Peterson hearsay to be argued tomorrow: What’s at stake?

Oral arguments will be presented to the Third Appellate Court of Illinois next week pertaining to specific hearsay statements that Judge Stephen White decided should not be heard at Drew Peterson‘s murder trial. Each side is usually allotted 15 minutes or so but Peterson’s defense has requested an additional 30 minutes of time for arguments [UPDATE 2/10: The request was denied]. Unlike last year’s hearsay hearings, news cameras will be allowed at the proceedings.

It was a year ago that Judge White was presented with two weeks worth of evidence and hearsay testimony that the State want admitted to help prove that Drew Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Although his decision on these statements was sealed, it was leaked to the press and while reports varied as to what the final decision was it’s possible to piece together a pretty good guess at which statements passed muster and which were not allowed.

Originally, there were 15 statements being considered. During the first days of the hearsay hearings, the defense challenged the testimony of Pastor Neil Schori and two of his statements were struck down due to the fact that he had served as counselor for both Stacy Peterson and Drew Peterson. The two statements made to Neil Schori while in the Peterson home were not allowed, but he was allowed to testify to what Stacy had told him in a public place.

So this left 13 statements to be considered and according to the Chicago Tribune’s report and others, here they are. The statements that have been struck down and are now being appealed (to the best of our knowledge) have been crossed out:

1. Kathleen Savio’s letter to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale complaining of Drew Peterson’s abuse, including an alleged July 2002 attack when he put a knife to her throat.

2. Kristin Anderson’s testimony that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.

3. A fellow student at Joliet Junior College, Mary Park’s testimony that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

4. Savio’s co-worker, Issam Karam’s testimony that Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat.

5. Kathleen’s sister, Susan Savio’s testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

6. Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman’s testimony that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company

10. Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith’s testimony that Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

11. Stacy’s friend, Scott Rossetto’s testimony that she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.

12. The Rev. Neil Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the late morning on the day Savio’s body was found. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

13. Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, Michael Miles’ testimony that Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it.

We can’t be completely sure about this list but it’s our best guess.

The State filed three Certificates of Impairment appealing Judge White’s ruling. Besides the hearsay statements above they also appeal the ruling on the admission of testimony from Vicki Connelly, Anna Doman and Eric Peterson pertaining to Drew Peterson’s “prior bad acts”. Also being appealed is the judge’s refusal to allow an attorney, Diane Panos, to testify about how much money Peterson would have lost to Savio in their divorce settlement.

Although the ruling was sealed, the proceedings will be open to the public. Third District Appellate Court clerk, Gist Fleshman has stated that, “the attorneys should avoid discussing in detail anything that is sealed.” It will be interesting to see how that works.

Somewhat to our surprise, ever media-hungry Joel Brodsky will not be presenting arguments for the defense at the proceedings. Fellow Peterson defense team member, Steve Greenberg, will be speaking. The arguments are scheduled to begin at 1:15 p.m. on February 16, before the Third Appellate Court in Ottowa.

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


93 thoughts on “Peterson hearsay to be argued tomorrow: What’s at stake?

  1. Thanks Facs…Good maybe we will be able to get it first hand since the ‘news’ will be there…wonder if that means video cameras too…So much happening that day…Let us know if it will be televised and what the link is…

  2. Of course, any question of what is going to be discussed will be answered on February 16th, but it’s been so long since the hearings and the decision I thought it was worth bringing some of this up again before the arguments.

    And then we get to wait another three months or so for the ruling!

  3. SNIPS

    Two legal trends will be evident when the Drew Peterson hearsay case gets under way Wednesday before the 3rd District Appellate Court.

    The first is a move toward making more video and audio available to the public from Supreme Court and Appellate Court proceedings.

    “Times are changing,” said Gist Fleshman, clerk of the 3rd District Appellate Court, which will allow a TV crew to film proceedings in Ottawa for the first time.

    The second trend is for more states to allow hearsay evidence in trials. In Illinois, there are a few situations in which hearsay evidence is admissible. A relatively new state law adds another scenario in which hearsay can be used in court: when there is proof a witness was murdered to keep from testifying.

    “A dead person is entitled to a fair trial, too,” said Ann Lousin, professor of law at John Marshall Law School….

    …When a WGN-TV camera begins to roll Wednesday, it will be the first time live proceedings will be videotaped in the Ottawa courthouse, Fleshman said…

    …But Lousin said she thinks hearsay laws are here to say.

    “This is a huge issue that keeps cropping up regularly,” he said. “A lot of it should be allowed in, but very carefully, especially if there is a jury. … All of these things are very difficult issues.”

    It will be up to the appellate court to decide which statements can stay in, if any, and which shouldn’t be allowed in the Peterson case.

    “I can’t even begin to guess what’s going to happen,” Lousin said.

    But there is one thing Lousin said she is pretty sure of because of the notoriety of Peterson’s case and the critical issues involved in the hearsay decision.

    “I imagine the courtroom will be full.”

  4. Thanks Facsmiley!

    From the opening article…………….“the attorneys should avoid discussing in detail anything that is sealed.” It will be interesting to see how that works.”

    It certainly will be interesting! How can an attorney argue for or against the inclusion of hearsay evidence if he or she can’t specifically mention the item of hearsay and how it is or isn’t relevant to the case? Or how a specific item of hearsay falls under the hearsay law?

  5. I’m confused by that too, Molly. How to argue ‘what must not be mentioned’. 🙂

    I’m also intrigued that the media likes to play up the hearsay part of this appeal, but that is only one third of what is at stake here.

    Also deemed inadmissible and appealed is testimony about Drew’s ‘prior bad acts’. If one goes back to the hearings a year ago we could guess that this is what they are, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with hearsay. Possibly:

    Vicki Connelly – threats from Drew and the subsequent cutting of the brake lines in her car resulting in a terrible accident.

    Eric Peterson – testimony about a savage beating upon Kathleen Savio from Drew Peterson.

    Anna Doman – testimony about the black eye and bruising she witnessed on her sister.

    Also being appealed: The judge’s decision not to allow testimony from an expert witness as to how much money Drew gained as a result of Kathleen Savio’s death.

