Stephen Peterson testifies in hearing to keep his job at Oak Brook police force

UPDATE DEC. 9: Stephen Peterson’s hearing will continue tonight.

Stephen Peterson, son of Drew Peterson, took the stand last night to defend his decision to accept and hide firearms for his father in the days following the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. Police Chief, Thomas Sheahan, is seeking to terminate Peterson’s employment as a police officer of the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois.

The younger Officer Peterson claimed that by agreeing to accept the guns he was merely helping out his father who was upset, and protecting his father’s favorite guns from any damage they might incur if confiscated by a search warrant.

Stephen Peterson accepted not only firearms but checks for almost a quarter of a million dollars from Drew Peterson in late October 2007. Peterson is charged on three counts:

  1. Obstruction of and Failure to Disclose Facts to Law Enforcement Officials
  2. Possession of Unlawful Weapon
  3. Failure to Keep Internal Investigation Confidential

The full charges brought against him and background (including prior disciplinary actions) can be read here.

Read more at:
Hinsdale Patch.com 1
Hinsdale patch.com 2
Chicago Tribune
Daily Herald

~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.~

Advertisements

83 thoughts on “Stephen Peterson testifies in hearing to keep his job at Oak Brook police force

  1. Just a reminder that October 30, 2007, the day that Drew brought his guns over to Stephen’s house is also the day that he visited Thomas Morphey in the hospital (and later called him advising him to keep his mouth shut – a call that was recorded by the state police).

    The 30th is also the day Ric Mims learned that Stacy was missing. He talked to Drew that morning and went to see him that night and Stephen was there at Drew and Stacy’s house. (According to the NE story, Drew asked the two of them to go get Stacy’s car which he had moved to Sharon’s driveway).

    That’s an awful lot of scrambling on the part of Drew…and he wasn’t scrambling to find his wife. He was scrambling to prepare for an imminent arrest, to shut people up, to hide money and guns and to place the kids where he wanted them to be.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_recap2.htm

  2. Statement of Facts at Comment #8 in the prior post/thread:

    12. After opening the two gun cases and looking at the weapons, Officer Peterson concealed the weapons, contained in two separate gun cases, in the closet of a spare bedroom of his home.

    Paul Huebl’s version, who is in contact with Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson:

    It is undisputed that just prior to his arrest, Drew Peterson asked his son Stephen to hold his favorite guns for safekeeping. They were delivered in gun cases that remained unopened by the elder Peterson.

    Soon the elder Peterson was arrested and Illinois State Police demanded to know where his guns were. The elder Peterson informed them they were at his son’s home. Investigators went to the younger Peterson who voluntarily handed over the cased guns. Included was that short barreled rifle that was later the subject of a failed prosecution against the elder Peterson on a very technical legal question.

    Apparently there exists no evidence that the younger Peterson ever opened the cases or examined the contents. The younger Peterson had no reason to handle those items. There is also no evidence that the guns were ever hidden or made unavailable to investigators. Last but not least, there is no allegation or even a suggestion that the guns were ever involved in any crime by anyone.

    Peterson was not arrested until May of 2008 for an illegal weapons charge.

    Huebl has done Stephen Peterson a big disservice by saying LE went to him and the guns were turned over, when in fact, Joe Hosey just reported that Stephen Peterson denied LE came to his home. His testimony is in contrast to the ISP officers, so one side is lying. In this case, Huebl confirms it is Stephen who is lying by posting on his blog that the cops went to him for the guns, implying that they showed up at his house. Good one, Paul!

    Since Stephen Peterson was interviewed at the BBPD, it’s logical to assume certain information from that interview is contained in the Statement of Facts, and Stephen Peterson was given the opportunity to review it.

    What a bunch of clowns.

  3. This action against Stephen Peterson is a Witch Hunt that shows the ugly side of government

    Yeah, so now a suburban police department is the “government,” and they are witch hunters, all of them.

    If he gets his information from Brodsky, no wonder Peterson spends his every moment strumming his lips and making paper airplanes. He ain’t going no where with the lawyer he’s got.

    Good!

  4. …A few new details about what happened after Stacy vanished emerged during the hearing. Stephen Peterson said investigators twice brought cadaver-sniffing dogs to his North Aurora home.

    Peterson also testified that his father called him while Illinois State Police were searching his home on Nov. 1, 2007, and told him to cash three checks worth $236,800 that he’d given his son on Oct. 30 to help care for his four children.

    Most of the money, which came from a line of credit on his father’s home, was returned because the interest payments were too high, Peterson testified…

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-stephen-peterson-hearing-20101130,0,228931.story

  5. On Nov. 2, 2007, Drew Peterson drafted a will leaving his entire estate to Stephen. That same day, Peterson admitted to state police investigators that he’d hidden his father’s weapons…

    From the Land of Oz:

    There is also no evidence that the guns were ever hidden or made unavailable to investigators.

    Well, yeah, I guess admitting to something under oath isn’t evidence.

  6. “Every vacation he’s left on, he’s written out a will,” Stephen Peterson testified. “He’s overly precautious on everything.”

    Read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101130/news/712019713/#ixzz16q4KLG6m

    ~~~~
    One professional well-written Will should suffice, except if you keep killing your wife …

    IMO, This comment was an attempt designed to cover up DP’s fraud and add ligitimacy and support for the allegedly ‘fake’ Savio Will.

