Drew Peterson to stay in jail…again

Drew Peterson will remain at the Will County Adult Detention Facility awaiting his trial for murder, despite the request by his  defense team to reconsider and free him.

Last month, Will County Judge Stephen White ruled that there were “compelling reasons” for keeping Peterson in custody during the process to appeal a ruling on hearsay evidence in his murder case. Those reasons remain undisclosed and the decision under seal. On Monday an appellate court upheld that decision and rejected the argument that Peterson had a constitutional right to go home.

Attorney for the defense, Joe Lopez, apparently forgetting that Peterson waived his right to a speedy trial in July 2009, told reporters: “You can’t deny a constitutional right like this. They’re denying him a right to a speedy trial.”

Drew Peterson can look forward to many more weeks filled with diversions like the surprise strip searches and handcuffed trips to court that he described in his recent ill-advised and whiny letter addressed to gossip columnist Michael Sneed.

Read more at the Plainfield Sun

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email 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

172 thoughts on “Drew Peterson to stay in jail…again

  1. Court won’t free Peterson

    August 31, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — The bid to spring Drew Peterson from jail while appeals in his murder case are sorted out has failed.

    The state’s Third District Appellate Court shot down Peterson’s effort to be released and alerted his attorneys to the decision Monday.

    “This means we have to go to step two,” said Joseph “Shark” Lopez, one of the half-dozen lawyers defending Peterson against charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004. Peterson is also suspected of slaying his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, in October 2007, but has not been charged with harming that spouse.

    Step two, Lopez explained, was to take Peterson’s case to the state Supreme Court. And if Peterson does not find satisfaction there, Lopez said, he would “be going to the Federal Building” for step three.

    Lopez said the appellate court gave no explanation of its decision in its notice to Peterson’s attorneys and simply said the appeal had been denied.

    Jailed since May 2009
    Peterson has been jailed since his May 2009 arrest on the murder charge. His bond was set at $20 million, and his attorneys appealed to have it lowered soon after he was taken into custody. The appellate court rejected that appeal as well.
    Peterson was set to go to trial on the Savio murder case July 8. But on the eve of the trial’s start, State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed an appeal of Judge Stephen White’s ruling on what hearsay evidence prosecutors can use against Peterson.

    During a pretrial hearing last week, Assistant State’s Attorney Robert Lorz indicated that the appeal could drag on for another six months or more.

    Lopez insisted Peterson should be released pending the resolution of the hearsay appeal and that sitting in jail for another half year while he is presumed innocent of the murder violated his client’s rights.

    “You can’t deny a constitutional right like this,” he said. “They’re denying him a right to a speedy trial.”

    Charles B. Pelkie, the spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, declined to comment on the appeal or the decision released Monday but did refute the notion that Peterson’s rights have been violated.

    “Drew Peterson has been charged with first-degree murder, but his constitutional rights have been scrupulously protected at every step of this process,” Pelkie said.

    Lopez didn’t think so.

    “They’ve been trampling on Drew’s constitutional rights for two years now,” he said. “I guess he’s getting used to it. It’s another travesty.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/plainfieldsun/news/2655710,4_1_JO31_PETERSON_S1-100831.article

  2. Just call me Quick Draw McGraw on those post-midnight articles! So – the appeals court gave no reason for this denial and now it is off to the Supreme Court.

    Another travesty? Yeah the first travesties were Kathleen’s death and Stacy going missing. It’s a travesty to the kids that they have lost their mothers.

    And the defense needs to stop this whole thing about Drew’s right to a speedy trial as he waived that right long, long ago on his own in open court. His lawyers have asked for delays. This is going on two years not just because of the prosecution. In fact, had the defense gone along with the original date for the trial then the Supreme Court ruling on that other case wouldn’t even have been a possible reason to appeal the judge’s ruling on hearsay. So they need to blame themselves for not playing their game of chess very well.

  3. Couldn’t agree with you more TAI. It’s like the defense thinks they are operating in some sort of legal arena where the slate is wiped clean each day and everyone forgets what they said or filed the week before.

    Well, Lopez may have a short memory but the documents on file are calling BS on any hissy fits Lopez may want to pitch.

  4. Murderers don’t just have an impact on the people around them…but the entire community.

    …during the process of creating the 2010 budget, Glasgow asked the county board last year for extra money. The board members agreed and established a $500,000 special prosecution fund for the state’s attorney’s office.

    “That is the first time the fund has been funded,” said County Board Chairman Jim Moustis, R-Frankfort. “In the past, we would have probably just given additional funding to the state’s attorney’s office.”

    When the Peterson, Vaughn and other extraordinary cases are finished, the special prosecution fund probably won’t be needed, Moustis said. The money was distributed as needed in increments of $100,000, and staff members did a periodic review of the expenditures…

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2655894,4_1_JO31_SPENDING_S1-100831.article

  5. Yes, prosecutors do eat.

    Lunches — $1,494.73.

    Most of them were from The Sandwich Shop, 79 N. Chicago St., Joliet, and Subway, 17 W. Jefferson St., Joliet, and were bought for prosecutors earlier this year during a five-week hearing in the Drew Peterson case.

    “These were short lunches and they were working lunches,” said Pelkie. “The determination was made at this point to buy the staff a modest lunch.”

    The prosecution team was working long days that began at 8 a.m. and often ended at 7 p.m., he said.

    “This was done every single day during the course of the hearing,” Pelkie said. Prosecutors do not receive overtime, Pelkie said.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/2655882,4_1_JO31_SPENDING_S2-100831.article

  6. Wow, after reading these S. Warren stories, it leaves you wondering. Maybe Will County folks should revolt and elect themselves a new State’s Attorney. Maybe one like they had before who had selective hearing and sight and let Drew Peterson skate by the first time, only to go on and do it again. Hey, I have a good idea, maybe they should demand a refund of Robert Deel’s salary, since he’s the poorest excuse of a paid evidence technician anyone has ever heard of.

    The Will County folks should demand that their tax dollars be used and spent like they do in Cook County. Those good old boys know how to make a buck go a long way.

  7. I don’t live in Will County but if they don’t want their tax dollars spent to investigate and prosecute the Peterson case, the Vaughn murders, or the Lane Bryant killings, please let me know where I can donate. I’d consider it money well spent.

  8. Lopez insisted Peterson should be released pending the resolution of the hearsay appeal and that sitting in jail for another half year while he is presumed innocent of the murder violated his client’s rights.

    “You can’t deny a constitutional right like this,” he said. “They’re denying him a right to a speedy trial.”

    Right. He should be released pending the resolution of the appeal. That’s his constitutional right. Unless there’s a compelling reason to keep him detained. Which brings us to the point that he is being kept being bars because a number of judges think he’s better watched in his prison suite than roaming the streets of Bolingbrook. If what’s being done is illegal in some way, or Peterson’s constitutional rights are being denied, then I think we can all rest easy knowing that his lawyers will sort it all out for him and see that he gets his due justice. Just like they’ve been doing all along.

  9. Good Morning All!
    And just knowing the courts denied again, makes it a very good morning indeed.
    I can’t help wonder, what the Scream Team has to say about this, and how they will twist it.. Stay tuned.

  10. LOL! LOL! LOL! Relief and WOW is all I can say! Those sealed records must really contain some extreme evidential detail!! Wonder if he will finally break!

  11. Hear hear. Love for Lenny and Paula.

    I think you could be right. Lenny and Paula certainly were adamant that they “got” him good. 😉 I still hold out hope for a sealed federal warrant, but I’m not fussy.

  12. facsmiley :

    I don’t live in Will County but if they don’t want their tax dollars spent to investigate and prosecute the Peterson case, the Vaughn murders, or the Lane Bryant killings, please let me know where I can donate. I’d consider it money well spent.

    Wow. I’ve read the Warren pieces, and I’m really in shock and awe. I say that because it’s obvious that Ms. Warren is not a fan of James Glasgow and/or the State’s Attorney’s Office. While that is all well and fine, I think there’d be a better way to go about calling him and his office out on expenses in high profile cases they’re handling, and zeroing in on Drew Peterson’s.

    First of all, there’s no comparison of expenses between one SA’s office with another. She merely lists the expenses attributable to one particular case, and, I assume, expects the reader to be outraged. Are these expenses out-of-line? I don’t know. Ms. Warren hasn’t followed through for us to let us decide for ourselves by having a side-by-side comparison.

    Are they excessive compared to other prosecutors? I totally understand a reporter wanting to dig in and come out with a big revelation and/or scoop that attempts to provoke readers, but I think a good start would be to begin at a simple premise of how this particular office is flying way too high above what any other office would do. I could just as well come back and say the former SA, Tomczak, saved Will County all kinds of expenses by letting Drew Peterson slip under the radar, only to go on to have yet another wife meet an untimely demise. We wouldn’t be here if the facts uncovered in the first investigation weren’t so outrageous.

    While I think having a remote starter installed in a car that the SA uses is stupid and looks bad, and it’s just inviting criticism, I honestly don’t think that letting someone as dark and evil as Drew Peterson off the hook for criminal activities warrants the importance Ms. Warren seems to place on the SA’s office expenses. This series of reporting clearly makes me see this as a “personal” issue, rather than a broad-spectrum Will County issue that should have its residents rise up and revolt.

    Maybe the reporter should have also expressed her solution to this “problem.” That would be — what?

  13. Look at it this way, maybe all the delving into the expenditures of the State’s Attorney’s office is just paving the way for a big story that rips into Joel. *shrug*

  14. Don’t forget the next hearing on the weapons charges is September 7th.

    This is what Drew is charged with:

    …the grand jury issued a two-count indictment, filed on July 11, 2008, charging defendant with two alternate counts of the same weapons charge.

    Count I alleged that, on or between October 28, 2007, and November 1, 2007, defendant committed the offense of unlawful use of a weapon, a Class 3 felony, in that he “knowingly possessed a rifle, namely a modified Colt, model Sporter Lightweight, 223 Remington rifle, serial number SL025365, with attached EOTech electronic sight, with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.” See 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)(ii) (West 2006).