    This testimony is first-hand and concrete. I hope the justices give it fair consideration next week.

  6. So this CBS story says the hearing will be broadcast live. I’m thinking if that’s the case that WGN will most likely have it up on their website rather than on TV. I mean, it’s going to run about an hour and a half right?

    OTTAWA, Ill. (CBS) – The Drew Peterson case could be opening the door to more TV cameras in Illinois courtrooms.

    The 3rd District Illinois Appellate Court in Ottawa will allow cameras in for the first time for Peterson’s hearing on hearsay evidence.

    While cameras are prohibited at the circuit court level, where state criminal proceedings are held, cameras have been allowed to film the Illinois Supreme Court since the 1980s.

    But this will be the first appellate court proceeding to be broadcast live

  7. From facebook:

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law

    The Appellate Court has denied the Defense motion for extented oral arguments in the Drew Peterson appeal set for Wednesday, February 16th.

  8. Thanks Grandam!

    So no lengthy camera time for Greenberg.

    More from Joel:

    …The time limits are 15 mintues for the State, a 15 minute reply by the Defense, and a 5 minute rebuttal by the State. Of course if the discussion is interesting the court can always let the parties exceed the aloted time.

    If the discussion is interesting? Good God.

  9. I do hope the appellate court will reconsider the “prior bad acts”, especially the testimony of Anna Doman and Eric Peterson, as they’re very important in regards to the events that led up to Kathleen’s murder. What both Eric Peterson and Anna Doman witnessed shows that DP is used to using violence, and had physically harmed Kathleen in the past. The financial expert should be allowed to testify as it shows the motive. Vicki Connelly’s testimony is important, but isn’t directly related to Kathleen Savio’s murder. It just shows DP’s abusive behavior is directed at any women he’s angry with.

  10. Good points, Molly. Peterson’s witnessed violence is also contrary to what he said on Larry King Live. He said he never gets mad, I believe, which is absolutely untrue. Dragging Kathleen by her hair, as Eric testified to, certainly puts that down. I think his various comments over all the months he was paraded around on the many tv shows may be a big part of his downfall. If the public has a negative perception of him, it’s his and his lawyer’s doing. If he’d been counseled to lay low and stay quiet, he may be better off for it. He’s very hard to like and very hard to believe because of the way he acted in the public.

  11. It looks as if the important thing is to make sure that the “prior bad act” be somehow related to the actual crime, rather than just something that might prejudice the jury against the defendant. Kind of sticky…

    Prior bad acts are sometimes allowed as evidence in a criminal case as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. They are governed by federal and state evidence rules, which vary by state. Becuase of the potential for prejudice to the defendant, they must be substantially relevant for some purpose other than to point out the defendant’s criminal character and thus to show the probability that he acted in conformity therewith. Therfore, the relevance and probative value of the evidence must be demonstrated.

  12. Nothing new at this link, but just for the sake of coverage…

    Drew Peterson may need to spruce up his jail look before next week’s court hearing.
    The 3rd District Appellate Court will allow one TV crew to record the proceedings Wednesday afternoon. It’s the first time a crew has been given access in the Ottawa location, the Sun-Times reports.
    “Two years ago, we wouldn’t have given out one of our (audio) tapes,” said Gist Fleshman, clerk of the 3rd District Appellate Court. “They were only for internal use.”–115887839.html

  13. Public Service Announcement

    It has come to our attention that someone who is unhappy with our blog has been emailing people and placing comments in various places claiming that they have “outed” Rescueapet and naming her as a certain person.

    They are incorrect. I do know of the person being named, and she has nothing to do with Justice Café. She isn’t Rescueapet, myself or anyone else associated with the blog. As far as I know she isn’t involved with any blog or forum and because of that I feel that it’s very important to debunk this particular rumor.

    I understand and accept that some people may not like Justice Café or the way it is moderated. Rescue and I are big girls and can deal with whatever criticism comes our way because of valid opinions about the site. To attack us personally would be pretty low in itself, but there is absolutely no excuse for dragging in the name of an individual who has nothing at all to do with our site. The supposed ‘outting’ of this person is either madness or a calculated move to try to somehow lump two enemies into one vendetta. I don’t pretend to understand it because…I don’t.

    This is just the latest lie in a recent string of lies being circulated and I’ll admit I’m tired of seeing them and saying nothing. For the record and please note, Joe Hosey does not run this blog nor does he write here under a pseudonym. We did not write Henry Savio’s letter to the Sun-times. We also are not involved in and never saw any comment suggesting a letter-writing campaign to keep Tom Peterson out of Harvard nor has any attack been made on young Kris Peterson. I’m happy to accept responsibility for anything that we write or any comments that appear on our blog – but I don’t see any justification for the intentional spreading of lies.

    I would ask that if you see something written about this blog or its authors please consider the source, and take a moment to check the facts. If you ever have any questions for us you can email us at


  14. The appellate court will probably take at least three months for a decision. Then which ever side loses will take it to the Illinois supreme court, another eight months to a year, to hear arguments, more time for a decision and then to US supreme court. When will this thing ever get to trial??

    OAK BROOK, IL 60523


    Date of Meeting: Saturday, February 19, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
    Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center
    1200 Oak Brook Road

    2. ROLL CALL
    a. Approval of Findings and Decision in disciplinary matter
    6. ADJOURN TO CLOSED MEETING to consider above and any other
    employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal
    matters of specific employees of the public body (2c1)

    (wonder what happened to items 4 and 5?)

  16. I also agree that I do not understand the justification of spreading intentional lies about the administrators of this blog and what activities they are being accused of participating in, nor do I recognize a valid reason for posting personal pictures or information on various blogs of a woman who is purported to being me. Criticism of our blog is one thing, but spreading unfounded lies is baseless.

    I would expect that the individuals who are participating in this activity have some purpose for doing so, other than having a disagreement with us for the way this blog is administered. What that purpose is is a cause for concern.

  17. I’m sorry this sort of thing has come to our little blog, which I respect so much and depend on to get factual information in the quickest means available.
    Oh, some sites (read:gossip columns) may have a ‘scoop’ but I think everyone knows those cannot be depended upon.
    Thank you both again for what all you do and how you do it. You have my utmost respect and attention.