    DP has a well established pattern of using attorneys for all his business and personal transactions… except for the Savio Will and this latest Will.

    Police officers are taught how to successfully testify in court.

    IMO, Stephen Peterson has been ‘primed’ and scripted for this testimony and doesn’t appear to be capable of original thought. He also doesn’t seem to have common sense or know right from wrong… not good traits for a police officer.

  7. “Every vacation he’s left on, he’s written out a will,” Stephen Peterson testified. “He’s overly precautious on everything.”

    That is odd, isn’t it? Do Drew’s associations and loyalties change that often or is it his financial situation that is constantly in flux? Either way it makes it look as if Chase had a very good reason for freezing that HELOC account.

  8. Peterson asked to meet with him and Hardy later in the day at the Bolingbrook Police Department, where his father worked for 29 years leading up to Stacy’s disappearance and a couple week’s after, until an internal affairs probe prompted him to retire.

    Peterson asked to move the meeting elsewhere out of concern that his wife, Teresa Peterson, would find out about his father’s situation.

    “He said he’d cooperate in the investigation but he didn’t want to be interviewed in the house because he didn’t want his wife to know what was actually going on with his father,” Lawson testified.

    Teresa and Stephen Peterson initiated divorce proceedings earlier this year.

    Lawson said he and Hardy agreed to put off their interview until later because Stephen Peterson “was a police officer and he was agreeing to cooperate with the investigation.”

    http://hinsdale.patch.com/articles/state-investigators-cut-stephen-peterson-a-break-during-investigation

    This is highly suspect to me. We have no idea what else Drew may have brought to Stpehen’s house that was then moved or disposed of after he got the “heads-up” visit from Lawson and Hardy. They knocked on his door and then left, allowing him to come to the station on his own later that day to bring in the guns and be questioned. Who knows what they might have discovered had they entered the home and interviewed him on the spot? 😦

  9. Is this whole hearing on video somewhere? It is just crazy to hear him say that Drew hid the guns because he was worried that the police would scratch them. Then put all of the guns into their gun cases or a gun safe and tell the police exactly where they are. Offer them up to be looked at instead of trying to hide them. No – let’s hide them in someone else’s closet and drag them into this whole mess.

    If it was the money part alone I don’t think it would be as big of a deal. The defense could argue that he wanted to keep Stacy’s hands off of the money (you hear a lot of people running up credit cards and credit lines during a nasty divorce) and because he knew he’d be a suspect and could be arrested based on what he has seen as a police officer. But there were other ways to do that too – he could have called Chase and asked them if there was a way to put a hold on it or he could have gotten a power of attorney that let Steven sign checks on the HELOC to be used as needed if he did have to take care of the kids.

    I think of Mark Klass when I read stuff like this. He wasn’t even a cop and he knew he would have to be ruled out as a suspect. He did lie detector tests, sat for all kinds of questioning, let the police search the house. He knew he had nothing to hide and that they would keep focusing on him until he was ruled out.

    I still just think it is so hard that the kids are stuck in the middle of this whole mess. :/

  10. It came to light last night that police cadavers dogs were brought to Stephen Peterson’s home, which one wouldn’t expect to see. I guess it set-off some kind of reaction from LE to realize they came, they were sent away, and gave Stephen Peterson opportunity to do anything he needed to do if he took items from his father that may have been part of evidence in their investigation of Stacy’s disappearance. Of course, it’s only speculation that he took from his father anything besides guns and money.

    Good points about the idea Peterson needed a new Will every time he got a whim to create one. Usually, people hire an estate planner to make sure one’s affairs are in order when minor children are involved, but this family flies by the seat of their pants.

  11. “Every vacation he’s left on, he’s written out a will,” Stephen Peterson testified. “He’s overly precautious on everything.”

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

    Oh LOL @ Stephen, going on vacation must be imminently more dangerous than being a Police officer.

  12. This is highly suspect to me. We have no idea what else Drew may have brought to Stpehen’s house that was then moved or disposed of after he got the “heads-up” visit from Lawson and Hardy.

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

    Rick Mimms had also brought stuff to Stephens house in a trumpet case or similar after being told one of the boys was staying there.

    Turned out that boy wasn’t staying there at all !

  13. I’ve seen it reported several times that Stephen called in sick to work the night of Stacy’s disappearance, October 28, 2007. I don’t know if it’s ever been verified though.

    I can understand a husband taking the day off because his wife has left him…but can’t fathom why the grown stepson would need to do this as well? I’d love to know if he actually took the night off, and what reason he gave.

  14. Peterson also testified that his father called him while Illinois State Police were searching his home on Nov. 1, 2007, and told him to cash three checks worth $236,800 that he’d given his son on Oct. 30 to help care for his four children.

    Most of the money, which came from a line of credit on his father’s home, was returned because the interest payments were too high, Peterson testified…

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

    HUH ???, That doesn’t make one iota bit of sense.

    Besides if the interest payments on the HELOC money were too high to look after the children, wouldn’t they also be too high to provide for Drews Defense?

  15. BTW, Why the hurry for a new Will? Dang fool DP! … any Will would only take effect in the event of DP’s death.

    He needed a Durable Power of Attorney giving Stephen authority for handling banking and business transactions.

    A Guardianship Agreement and Children’s Trust Agreement appointing Stephen as Guardian and Trustee for their Trust Fund were needed for Stephen to care for his children and their estates.

