his own body as the weapon.

  201. Judgin, I’m not sure but I think that the basement of the house where Drew and Kathleen lived together (and in which Kathleen died) might have had a separate entrance for the basement, which was like a mother-in-law apartment. If you recall, Kathleen rented it out at times and someone who had rented it from her (Kristin Anderson) testified at the hearing.

  202. Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, Joseph Steadman, Senior claim adjuster at Old Republic Life Insurance Company, that might have paid out to DP ‘DOUBLE indemnity’ benefits for Kathleen’s ‘accidental death’. We already learned what he did say about when Kathleen’s death was declared to be ‘accidental’.

    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, what Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications had to say about cellphone pings, phonecalls and text messages.

  203. Judgin, how much trouble would it have been for him to pick a lock? Any lock, especially in the back, possibly more secluded? Or, he could have made sure a window was unlocked as well. Pure speculation, I know, but one thing for sure…if he wanted in, he could get in one way oe another, even if he had to disarm a security system, if there was one. Since he had a penchant for lock picking tools and had several sets according to reports, I honestly don’t think it would have been a challenge for him in any case. I feel sure the prosecution can come up with reasonable scenarios for all of the above with all of the information they have. Personally, I truly don’t believe that Brodsky can throw anything at them for which they won’t have an answer or explanation.

  204. judgin :

    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, Joseph Steadman, Senior claim adjuster at Old Republic Life Insurance Company, that might have paid out to DP ‘DOUBLE indemnity’ benefits for Kathleen’s ‘accidental death’. We already learned what he did say about when Kathleen’s death was declared to be ‘accidental’.

    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, what Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications had to say about cellphone pings, phonecalls and text messages.

    Judgin, Not sure what you want to point out about those two. They are already on the list of witnesses. (?)

  205. cfs7360 :Judgin, how much trouble would it have been for him to pick a lock? Any lock, especially in the back, possibly more secluded? Or, he could have made sure a window was unlocked as well. Pure speculation, I know, but one thing for sure…if he wanted in, he could get in one way oe another, even if he had to disarm a security system, if there was one. Since he had a penchant for lock picking tools and had several sets according to reports, I honestly don’t think it would have been a challenge for him in any case. I feel sure the prosecution can come up with reasonable scenarios for all of the above with all of the information they have. Personally, I truly don’t believe that Brodsky can throw anything at them for which they won’t have an answer or explanation.

    ~~~~~~

    I agree with you.

    We have no choice but to watch the Trial to learn more about what we are not now being told. Can’t wait to see what Joe Hosey publishes.

    I won’t assume that there is a conspiracy knowing the way DP has proven to each new victim exactly how he ‘rolls the dice’, exacts ‘favors’, intimidates, and gets things done all those years in that three county area. He has a way of getting people over a ‘barrel’, then getting them to do ‘favors’. I’m betting lots of people are kicking themselves and wondering how in hell they got tangled up with that Skunk.

  206. judgin :

    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, Joseph Steadman, Senior claim adjuster at Old Republic Life Insurance Company, that might have paid out to DP ‘DOUBLE indemnity’ benefits for Kathleen’s ‘accidental death’. We already learned what he did say about when Kathleen’s death was declared to be ‘accidental’.

    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, what Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications had to say about cellphone pings,
    phonecalls and text messages.

    Can you please explain what this all means? I’m sorry, but I’m lost here.

  207. @judgin: Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, what Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications had to say about cellphone pings, phonecalls and text messages.
    —————————–
    Is that what he testified about? I was wondering. Have not seen it anywhere yet, but according to Mark Furhman, they both had Nextel at the time, so why Ericsson? That’s why I was wondering the other day why only the three calls Drew supposedly made to Stacy were mentioned and not Stacy to Drew the night Kathleen was killed. But then I thought if the prosecution had those, they could be used at trial, even though now they would bolster Schori’s testimony about Stacy saying she couldn’t find Drew. IDK….it’s all too complicated for me, but I feel sure Glasgow is on top of it, lol.