  18. Doggies – thanks. We are sorry that it has come to this point where we have had to openly post comments about certain activities that have been going on, but an innocent person has been dragged into this insane obsession some individuals have regarding the administration of this blog, and it is of great concern that it be handled appropriately.

    Keep on reading and thank you for the kind words.

  19. The Stephen Peterson hearing has been postponed yet again.

    This is the third time the fire and police commission has canceled the hearing at which they were supposed to either fire Stephen Peterson or return him to duty. This latest delay was prompted by the three-man commission failing to rustle up a quorum for the Feb. 19 meeting.

    At most, one member of the commission, if any at all, was going to show up for the meeting.

    The commission has yet to schedule a fourth date to announce their decision.

  20. Wow. That is bizarre.

    It’s not causing a financial strain on Peterson, so I guess that part he can live with, but continuing to string this along is beyond reason. Shouldn’t they just put him back to work if they can’t decide whether or not he violated any of their department rules?


  21. Why in the world can’t they just finish the hearing on the 16th, which is a regular scheduled board meeting? They don’t need a special day.

  22. Facsmiley and Rescueapet…………I’m sorry to hear about someone identifying Rescueapet as someone else, and “outing” her so to speak. I haven’t seen any sort of accusations, but will let you know if I do. I only read/post here and at Websleuths.

    Rescueapet………………….I agree that the vast majority of people have a very negative opinion of DP. His behavior from the beginning has been the worst it can possibly be and his attorney has aided and abetted him with that behavior.

    With the prior bad acts witnesses, I think Eric Peterson’s testimony is very important! He not only witnessed his father’s violence early on, but the very fact that his own son is willing to testify against him counts for a lot!

    I had read early in the case that one of DP’s older sons was estranged from his father because of his belief that DP had something to do with Kathleen Savio’s death. But, we didn’t hear anything from him. He didn’t do interviews for newspapers, magazines, or television, telling what he knew. He kept a low profile. I was surprised when he testified last year at the pre-trial hearing on hearsay. I think he’s got a lot of credibility and his testimony lays the ground work for DP’s escalating violence.

  23. Hi Molly.

    I think the prior bad acts is especially important too. How much more powerful can it be to hear from Drew’s own son that he saw his father drag Kathleen by her hair, while she was screaming and yelling for her husband’s sons to call the police? Thoughtful, level-headed people do not act that way. That is the way of an abuser and a control freak.

    I find it odd that it’s okay to accept the idea that Drew’s teen son is standing up for his father and making comments that are more speculation than fact, such as saying his father is innocent because he was with his father the entire time during which his mother died, but it gets brushed aside by some, or no recognition is given at all, about Eric’s first-hand knowledge of seeing his abusive father in action.

    I also find it odd that any level headed, thinking person would assume a teen’s speculative testimony relating to the whereabouts of his father (Drew’s son was what, 10 or so at the time), would be allowed into the trial, but Eric’s prior bad acts wouldn’t. Come on, whose testimony is more telling? One of Drew’s sons saying he witnessed a violent, abusive act by his father, or one of Drew’s sons saying he saw his father 24/7, every day of the weekend he was in the care of his father and Stacy? Eric is estranged from his father and admitted he doesn’t have feelings for him one way or another. Thomas has been living with his father since the death of his mother, has been provided for, and has a close relationship with his father and is expected to support him, whether he fully wants to or not. So why on earth would anyone assume his speculation that his father is innocent is worth the paper he supposedly wrote that letter on? That letter, IMO, is merely a creation of his father’s conniving ways, endorsed and pursued by his lead attorney. Who would even assume a judge would allow one son’s testimony in about the old man, and not the other’s? Thus, the famous letter to Sneed.

    I think the latest attempt by the head defense attorney to put out the idea that Drew’s teens fully support their father is only meant to be in the media and plant the idea in the public’s head, because there seems to be no way to me his testimony is going to be allowed when Eric’s won’t.

  24. I think it would be really great for Eric’s testimony to be admitted but I think it may be tough to get the justices to do it. The challenge will be to show that the beating Eric witnessed proves “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident” in relationship to Kathleen’s murder. If you go one by one through that list I don’t really see it, regrettably.

    It proves that he was capable of violence and that he was controlling – but those things aren’t on trial. Unfortunately, I think they may decide that the testimony would only prejudice the jury rather than prove he killed Kathleen.

    That said, I think that based on those terms listed above, that Vicki Connolly’s testimony about what she saw as an attempt on her life should get admitted, since you could say that it was in ‘preparation’ of his later murder of Kathleen. Just my opinion…

  25. It proves that he was capable of violence and that he was controlling – but those things aren’t on trial. Unfortunately, I think they may decide that the testimony would only prejudice the jury rather than prove he killed Kathleen.

    Good point. But also, thinking that Tom Peterson would be allowed to speculate that he can account for his father’s every move during the weekend Kathleen died is no more acceptable. I believe that is why the very public support of his father is being orchestrated the way it is by the defense. Yes, he supports his father. So does Stephen and I assume Kris does too. But to drag them into this public with them smiling together in a picture, or having Tom’s named signed to a letter, is certainly an unorthodox method of trying to win over the public’s support.

  26. Absolutely agree. In my opinion the letter and video featuring Drew’s kids supporting their dad are just more Brodsky-orchestrated shenanigans. They won’t mean anything when it comes to the trial. All they do is drag the children out into the spotlight, despite Drew’s assertion that he wants to protect them. It’s the worst kind of hypocrisy and not only that, it’s cruel.

  27. It looks like the head defense guy knows that Tom Peterson is never going to be allowed to tell a jury that he was with his father 100% of the time during the weekend that his mother suddenly died, so he uses his unorthodox tools of the trade to try and get it in the publics’ heads that the old man is on solid ground with his kids. That they know with 1000% certainty the old man didn’t kill their mother.

    On the other hand, the defense guy knows the public is aware that the old man’s adult son testified to seeing his father drag Kathleen through a door by her hair, and there is an Emergency Room record that she suffered domestic abuse hours before.