    Count II alleged that, on or between October 28, 2007, and November 1, 2007, defendant committed the offense of unlawful use of a weapon, a Class 3 felony, in that he “knowingly agreed with Stephen Peterson to commit the offense of Unlawful Use of Weapon by transferring possession of a rifle to Stephen Peterson, namely a Colt, model Sporter Lightweight, 223 Remington rifle, serial number SL025365, with attached EOTech electronic sight, with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.” 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)(ii) (West 2006).

    The first count is just for possession of the gun. The second is for transferring the gun to Stephen.

  15. rescueapet :

    First of all, there’s no comparison of expenses between one SA’s office with another. She merely lists the expenses attributable to one particular case, and, I assume, expects the reader to be outraged. Are these expenses out-of-line? I don’t know. Ms. Warren hasn’t followed through for us to let us decide for ourselves by having a side-by-side comparison.

    Are they excessive compared to other prosecutors? I totally understand a reporter wanting to dig in and come out with a big revelation and/or scoop that attempts to provoke readers, but I think a good start would be to begin at a simple premise of how this particular office is flying way too high above what any other office would do.

    Excellent point. What are we to make out of a mere list of expenses? Unless we know how they compare to the spending of other jurisdictions what are we to make of this information? It’s not exactly news that stuff costs money.

    She should have just posted a spreadsheet of the expenditures. It would be about as newsworthy.

  16. They will lose the gun case for sure, don’t worry. They are trying very hard to make the Appelate court confused but they will never do.

    Point 1
    That is right that you have a consitutional right to posses a gun.

    Point 2
    That is right that a police officer is subject to many exemptions. One of them is that he/she is allowed to carry (=possess) a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16′.

    However, each state has its own right to establish its ‘internal’ laws which must comply with the federal law.

    The question is why police officers are allowed to possess and transfer weapons which are fobidden for an ordinary citizen. They are subject to exemptions because they must perform their job. Specific and sometimes very dangerous. It means a policeman is allowed to possess such a weapon but only when he or she performs his/her duty . That is what the Illionois law says and it does not go against any federal law.

    Drew, as a policeman, was allowed to use his private rifle at work. He was also allowed to use it for private purposes and take it to a shooting range, for instance. As long as it was not shorter than 16″. No one is allowed to possess a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16″ for private purposes until such a weapon has a special permit. As we know Drew did not have such a permit and did not also have any written permission of his chief to modify his personal gun for proffessional purposes, so he committed a crime. Weapons subject to exemptions are usually owned and kept at police stations, not at home. And if so, there must be a really strong reason for it.

    Think about the word “possess” which does not mean “own” (BTW, thanks to you, Bucket, as you made me aware of it).

    Everything what I wrote above I got from my nephew who serves as a PO in NY. He asked his firearms expert (a man who was responsible for trainings all over the States), so I believe in what he says. I hope I managed to explain it to you in a simple way.

    Following Brodsky’s and Greenberg’s understanding a soldier could drive a tank to supermarket to do the shopping. LOL

  17. When Drew gets convicted, the State can sue him for all their lunch expenses. Or they can throw eveything up on Brodsky’s suit. 😉

  18. Cyrhla says: Following Brodsky’s and Greenberg’s understanding a soldier could drive a tank to supermarket to do the shopping. LOL

    Ha, ha, that’s hysterical!!! Good one.

  19. Chief McCarthy testified that Peterson was not granted permission to modify the rifle, and in fact never asked to do so.

    McCarthy also said shortening the barrel is forbidden by state law and that his officers are “responsible for knowing state statute, understanding state statute and obeying state stature, just like everybody else.

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2629868,4_1_JO24_PETERSON_S1-100824.article

    Here lies two questions. Why did Peterson knowingly turn over a weapon with an illegally shortened barrel to his son in the first place? If Peterson was working under the assumption (which I do not believe to be the case) that his weapon was legal for him and only him, why would he jeopardize his son’s career by turning it over to him? I guess the answer might be that he never thought he’d be charged criminally for anything that had to do with his weapons.

    The second question is why Steve wouldn’t back away from his father and tell him he didn’t want any part of that gun. He also knowingly accepted possession of an illegal weapon, and I’m wondering why there aren’t any charges against him? Not that he doesn’t have enough problems, but isn’t he just as much in the trick bag as his father? How is he supposed to continue to enforce the laws he is guilty of violating? Even Andrew Abood has asked that kind of question on his Facebook page, or at least suggested that a law enforcement officer should have knowledge of a law before he arrests someone for violating one. What defense lawyer wouldn’t zoom in on Steve Peterson if he, in fact, hauled in a citizen for having an illegal weapon. Can’t have it both ways. Either that gun is legal, or it’s not, for Drew that is. If he had special permission to have it, Steve didn’t.

  20. cyrhla :

    If he had special permission, there would not be Count I.

    Right. So, what’s his excuse for dumping on his p.o. son, and, in like, what’s Steve’s reason for accepting it? The second part is probably easily answered. Loyalty. The first part – who the hell knows, if not to cover his own sorry ass. Which makes him a pos coward.

  21. In fact, we do not know what happened to the gun. I mean if Drew had sawed-off the barrel himsel or used a shorter one. I guess he must have sawed it off and was planning to replace it with a new one later on. If he had had a spare longer one, he would have changed it at home before the search warrant. I guess it was a stupid mistake of his.
    We cannot be sure that the rifle was transferred to Stephen on 30th. That is only what he said.

  22. Cyrhla – All good points, but Steve testified that he received a phone call from his father at 7am on 10/30, and Teresa Peterson testified that Peterson stopped by shortly after that “three minute” phone call.

    I guess what we don’t know is why Steve turned in the weapon after all. He willingly accepted it, probably knowing it wasn’t in his best interests to do so. After the search warrant was carried out, it wasn’t until the next day that he turned over the weapon. But, why? Did his father suggest he do so after all, or did he do it of his own accord? I wonder if his time machine = grand jury testimony has additional information on how it came about that he had a weapon to turn in.

  23. cyrhla :

    In fact, we do not know what happened to the gun. I mean if Drew had sawed-off the barrel himsel or used a shorter one. I guess he must have sawed it off and was planning to replace it with a new one later on. If he had had a spare longer one, he would have changed it at home before the search warrant. I guess it was a stupid mistake of his.
    We cannot be sure that the rifle was transferred to Stephen on 30th. That is only what he said.

    For the record, I haven’t heard that anyone physically ‘sawed off’ the barrel. Apparently, this kind of weapon is modifiable and the barrels are easily swapped out. The defense doesn’t question the allegation that Drew modified the weapon. Joel has said on camera (on Geraldo’s show) that Drew did it (“he exchanged the barrels” sometime during the last year [said in May 2008]). Whether he planned to modify it again at a later date is something we can’t know and doesn’t really matter.

  24. Remember way back in May of 2008 Joel appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show and argued with him over the gun charges? I can’t find video of it anywhere but I remember Joel asking for feedback about his appearance on SYM:

    Did anyone see me on Fox News Channel mixing it up with Geraldo Rivera (Jerry Rivers). What did you think? Did his ignorance of guns come through? Did the fact that the issue is that the rifle was a duty weapon and the barrel length is irrelevant make it through the interview? Post your answer in the all things peterson thread. Thanks.

    Pathetic.

  25. Geesh, when you go back and look at some of the stuff that was said about this weapon, Brodsky is all over the place. In this full transcript, he never alludes to the fact that Drew’s son is the one that had last possession of the weapon, and he is the one that turned it over.

    Greta Van Susteren – Fox News – May 22, 2008
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357225,00.html

    Excerpts

    JOEL BRODSKY, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: They’re alleging that Drew’s AR-15, which was his SWAT duty weapon, is three eighths of an inch too short, the barrel is three eighths of an inch too short. However, that’s not illegal under Illinois law because police officers’ duty weapons are allowed to be non-conforming. After talking to the state’s attorney’s office this morning, it’s my belief that they were not given full and accurate information prior to bringing this charge and that further investigation will result in this charge being dismissed.

    QUESTION: The charge is a misdemeanor?

    BRODSKY: No, it’s a felony.

    *********

    BRODSKY: They asked. They asked — they took some of the guns, and some of the guns — the rest of the guns were voluntarily surrendered 1st of November. He didn’t resign until mid-November.

    QUESTION: So he was never not a police officer when he possessed this.

    BRODSKY: That’s correct.

    QUESTION: So there was never, in your mind, anything illegal about him having it.

    BRODSKY: Absolutely not. And as I said, I do not believe that the state’s attorney had full and complete information when they approved these charges.

    QUESTION: Joel, what type of weapon is it again?

    BRODSKY: It’s an AR-15. It’s an assault weapon, assault rifle.

    QUESTION: Do you know if it’s one of the ones that he surrendered or one of the ones (INAUDIBLE)

    BRODSKY: I believe it’s one of the ones he voluntarily surrendered.

    QUESTION: Why did they wait until (INAUDIBLE) Talk about the timing.

    BRODSKY: Yes, the timing is very suspicious, that they would wait until the day before we’re going to get — supposed to get the court order that the guns be returned to his son.

    VAN SUSTEREN: We asked Bolingbrook police chief Ray McGurry for clarification about the gun charge against Sergeant Peterson. Chief McGurry sent us this statement. “We believe Drew Peterson purchased that weapon, an AR-15, from a third party. Drew Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon and it is not registered with the Bolingbrook Police Department. No police officer is authorized to carry such a weapon. However, a SWAT team member is, but that weapon must be brought in and inspected by our firearms expert to make sure it doesn’t violate any state or federal laws. The serial number must be recorded, and they must pass a qualifications test. Mr. Peterson did none of these. Because it was altered, this weapon is a clear violation of any regulations, and Mr. Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon. I challenge Mr. Brodsky to subpoena our records, as he has threatened to do. He will find no record of this weapon.”

    Now, Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, text-message our producer, saying the gun was registered as a second duty weapon with the Bolingbrook Police Department.

  26. BRODSKY: They asked. They asked — they took some of the guns, and some of the guns — the rest of the guns were voluntarily surrendered 1st of November. He didn’t resign until mid-November.