  208. I mean, what’s your theory of the double payout vs accident? Peterson didn’t kill Kathleen specifically to get double payout on the insurance policy, I’m guessing, so what would this mean?

    As to the pings – is that during the time of Kathleen’s investigation or Stacy’s?

  209. I won’t assume that there is a conspiracy knowing the way DP has proven to each new victim exactly how he ‘rolls the dice’, exacts ‘favors’, intimidates, and gets things done all those years in that three county area. He has a way of getting people over a ‘barrel’, then getting them to do ‘favors’. I’m betting lots of people are kicking themselves and wondering how in hell they got tangled up with that Skunk.

    That’s exactly my opinion as well. We’ll see how it plays out but for two years now we’ve had lesson after lesson about how Drew operates. To me it just makes the most sense.

  210. facsmiley :Hell, Drew could have just knocked on the door and then pointed a gun at her when she answered.

    He sure could have. Her coming to the door is a big possibility, becuase for all she know, Steve might have decided to surprise her that late at night, after she had begged him to come and he said he wasn’t. Gosh, who knows? But you’ve definitely got a point Facs.

  211. rescueapet :I mean, what’s your theory of the double payout vs accident? Peterson didn’t kill Kathleen specifically to get double payout on the insurance policy, I’m guessing, so what would this mean?
    As to the pings – is that during the time of Kathleen’s investigation or Stacy’s?

    Rescue, sadly I would think that would be a contributiong factor as well, if he thought he was getting an additional two million. Kathleen’s sisters have both stated that they didn’t think Drew knew the policy had been changed to have the boys as beneficiaries, so Drew may have been counting on that money too, along with everything else.

  212. Another important witness I am very anxious to hear details from is Jerry Jude, who testified on Day 11: February 3, 2010 that he purchased Suds Pub from DP. He quickly became aware of what was going on in DP’s Suds Pub renamed Elmer’s Doghouse. Jerry Jude also is/was owner of another restaurant, Elmer’s West Café, 1118 PRAIRIE STREET, AURORA ILLINOIS.

    Background of restaurant ownership can be found at:
    http://www.aurora-il.org/documents/aldermen/minutes/…/pcm01042006min.pdf
    MINUTES Aurora Planning Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday …
    “In Montgomery, when I first went to get the liquor license, there was no way they were ever going to issue a liquor license again to that location. We took Elmer’s Doghouse that’s been around for 50 years…”

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1N1-0EFF0016070630DF.html
    The Beacon News – Aurora (IL) articles > July-September 2001 > Tuesday, September 11
    Fun in the doghouse The Places: Mike’s at 165 S. River Road in North Aurora and Elmer’s Doghouse, at 1250 S. Broadway in Montgomery.

  213. Yeah, but unless I missed something here, no matter who the beneficiary/beneficiaries are, was there a double payout? I guess I never saw that there was $2,000,000 paid out. Her death was ruled an accident, so…..

  214. facsmiley :That’s exactly my opinion as well. We’ll see how it plays out but for two years now we’ve had lesson after lesson about how Drew operates. To me it just makes the most sense.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Stories told by sworn witnesses is what I have based my opinions on, along with some logic. I could call it the S.W.A.G. approach. (Sophisticated Wild A$$ Guess)

  215. It was reported to be a double indemnity policy in the even of an accident, which would have paid the beneficiary two million instead of one. Drew may have been thinking he was still the beneficiary, and was not aware Kathleen had changed it to her boys. The only way it would have doubled is if her death was ruled accidental.

  216. Judgin, I’m not really clear on what you are trying to say. Are you expecting these hearsay witnesses to testify once more at the actual trial and looking forward to that or….

    I am still lost on the point I guess. What exactly do you want us to note about the restaurant…or anything?

  217. Bottom line, it was a million dollar policy. I don’t know for sure what was actually paid, only that I read it was a double indemnity if the death was an accident, which most policies are. Can’t gurantee it one way or another at this point, but I’m sure someone can.