    How do you cancel out the picture one gets in their mind about a woman being dragged, screaming for help, by her hair? You paint a rosy picture of a loving family, just waiting for their old man to break out of confinement to get back to nurturing his children. But you have to do it by sending pictures and letters to Sneed of the Sun Times.

  28. Thomas’s letter won’t stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny, considering Kathleens death occurred between the hours of 2 am to 6 am, so unless Thomas was wide awake during that entire time and at his fathers side, his 1000% moral certainty is not worth the paper it is written on.

    Besides didn’t his father claim to be making mad passionate love to Stacy that entire night, so if Thomas was with his father the entire time as is being stated by him, well hmmm let’s not even go there …….

  29. Rescueapet…………….I agree that Eric’s testimony, an eye-witness account from a teen who was about 14 or 15 at the time, is a lot more compelling than Tom’s attempt to provide an alibi for his father out of loyalty.

    Kathleen Savio was murdered on March 1, 2004, so Tom would have been 12-years-old at the time. Tom states that he was with his father the entire weekend and knows with certainty that his father is innocent. In his letter, Tom states that he does not know Henry Savio and Anna Doman, as he never received any cards or gifts from them, nor did they ever call or come to see him.

    I’m sure that having just-turned 18-years-old, Tom thinks he fully understands all that took place within his family during his life time. He doesn’t have the maturity or life experiences yet to realize that there’s two sides to a story and in his case, all he knows is one side. He knows only what he father wanted him to know or allowed him to know. That unknown other side of the story may tell him differently if and when he ever explores it. It’s going to take maturity and some distance from his father’s sphere of influence for him to understand all that happened in his family. If he does go to medical school, Tom will be taking courses in psychology, and may then begin to understand.

    I agree too that the letter Tom wrote is just another way JB is trying to influence public perception.

  30. According to Drew Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky:

    Drew will not be present because Defendants are not required to be present at appellate court arguments and therefore the Sheriff will not bring him.

    Steven Greenberg and Lisa Lopez will be at the counsel table representing Drew Peterson before the Appellate Court on Wednesday. The oral arguments before the appellate court will be presented by Steve Greenberg and Lisa will be finding the flaws in the State’s oral arguments.

  31. The oral arguments before the appellate court will be presented by Steve Greenberg and Lisa will be finding the flaws in the State’s oral arguments.

    I’m not quite sure what Brodsky means by that statement. The appellate court is going to rule what hearsay comes in or not.

    Since it is the State that finishes with a 5 minute rebuttal, I assume this means that the defense will be looking for flaws in the State’s arguments should they lose at the appellate level. Which means, they’ll appeal it to the Illinois Supreme Court.

    Either way, it looks like it will be the Fall before Drew Peterson is brought to trial. I do remember seeing Brodsky predict it would move forward around April, but that would have to assume that once the appellate court rules, the defense wins at the appellate level and the State does not appeal. I don’t begin to know why Brodsky thinks that even if they do win at the appellate level, the State would not appeal.

  32. Good call on the Will County Sheriff’s decision to leave Drew sitting in his cell. There is no reason to spend additional tax payer money on security and transportation costs for this guy.

    So am I understanding Joel’s FB post to mean he will not be there? Or, will he be there, but only to be present at the defense table as Drew’s main attorney. and of course the camera shots?

  33. Taking a look at our stats tonight I can’t help but notice someone going back over the posts documenting the hearsay hearings (now over a year ago). I did a little re-reading myself and found this tweet from Pastor Neil Schori to be very apropos:

    “All my enemies will be ashamed and dismayed; they will turn back in sudden disgrace.”

  34. ✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿✿♥‿♥✿

    ♥♥ ⒽⒶⓅⓅⓎ ♥♥ ⓋⒶⓁⒺⓃⓉⒾⓃⒺ’Ⓢ ♥♥ ⒹⒶⓎ ♥♥


  35. Someone just noticed something in an interview with Joel Brodsky in which he talks about Tom Peterson and his attempt to withdraw his name from the Savio’s civil suit. At 1:00 in, Joel says:

    “…so he wanted him to take a stand. What he did is he released his dad so Tommy’s out of the law suit…”

    He wanted him to take a stand? Who? It sounds like he is slipping up and saying that Drew wanted Tom to take a stand even while he’s trying to say that it was all Tom’s idea. I suppose it could just be a slip of the tongue, but sounds like a Freudian slip to me.

  36. Ooooo, very interesting.

    She brought up another good point. If Tom was with his father the weekend his mother died, and they are so adamant about making him say he knows his father’s complete whereabouts during that time, then I guess his information the weekend Stacy disappeared is just as relevant.

    When will that Brodsky learn to keep his trap shut?

  37. WGN has reported that Greg Adamski [Karen Conti’s husband] has passed away suddenly, an apparent heart attack. My condolences to her and family.

  38. Drew’s son speaks Morphey was followed to the stand by Peterson’s estranged son Eric Peterson. The older of two children born to Peterson’s first wife, Carol Brown, who is neither missing nor murdered, Eric Peterson, 31, recounted a savage tale of domestic abuse he says Drew Peterson perpetrated on Savio in 1993. Eric Peterson and his younger brother, Stephen Peterson, were visiting their father and Savio for the weekend when Drew hauled his wife through the front door by her hair. “She was being dragged and fighting to stop being dragged,” Eric Peterson said, adding that Savio was shouting obscenities at her husband, begging the children to call the police and “screaming for help.” Eric Peterson said his father ordered his sons upstairs and pulled Savio down to the basement. He said the commotion downstairs sounded like a train ran through the house. One of Savio’s sisters and the police later showed up. The next morning, Eric Peterson said, there was no sign of Savio, but the house was strewn with broken glass and overturned furniture. Eric Peterson said it was apparent that Savio was drunk the night Drew Peterson dragged her around. Eric Peterson said he has not spoken to his father since January 2003. “I don’t love him or hate him,” Eric Peterson said of his father. “It’s separate of emotion. It’s indifference.”

  39. I think that anyone who acts like this murder defendant did at the time he dragged Katleen by her hair through the door, in front of his children no less, deserves to be scorned, and he deserves to meet up with someone who’s just as willing to treat him the way he seems to think he can treat women.