    IMO, making a ‘new’ Will is a big red flag and indicates to me that DP knew Stacy was never coming back!

  16. Stephen wasn’t very accurate (or should I say “truthful”) at 1’30” of the WGN video at the top of the page. At that moment in his sworn testimony he says:

    …when police execute search warrants we don’t tend to be very gentle with people’s belongings. That’s just the nature of how it is. He didn’t want anything scratched up or damaged. At the time I took them there was not widespread media attention. I was based solely on the fact that my father told me that his wife had left him. He was upset. I was there to help him out.

    That conflicts pretty directly with what the statement of charges against Stephen says.

    7. On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at approximately 7:00 a.m. or 7:30 a.m., Drew Peterson called Officer Peterson and told him that local news outlets were running a news story about Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. During that same telephone call, Drew Peterson told Officer Peterson that he was going to bring some of his guns to Officer Peterson’s home.

    This is backed up by the WGN news broadcast of October 30, 2007 (seen in the Youtube clip at the bottom of this comment) as well as news stories published as early as 6 am that morning (WBBM, NBC, etc.)

    OK, if you want to quibble, you may take Stephen to mean there was no “national” news coverage of the case, but the point is that he attempts to defend his actions by implying that since the story hadn’t hit the news yet he was ignorant of the fact that the police were already involved in the disappearance of his stepmother and couldn’t have realized that in accepting the guns he might be obstructing justice .

    Of course, he’s wrong about that because local police as well as the ISP already considered Stacy a missing person and the news was already covering the story, including sending crews to #6 Pheasant Chase. In the report Drew is described as “cooperating with the investigation” so obviously the investigation was already underway.

    Stephen Peterson would have to have been wearing blinders and earplugs to be under the impression that he was merely helping out an upset man whose wife had left him.

    WGN noon news – October 30, 2007

  17. BTW, Nancy Grace covered the story on her show that night as well, so it’s clear that the story already was receiving national media attention, even at this early date.

    October 30, 2007

    GRACE: With that, I agree. Everybody, we`re taking your calls live, but I want to tell you about a police sergeant`s wife gone missing. Maybe you can help. Take a listen.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Investigators are searching for any clues in the whereabouts of 23-year-old Stacy Peterson of Bolingbrook. She was last heard from on Sunday morning when she was supposed to do some painting at a friend`s house but never showed up. State police are handling the investigation, but Bolingbrook police are also talking to family and friends. Right now they say there are no signs of foul play.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just trying to do what we can to support the family, and hopefully she`ll come home safe and sound.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    GRACE: A police sergeant`s wife goes missing. She`s just on the phone with her family saying she`s coming over to help them paint.

    Out to reporter with the “Chicago Defender” Kathy Chaney, what do we know, Kathy?

    KATHY CHANEY, REPORTER: We don`t know much more at this point than we knew earlier. She went out with her husband, the sergeant of the police department in Bolingbrook, Sunday morning around 10:00. She was supposed to meet up with a friend or a relative later on that afternoon to help paint a house that she didn`t make it to that appointment.

    Her family tried to contact her all day to no avail. Her husband said that he spoke with her last Sunday evening around 9:00. After that, her family was still trying to contact her, couldn`t get in touch with her. Around 4:00 Monday morning, they called the Illinois state police and reported her missing….

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/30/ng.01.html

  18. judgin :

    BTW, Why the hurry for a new Will? Dang fool DP! … any Will would only take effect in the event of DP’s death.

    He needed a Durable Power of Attorney giving Stephen authority for handling banking and business transactions.

    A Guardianship Agreement and Children’s Trust Agreement appointing Stephen as Guardian and Trustee for their Trust Fund were needed for Stephen to care for his children and their estates.

    IMO, making a ‘new’ Will is a big red flag and indicates to me that DP knew Stacy was never coming back!

    Also makes me think he was contemplating suicide or ‘death by cop’. As you point out, why do you need to change your will unless you are expecting your imminent death?

    If you want to get all reactive when a spouse tells you they are leaving you for someone else, the normal thing is to contact a divorce attorney.

  19. Looks more like Drew writes wills when a wife goes on a permanent vacation instead of him going anywhere.

    Just look how well one of these home-made wills served him when Kathleen Savio died

  20. I find rather disconcerting information in post #99 of the previous thread. Paragraph 11 states…”On Nov. 2, 2007, Drew Peterson drafted a will leaving his entire estate to Stephen. That same day, Peterson admitted to state police investigators that he’d hidden his father’s weapons, but failed to mention the large amount of cash he’d received, the charges say.
    Then in paragraph 13,the article states…“Oak Brook officials didn’t learn that Peterson had hidden his father’s guns until this spring, when Peterson was subpoenaed in an illegal-gun case against his father, the charges say.
    ***
    I am less likely now to think he is guilty of hiding information IF the above statements are true.
    ***
    On the other hand, what he may have done in those hours between the visit from the police and his appearance at the police station sends chills up my spine and makes my teeth clench.

  21. Doggiesallover – I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by “I am less likely now to think he is guilty…..”