    Sounds like Joel was aware that Drew had sent some of his guns off with Stephen and was trying very hard not to say that.

  27. I challenge Mr. Brodsky to subpoena our records, as he has threatened to do. He will find no record of this weapon.”

    Of course, at this point we’ve all seen the memo that does list the gun as Drew’s secondary weapon, but the memo is from 2005 and according to Joel, Drew altered it in 2007 so….unless they can prove the alteration was authorized, he seems screwed.

  28. I wonder if it matters that Drew was authorized to carry that gun (in 2005) only as part of the REACT team (Raid Entry And Containment)? If he was not a member of that team in 2007 when the gun was altered, was he still using it for work and was it still being authorized? Just my opinion, but I wouldn’t think so.

  29. facsmiley :

    BRODSKY: They asked. They asked — they took some of the guns, and some of the guns — the rest of the guns were voluntarily surrendered 1st of November. He didn’t resign until mid-November.

    Sounds like Joel was aware that Drew had sent some of his guns off with Stephen and was trying very hard not to say that.

    Half-Lie? 😉

  30. http://www.amw.com/fugitives/capture.cfm?id=55859

    The warrant was issued after one of the Peterson guns, an AR-15 assault rifle, was found to be allegedly illegally sawed-off. The shortened barrel violates Illinois law, police say. Glenn Selig, a publicist for Peterson, told AMW the barrel of the gun in question is 3/8″ shy of the legal barrel length of 16″.

    Additionally Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, says that because Peterson was a police officer and used this gun while he was working, he is exempt from Illinois state law restrictions.

    To further bolster his claims, Drew Peterson released a photo of himself with actor John Travolta. Peterson says that the picture was taken in 2000 when Travolta — in Bolingbrook, Ill. to support the release of the movie Battlefield Earth — was escorted by Peterson and his Bolingbrook Police SWAT colleagues.

    Peterson claims the photo exonerates him of the weapons charge and proves he used the AR-15 in question in his duties as a SWAT officer.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_recap9b.htm

    “Lt. Ken Teppel, the public information officer for Bolingbrook PD, told AMW that Peterson was issued two weapons as an officer. The first was a Sig-Saur handgun and the second was a H and K MP5. The MP5 was the weapon used by Peterson when he was a member of the SWAT team, not the AR-15. Both department issued guns were seized by Illinois State Police when they searched Peterson’s home and were subsequently returned to the Bolingbrook Police Department.”

    I suppose the picture with Travolta was just another so-called evidence produced by Brodsky for the media show. Can anyone (=a layperson like you or me) tell from this picture if it is MP5 or AR-15? These rifles are similar. Have you ever read any discussion on that?

  31. cyrhla :
    Since when does 3/8in (Brodsky) equals 5in?

    I believe the difference is the length with and without the flash suppressor. 5″ too short without, 3/8″ too short with.

  32. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=404944

    Drew Peterson’s son fights to save Oak Brook cop job

    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff
    Contact writer
    Published: 8/31/2010 8:52 PM

    Stephen Peterson admitted under oath that he stashed his infamous father’s favorite guns, but the Oak Brook police officer denies that constitutes a violation of department policy.

    His police union attorney, Tamara L. Cummings, said Tuesday the six-year officer will fight to remain on the force. Peterson, 31, was placed on paid administrative leave Thursday pending an internal investigation.

    “(The order) just said he potentially violated rules when he took possession of his dad’s three guns,” Cummings said. “He definitely will be fighting it.”

    Cummings said she’ll likely issue a written public statement on his behalf Wednesday. His son’s disciplinary action is the latest unwelcome news for Drew Peterson, 56, jailed since May 2009 after being charged with first-degree murder in third wife Kathleen Savio’s 2004 bathtub drowning in Bolingbrook.

    Justices with the Third District Appellate Court this week denied the retired Bolingbrook police sergeant’s request to be set free while Will County prosecutors appeal a lower court’s pretrial ruling barring the majority of certain hearsay statements they argue incriminate Peterson.

    “He’s OK with it,” lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky said. “He’s more upset by what’s happening to Stephen.”

    Drew Peterson also is facing a 2008 illegal weapons charge after being accused of possessing an AR-15 rifle with a prohibited shortened barrel.

    Stephen Peterson testified Aug. 23 for the prosecution that Drew brought two bags holding as many as three guns to his North Aurora house Oct. 30, 2007 because, “these were his favorites and he didn’t want anything to happen to them.”

    That was just days after Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, went missing.

    Peterson denies any wrongdoing in her disappearance. He has not been charged.

    State police raided his home that Nov. 1. Brodsky said Drew Peterson voluntarily told police his son had the weapons, and Stephen Peterson promptly handed them over.

    At issue, however, is whether Stephen Peterson was obligated to immediately turn them over to law enforcement upon possession. Oak Brook Village Manager David Niemeyer said the officer will remain on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal department investigation.

    Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan may seek Peterson’s dismissal. Peterson has faced numerous verbal and written reprimands and suspensions for past infractions dating back to 2005, according to DuPage County court filings.

    Most recently, he received a 25-day suspension for running improper police database checks on village employee cars in late 2008. Months earlier, Peterson also received a four-day suspension for driving in a marked squad car and appearing in uniform in 2007 before the Will County grand jury regarding Stacy’s disappearance.

    Stephen Peterson has accused Sheahan of disliking him.

    “No, I like Officer Peterson,” Sheahan testified during an Oct. 16, 2008 hearing before the Oak Brook police and fire commission regarding the database allegations. “I think he’s a good officer. I think he’s made some mistakes, but I think he’s a good officer.”

    Sheahan admitted checking up on Peterson in light of a “confidential state police investigation,” though the chief declined to confirm it involved Drew Peterson, according to a transcript of the police commission hearing.

  33. If you want to take the time-machine back to the last time Stephen was suspended in April 2008, Gatehouse Media covered it:

    Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan said that Stephen Peterson has disciplinary action on his record since starting with the Oak Brook PD, including an incident in April 2007 where he made a “rude comment” to a citizen after another officer’s hearing.

    Peterson was suspended for one day for that offense.

    “He’s got a couple knocks here that I wouldn’t expect any officer in Oak Brook to have,” said Sheahan. “I would expect progressive discipline to halt problems like that. But it hasn’t, and that’s why we’re here today.”

    http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/villapark/news/x1767333406?img=2

  34. Most recently, he received a 25-day suspension for running improper police database checks on village employee cars in late 2008.

    Aw, come on. How many work sectors keep suspending an employee until they straighten up and fly right? How many times does it take? Geesh, no one wants to see a young guy like this lose his job, especially for being loyal to his poor excuse of a father, but he needs to quit giving the Oak Brook Police Department the bat they use to keep clubbing him over his hard head!

  35. Poor Steve, but in my opinion, the apple dont fall from the tree. Such a short time on the force, and how many times in trouble…Oh thats right, they like to pick on Steve.

  36. Wow! I’ve been gone all day (long story) and came home to good news. Excellent. Bravo/Brava!
    Now-one question that I don’t think I’ve seen here-
    Joe Hosey (our hero) stated in yesterday’s column, “Even though Stephen Peterson possessed the allegedly illegal gun for three days, he faces no criminal charges.”

    ***
    Why not? Or do you think this might only mean, ‘…no criminal charges yet?

  37. Brodsky said Drew Peterson voluntarily told police his son had the weapons, and Stephen Peterson promptly handed them over.

    Another lie, half-life or did he tell the truth? It does not matter IMO. The rifle was still shorter than allowed and neither Drew or Stephen had the right to possess it. If Steve wasn’t a police officer and had never had a gun in his hands before, I could believe he was not aware of the rifle was illegal.

  38. I don’t know what it is, then, but I can remember JB saying that BBPD didn’t know how to measure the barrel.

    I see Steve’s lawyer seems clear about Drew giving SP *three* guns.

    I’m not feeling inclined to cut Steve slack here. He knew the AR15 was illegal, but most importantly he knew he was hiding the guns from the ISP. I don’t believe he volunteered them. He would have done so the next day if that had been his intention. It wasn’t even over a weekend. He may have handed them over, but I believe he had to be asked for them.

    Giving attitude on the stand didn’t help either. Does one suppose he ever bemoans not having a time machine when he testifies in the course of his duties? Of course not. He wouldn’t be able to say exactly how many guns he may have confiscated from a suspect? Of course not.

    I’m sure Drew is most worried about Steve coming under pressure…but not for Steve’s sake. 😦

  39. Those are good photos to compare,Cyrhla. The picture with the girls in it even gives you scale when you compare the width of Cass’ hand with the difference between the 2 different barrel lengths.

  40. I think in the police unions you are GONE if you don’t get any write ups because then you are being too passive… 🙂

  41. thinkaboutit2 :
    I think in the police unions you are GONE if you don’t get any write ups because then you are being too passive…

    Seriously?

    When I worked as a pharma rep we were told that if we didn’t accrue speeding and parking tickets, we weren’t doing our job properly. Seriously.

  42. Over here there’s a straightforward procedure for dismissing someone, and it’s the same for everyone. Verbal warning 1st degree, official verbal and written warning 2nd degree, and then they can be sacked on the 3rd occasion. Exceptions being the transgressions that are grave enough for instant dismissal: eg theft or violence in the workplace. Just by the by.

  43. I wasn’t being serious – but don’t know if my thought is too far off of the possible reality. I think police get put on administrative duty a lot more than we know. Sometimes people make accusations against the police because they are mad they were arrested and stuff like that. I imagine they have levels of how serious an infraction is before they cut someone off of the force.

  44. Chicago and suburban police departments have their own procedures for handling disciplinary actions.

    In the CPD, for example, any verbal or physical abuse complaints by a citizen are handled through the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), formerly known as the Police Dept’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS). IPRA also becomes involved in police involved shootings and domestic violence situations. In the case of a police involved shooting, they would oversee the investigation, and be involved in a roundtable discussion. They render recommendations based on their investigation.