  40. Drunk or not, calling him names or not, does not give ANYBODY the right to drag someone by their hair, down stairs, and beat the hell out of them in the basement. The grown up thing to do would be to either leave, or get in another room and call the police if you can’t handle the situation. His excuse for her being drunk and him trying to man handle her is B.S. and everyone with a brain knows it. Its get me aggravated that certain people think it is alright to do that to her because she might of been drinking that night. Seriously can two people not have an argument without it ending up in violence? Why did he have to drag her by the hair, and down the stairs, and do that to her? It could of been avoided, but IMO he did it because that is how he is. He has to be “in control of his family” so he put it before in the past that everyone should have control of their family. How Drew can even dare act innocent when almost every ex he had wife, or not , said he is violent, and has threatened them. Let him get on the stand and try and put a halo on that would be the worst mistake him and his atty makes.

  41. Joel is in good form again on that video clip, talking himself into a corner and ooohhh, the importance of the Christmas and Birthday cards.

    If we all dis-owned our family for not receiving a Christmas or Birthday card, nobody’d have any family.

    Young Thomas can only withdraw from the law suit at age 18; he has no say in the law suit as a minor, that’s why his name is still on the law suit and business as usual …….

  42. Three sons with two different opinions.

    Two have nothing to offer but praising what a great dad they have, and how moral he is. Although, the moral aspect is hard to swallow.

    One has testified to witnessing a violent man during an angry confrontation with his now dead ex-wife.

    What they have to offer neither proves Drew Peterson’s innocence nor his guilt.

    So far, in the past couple of months, a letter writing campaign has been forged to bring to the public’s attention the importance of presenting a group of Drew Peterson children as victims of a witch hunt of sorts. Drew Peterson children who think their father is moral, a giving father and a loving one, who they want to come home.

    What about Eric’s testimony and his estrangement from his father? Why is he to be discounted, if that’s the case, and his testimony about his father’s violent behavior brushed aside?

    I think the defense is well aware of what Eric testified to and his relationship with his father, and that is why the media campaign of late has been forged. The only thing left to do now is pry into Eric’s personal life and see what ugly names and descriptions of his character they can come up with to try and destroy him.

  43. At the time of the attack on Kathleen, she had only just given birth to Thomas (7 weeks/12 weeks ?).

    If you calculate that fact into the equasion, that makes the attack even more brutal and unbelievable …………

  44. JAH: “Young Thomas can only withdraw from the law suit at age 18; he has no say in the law suit as a minor, that’s why his name is still on the law suit and business as usual ……”

    Thomas turned 18 on January 5 of this year, which is why he is now attempting to remove his name.

  45. Drew Peterson Hearing Will be Televised

    Updated: Monday, 14 Feb 2011, 9:32 PM CST
    Published : Monday, 14 Feb 2011, 9:17 PM CST

    By Craig Wall, FOX Chicago News

    Ottawa, Ill. – A critical hearing in the Drew Peterson murder case puts the former Bolingbrook Police sergeant back in the spotlight Wednesday before the 3rd District Appellate Court in Ottawa.

    He will not be there, but in an unusual move television cameras will be, as the court has granted approval for a pool camera to record the proceedings…

    …”The Supreme Court has said that a victim’s testimony is never admissible in a murder trial unless it’s a dying declaration and the statute that was passed in this case was an exception to that particular rule,” said Joseph Lopez, one of Peterson’s attorneys. “The statute’s over-broad and it’s an attempt to do an end run around the Supreme Court and it was passed specifically to get into situations like this where you have multiple levels of hearsay.”…

    …The three judge appellate panel will hear oral arguments on Wednesday and then issue a ruling at a later date. Regardless of the outcome, the losing side is expected to appeal to the state’s highest court, and from there it could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Peterson remains in the Will County jail.

  46. What Lopez is ignoring is the fact that the new hearsay law was passed and is enacted. Joel attempted to appeal it on the grounds of unconstitutionality and he was denied. There’s no point complaining about the hearsay statute since it is not up for argument at this point. As things stand now, all they can do is deal with it. So, it just seems like a silly quote to give at this point in time. But maybe Joe isn’t really up on what’s going on. As far as I know, Greenberg is presenting the argument assisted by Mrs. Lopez.

    The real shocker here is to not see Joel’s face in front of the camera. Is he actually trying to distance himself a bit from the case? Could he finally have figured out that the mere sight of him rubs the public the wrong way? LOL.

  47. In regards to what Eric witnessed in 1993, it doesn’t matter if Kathleen was drunk that night. If she was drunk, that doesn’t minimize what happened. She was viciously and brutally attacked!

    What Eric Peterson witnessed in 1993 is probably the closest we’ll ever come to a description of what likely happened on March 1, 2004 when DP killed Kathleen. I’m sure that Kathleen fought back………desperately. But this time there was no one there to witness what happened.

    All that’s known about Drew Peterson’s contempt for women, his need to control, and his violent temper is well documented. When you put all the documentation together it all adds up to a monster.

    Although the appellate court may feel that Eric’s testimony is prejudicial and falls under prior bad acts, I feel Eric’s testimony is part of the foundation for the case against Drew Peterson. All the bits and pieces of information/evidence that led up to Kathleen’s murder, gives a more complete picture of what happened.

    In his testimony, Eric stated that his younger brother, Stephen, and himself were visiting their father for the weekend. Certainly Stephen either witnessed or heard the mayhem that happened downstairs too. I wonder how Stephen can defend his father with a clear conscience? Certainly he must know, deep down, what his father has done?

    In regards to Tom Peterson saying he was with his father every minute of the weekend that his mother died, it’s one of those statements that is full of holes. Certainly Tom and his brother slept at night and have no idea of that anyone else in the household was doing.

    Didn’t Drew say something about having to go to work that Monday? If I remember correctly, he tried calling Kathleen several times on Sunday and got no answer. I think he went to work on Monday, and later in the afternoon drove by Kathleen’s house, saw Steve Carcerano pulling into his driveway and stopped and told Steve that he couldn’t get a hold of Kathleen and wanted Steve to accompany him over to Kathleen’s house. There was no mention of Tom being with him then. Where were the two boys? Did they go to school that day?