    Steve Peterson was ratted out by his father about having been given the guns, so when ISP approached him about it, he had two choices; admit to it or deny it. He admitted to it, but apparently didn’t turn the guns over until a later time. Yet, when he testified the other night, I believe it was reported that he denied ISP showed up at his house at all, so it looks as though he wants this to go the way of it looking as though ISP is lying and he’s telling the truth. In other words, he is saying he voluntarily turned over the guns on his own terms, his own timeline.

    It is his own employer, the OBPD, who wasn’t aware of this, so they say, until he testified at an open hearing as a witness in his father’s gun charge. Once that testimony was public record, it seems, is when his employer acted on it.

    So, yes, on the other hand, there was a gap in time between when the police visited him (which he says didn’t happen), and when he showed up at the BBPD and turned over the guns, but what happened during that time is just speculation on our part.

  22. Joseph Hosey
    Just got word that the Drew Peterson Biography is scheduled for Monday, December 20 at 10 p.m. EST (9 p.m. Bolingbrook Standard Time) on the Biography Channel.

    Not sure, but this may be the one Michelle Reindal has been working on for A&E. She did a lot of research on Justice Cafe for the story.

  23. Rescue, I was in a hurry and should have either been more explicit or waited until I got home.
    What I meant was that I don’t see how Oak Brook officials can say he didn’t tell anyone that he had the guns.
    If this had been me, I would have considered it told once I told ISP.
    Unless, of course, Oak Brook asked and he told them no.

  24. doggies all over :Rescue, I was in a hurry and should have either been more explicit or waited until I got home.What I meant was that I don’t see how Oak Brook officials can say he didn’t tell anyone that he had the guns.If this had been me, I would have considered it told once I told ISP.Unless, of course, Oak Brook asked and he told them no.

    IMO….I think what OBPD was saying is: Steven didn’t tell anyone in his own Oak Brook department about the guns, or cash. Which he definitely should have reported to his Superiors, everything that happened. Not only to ISP. He knew ISP couldn’t talk about the case, or tell what any potential witness, had told them. Yes, maybe you or I as civilians, would think we had told someone, and nothing else was necessary. But Steven is a Cop, and has been on the force for years. He had to have known, he needed to report “Everything” to his Superior officer. He had to have known, also, that it was Not up to him to decide, what information was relevant to this case, and what information he could with hold, just because he decided it wasn’t relevant. What a crock. This alone makes him look very deceiving, and IMO proves he is not telling the truth, and is not trust worthy. He really isn’t very bright. He just does, and says whatever Drew dictates to him, IMO. Still trying to “help his Dad out”, looks to me like.

    I can certainly understand why the Chief of Oak Brook PD, wants to fire him, IMO, he deserves it. If he can lie about all of this, what would he lie about if he had to testify about something against someone in a court case? I wouldn’t want him to testify against me, in Court. I think this is why the Board of the Oak Brook PD should fire him. How can they keep an officer on duty, that the Chief of Oak Brook PD, AND the public cannot fully trust, and believes he has broken the law? They will look awfully ignorant, if they don’t fire him.

    Just my opinion

  25. Jeannie – I agree with your opinion. I also believe that Steve Peterson picks and chooses the rules which he wants to follow. Or not follow, I should say. How is he supposed to enforce the laws he’s been authorized to if they’re different for him than John Q. Public? Isn’t that what this is all about? How is Steve Peterson supposed to be treated with respect as a police officer by those he comes in contact with if he’s a cocky, defiant officer who has a hard time even dealing with department rules and authority, let alone specific laws? Is the OBPD going to carefully determine just what kind of public contact he can have in light of his own defiance? No search warrants? No investigations into a potential suspect’s background that may be relative to a crime? In his case, he didn’t think it was the OBPD’s business that he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from his father’s marital assets just after his wife disappeared.

    Maybe he will escape punishment or possibly being terminated, but there may be those who would think he’s nothing but a smart-ass know-it-all who thinks he’s above everyone else? Good luck with that! In that case, stay out of Oak Brook. Steve Peterson might randomly run your plate without reason, make a comment about your appearance, or make a snide remark to you if he feels like it. But you could always have him give you his opinion of what you can hurry up and dispose of in light of an upcoming search warrant, or how to conjure up a rush Will, per experience of his dad, then he’s your man.

  26. As for Drew drawing up new wills all the time. I guess I don’t understand why he would be in any position to make any kind of new will, alone. As a married man he shares all of his assets with his wife, who he says is alive and dancing on a beach somewhere.

    It just convinces me all the more that in those early days he was panicking a bit and thought that Stacy’s remains either had been or were about to be discovered. If Stacy was dead it would a lot more sense for him to write up a new will.

    But then again, the only way the will would come into play would be if he, himself were to die…and why was he thinking that was an imminent possibility? I mean, in his scenario, his wife has simply left him for a vacation with another man. How would that then make him suddenly consider his own death? As I pointed out above, a normal person might immediately contact a divorce attorney as a result of being left…

    I wonder how that will is worded and if it has been entered into evidence.

  27. Facs…Excellent points … evidence for the Prosecution to use to show DP’s intent and state of mind!

    “I wonder how that will is worded and if it has been entered into evidence.”

    ~~~
    I bet it was not given to LE before but might now be subpoenaed, I hope.

    Laws prevail… Instead of considering the B.S./excuse/story/alibi of this accused, I always look to what the Law says. Taken at face value,it’s too hard (impossible) to try to make sense or give any credibility to what DP & company says or does.

    I know that they know the Laws and are trying to get around them.