  218. cfs7360 :Judgin, how much trouble would it have been for him to pick a lock? Any lock, especially in the back, possibly more secluded? Or, he could have made sure a window was unlocked as well. Pure speculation, I know, but one thing for sure…if he wanted in, he could get in one way oe another, even if he had to disarm a security system, if there was one. Since he had a penchant for lock picking tools and had several sets according to reports, I honestly don’t think it would have been a challenge for him in any case. I feel sure the prosecution can come up with reasonable scenarios for all of the above with all of the information they have. Personally, I truly don’t believe that Brodsky can throw anything at them for which they won’t have an answer or explanation.

    ~~~~
    Just thinkin, I doubt he would take the time to pick the locks on the deadbolts as well if he knew he had the windows in a dark protected side of the house he could easily come and go through and ‘surprise’ Kathleen.

  219. cfs7360 :@judgin: Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, what Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications had to say about cellphone pings, phonecalls and text messages.—————————–Is that what he testified about? I was wondering. Have not seen it anywhere yet, but according to Mark Furhman, they both had Nextel at the time, so why Ericsson? That’s why I was wondering the other day why only the three calls Drew supposedly made to Stacy were mentioned and not Stacy to Drew the night Kathleen was killed. But then I thought if the prosecution had those, they could be used at trial, even though now they would bolster Schori’s testimony about Stacy saying she couldn’t find Drew. IDK….it’s all too complicated for me, but I feel sure Glasgow is on top of it, lol.

    Ericssen for Stacy’s new cellphone that DP may have used to call the phone he had Tom Morphey hold that showed ‘Stacy’ was calling.

    IMO [Mode Edit] Glasgow is covering every detail to show the uninterrupted string of events beginning from Kathleen thru Stacy’s disappearance.

    This is complex, complicated, challenging, and frustrating…

  220. Rescue, one other thing, given that so much of what we read and hear is not accurate. The policy that she changed could have also been a million dollar accidental death policy, which only paid face value in the event of an accident. Will try to research this at a later time, and post any relevant findings. Take care guys. 🙂

  221. rescueapet :

    judgin :
    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, Joseph Steadman, Senior claim adjuster at Old Republic Life Insurance Company, that might have paid out to DP ‘DOUBLE indemnity’ benefits for Kathleen’s ‘accidental death’. We already learned what he did say about when Kathleen’s death was declared to be ‘accidental’.
    Also testified on Day 14: February 8, 2010, what Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications had to say about cellphone pings,phonecalls and text messages.

    Can you please explain what this all means? I’m sorry, but I’m lost here.

    Some life insurance policies pay DOUBLE in the event of ‘accidental death’. Steadman testified he was told Kathleen died an accidental death.

  222. Judgin – Or he wanted to make sure she didn’t commit suicide, which has an effect on some policies.

    I really don’t think the policy and the accidental death mean anything. AFAIK, from all the public information out there, the policy paid out $1,000,000. Have you information to the contrary?

  223. facsmiley :
    Hell, Drew could have just knocked on the door and then pointed a gun at her when she answered.

    I first thought that he may have picked the lock. But that was before the Locksmiths testimony to their being multiple locks. Outside door, screen door, dead bolt. So in light of that new information and the fact it took the locksmith 15 minutes to pick, it kind of killed that theory of his method of entry. Basement window or windows? Why didn’t he use that before instead of cutting a hole in the wall? It could of gained entry in any of those ways but now I tend to agree with Facs that is was something simple. Just because any other ways may have tipped Kathy off to him breaking in and calling the police on him. We don’t know where Kathy was at that time. She may have accidentally left a window open for all we know.Of course it was March and still cold probably unless she smoked to have a window open. So we may never know for sure how he got in.

  224. We don’t know yet what some of these witnesses testified about, i.e. Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications. I am looking forward to finding out from Joe Hosey or in the upcoming Trial. Yes, these people would be testifying in the Trial unless DP’ decision (unlikely confession or Guilty Plea Agreement) makes a Trial unnecessary.