    IPRA investigates a civilian’s complaint, and decides if it’s founded, unfounded, or unsustained. Unfounded is a complaint with no merit. Founded speaks for itself. Unsustained is a complaint which may have merit, but which cannot be completely validated. Unfounded complaints are not supposed to make their way to an officer’s personnel file. Both founded and unsustained complaints do. After IPRA does their investigation, they make their recommendation. If the recommendation is to suspend the officer, the findings and recommendation then makes its way to Internal Affairs (IAD).

    In the case of a rule violation, bribe, things of that nature, a complaint first makes its way to the p.o.’s supervisor, i.e., sergeant, lieutenant, and he/she then turns it over to the district commander. This district commander reviews and reports the complaint to IAD, who investigates the matter. They then make a recommendation, such as suspension (up to 30 days), which must be approved by the district commander and deputy chief, who can agree with the recommendation, raise it or lower it. (Any recommendation of 30 days or longer, or termination, would be sent directly to the Superintendent.) Ultimately, the recommendation makes its way to the Superintendent of Police, who can do whatever he wishes, again, raising or lowering the suspension, going beyond the 30 day suspension or recommend the officer’s termination. At any time, an officer can then request that his/her case be heard by the (civilian) Police Board. In any case, the Police Board makes the final disciplinary decisions, and they hold hearings for officers suspended for up to a year and/or recommended for termination.

    In a situation, such as an officer being involved, say, in a drunk driving traffic incident, the police department itself handles the initial investigation. A sergeant, for example, can order the officer to submit to a breathalizer test, which he can refuse under State law. However, he would be violating a police department direct order, which would trigger action against him within the department.

    Anytime an officer is accused of criminal activity, usually the officer will be asked to give a statement by, say, his/her sergeant. The officer can then refuse to do so by invoking Miranda rights, and request that an attorney be present.

    Basically, most police involved issues are governed and decided by the chain of command, starting with the officer’s immediate supervisors. Depending on how serious the issues are, this governs what further action is necessary.

  45. Drew Peterson’s son fights to save Oak Brook cop job
    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff

    Published: 8/31/2010 8:52 PM | Updated: 9/1/2010 3:43 PM

    Excerpts

    Stephen Peterson admitted under oath that he stashed his infamous father’s favorite guns, but the Oak Brook police officer denies that constitutes a violation of department policy.

    Peterson has declined to comment. But his police union attorney, Tamara L. Cummings issued a written statement Wednesday on his behalf in which she accused Police Chief Thomas Sheahan of unfairly targeting Peterson, son of Drew Peterson.

    According to Cummings: “It should be abundantly clear that as soon as he became aware that the guns were of interest to the state police, Peterson gave the guns to the appropriate authorities and fully cooperated with their investigation. This entire incident transpired in a matter of days. To say that Officer Peterson committed wrongdoing or had any further obligations defies logic and I am confident that once again we will demonstrate that Chief Sheahan’s charges are baseless.

    Cummings said both of the most recent cases were initiated after an “onslaught of public controversy” over Stacy Peterson’s disappearance and Savio’s death.

    “Although the police board agreed with the chief and imposed discipline, in both cases, a circuit court judge either reversed the police board’s findings or reduced the sanction. How many times do we have to appeal to the courts to demonstrate that Sheahan is unfairly targeting Officer Peterson?”

    Cummings concluded: “Not only is he a good officer, he is currently raising his own child along with the young children of his father, and the chief wants to take away his livelihood?”

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=404944

  46. How many times do we have to appeal to the courts to demonstrate that Sheahan is unfairly targeting Officer Peterson?”

    Spin it! Every time a disciplinary action or suspension is handed down, it’s appealed. Of course the officer’s attorney is going to allege unfairness. How many times does she have to appeal? As many times as he disobeys a department rule and gets reprimanded.

    If he did not do anything wrong, then he won’t lose his job. I don’t think anyone wants to see him lose his job merely because he’s the son of Drew Peterson, and he shouldn’t have to pay for his father’s crimes. But using that as an excuse for his indiscretions is another example of putting the blame on someone else, which is the coward’s way out. BTW, did his father force him to use the O.B. P.D. database to run license plate checks on numerous Village employees? Or did he dream up that idea on his own, and for what reason?

    Geesh.

  47. What defies logic is that Stephen Peterson did not return the rifle immediately after he had received it from his father but waited three days until he learned it was of the interest of the State Police (the search warrant had been issued).

    On Oct. 30th, it is on Tuesday evening, Stephen Peterson was at his father’s home and knew very well what was going on (I mean that Stacy was already reported missing)and that his father was a (potential) suspect. On the same day he also accepted a check for $200.000. The guns were already at his home then. So why didn’t he return them then? IMO, the answer is clear: he wanted to help his father hide these guns. If he hadn’t, he would have returend them not waiting for the search warrant, simply to avoid being involved in his father’s suspicious activities. No matter if that the rifle was legal or not. They might have been used to murder Stacy. As he did not return the guns immediately and knowingly maintained the possession of an illegal gun until the police got interested in it, he committed a crime and breached the rules of police ethics.

    Unfortunatelly, Labor Unions often stand for bad cops and they spoil the whole image of the police (and discourage those who want to repect laws).

  48. rescueapet :
    Why is everything with the Peterson boys vindictive? Aren’t they EVER responsible for their actions?

    Sure. It seems we all want to take over the Petersons’ money and let their children starve. LOL

  49. Yes, there is no way that Steve P was doing anything other than hiding weapons from ISP. Of course he knew exactly what was going on. Hell, he could’ve taken them with him to work at Oak Brook HQ to hand them over to his superiors discreetly.

  50. All this talk about Stephen being “unfairly targeted” made me wonder how many other officers had been suspended from the Oak Brook PD in the past two years, and the reasons for those suspensions.

    Were they suspended with pay while the PD investigated further? I would think so, otherwise the PD would open themselves to lawsuits …

  51. This clarifies the “reversal” Attorney Cummings claims the judge ruled in the uniform/driving squad car to GJ incident:

    Drew Peterson’s son: Suspension from Oak Brook police cut in half
    April 23, 2009|By Art Barnum, TRIBUNE REPORTER

    The son of Drew Peterson had his eight-day suspension from the Oak Brook Police Department cut in half to four days Wednesday by a DuPage County Court judge.

    Stephen Peterson received the original suspension from the village’s fire and police commission last April after Police Chief Thomas Sheahan charged him with violating department policies by appearing in uniform and with driving a marked village squad car to Joliet in 2007 to appear before a Will County grand jury investigating his father about the death of a former wife.

    Tamara Cummings, Stephen Peterson’s attorney, claimed Wednesday that the three-member village commission had an improper member serving on a temporary basis and that Peterson didn’t violate department rules for driving the squad or display conduct unbecoming an officer.

    Judge Kenneth Popejoy said that the makeup of the commission was proper and that a penalty for driving the squad to the grand jury was appropriate, but that the punishment for conduct unbecoming an officer was against the “manifest weight of the evidence.”

    Popejoy noted Peterson was responding to a court-ordered appearance before the grand jury, that he never alerted the press before or afterward, that he never talked to the press and that village and police officials were aware of the situation involving his father.

    “His testimony to the grand jury was not a secret to the Oak Brook Police Department,” Popejoy said. “There is no evidence that the Oak Brook Police Department was adversely affected.”

    Peterson, appearing in a suit, declined to comment Wednesday.

    Cummings said Peterson remains an Oak Brook police officer. It’s unknown when he would serve the suspension, pending possible further legal action.

    The commission was originally asked by Sheahan to suspend Peterson for 10 to 60 days, Popejoy said.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-04-23/news/0904221243_1_grand-jury-conduct-squad

  52. Judge Kenneth Popejoy said that the makeup of the commission was proper and that a penalty for driving the squad to the grand jury was appropriate, but that the punishment for conduct unbecoming an officer was against the “manifest weight of the evidence.”

    This is the part of her carefully worded PR that plays around with the facts. The judge disagreed that he should have been punished for conduct unbecoming an officer, but agreed that he should be punished for driving the company car to the grand jury appearance. The 8 day suspension was reduced to 4.

    Atty Cummings mentions that he faced two disciplinary incidents since the news of his father became well known. The above was one of them. The other was using the police database to run checks on a large number of Village employees, in which he was given a 25 day suspension. She does not address that discipline and suspension whatsoever, if you read her PR. She does not say that that suspension was cut, or that the judge agreed that he was being vindictively targeted.

    So far, I have been unable to find anything that says his 25 day suspension was cut, or that the judge reversed any of the original findings.

  53. Drew Peterson’s son gets new suspension
    October 17, 2008 7:17 PM

    Excerpt
    Stephen Peterson misused the Police Department’s mobile data system to run license tags of more than 10 village personnel, including Village Manager David Niemeyer and Deputy Police Chief Steve Larson, the village’s Police and Fire Commission ruled Thursday, suspending Peterson for 25 days.

    The three-member panel also agreed with Police Chief Thomas Sheahan that Peterson made improper personal queries on the Law Enforcement Agency Data Systems computer.

    Peterson argued that he was making random checks, as allowed under department policy, and that he typically checks 50 to 100 license plates each shift.

    Peterson will be given the opportunity to appeal the ruling before the suspension is enforced.

    This is all I could find–just that he’d be given the opportunity to appeal, but nothing beyond that.

  54. Police probe of Drew’s son ‘vindictive,’ lawyer says

    September 2, 2010
    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter/drozek@suntimes.com

    Drew Peterson’s police officer son will fight any departmental allegations that he improperly held several guns for his father after Stacy Peterson disappeared in 2007.

    Oak Brook police have placed Stephen Peterson, 31, on paid leave while they investigate his recent court testimony that he took up to three weapons from his father after Drew Peterson’s wife, Stacy, vanished in 2007.

    Stephen Peterson’s attorney called the police probe “vindictive” and said his client did nothing improper.

    “It should be abundantly clear that as soon as he became aware that the guns were of interest to the State Police, [Stephen] Peterson gave the guns to the appropriate authorities and fully cooperated with their investigation,” attorney Tamara Cummings said in a written statement Wednesday.