  28. A Contract or Agreement written in the commission/coverup of a crime, DP’s Will could not be ‘enforced’ in court.

    IMO, this was a waste of time and has no effect except as incentive to further manipulate and obligate Stephen to carry out DP’s wishes while he was on prison vacation. Stephen needed an agreement/authorization to handle the kids in school, etc. There ‘Will’ be nothing left for DP to ‘Will’ to anyone… except for the Savio teen’s trust fund, if there even is one.

  29. Wonder who he got to witness that Will? And as far as guardianship is concerned, you can’t just will your children to whomever you please if you’re mad at your spouse like they’re assets. Peterson did say Stacy told him she’d be back to deal with him, did he not? So, that whole Will scenario is a crock if ever there was one. He was so rattled by the fact that Stacy’s disappearance became such a police and media phenonenum, his thinking abilities turned into stupid. Just seems though, for some reason, he was acting as though he was going to be arrested and Stacy found in the beginning, so it’s curious that something changed that within a short period of time. Wonder what that was?

  30. rescueapet :Wonder who he got to witness that Will? And as far as guardianship is concerned, you can’t just will your children to whomever you please if you’re mad at your spouse like they’re assets. Peterson did say Stacy told him she’d be back to deal with him, did he not? So, that whole Will scenario is a crock if ever there was one. He was so rattled by the fact that Stacy’s disappearance became such a police and media phenonenum, his thinking abilities turned into stupid. Just seems though, for some reason, he was acting as though he was going to be arrested and Stacy found in the beginning, so it’s curious that something changed that within a short period of time. Wonder what that was?

    Another great point Rescue… DP also could only give temporary guardianship to Stephen but he cannot give away Stacy’s parental rights to Stephen.

    There’s no cure for stupid!

  31. Well, well, well. Taking the first opportunity to provide some backbullshit about multiple wills-on-a-whim being normal custom and practice is something we come to expect from DP, BJ et al, but not quite from Stephen Peterson. Way to go, Steve.

  32. Thank you Jeannie and Judgin. Oh,I wouldn’t trust him, either. Who’s he trying to kid, besides everybody?
    We just had an officer found guilty in an official oppression case. He and his training officer answered a call, and he tased an unresisting man twice. He’s not been sentenced yet, but it sounds like we keep our officers to a higher standard than do either of of the ‘brooks in IL. Thank goodness!

  33. Or maybe he expecting a shootout with LE. (The fuzz on my brain prevents me from recalling exact details, but I think that it was Ric M. who talked about that. About Drew taking him (Ric) as a hostage. The fuzz also prevents me from knowing the timeline of that conversation with Ric compared with the writing of the will.)

  34. http://www.biography.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=60580&airingid=61502

    Drew Peterson

    Monday, December 20 @ 10 pm ET

    Rated: TVPG
    Running Time: 60 Minutes
    Genre:
    Closed Captions: Yes

    Upcoming Showings:
    Monday, December 20 @ 10 pm ET

    Drew Peterson is currently awaiting trail for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Peterson. Drew was a cop, who had a reputation for going rogue in order to make the bust. As a kid he was a high achiever, but also a bit of a class clown. He has been married four times. His third wife’s death was originally ruled an accident. But when his fourth wife went missing, investigators began to wonder if Drew had something to do with it. This profile delves into Drew’s past, including his many romances, in an effort to better understand the man behind the controversy.

  35. jeannienphoenix :

    I can hardly wait to hear how this hearing turns out. :)

    Well, it doesn’t appear that Stephen’s father rose to the occasion by wanting to clear up all of this to help his son get through this mess; instead, he’s been pointing fingers and blaming everyone else, as usual. How pathetic.

  36. I think I’d really like to hear DP’s answer to the question of why he even brought up his son’s name to LE when they asked him where his guns were. Maybe, someday, someone will ask him to explain that.

  37. rescueapet :

    jeannienphoenix :
    I can hardly wait to hear how this hearing turns out.

    Well, it doesn’t appear that Stephen’s father rose to the occasion by wanting to clear up all of this to help his son get through this mess; instead, he’s been pointing fingers and blaming everyone else, as usual. How pathetic.

    So true Rescue. Drew is just showing his true colors, AGAIN. Never thinking of anyone else, just himself. He always puts himself, and his wants First. Always has, and always will. Even at the expense of his own Children. When he can kill his other children’s mothers, (IMO)and not give a flip about what it does to them, and how it will affect them, for the rest of their lives. He certainly isn’t going to do anything to help Steve keep his job. What a POS. If he cared about Steve the way he says he does, he wouldn’t have involved him in any of this, in the first place.
    Drew has lived his life, doing as he darn pleases and denies everything later, and lies, lies, lies about it all. He doesn’t care, if he lies and you know in your own mind that he is lying. As long as you can’t Prove it. Steve is doing the exact same thing, lying, and thinking it is o.k., cause he thinks, no one can prove it. Neither one of them, realize that by doing that, they destroy all of their credibility, and this is going to catch up with them in a jury trial. How stupid do they think everyone is?

  38. rescueapet :I think I’d really like to hear DP’s answer to the question of why he even brought up his son’s name to LE when they asked him where his guns were. Maybe, someday, someone will ask him to explain that.