  48. Right you are about Drew going to work and not mentioning the boys were with him.

    Also, there was something of a questioning/police investigation done, albeit lousy, and there is going to be information in that questioning recorded in notes about Drew’s activities, including his recollection of where his two boys were at all relevant times. So I guess it works both ways.

  49. GRACE: It`s amazing after all of Drew Peterson`s blabbing over the past few months, since his wife went missing on October 28th, he`s suddenly gone mum. Wife number three Kathleen Savio`s death now ruled a homicide four years after the fact.

    Out to the lines. Let`s to go Wendy in Illinois. Hi, Wendy.


    WENDY: You know, does Drew Peterson — I thought I heard he had a history of domestic abuse. If that`s so, why does it seem like they don`t take that into consideration from the get-go?

    GRACE: Jon Leiberman with “America`s Most Wanted,” is there any history of domestic abuse?

    JON LEIBERMAN, CORRESPONDENT, AMERICA`S MOST WANTED: Well, absolutely. Yes. I mean Kathleen Savio in 2002 filed an order of protection saying, quote, “She feared Peterson would kill her.” She told her family over and over again that if anything happened to her, he would make it look like an accident.

    And Nancy, I have to throw in something about the kids because kids do not lie. And the Savio family shared with us a Christmas card, a note to Santa Claus that one of their kids wrote. It said, quote, “All I want for Christmas is for daddy to stop hurting mommy and for daddy to give mommy a divorce.”

    GRACE: OK. Joel Brodsky is with us, Drew Peterson`s attorney. Any response to the letter to Santa?

    JOEL BRODSKY, ATTORNEY FOR DREW PETERSON: Well, that was during the divorce when they had a very contentious divorce early on, when it was going on. And that sounds to me that Kathy was putting the children in the middle of the divorce case which is unfortunate. It`s supposed — which have not spoken.

    GRACE: Yes, it`s all her fault.

    BRODSKY: Oh no, but you`re no supposed to (INAUDIBLE) in the children.

    GRACE: I wonder what she would have to say about that. Uh-uh, she was murdered, she can`t talk.

    BRODSKY: You know that sounds like — what you`re not supposed to do in a divorce which is involve the children in the conflict between the parents. But one thing about this.

    GRACE: Well, there`s no conflict anymore because mommy is dead.

    BRODSKY: Well, you`re not supposed — when there is a divorce case going on, an ongoing divorce case, the children are supposed to be protected from the conflict between the children — between the parents. But in any event, the whole — this whole comment that was made that the Savios are somehow being deprived contact with the children.

    Henry Savio, Kathy`s father, Nick Savio, Kathy`s brother, have only met that children once, one time since their birth. And that was at Kathleen`s funeral. Not a Christmas cards since the funeral, not a birthday card, not a Christmas present, nothing, not a phone call.

    Yet now when they`re filing the divorce, now when they`re thinking about filing a wrongful death case, all of a sudden they become concerned about the children? I think you don`t have to be a rocket scientist to figure what`s going on there.

    GRACE: I find that very difficult to believe.

    To you, Michael Lisak, Kathleen Savio`s nephew, response? Not a Christmas card, not present, nothing?

    MICHAEL LISAK, KATHLEEN SAVIO`S NEPHEW: No. You know what? Mr. Brodsky, that`s true about my grandfather and her brother, but I was there for more than 10 years. I knew — I visited my aunt for many, many years before she even knew Drew.

    I love my aunt. My aunt was very special in my life. She was taken away by somebody. We`re going to find out who. And like I said, you and your client are shocked. You`re the only two people that are shocked.

  50. JAH: “Young Thomas can only withdraw from the law suit at age 18; he has no say in the law suit as a minor, that’s why his name is still on the law suit and business as usual ……”

    Thomas turned 18 on January 5 of this year, which is why he is now attempting to remove his name.


    Yes Thomas wants himself removed from the lawsuit at age 18, which is now.

    He also states he is releasing his father and Uncle (James Carroll) from any/all liability arising from the death of Kathleen Savio or the admin of the Estate, which is as of now (age 18)

    That really has no bearing on the lawsuit as the lawsuit is relating to him during his years as a minor and it is not up to him to release anybody over the period he was a minor.

    Joel is stating the above should convince the Savios of the futility of their actions and dismiss the lawsuit.

    He has also stated “that lawsuit is dead in the water anyway”

    Joel is arguing a moot point as Thomas’s withdrawal from the lawsuit at age 18 is irrelevant to the lawsuit as it stands.

  51. Ohh – more strange stuff from Joel !

    In the Fox video the interviewer asks (in relation to Thomas being with his Dad the weekend Kathleen died) if Thomas was also there when Stacy went missing and what does Joel say:

    “Thomas was in the house when Stacy went missing” ……………….

    According to Drew’s account he was asleep and when he woke up Stacy had gone out to “visit Grandpa” – he then didn’t want to disturb her for the rest of the day and also never bothered her in the evening, until he received a phone call from her at 9 pm, so where does that fit in with “Thomas was in the house when Stacy went missing”

    Did Stacy go missing from the house and Thomas was in the house when that happened –

    What exactly is Joel saying here ???

  52. IIRC this is how Drew accounted for his activities/wherabouts on the weekend that Kathleen was killed:

    Friday–Picked up kids from Kathleen’s.
    Saturday– Spent the day at home with Stacy and kids including Steven
    Sunday– Went alone to buy doughnuts. Later Shedd Aquarium with family. Later attempted to return boys to Kathleen.
    Monday– Called Kathleen to see about returning kids, no answer. Later went to work. While on duty went to Kathleen’s and you know the rest.

    Mollly, the boys were off school that Monday for Casimir Pulaski Day which is a school holiday in the Chicago area.

  53. There’s a story up on CNN about the hearsay arguments tomorrow. Nothing new really – big picture and a recap:

    In determining whether any of those statements can be used at trial, Judge Stephen White found after the 2010 hearing it was likely that Peterson murdered Savio and Stacy Peterson. The judge then found fewer than half the 15 statements prosecutors wanted to use were admissible under the new law.
    His written decision remains under court seal. Details about which statements are permitted are not yet in the public record, although they are likely to be revealed in court during the arguments on Wednesday.