    Selig has the press release up at his site as well. No need to paste again…

  55. “…as he became aware that the guns were of interest to the State Police,”

    I’m kind of thinking the fact that his father’s wife had just gone missing, and that dad was signing over hundreds of thousands of dollars to him in anticipation of his own arrest, that Stephen just might have had an inkling that his fathers guns would be “of interest” to the State Police.

    I’m guessing Stephen turned over those guns just about the same time that Drew decided to put that money back into his HELOC account. Probably just about the time Drew first talked to an attorney.

  56. grandam :

    Do we have a clue if there’s been a date set for the hearing?

    Grandam – If you mean the gun violation hearing, the attorneys are next due back in court on Sept 7. Maybe they’ll set a date at that time.

  57. Facs @ #69 – Yeah, I’m afraid it doesn’t look as squeaky clean as one would want the unadoring Peterson public to believe. For lack of any other testimony on his part or actual evidence, I suppose it will come down to his word. He will testify to not only why he actually accepted those guns under hinky circumstances, but why he continued to hold onto them until he had no choice but to surrender them.

    No one is unsympathetic to the fact that Steve Peterson has been given the tremendous responsibility of raising his father’s four minor children, but I think Ms. Cummings would agree that punishment handed out for rule violations and/or criminal acts doesn’t, unfortunately for him, let someone with a family do as they please. That part would be laughable, if it wasn’t so pathetic. Yeah, he’s in jeopardy of losing his livelihood, as she says, but being a police officer, who enforces laws against John Q. Public, is a lot different than, say, managing a warehouse full of boxes and cans.

    Come on, is it any different than a cop busting a hopelessly drunk driver for mangling some poor soul when he, himself, can’t figure out he’s not supposed to drive west on an eastbound lane? It’s not being vindictive. It’s making sure the public is aware that an officer who was involved in a questionable situation is investigated properly and the outcome fair to all involved. He is, after all, getting his full salary while he’s being investigated.

    The Chief can probably take his word, or tell him where he can stick his word. Then, he’ll have to fight it outside of the Village and take it to a judge. I think he might be in for the long haul, and that’s not a good thing for him right now, is it?

  58. grandam :

    Sorry, I should have clarified, The OBPD and Steven.

    Oh, well, no that hasn’t been determined yet. Since he’s on paid leave, I don’t imagine it’ll be too long though. Since the Oak Brook P.D. is not that large of a police department, they probably don’t have a non-sensitive area/job they can assign him to, so that’s why he’s on paid leave. He has no police powers at this point.

  59. BTW, I’ve been reading the Carlton Smith book. It’s a little disappointing that he relies so much on Hosey’s “Fatal Vows” and Armstrong’s “Exposed” for much of the narrative (although he seems to have an appropriately bad opinion of Armstrong’s book).

    What Smith does do that is new, is really delve into the finances of Drew and his various wives. At times Drew appears to have generated an enormous amount of income, even if you factor in the outside businesses and odd jobs. I didn’t realize that he paid off the entire mortgage (first and second) on 392 Pheasant Chase Drive in only two years.

  60. facsmiley :
    BTW, I’ve been reading the Carlton Smith book. It’s a little disappointing that he relies so much on Hosey’s “Fatal Vows” and Armstrong’s “Exposed” for much of the narrative (although he seems to have an appropriately bad opinion of Armstrong’s book).
    What Smith does do that is new, is really delve into the finances of Drew and his various wives. At times Drew appears to have generated an enormous amount of income, even if you factor in the outside businesses and odd jobs. I didn’t realize that he paid off the entire mortgage (first and second) on 392 Pheasant Chase Drive in only two years.

    Well, whadda ya know.

  61. This is Glen Selig’s PR Agency. Anyway, it’s repetitious of what we have already posted, but the title is interesting. This pretty much confirms that Stephen Peterson’s situation is that he’s being recommended for termination. Suspension isn’t an option, it seems.

    PRNewsChannel.com
    Union attorney responds to move by chief to fire Drew Peterson’s son
    September 02, 2010 –

    OAK BROOK, Ill. / In response to new allegations brought against Stephen Peterson, a six (6) year veteran of the Oak Brook Police Department who also happens to be the son of alleged wife killer Drew Peterson, his attorney Tamara Cummings calls the charges “meritless” and “vindictive.”

    The charges stem from Officer Peterson taking possession of his father’s firearms in October of 2007. According to Cummings, “I have carefully reviewed the charges with Officer Peterson. It should be abundantly clear that as soon as he became aware that the guns were of interest to the State Police, Peterson gave the guns to the appropriate authorities and fully cooperated with their investigation. This entire incident transpired in a matter of days. To say that Officer Peterson committed wrongdoing or had any further obligations defies logic and I am confident that once again we will demonstrate that Chief Sheahan’s charges are baseless.”

    On two prior occasions, Chief Sheahan charged Officer Peterson with misconduct. Both cases were initiated after an onslaught of public controversy over the father’s possible involvement in the disappearance of his wife and the death of his former wife. An allegation in one case was that Officer Peterson responded while on duty to a subpoena to appear before the grand jury which was investigating his father. Although the Police Board agreed with the Chief and imposed discipline, in both cases, a Circuit Court Judge either reversed the Police Board’s findings or reduced the sanction.

    “How many times do we have to appeal to the Courts to demonstrate that Sheahan is unfairly targeting Officer Peterson? “ said Cummings. “ Not only is he a good officer, he is currently raising his own child along with the young children of his father, and the Chief wants to take away his livelihood?”

    MEDIA CONTACT:
    Tamara Cummings
    General Counsel
    IFOP Labor Council
    708-784-1010

    RELATED LINK: http://www.fop.org

    PRNewsChannel
    http://www.PRNewsChannel.com/

  62. “How many times do we have to appeal to the Courts to demonstrate that Sheahan is unfairly targeting Officer Peterson? “ said Cummings. “ Not only is he a good officer, he is currently raising his own child along with the young children of his father, and the Chief wants to take away his livelihood?”

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

    Here we go again, since Officer Peterson is raising children (his own and apparently his fathers now twice made motherless children) it is oke for him to behave badly and unprofessionally in his job as a Police Officer.

    So these days your conduct in your job is tantamount on how many children you are raising.

    Does it also include any pets or the size of your grocery bill ?

  63. TO ALL PEACE OFFICERS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS:

    On this day, Wednesday, October 31st, 2007, Complainant-Affiant Segeant Patrick Collins of the Illinois State Police has signed and sworn to complaint for a search warrant before me…

    …that the following described instruments, articles, and things which have been used in the commission of, or which constitute evidence of the offense of First Degree Murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1)) of Concealment of a Homicidal Death (720 ILCS 5/9-3.1(a)) be seized, searched and forensically analyzed:

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

    Is this the same Sergeant Patrick Collins of the Illinois State Police that didn’t know how to conduct a crime scene investigation at the time of Kathleen Savios untimely death ??

    Four years later he is issuing a search warrant for Drews house when Stacy was reported missing (!!)

  64. Looks like the situation with Stephen Peterson has the potential of becoming very messy too, considering he is also a Police officer and the closeness to his father has been described to be more like “friends” than a proper father/son relationship.

    This precarious situation has put him between a rock and a hard place, in fact as it appears he’s already starting to pay the piper and God only knows what horrible secrets he is harboring on behalf of his Dad !

  65. Thanks, TAI.

    Philpot’s spokesman provided the following description of clothing found near the remains: a size small white surgical-type scrub shirt, a light blue Zeroxposure-brand jacket with white stripes down the sleeves, a white bra, dark underwear with glitter and blue jeans. No shoes were found near the bones.

    Seems like this could help a lot with ID’ing the remains.

  66. justanotherhen :Looks like the situation with Stephen Peterson has the potential of becoming very messy too, considering he is also a Police officer and the closeness to his father has been described to be more like “friends” than a proper father/son relationship.
    This precarious situation has put him between a rock and a hard place, in fact as it appears he’s already starting to pay the piper and God only knows what horrible secrets he is harboring on behalf of his Dad !

    JAH, I so agree with you, like I said, IMO, Steve is up to his eyeballs in this.

  67. Are you sure that Stephen has divorced or is going to divorce Teresa? I am not asking for a source but just wanted to know if it was said by someone close to the family, or we got to such a conclusion because she and he live in separation?

  68. cyrhla :

    Are you sure that Stephen has divorced or is going to divorce Teresa? I am not asking for a source but just wanted to know if it was said by someone close to the family, or we got to such a conclusion because she and he live in separation?

    Cyrhla – We try to keep the information on this blog as accurate as possible. However, with human nature and all the variables that may come into play, one can never be 100% sure of anything.

    We have reasonably accurate information that he is either nearly at the end of divorce proceedings, or they may have been finalized. We’ll leave it at that.

  69. One of the reasons I am asking about their divorce is that the release says Stephen is raising his own child with his dad’s children. Though I know it is not so unusual for a man to take care of kids, I think this wording is some sort of manipulation.

  70. cyrhla :
    One of the reasons I am asking about their divorce is that the release says Stephen is raising his own child with his dad’s children. Though I know it is not so unusual for a man to take care of kids, I think this wording is some sort of manipulation.

    Mr. Mom Jr ? 😉

  71. I see what you mean, Cyrhla. “Provide for” the children would seem to be be more accurate as he’s talking about his livelihood. “Care” sounds cuddlier, but to be fair a lot of people would say “care”.

  72. I agree, Bucket.:) To be more accurate I should have said it is not unusual for a man to have sole custody over his children and take care of them very well.

  73. What Smith does do that is new, is really delve into the finances of Drew and his various wives. At times Drew appears to have generated an enormous amount of income, even if you factor in the outside businesses and odd jobs. I didn’t realize that he paid off the entire mortgage (first and second) on 392 Pheasant Chase Drive in only two years.

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

    Oh Wow, Can’t wait for Joel Brodsky to latch on to this one and crow about it in Court, what a great provider Drew was that he paid off his ENTIRE Mortgage (first and second)in only two years (!!)