    Rescue, I sure hope someone asks that question. This is what I was talking about.
    What they say and do, makes no sense, and that is when a jury is going to quit believing them, just as we do.
    None of the gun thing, makes sense to me. I don’t believe for one minute, their story of why he took the guns to Steve, in the first place. I just wonder what else was in those gun cases, besides guns.

  39. http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/police-chief-takes-aim-at-drew-petersons-son-over-hidden-guns

    Police Chief Takes Aim at Drew Peterson’s Son Over Hidden Guns

    As a cop, Stephen Peterson knew helping his dad could hamper efforts to find Stacy Peterson, says Oak Brook’s chief, and that’s why he should lose his badge and his job.

    By Joseph Hosey | 9:13pm

    Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan lashed out at the son of accused wife-killer Drew Peterson, charging that the young officer held back crucial evidence while State Police scrambled to find his missing stepmom.

    “To know that another police officer had information, hardcore evidence that could have helped in some way” was the “most frustrating” part of Stephen Peterson’s alleged involvement in efforts to stymie a State Police search of his father’s Bolingbrook house in November 2007.

    Sheahan vented his frustrations during a Thursday night hearing to determine whether Stephen Peterson, 31, will be fired from the Oak Brook Police Department for hiding three of his father’s guns and for failing to mention that Drew Peterson forked over more than $230,000 to his son in the wake of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance in October 2007.

    The day after Stacy—Drew Peterson’s fourth bride—was reported missing, he smuggled the guns to his son’s North Aurora home. Stephen Peterson testified under oath that the firearms were among his father’s “favorites” and he did not want them to fall into hands of the police if they searched at his home.

    State Police did come calling with a warrant two days later. While the guns were safely with Stephen, they happened to find their empty ammunition magazines.

    Drew Peterson then admitted, “I knew you guys were coming and I took (the gun) to my son’s house Tuesday.”

    Stephen Peterson surrendered the guns the following day. “Essentially when the State Police called him on it,” Sheahan said.

    The police chief claimed Stephen Peterson knew the impact holding back such vital evidence might have on the investigation of Stacy’s disappearance.

    “He’s a police officer,” Sheahan said. “He knows what evidence is.”

    And Stephen Peterson’s deception would have been critical even if the evidence he hid did not happen to be deadly weapons, the chief said.

    “If it was a toaster—he should have known better and he should have cooperated with the State Police,” Sheahan said. “The evidence could have helped solve the case or exonerate someone.

    “At that time, I viewed it as obstruction of the investigation, or interference in an official State Police investigation.”

    Sheahan said Stephen Peterson was aware how important the first three days of a missing person’s case are.

    “It’s paramount to gather all your troops and look for these people,” he said.

    The State Police are still looking for Stacy. Investigators have classified her disappearance a “potential homicide” and identified Drew Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, as their sole suspect. They have yet to charge him with anything relating to her disappearance.

    Peterson is charged with murder in the death of his previous wife, Kathleen Savio. Police arrested Drew Peterson in May 2009.

  40. Oak Brook police chief calls for firing of Drew Peterson’s cop son
    December 9, 2010 9:26 PM

    Oak Brook police Chief Thomas Sheahan testified tonight that Stephen Peterson should be fired for his “consistent disregard” for departmental rules and for allegedly obstructing the state police investigation into his father’s missing wife by not disclosing the three guns and $236,800 his father gave him a day after she vanished.

    Peterson, 31, has been on paid leave since August. He was suspended shortly after testifying that he took three guns from his father, Drew Peterson, without notifying anyone, right after his father’s wife, Stacy vanished in 2007.

    Former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson is the sole suspect in Stacy’s disappearance, prosecutors have said, though he has never been charged. He is now jailed on $20 million bail in the 2004 drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Sheahan testified Thursday night that by not telling state police immediately after his father gave him the guns and cash, Peterson obstructed their investigation, because either of those items could have been crucial to investigators.

    “This should have raised a flag with Officer Peterson,” Sheahan said. He later added: “In my own opinion, if it was a toaster, it’s a piece of evidence and he should have cooperated with state police.”

    Sheahan’s testimony Thursday was before the Oak Brook police and fire commission, which is hearing evidence on the three charges Sheahan is seeking to fire him on.

    As of Thursday night, the board had not yet voted on the charges, and Peterson, who was again expected to testify, had not yet been called.

    Sheahan testified that he delayed the disciplinary action against Stephen Peterson at the request of Will County prosecutors, who called Peterson as a witness in an illegal-gun case against his father. He also testified that Peterson was given a “special assignment” that kept him inside the police station and not on patrol after Stacy’s disappearance became a national news story.

    Prosecutors brought the illegal-gun charge against Drew Peterson in 2008, alleging that one of the weapons he gave his son had a barrel shorter than state law allowed. A judge dismissed the case this fall.

    Stephen Peterson is still charged with possessing an illegal weapon — Sheahan testified that Peterson didn’t possess it for any law-enforcement purpose — as well as for failing to tell authorities about the $236,800.

    Drew Peterson gave his son three checks totaling $236,800, then called him while state police were searching his home on Nov. 1, 2007, and told him to cash them. The cash, much of it taken from a home-equity loan, was intended to help Peterson care for his father’s four children, Peterson has testified.

    The omission about the money was significant one for the investigators, Illinois State Police Sergeant Gary Lawson testified during a hearing earlier this month.