    The interesting thing to me is the headline: “Will Drew Peterson’s wives speak from the grave?” Looks like even CNN is willing to just put it out there that Stacy is no longer living.

  54. Snips from a note from the Will County State’s Attorney Facebook Page:

    Third District Appellate Court Hearing – February 16, 2011

    State’s Attorney James W. Glasgow

    Will County State’s Attorney James W. Glasgow is the lead prosecutor in the murder trial of Drew Peterson and will deliver the rebuttal argument during Wednesday’s Third District Appellate Court hearing.

    Assistant State’s Attorney Colleen Griffin

    Assistant State’s Attorney Colleen Griffin has honed her expertise in the area of post conviction and appellate court work over a legal career that spans 23 years. She will argue the state’s case during Wednesday’s Third District Appellate Court hearing.

    Griffin received her law degree from John Marshall Law School in Chicago in 1988. She has worked for the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office for four years as a prosecutor in State’s Attorney Glasgow’s Narcotics Unit. Late last year, she took over Post Conviction and Appellate Court duties on behalf of the office.

  55. grandam says:
    February 15, 2011 at 2:13 pm (Edit)
    Do we know where, when and what time WGN will be showing the hearing?

    As far as I know, they are taping it and will use parts of the footage in their normal news coverage. The tape will also be made available to other news agencies to use as they like.

    If I hear of it being broadcast in toto anywhere, I’ll be sure to post something about it.

  56. Unless I’m mistaken, this is how it will go down tomorrow:

    1. Ass’t States Attorney Colleen Griffin presenting the state’s argument
    2. Steve Greenberg presenting defense’s argument
    3. State’s Attorney Glasgow doing a short rebuttal

  57. Rescueapet…………….WOW! I’ve watched Nancy Grace in the past, but not on a regular basis, so I didn’t see that interview with JB. The section you bolded:

    “And Nancy, I have to throw in something about the kids because kids do not lie. And the Savio family shared with us a Christmas card, a note to Santa Claus that one of their kids wrote. It said, quote, “All I want for Christmas is for daddy to stop hurting mommy and for daddy to give mommy a divorce.”

    The defense could never put Tom on the witness stand regarding his statement that he was with his father the entire time during the weekend of his mother’s death. A good prosecutor would tear his testimony to shreds when evidence such as that note to Santa from one of the kids exists. No doubt there’s other evidence in addition to the obvious logistics……….sometime during that weekend, the two boys slept and were totally unaware of what anyone else in the household was doing. And, just based on what Pastor Schori stated, Drew killed Kathleen in the middle of the night………when the two boys would be asleep and oblivious to what had happened.

    I wonder if Joel Brodsky ever considered that the two boys not receiving any cards, gifts, letters, or phone calls from the Savio family after Kathleen’s death was not for the lack of trying? With Drew being the control freak he is, it’s likely that any form of communication from Kathleen’s family to the boys was intercepted by Drew and didn’t reach the boys. We’ve seen the same thing with Stacy’s family not being allowed to see or communicate with Anthony or Laci. With those two children so young when Stacy disappeared, they probably don’t remember Cassandra.

  58. justanotherhen……………..that certainly sounds like Joel is stating that Stacy DID in fact go missing from the house………..not that she went somewhere and disappeared from some other location. In other words………whatever happened to Stacy happened in the house.

    As I remember…………one of the two boys told someone (Rick Mims?) that he was in his bedroom and heard some sort of commotion, loud noises, and then everything went silent. I seemed to think it was Kristopher.

    Later, about noon, when the neighbor, Sharon Bychowski, called to ask if the children could come over for Halloween treats, it was Kristopher who answered the phone. When Sharon asked to speak with Stacy, Kristopher stammered and didn’t know what to say and Drew took the phone from him.

    Later that night, Cassandra went to the Peterson home and not seeing either Stacy’s or Drew’s cars in the driveway, knocked on the door. One of the two boys, and I think it was Kristopher, answered and said that Drew and Stacy had a big fight and Stacy left, and that Drew was out looking for her. Cassandra alluded to Kristopher saying more that she wouldn’t comment about.

    I’ve always felt that Kristopher knew something terrible had happened.

  59. Facsmiley…………………thanks for the info regarding Casimir Pulaski Day. It’s a local holiday I’m not familiar with…….I’m in California.

    I noted the CNN headline about the wives speaking from the grave. The judge at the hearsay hearing last year, Judge Stephen White, stated he thought it was likely that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson. I think CNN is reporting based on the judge’s conclusion, and what the testimony was at the hearsay hearing, but their headline does appear that even CNN believes both wives were murdered as opposed to one murdered and one disappeared.

    I have WGN listed in my channel line up for our television cable. Is this the same WGN that will carry the local Chicago news?

  60. Sources tell us there will be an interesting seating arrangement at the defense table tomorrow.
    In other words, if you’re looking for Joel Brodsky, you’ll want to direct your attention to the gallery.

  61. Sources telling me that you should be able to see the proceedings tomorrow at around 1 p.m. on both CLTV and the Tribune web site.

    Look for more news tonight with details about this historic coverage…

  62. Peterson case appeal to be broadcast live
    Appellate Court to allow oral arguments to be televised

    By Stacy St. Clair, Tribune reporter
    February 16, 2011

    As attorneys prepare to argue a pioneering hearsay law, Drew Peterson’s murder case will blaze another trail Wednesday when an Illinois appellate court allows oral arguments to be broadcast live for the first time in state history.

    By permitting a TV camera into its august courtroom, the Third District Appellate Court will offer the public a rare glimpse at one of the area’s most high-profile criminal cases.

    “It’s a very big deal for us,” said court clerk Gist Fleshman. “There’s no way we would do this for every run-of-the-mill case, but we recognize the interest. It’s a big change for us.”

    Following a request by WGN-TV, media outlets will share a video feed from a single camera placed in the back of the 150-year-old Ottawa courtroom that once served as home to the Illinois Supreme Court. The camera operator cannot wear any station-identifying clothing and will not be permitted additional lighting.