    All these telling bits of information are making it more and more obvious why his bond is set at $ 20.000.000.00

  74. VAN SUSTEREN: We asked Bolingbrook police chief Ray McGurry for clarification about the gun charge against Sergeant Peterson. Chief McGurry sent us this statement. “We believe Drew Peterson purchased that weapon, an AR-15, from a third party. Drew Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon and it is not registered with the Bolingbrook Police Department. No police officer is authorized to carry such a weapon. However, a SWAT team member is, but that weapon must be brought in and inspected by our firearms expert to make sure it doesn’t violate any state or federal laws. The serial number must be recorded, and they must pass a qualifications test. Mr. Peterson did none of these. Because it was altered, this weapon is a clear violation of any regulations, and Mr. Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon. I challenge Mr. Brodsky to subpoena our records, as he has threatened to do. He will find no record of this weapon.”

    Now, Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, text-message our producer, saying the gun was registered as a second duty weapon with the Bolingbrook Police Department.

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

    Re the weapons charges, this statement by the then Bolingbrook Police Chief Ray McGury makes the most sense and Joel has just deliberately been trying to confuse the issue about what gun they are actually talking about all along.

    Chief McGury very clearly states the gun in question was never registered with the Bolingbrook Police Department and is believed to be purchased from a third party.

    Also if that was the gun in question why did Drew have the need to hide it with his son, that would have been a needless and fruitless exercise.

  75. JAH: Also if that was the gun in question why did Drew have the need to hide it with his son, that would have been a needless and fruitless exercise.

    What is the reason he picked his son? That’s the trick question. There are probably any number of people he could have given his guns to, and tell them to hold onto them until he comes for them. The thing is, he had to give those guns to someone he trusted completely, who he knew would not betray him, and who would hold onto them no matter what. Right?

    It seems it was only after Drew himself fessed up and admitted his son had his guns that it then required Steve to turn them in. Had Drew not said anything to LE, would Steve have kept them or turned them in on his own? No one but Steve Peterson knows the answer to that question.

    I think he would have done it, held onto the guns, because he’s loyal to his father. Which, of course, brings one back to the beginning — why did a father put his son in a precarious situation in the first place?

  76. I’m still reading the Smith book today. Interesting mention about the way the $1 million insurance policy on Kathleen was paid out. According to Smith, since Tom and Kris are minors, it was paid out in two checks, each for $504,820 and made out to Drew Peterson as “guardian of the estate”.

    I don’t know if he then had to deposit the money into separate accounts for them, or if he was allowed to deposit the checks into his own account.

  77. Well, now for the second time in this book, Carlton Smith says that Stacy had no legal ties to Kathleen’s children. I guess he didn’t research that relationship adequately, or else he would have realized that Stacy adopted Kathleen’s two children after her death.

    He was trying to build a case for why it was so important for Stacy to leave Drew with all four kids (otherwise she would have no access to the life insurance money of Tom and Kris). Now it’s just looking like a bad argument based on ignorance of the facts.

    I’ll give the guy some credit for delving into the financial records, but based on that error of fact, and a couple of others I’ve noticed, it starts to make me question all of his research. One day…way in the future, someone will look back at this case and take a proper amount of time and attempt to really tell this story. Good luck to them!

  78. Wasn’t Drew guardian of the estate? That plus the fact that he is the father of Thomas and Kris, makes me think he would have had control of the funds no matter whose name the account was under.

    JMO

  79. noway406 :

    Wasn’t Drew guardian of the estate? That plus the fact that he is the father of Thomas and Kris, makes me think he would have had control of the funds no matter whose name the account was under.

    JMO

    I think that is correct, but I’m wondering if he was allowed to deposit those checks into his personal account to be withdrawn for their upkeep…or if it had to go into two separate trusts where it would stay untouched until each of the boys turned 18. I wouldn’t think the life insurance that was specifically paid out to the boys is considered part of Kathleen’s estate. That could be wrong though.

  80. Also, just want to say what a great move it was on the part of Kathleen, when she was probably feeling at her most helpless, to take the steps to make those boys her beneficiaries. I’d like to think that this is money they will get, and that Drew can not use for his legal fees etc. Maybe just hopeful thinking but…

  81. If he could’ve had his hands on it, he would. I also remember very well that Drew insisted on an agreement that let Drew off the hook for the cost of their tertiary education. I remember this very well because I recognised the move from The Judge’s playbook.

  82. bucketoftea :
    I think I remember Drew stating that that money is in a trust.

    I hope he did not manage to lay his hands to it.
    Anyway, the trust was to cover the children’s educational, medical and other necessary expenses so I belive Drew made the most of it.
    The boys have been also entiled to Kathleen’s pension, so I guess he did not spend too much from his own account… maybe $100 bucks for doughnuts and hamburgers? 😉

  83. Something that has played over and over in my head these past few years is this….On a police sergents salary, which isnt too shabby I guess,How did Drew afford all the toys he had?? My father was also a policeman,sergent and then retired LT,and my dad worked 2 part time jobs on top of that, and we did not have the toys Drew had, this has played in my head for almost 3 yrs now. I have my own opinion on that, but lets face it, providing for a wife and 4 children is pretty costly these days. Make ya go Hmmm.

  84. When I was looking into Drew’s pocket I found the following infor on acandyrose

    (of Nov, 26, 1997)
    “26-year-old Aurora man was being held Monday in lieu of $50,000 bail at the Kane County Jail, two days after being arrested on suspicion of discharging a handgun in a tavern restroom, police said. Carl A. Armstrong of 832 Watson St. was charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, not having a firearm owner’s identification card, reckless discharge and theft by possession. He was arrested early Saturday at Suds Pub , 1250 S. Broadway Ave., after police were called to investigate a report of a man with a gun. Anderson allegedly was playing with a .38-caliber semiautomatic handgun in the restroom and accidentally discharged it, police said.”

  85. meirish :
    Something that has played over and over in my head these past few years is this….On a police sergents salary, which isnt too shabby I guess,How did Drew afford all the toys he had?? My father was also a policeman,sergent and then retired LT,and my dad worked 2 part time jobs on top of that, and we did not have the toys Drew had, this has played in my head for almost 3 yrs now. I have my own opinion on that, but lets face it, providing for a wife and 4 children is pretty costly these days. Make ya go Hmmm.

    Meirish, I agree that even $280,000 Drew got form the estate wouldn’t be enough to pay off the mortage and buy two Harley-Davidsons, a trailer, a powered glider, and two brand new cars, not to mention other things he spent the money on like Stacy’s plactic surgeries. On $6,000 bucks he must have been starving (and his children). A brand new Harley Davidson is about $25,000.

  86. cyrhla :
    When I was looking into Drew’s pocket I found the following infor on acandyrose
    (of Nov, 26, 1997)
    “26-year-old Aurora man was being held Monday in lieu of $50,000 bail at the Kane County Jail, two days after being arrested on suspicion of discharging a handgun in a tavern restroom, police said. Carl A. Armstrong of 832 Watson St. was charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, not having a firearm owner’s identification card, reckless discharge and theft by possession. He was arrested early Saturday at Suds Pub , 1250 S. Broadway Ave., after police were called to investigate a report of a man with a gun. Anderson allegedly was playing with a .38-caliber semiautomatic handgun in the restroom and accidentally discharged it, police said.”

    That must be the incident, I think, where there was a simultaneous complaint that Suds didn’t call the police soon enough. ARG where did I read that?

  87. The above incident happened on March 11th, 1997 and the other in Aug. 1993, Jan. 10 1996 and in Oct. 1997 were related to selling liquor to minors; the incident with not reporting a fight happened on Oct. 25, 1996.
    Anderson was senetenced for illegal possession of a handgun, burglary and theft (10-100 bucks).

  88. I think it all depends on how the trust fund was established.

    In the two cases in which I know someone with a trust fund, both would inherit the money when they turned a certain age, BUT both could petition the guardian of the estate for money prior to that (for college tuition, for example).

    The guardian determined whether the request was legitimate.

    In both cases of which I have personal knowledge, the guardians were honest; the money was used for the children only, and there was a clear accounting.

    If it was not specified in Kathleen’s will that the money be held in trust until the boys reached a certain age, and not touched until then, I believe the guardian could have determined where the money was spent. Whether the boys would have had to make requests in writing (as did the children and/or their legal guardians on their behalf) in the cases above, I don’t know. But since Drew was their legal guardian, if he made the request on their behalf, I can’t see him turning himself down. JMO

  89. I found the info that the Sud’s Pub was sold for $325,000.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/cltv-peterson-divorce2-story,0,3477194.story

    “Drew Peterson and Savio’s home sold in November 2004, netting $287,000. Savio was entitled to at least half of it, if not more, her attorney argued, because Peterson had sold the Montgomery bar for $325,000 during their divorce and pocketed the proceeds himself, according to the administrator’s report.”

    Now I understand where the source of money for his toys might have come from.

    He made use of the will but did he give half of the money to his 4 sons?

  90. Funny how Stephen Peterson got reprimanded/faced suspension over wearing his uniform and driving a squad car to a Grand Jury, but his Dad also in uniform on a self assigned well being check with friends/neighbors trampling all over a potential crime scene and a locksmith that never charged a dime to the Police Department for opening the door (!) never raised as much as an eye brow at the Bolingbrook Police Department at the time.

    Now why was that ??

  91. JAH, would that be the difference between Oak and Boling? 🙂
    Plus the fact that Drew’s sins came first-could be another case of monkey see, monkey do.

  92. cheryljones :
    JAH, would that be the difference between Oak and Boling?
    Plus the fact that Drew’s sins came first-could be another case of monkey see, monkey do.

    LOL !

    Do you mean Bolingbrook had a “Free For All” – “Do What You Like” Policy at the time ?

  93. And they “put” themselves out there for all the criticism-Theirs has been too long, too flagrant. I’m rooting for this new police chief. Wonder how he happened in this den of iniquity?

  94. Drew had a few chiefs and at least three I am aware of could not come to terms with his actions. Two of them retired and the third one found a new job about the time Drew got into trouble.
    The things in Oak Brook changed after the village had to pay $2 million compensation for improper behavior of Randy Mucha. The insurance company threatened the Village of Oak Brook to cancel and not to sign a new insurance policy. Another mayor has been elected. Money talks.