    The third charge against Stephen Peterson is for failing to keep the internal-affairs investigation into his actions quiet.

    Sheahan testified that he was moving to fire Peterson because of the officer’s “series of missteps and violations” over his six-year career in Oak Brook.

    This is the third time Peterson had appeared before the board of commissioners for a disciplinary hearing. He has been disciplined four times before on charges ranging from running improper background checks to sending an inappropriate message on his patrol car computer about a “female civilian.”

    All this “indicates that he is unable to adhere to” department rules, Sheahan said.
    “I believe he is beyond (discipline),” he said.

    — Steve Schmadeke

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/oak-brook-police-chief-calls-for-firing-of-drew-petersons-cop-son.html

  41. Steven Peterson says he was not aware he needed to report the weapons, because they were off duty weapons and he did not intend to keep them
    5 minutes ago via HootSuite

    Steven Peterson said he never intended to keep the rifle. He said he briefly looked at the AR-15 and had no idea it was an illegal weapon.
    6 minutes ago via HootSuite

    Stephen Peterson said he did not believe his father Drew Peterson was involved in any criminal activity.
    7 minutes ago via HootSuite

    Stephen Peterson says he in no way obstructed a police investigation, in no way attempted to hide any guns.
    8 minutes ago via HootSuite

  42. Sabrina Wu, Editor HinsdalePatch

    …the chief has made every effort to bring me up on charges continuously.” (Stephen Peterson about Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan.
    less than 20 seconds ago via HootSuite

    Peterson: As as soon I was subpoenaed by the state to testify in my father’s case…
    less than a minute ago via HootSuite

    Cummings to Peterson: Why do you believe you are being harassed?
    2 minutes ago via HootSuite

  43. OK – Stephen needs to run for political office with an answer like this one…

    HinsdalePatch

    Stephen Peterson: “[My father] didn’t say anything about not wanting the police to have [the guns]. He said he wanted me to have them.”
    1 minute ago via HootSuite

  44. Joe Hosey
    Stephen Peterson seems to be contradicting himself. He
    first said he only planned to hold the guns temporarily, but
    Later said Drew told him “he wanted me to have the weapons.”
    less than 20 seconds ago via txt

  45. http://hinsdale.patch.com/articles/police-chief-petersons-actions-obstructed-official-investigation

    Excerpts

    Police Chief: Peterson’s Actions Obstructed Official Investigation

    Peterson’s son did not disclose he was in possession of his father’s weapons while State Police executed a search warrant on Drew Peterson’s home following the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.
    By Joseph Hosey and Sabrina Wu 9:54pm

    “[Stephen Peterson] understands that a weapon could have been used in a crime against his young mother. He also understands that within the three weapons there could be fingerprints, DNA, fiber,” said Sheahan.

    Another issue discussed was whether Stephen Peterson acted improperly in not mentioning that Drew Peterson had transferred more than $230,000 to his son after his wife’s disappearance.

    “Integrity of a member [of the department] must be above reproach,” said Sheahan. “Officer Peterson had every opportunity to disclose the whole truth, not part of the truth.”

    Stephen Peterson’s attorney contends that there was nothing wrong with the transfer of the funds, because the funds were from a home equity loan

  46. Cummings: He’s being penalized for who he is and who his father is.

    I hope she has a better reason for Stephen Peterson’s lack of judgment than using his father’s predicament as an excuse. Maybe that is true–he’s being penalized for who he is and who is father is, and that’s the problem.

  47. It looks like Hosey works with Sabrina Wu as one of the articles I had seen on the Patch website had them listed as co-writers.

  48. I still have such a hard time with this as it seems like Stephen has been doing his best taking care of his little half-siblings and if he is fired it will be harder for him to do. I think he knew what he was doing. I just worry about the kids. :/

  49. thinkaboutit2 :

    I still have such a hard time with this as it seems like Stephen has been doing his best taking care of his little half-siblings and if he is fired it will be harder for him to do. I think he knew what he was doing. I just worry about the kids. :/

    That is hard to get past sometimes, but then again, letting someone skirt the laws because they are parents or guardians doesn’t work either. It certainly isn’t an argument to let Stephen Peterson remain with the O.B.P.D. because he’s helping to raise his four siblings. In that case, no one should lose their jobs for any reasons.

    I imagine Stephen Peterson has a support group of people to help him with the younger children.

  50. Oh Rescue – I agree. Like I said it is the internal fight I have with myself. Not that my internal thoughts mean jack squat in this whole thing. I cannot wish he gets fired. I more wish they would somehow punish him because there is a part of me that thinks it is possible that Stephen was manipulated by his father to do things that were only in his own best interest. IDK. But Stephen is a grown man who swore under oath to uphold the laws and live by the standards set forth by his department. Double :/

  51. Sabrina Wu:
    Tamara Cummings, Stephen Peterson’s attorney: “Officer Peterson has been through enough.”

    Again, I hope she had arguments that supported Stephen Peterson’s versions and explanations of the circumstances. He’s been through enough because he’s caught up in his father’s life big time.

    His four siblings have been through worse. At least Stephen Peterson has a mother he can rely on and confide in. His siblings don’t.