    CLTV and a national cable outlet indicated they planned to carry the arguments live. The Chicago Tribune also intended to stream the proceedings on its website beginning around 1 p.m….

    Read the rest of the story here:,0,3996425.story

    or here:,0,2275454.story

  63. What I think is going to be an interesting aspect of this hearsay appeal is Drew Peterson’s freedom, or lack of it.

    It could be why, thinking like Brodsky does, he’s predicting that the trial may go forward in a matter of months.

    IMO, if the defense wins at the appellate level, it’s expected that the State would appeal to the IL Supreme Court (either side will, for that matter). In that case, I would guess that the first thing the defense would do is again ask for their client to be released while the case is appealed to the IL Supreme Court. I would imagine that that might be a distinct possibility that he’d be released. If that possibility were to become a reality, would the State then ask to go forward with the trial to prevent DP from getting out?

    If the State wins at the appellate level, then DP stays where he is, while his attorneys appeal the ruling as far as they can and want to take it. That could delay the start of the trial for at least a year.

    So, judging by Brodsky’s prediction that the trial will be moving along within a couple of months, it looks as though he’s thinking the State is going to lose and won’t appeal, to prevent DP from getting cut loose until all the appeals are exhausted. Unless he’s of the mind that the defense won’t appeal if they lose, and will ask that the trial go forward.

  64. Rescueapet………………thanks for the info on WGN. We just got this new cable service installed last week and haven’t yet checked out all the channels, but I did see WGN listed. I’m excited that I can watch the local news on this case. 🙂

  65. Facsmiley……………thank you for the update on tomorrow’s hearing and who’s carrying it live. I’ve bookmarked the Chicago Tribune site and hope to watch it there.

  66. Hi Everyone!

    Glad to see the courts jumping into 2011!

    I’m out of state and have WGN, however, in the past – Like when the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup – We did not get the coverage. They only had their regular programming, and we could only get the coverage on the web. I’ll be interested to see if we get the hearing. Glad to see the Trib will carry it as well.

    Thanks for keeping us updated!

  67. Thanks Rescue!
    I will watch it on my computer. Just think it is weird that their “Live Coverage” isn’t really LIVE here.

  68. Drew Peterson Murder Case Hearsay Hits Appellate Court

    The Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa will hear arguments today about what hearsay evidence — if any — makes it into Drew Peterson’s murder trial.

    By Joseph Hosey | Email the author | 6:00am

    The appellate court will hear arguments today about what hearsay evidence can be allowed against Drew Peterson at his murder trial.

    Drew Peterson shot off his mouth for the year and a half between his fourth wife vanishing and the state police locking him up for allegedly murdering the wife before her, ripping both the dead woman and the one that disappeared.

    Today, the Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa will decide whether the incriminating remarks supposedly made by Peterson’s last two wives can be used against him if his murder trial ever makes it in front of a jury.

    The appellate court arguments scheduled for this afternoon, which can be seen live here, fall exactly one year after a landmark, month-long hearing to decide that very issue was wrapping up in Will County court.

    During those proceedings at the Joliet courthouse, more than 70 witnesses took the stand as prosecutors tried to convince Judge Stephen White to allow 15 hearsay statements to be used against Peterson at trial.

    White tossed two statements in the midst of the hearing, and after its conclusion axed another 10. Despite this setback prosecutors were poised to take the case to trial, but on the eve of jury selection, backed off to appeal White’s decision on the hearsay statements.

    In crafting the appeal, prosecutors pointed to a decision to uphold a DuPage County death penalty conviction in which a judge allowed hearsay statements during trial.

    Peterson has been locked up in the Will County jail since May 2009 on charges he murdered third wife Kathleen Savio, who was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004.

    Savio and Peterson were embroiled in an acrimonious divorce at the time of her death, and she predicted that Peterson would kill her in a letter to Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale. Still, the state police insisted Savio was the victim of a freak bathtub accident and effectively closed the file on her case within months of her death.

    The state police were forced to open that file back up when the teenage girl Peterson left Savio for and eventually made his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, mysteriously vanished in October 2007.

    Stacy remains missing. The state police have announced that they suspect Peterson may have killed her too but have yet to do anything as bold as arrest him for it.

    While prosecutors want to use incriminating statements supposedly made by both Savio and Stacy to convict Peterson, one of the accused wife-killer’s lawyers, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, said it does not matter whether they get in or not, as the state has no case against his client.

    “First of all, there is no murder,” said Lopez, whose wife, attorney Lisa Lopez, will be making her debut today as part of the Peterson defense team.

    Joseph Lopez was also suspicious that so many of the hearsay witnesses testified to both Savio and Stacy predicting that Peterson would kill them and make their death or disappearance appear to be an accident.

    “It’s very convenient,” he said. “It’s more than convenient — it’s trumped up.”

    Joseph Lopez went on to put the blame for the domestic violence during Savio’s breakup with Peterson squarely on her.

    “The only allegation is, she’s beating people up,” he said.

    Savio was charged with battery in connection with incidents involving both Peterson and Stacy. She was acquitted of the charges and the cases were expunged.

    Lopez still put the onus for the turmoil on Savio, saying, “She’s a wild broad. She’s a bruiser, a barroom brawler. She could kick Drew’s ass.”

    Regardless of who ends up triumphing after the appellate court hands down its decision in the coming months, Joseph Lopez expected the loser to appeal to the state supreme court. Not that the defense necessarily needs to, he said.

    “There is no case,” he said. “Whether they have (the statements) or they don’t have it.”

  69. Lopez still put the onus for the turmoil on Savio, saying, “She’s a wild broad. She’s a bruiser, a barroom brawler. She could kick Drew’s ass.”

    Wow. Just wow.

  70. “There is no case,” he said. “Whether they have (the statements) or they don’t have it.”

    That is odd. Then why is he sitting in jail on a 20 Million dollar bond?

  71. Those lawyers never cease to amaze me with their assumptions, that Kathleen was wild, and Stacy a flirt. I guess desperate people use desperate measures, ya think?

Comments are closed.