    [BTW, how are you feeling, cheryl?]

  95. Oh, Cyrhla! How sweet-I am doing so much better. I drove yesterday, and went to WalMart today, LOL Thank you.
    And you know, the last I heard from Randy Mucha, back when he used to blog on GretaWire, was that he wanted his job back. I’m going to go try and find out what he’s doing now. I used to have his email addy, but I think that was about 2 computers ago, and I lost it.

  96. Well, I found it again, on his website, which is a resume’:
    “Also since 2007 I have conducted private investigations, surveillance, and civil service of process. My flexible schedule for the past few years has allowed me to spend quite a bit of time with my son and not have to put him in daycare. Now that my son is old enough for pre-school I am looking for a full-time career position where I can utilize my education, training, and experience. A detailed resume is available upon request including excellent references. Supported charities include American Cancer Society, St Jude’s Children’s Hospital and Habitat for Humanity. Hobbies include auto racing, travel, and photography. I also donate my services as Webmaster for the Illinois Police Work Dog Association (ILPWDA).”
    http://www.randymucha.com/
    So I guess his appeal was denied. I do remember his staunch defense of Steve Peterson on GW-he said they were very good friends, and that he would stand up for Steve at any time because Steve was a really good guy.

  97. If anyone was still thinking of buying the Carlton Smith Book, I seriously lost interest about halfway through.

    Unless you think you might find value in recaps of every episode of Jane Mitchell-Velez, Geraldo, Greta, etc that ever mentioned Drew Peterson, or synopses of hearing transcripts (and the book stops with a very short chapter devoted to the hearsay hearings) then I would save your money.

    I found numerous errors in the book. Lots of omissions. The author doesn’t seem to be aware that Drew’s atty gave an explanation for where Drew went on his ‘head clearing’ trip. Smith has no idea so simply guesses that Drew was shuttled off under blankets in a car to his son Stephen’s house. Dude, he was seen leaving town on his motorcyle.

    At least Smith gave lost of credit to acandyrose.com, where he did most of sleuthing. I’ll give him props for giving credit where credit is due. 🙂

  98. Facs @ #128.

    Very disappointing to see what is supposed to be a non-fiction accounting of a high profile upcoming murder trial that turns out to be a compilation of what’s already out there. And not even portrayed accurately.

    You’re right. At least he gave acandyrose.com it’s just credit. Think he needs to get in line behind Armstrong and Budenz, who seem to have done the same kind of news gathering, then called it a book. 😉

  99. Didn’t JB put in his 1/2-witted 2 cents into each of these books? At least that’s what each of the ‘authors’ write someplace in their books.

    Watch for JB’s new book … ‘DP – the Real Truth’ …

    Ha ha, as if he knows the difference between fact and fiction…

  100. Drew Peterson’s jail-cell letter: Lay off my kids

    By Christy Gutowski | Daily Herald Staff

    Published: 9/6/2010 9:44 PM | Updated: 9/6/2010 9:47 PM

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/image/?image=311508&id=406202
    In this summer photo, Oak Brook police officer Stephen Peterson (top center) is surrounded by the four siblings he is raising. On the bottom, from left, are Anthony and Lacy Peterson; and top, from left, Thomas, Stephen and Kristopher Peterson.
    Courtesy of Drew Peterson

    Drew Peterson says he keeps the photograph near him in his Will County jail cell.

    The photo captured a typical suburban scene this summer in which his youngest child, Lacy Ann, clad in her soccer uniform, beams with pride while surrounded by four of her older brothers, including Stephen Peterson.

    Stephen, a 31-year-old Oak Brook police officer, is raising the pint-size Lacy Ann along with his other three younger siblings in Bolingbrook while their jailed father, Drew, awaits trial on charges he murdered his third wife in March 2004.

    From his cell, Drew Peterson penned an Aug. 27 letter to the news media in which he accuses authorities of trying to shatter that photograph in an attempt to destroy him. Protective and angry, Peterson said authorities “threatened, harassed, pestered, and hounded” his family in “probably the largest, most obsessive and expensive investigation in U.S. history.”

    His letter, obtained by the Daily Herald, also took Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan to task for placing Stephen Peterson on paid leave Aug. 26 after the six-year police officer admitted under oath that he stashed Drew’s favorite guns days after his father’s fourth wife, Stacy, 23, vanished in October 2007.

    “I’m not looking for any sympathy for me,” Drew Peterson wrote. “I can handle myself. But I am asking the media to closely watch over these proceedings to help protect my son Stephen, being my children’s caregiver, against the malicious prosecution he is now facing.”

    Peterson lambasted Chief Sheahan, whom he called an “idiotic moron,” and also characterized Illinois State Police as “obsessive thugs,” who terrorized his children during repeated searches of his home and property in a probe that he said turned up little more than “rumors, gossip hearsay and outright lies.”

    “If I gave my life, which I would gladly do to protect my kids, would that stop the harassment against my family?” Peterson wrote, at the end personally addressing Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

    Sheahan, through his attorney, Charles Hervas, declined to comment Monday. Glasgow and the Illinois State Police did not return phone messages seeking comment.

    Relatives of Savio and Stacy Peterson said Drew Peterson has only himself to blame. They said he has blocked both families from having contact with the children.

    “This man should have thought about this a long time ago,” said Pamela Bosco, a Stacy Peterson family spokeswoman. “He pulled his family down with him for all of his own selfish reasons.”

    Drew Peterson denies any wrongdoing in Stacy’s disappearance. The 56-year-old retired Bolingbrook police sergeant has not been charged in that case. Stacy’s disappearance did, however, spark a renewed investigation the bathtub drowning of his third wife, 40-year-old Kathleen Savio.

    Peterson was charged in May 2009. He remains held on a $20 million bond.

    He also is facing an illegal weapons charge after being accused in 2008 of possessing an AR-15 rifle with a prohibited shortened barrel. Officer Stephen Peterson testified Aug. 23 that Drew brought two bags holding as many as three guns to his house Oct. 30, 2007 because, “these were his favorites and he didn’t want anything to happen to them.”

    State police raided Drew Peterson’s home that Nov. 1. His attorney, Joel Brodsky, said Drew Peterson voluntarily told police his son had the weapons, and Stephen Peterson promptly handed them over. At issue, however, is whether he was obligated to immediately turn them over to law enforcement upon possession. Drew Peterson called his son “a good man and a dedicated father and policeman,” according to his letter.

    Bosco said it’s Drew Peterson, not anyone else, who dragged Stephen into the probe.

    “He brought Stephen into this when he showed up at his door that night with the guns he was trying to hide,” Bosco said. “This is the price he has to pay for everything he has done. The law is the law.”

    In his letter, Drew Peterson spoke about how Lacy started kindergarten with “her daddy unable to be at her first day of school.” Anthony is a second-grader, who is “full of life and love just happy to be a kid with his friends.” They are Stacy’s children.

    Stephen Peterson also is raising Kathleen Savio’s sons, Thomas, whom Drew Peterson boasted is a high school senior and athlete who plays trumpet and was named vice president of the National Honor Society, while Kristopher is a middle-school athlete and honor student.

    “All my children are exceptional kids just wanting a happy childhood after their little worlds were turned upside down almost three years ago,” Peterson wrote, adding: “their “well-being and security is now in jeopardy again.”

    Stephen Peterson has declined to comment publicly. He has been disciplined for various infractions, dating back to 2005, ranging from running improper police database checks on village employee license plates to driving an Oak Brook squad car and appearing in uniform before a Will County grand jury investigating Stacy’s disappearance.

    The officer’s attorney, Tamara L. Cummings, said Sheahan is unfairly targeting Stephen Peterson due to his father’s criminal matters. Chief Sheahan mistakenly called the officer by the name “Drew,” during a past disciplinary hearing.
    Sheahan previously denied targeting Peterson.

    “No, I like Officer Peterson,” Sheahan testified during an Oct. 16, 2008 hearing before the Oak Brook police and fire commission regarding the database allegations. “I think he’s a good officer. I think he’s made some mistakes, but I think he’s a good officer.”

    Drew Peterson is back in Will County court Tuesday regarding the illegal weapons case.

  101. Man, you would think Drew Peterson was the first murderer ever to have kids. IMO, Drew being in jail means these kids finally have a chance at a normal life away from the man who killed their moms.

    As for Stephen, I imagine he’s being scrutinized as someone who might have aided and abetted a criminal. It would be a normal course of action.

    As I’ve said before, how fortunate Drew is to be benefited by a fair and just legal system — something murder victims aren’t afforded.

  102. If I gave my life, which I would gladly do to protect my kids, would that stop the harassment against my family? . . . I’m devoting all my resources that I have available to fight this atrocity against my son.

    How sad. He dragged his son into his crappy antics, and now he’s embarrassed by it, he looks like a coward, and he expects people to rise up and fight for him and his son?

    I say, just tell them where Stacy is, and the fight will be over.

  103. I guess Joel is handing out letters to reporters these day like he used to hand out pens.

    I do agree that someone needs to say STOP. Judge White needs to put a stop to Peterson breaking his gag order. I see no difference between distributing these letters and calling Matt Lauer from jail.

  104. Boo hoo Drew! You had me then you lost me! It’s a little too late to feel sorry for you son on what YOU did to him and the other dominoes that will fall as a result of YOUR actions… no one else’s actions, Drew, YOURS! If Stephen needs help with the kids, have him call Cass or another family member; I’m sure they would welcome in a heartbeat to take over the care of the kids. Quite being so damn selfish and think of someone other than yourself for a change! You have NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, DREW! YOU DID IT!

  105. sureyouwill :

    Boo hoo Drew! You had me then you lost me! It’s a little too late to feel sorry for you son on what YOU did to him and the other dominoes that will fall as a result of YOUR actions… no one else’s actions, Drew, YOURS! If Stephen needs help with the kids, have him call Cass or another family member; I’m sure they would welcome in a heartbeat to take over the care of the kids. Quite being so damn selfish and think of someone other than yourself for a change! You have NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, DREW! YOU DID IT!