  52. TAI @ #72. IMO, Stephen Peterson losing his job is not something anyone would have expected, or something that is going to bring back Kathleen or Stacy. He’s answering to a board that oversees officers within their department, and apparently they don’t think he’s up to their standards. He thinks he is. Putting him on inside duty to keep him off the streets is not exactly something he should be proud of, but it makes sense to keep him from dealing with the public with the baggage he drags around. Maybe he’d do what he did for his father again, maybe he’d think twice about it. Who knows.

    The only good that could have come of all this is if he had some revealing information about what happened the day Stacy disappeared–something that could have helped solve the mystery. Short of that, it’s just another Peterson family mess that is being dealt with.

  53. #1, I sort of object to the statement than Drew ‘smuggled’ the items to Stephen, &
    #2, My innards want to know what phone he used to call Stephen to cash the checks. I just don’t believe the police would have let him use the house phone while they were there searching, (and if he did, they SURELY would have heard what he said) and SURELY they snatched any cell phone right off the bat, right?
    The fact that Drew called Stephen [i] while the police were there [/i] bothers me a great deal.
    And why the rush to cash the checks? All of them? Now why? If the money was to be used to help raise the kids, he sure didn’t have to have it all right that minute! I guess Drew was afraid of exactly what finally did happen, when it was denied him?
    And TAI, don’t forget that Stephen and the kids will, I assume, (?) still have Drew’s approximate $6,000/mo to live on. Oh-minus the fees for those incredibly wonderful attorneys he has.

  54. http://hinsdale.patch.com/articles/peterson-still-wants-to-work-for-chief-he-says-harasses-him

    Peterson Still Wants to Work for Chief He Says Harasses Him

    Peterson believes his father would never give him an illegal weapon.

    By Joseph Hosey and Sabrina Wu 12:05am

    Drew Peterson’s son denied any wrongdoing stemming from keeping three of his father’s guns—including an illegal assault rifle—while state police searched his father’s house.

    “I am completely not guilty of those charges,” said Oak Brook Police Officer Stephen Peterson, 31, who testified during a Thursday night disciplinary hearing to determine whether he will lose his job as a result of keeping the guns for his father and not disclosing that his father transferred more than $230,000 to him after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. “I in no way obstructed any investigation.”

    Peterson said he believes the charges had more to do with his father than with him.

    “As as soon I was subpoenaed by the state to testify in my father’s case…the chief made every effort to bring me up on charges continuously,” said Peterson.

    While Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan conceded that Drew Peterson’s son never testified that he was trying to thwart a state police search for his missing stepmother, Sheahan said Stephen Peterson was aware of how his actions would impact the investigation.

    Sheahan said during the hearing that Stephen Peterson knew the state police would be looking for his father’s guns, but still did not tell them that he had them and only surrendered them when investigators confronted him about it.

    Sheahan has accused Stephen Peterson of hiding the guns and failing to reveal to either the state police or his own department that Drew Peterson gave him more than $230,000. Stephen Peterson said the money was to take care of his father’s kids in case Drew Peterson was arrested.

    Drew Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, has been in jail since May 2009 on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He also is suspected of being involved in the the October 2007 disappearance of his next wife, Stacy Peterson.

    Stephen Peterson is accused of hiding his father’s guns while the state police were executing a search warrant at Drew Peterson’s home after Stacy’s disappearance.

    Stephen Peterson testified that he did not think he would be holding on to his father guns—including the short-barreled AR-15 that led to Drew Peterson’s May 2008 arrest on a felony weapons charge—for very long.

    “I never intended to keep the rifle,” Stephen Peterson said at first. “I was simply holding onto it at the house for my father. I had no idea it was a illegal weapon.” 

    Peterson said he felt the guns had no evidentiary value and that he did not believe his father was involved in any criminal activity.

    “[My father] didn’t say anything about not wanting the police to have them. He said he wanted me to have the weapons,” said Peterson.

    His last word on the matter was that Drew Peterson gave him the guns “to hold onto them temporarily so they would not get damaged” during the state police search of his father’s house.

    Stephen Peterson’s attorney said that his record was exemplary until he was subpoenaed to testify at his father’s trial. 

    “He’s being penalized for who he is and who his father is. It’s not fair,” said attorney Tamara Cummings.

    Cummings asked Stephen Peterson if he still wanted to come back to work as an Oak Brook police officer after all this. He said yes.

    “I would say we have the greatest job in the world, and I wouldn’t trade it for anything,” Peterson said, adding that his job “shouldn’t be taken away.”

    Stephen Peterson will have to wait a month and a day to find out whether he will be out of a job. The Oak Brook Fire and Police Board agreed to recess until Jan. 10, when they will meet in a closed session for an hour before emerging to announce what punishment—if any—they will hand down.

  55. “The driving force behind this is the report of a young mother missing and he receives weapons and money,” Sheahan testified Thursday night. “He’s a police officer. He understands what evidence is. The three weapons could have fingerprints, DNA or fibers and could’ve assisted the state police in bringing the matter to a close.”

    Just as that “evidence” could have been tested and maybe implicated Drew Peterson in a crime, that “evidence” could have also been tested and shown not to be involved in one. Guess it works both ways.

    I don’t think I would expect Stephen to sell his father down the river in the early hours after Stacy disappeared by rushing those guns over to the ISP as soon as he took possession of them from his father, but “helping him out” would have been served just as well by telling his father no thanks when asked to keep them. A simple no. But, his dad, his best friend, the best man at his wedding, involved him from the get-go and he had a captive audience. What a shame.

Comments are closed.