  225. So we may never know for sure how he got in.

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

    Unless of course he inadvertently told someone.

    He has a habit of doing that (!!)

  226. rescueapet :Judgin – Or he wanted to make sure she didn’t commit suicide, which has an effect on some policies.
    I really don’t think the policy and the accidental death mean anything. AFAIK, from all the public information out there, the policy paid out $1,000,000. Have you information to the contrary?

    There were other insurance policies also mentioned in the ‘Will’. An unintentional benefit to murdering Kathleen and staging an ‘accidental death’ could be double indemnity payout besides not getting caught and charged for her murder. At this point, we do not know and probably won’t know until it comes out in ‘Trial’.

  227. judgin :

    We don’t know yet what some of these witnesses testified about, i.e. Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications. I am looking forward to finding out from Joe Hosey or in the upcoming Trial. Yes, these people would be testifying in the Trial unless DP’ decision (unlikely confession or Guilty Plea Agreement) makes a Trial unnecessary.

    I guess, big picture, I’m just confused by your series of posts here tonight. You mentioned a few things that I haven’t seen reported anywhere and I’m not sure what point you are trying to make or how you think these things fit together. I’m sorry, hon. Is it me?

  228. I bet the farm he bragged to someone about what he did to Kathleen.

    So far we’ve only heard testimony relevant to what hearsay may or may not be allowed, the pretrial hasn’t even started yet and despite what Joel Brodsky says there is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more to come !!

    The Prosecution did their home work and they did their home work good !

  229. Regarding the restaurant information link I posted about Suds Pub: The new owner, Jerry Jude, would have to jump through hoops before he could get a liquor license after DP’s license was forcefully terminated upon sale. There are also Meeting Minutes showing that DP schmoozed his way through liquor licensing infractions when charged with serving female minors in the Suds Pub and police were called by a female trapped in the bathroom.

    If you think all the above is confusing, I also found that there is documentation that shows that DP was operating the Suds Pub liquor license under the name of the prior owner under a Contract Purchase Agreement. There is the accidental alcohol related auto crash death of the prior owner involved in this.

    DP has gone in and out of ownership of the Suds Pub during his series of divorces. I am making these claims based upon documented information that another poster and I found soon after Stacy disappeared.

    My point here is that the new owner became aware of a lot of the bad things going on at that Pub for many years that people in Montgomery were happy to get rid of. Jerry Jude tells a little bit about his Montgomery struggles in the Meeting Minutes at http://www.aurora-il.org/documents/aldermen/minutes/…/pcm01042006min.pdf

  230. facsmiley :

    judgin :
    We don’t know yet what some of these witnesses testified about, i.e. Anthony Imrisek, Electrical engineer for Ericsson Telecommunications. I am looking forward to finding out from Joe Hosey or in the upcoming Trial. Yes, these people would be testifying in the Trial unless DP’ decision (unlikely confession or Guilty Plea Agreement) makes a Trial unnecessary.

    I guess, big picture, I’m just confused by your series of posts here tonight. You mentioned a few things that I haven’t seen reported anywhere and I’m not sure what point you are trying to make or how you think these things fit together. I’m sorry, hon. Is it me?

    Sorry, I don’t mean to confuse … I’m anxiously waiting for more reporting on testimony from the abovementioned witnesses who took the stand during the past 15 days. IMO, There is no point in trying to figure out DP’s actions until someone testifies about them.

    Facs and Rescue, there are a few of us posters who did some real in-depth research of public records and published archived articles. We pulled up information that is finally coming out in these Hearsay Hearings… all pieces of a huge puzzle. Cyrhla is one of these posters. Many links are now dead but a lot of this information was saved on hard drive.

    Again, sorry for the confusion. If you are not comfortable, please feel free to remove it. I’m sure it will again surface.

Comments are closed.