    No kidding!!

  106. Reading the full content letter on Scrib, I wish Sneed would have published the actual letter verbatim. That way his true colors will show once again! What an imbicle!

  107. The coward left out an important part in his letter. He didn’t say he takes full responsibility for involving his son in his dirty scheme to keep his weapons away from LE, knowing full well they’d be confiscated in a search. If he didn’t know, then he’s stuck on stupid.

    He also conveniently left out the fact that his sordid life caused the breakdown of his son’s new marriage. Within months of having his own child, he was given the responsibility of four minor children. So, out of his marriage and into his father’s life he went.

    DREW PETERSON IS NOTHING BUT A YELLOW-BELLIED, SAP SUCKING COWARD.

  108. Comment on the Sun-Times story:

    joe raines wrote:
    Drew does it bother you that the yongest child is not going to have their mother there on the first day of school? Your reputation is this Drew, you seek out a women, get bored with her because she doesn’t jump to your commands, or you find one better looking who is easy to manipulate, and either pysically or mentally abuse them. Then you hit the night light looking for the next young chick who are young enough to be your daughter! Of course when push comes to shove you turn around and waste them, now you plead for the childrens safety when their safety is not in question. If you really cared about your kids you would not be hooking up with all this young women who you probably abused in front of these kids? I mean the mental trama you put these kids through will last forever, and its you who did this to your children, not the system! Talk about turning around a story to fit your personality. Drew from all accounts your possessive, violent, controlling, and outright cold hearted. People know you killed Stacy, and did away with her body just as you killed Savio, or had some help in doing her in. There is no doubt these women met their demise at the hands of you Drew, because who else had any motive to kill these women? Your lawyer is too personally involved and is a media seeker looking for recognition. This letter only convinces me you lost control and can’t handle that, so you reach out in an effort to maintain some type of control!!
    9/6/2010 11:44 PM CDT

  109. If I gave my life, which I would gladly do to protect my kids, would that stop the harassment against my family?

    If he gave his life? Come on, did he say that? If he gave his life? What did the mother of the children he’s fighting for give, for being married to this swamp rat coward?

    He has friends? No kidding. Friends who have had charges trumped up against them, and who have lost jobs, and their businesses put in jeopardy? Who? Because he says it, it’s supposed to be gospel? Oh, my bad. That’s right. Brodsky lost his chicken wing business. **Slaps forehead** At least he hasn’t lost his job, and I’m hopin’ that never happens.

  110. So he is out here pleading for the authorities to stop going after his family – yet he still has yet to plead to Stacy to tell her he would do anything for her if she would just come home and show everyone that he is not a murderer.

    I think this is a Blago move and I think he will continue to send letters to Sneed as long as she keeps publishing them. He has seen from Blago’s trial that he may just be able to get a hung jury if he tries the same argument that Blago did – that the big, bad authorities spent all kinds of our hard-earned tax dollars trying to convict him.

  111. TAI – First of all, he’s stuck in detention for a long haul, because of the appeal. In the meantime, LE can still follow leads and look for evidence that points to where Stacy Peterson is.

    Secondly, if you will recall, and I’m glad you brought this up, Blago took his kids to the closing arguments, looking for the sympathy factor. Instead of working for him, the jury admittedly spoke out and said that was a bad thing to do, and those kids did not belong there.

    I think the man has cracked. I think his lawyer, Brodsky, is scrambling to find a way to keep him from going over the edge and admitting his guilt. LE uses leverage to break defendants, and that is not unexpected. But, this moron used his son by dumping his weapons on him, and this is his doing, no one else’s. Too friggin’ bad if he can’t handle it now that he screwed his son into the ground with his shenanigans. Obviously Steve Peterson is too weak to break free from his control. What a shame.

  112. I think he is cracking too but I think his letter has a purpose in his mind. He thinks it will sway someone. He thinks bringing his young daughter into the mix makes people feel bad for her and, therefore, somehow for him. Yet he totally ignores the fact that he doesn’t mention how messed up it is that her mom isn’t there her first day of school either. The only tragedy he seems to see in his mind is his not being there.

    I will say that the kids look truly happy in the pictures with Stephen. Lacy is playing soccer. That is so awesome IMO. It seems like before Drew was more into him going about his business and having the older boys babysit the little ones so it is good to see that the kids are all there supporting her. Even Kristopher looks like he is truly smiling – which I didn’t see in any of the pictures before.

    So I guess he is going to be on suicide watch again after this letter as they probably have to because of what he wrote.

  113. I have viewed Chief Sheahan as an idiotic moron (and I’m being kind) rumored to have the board who presides over these issues in his pocket. So as in the past, I’m sure Stephen will be found guilty of these charges. However, I’m sure the charges will again be overturned in the courts in front of a real judge.

    Good job, calling his son’s chief an “idiotic moron.” Steve is fighting for his career, his livelihood, and he’s publicly belittling him. Talk about a moron himself.

    Then he says the chief has the police board “in his pocket.” In real life, Drew’s ex-wife suddenly got dead, and his “pocket buddies” let him sit-in on the questioning of his wife during the investigation. His “pocket buddies” didn’t even process the scene as anything other than an inconvenience. Some “pocket buddy” wound up sitting on the panel at the inquest.

  114. Thinkaboutit: I will say that the kids look truly happy in the pictures with Stephen. Lacy is playing soccer.

    We’ve seen many pictures of Stacy with Drew and she’s smiling in them. But, honestly, she was miserable. In fact, while Drew was sitting and listening to testimony and the hearsay hearing, he, along with the rest of the courtroom, heard testimony that Stacy said having sex with Drew made her skin crawl.

    I think, to the contrary of what Drew and Brodsky are trying to accomplish, people will be sickened by the way he uses his children.

  115. Pffft. That picture of the kids with Stephen is just like the Mr. Mom photos that Selig orchestrated for the “Day with Drew” piece. Yes, people smile in pictures and life goes on. That doesn’t change any of what Drew Peterson is charged with. He’s using his kids, as usual. He even recycled a line from the last letter about Lacy being charged with jay-walking.

    Why can’t he just be a man and face the music? Or better yet, sing?

  116. My point is that in this picture – to me – they look like they are really smiling and laughing while taking that picture. The little kids were really smiling in the Mr. Mom pictures too. They are little and don’t really get it yet. But in spite of Drew sitting the big boys down for pictures – Kathleen’s youngest (Kristopher) still looked sad to me in all of the pictures in spite of his half attempt at a smile. He didn’t look at all happy in any of the Mr. Mom videos either – but in this particular picture he actually looks like he is laughing which is something I have not seen so far.

    Yes – Stacy smiled in pictures – but most of those pictures we saw were older pictures of the two of them in happier days. I don’t think Stacy is smiling in the picture with the gun.

    Maybe it is a part of me thinking that the younger kids are actually getting to be kids instead of taking care of each other like people had previously reported on various sites that they were having to do. Or maybe Stephen is better for them than their dad was and they are more relaxed not having him with them. IDK – I was just making a personal observation.

  117. thinkaboutit2 :
    I don’t see Drew ever singing.

    Me either. At least, until they find Stacy’s body and prove that was him who murdered her. All of those who have been helping Drew, be aware of this.

  118. I agree with all of you saying Drew should blame himself, not the State, for the consequences of his own behavior.

    BTW, I wonder if he has ever been with any of his children on their first day of school before he got rid of his wives. Pictures, please ;).

  119. To me, this letter proves what Drew Peterson is all about! In Drew’s world everyone else is to blame,In his mind, Kathleen got what she had coming because she stood up to him, Stacy met her demise,because Stacy went against him, In his mind they are to blame not him. There are rules for Joe Average, and there are rules for Drew. I as a Will county tax payer don’t think my tax dollars are going to waste, as long as Drew gets what he has coming to him.
    I’m very sure, Kathleen would be so proud of her boys, and their accomlishments, but that will never happen thanks to Drew, and Stacy would be beaming at little Anthony being in the second grade, and lets not forget Lacy Ann, her first day of kindergarten, those 2 mothers cant be here to watch their children grow up, and why? Because of YOU Drew, you alone, no one else..Judge White has got to stop this circus.

  120. I wonder if Drew feels the walls closing in on him yet? My guess would be yes,I dont thing he will ever cop to where Stacy is, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling,knowing that LE will not let up or let this go until justice is served.

  121. Let’s see. Thousands of people lost most of their house belongings late this summer due to unforeseen and devastating floods. They spent hours and hours on end waiting in line to get funds from FEMA to help deflect the losses they incurred.

    Millions of people are fighting for jobs to stay afloat and keep from losing their houses.

    Schools are laying off teachers. There aren’t enough police officers to patrol the streets and stop the gang bangers from trying to kill each other but killing innocent children instead.

    Yet, Drew Peterson wants the media to take up his cause and make sure his son, Stephen, who accepted three guns on behalf of his father prior to a search warrant, gets a fair shake and can continue to raise his three brothers and sister? Keep his job and fight the man Peterson calls an “idiotic moron?” Who gives a rat’s ass who Stephen Peterson has to answer to at the O.B.P.D.? Anyone here ever have your momma or daddy call your boss an idiotic moron for you? Maybe Brodsky, in all of his infinite wisdom, can give Stephen Peterson a job being his private investigator if the need arises, since he thinks the bucks will be rolling in for the book deals they’re all going to have.

    Peterson and Brodsky are living in their own fantasy world. The one the rest of us live in are trying to make sure our own families are surviving the problems of our world. Not Drew Peterson’s.

  122. If I gave my life, which I would gladly do to protect my kids, would that stop the harassment against my family?
    ——————————
    You can start by telling us where Stacy is!

  123. grandam :
    If I gave my life, which I would gladly do to protect my kids, would that stop the harassment against my family?
    ——————————
    You can start by telling us where Stacy is!

    Exactly.

  124. BTW, I think there’s to be another hearing today on whether to dismiss the charges due to Constitutional issues. Saw that looking back at Joe Hosey’s tweets from the last court hearing.

Comments are closed.