Drew Peterson and Stephen Peterson remember gun hand-off differently

On Saturday, Drew Peterson‘s son, Stephen Peterson, was fired from his job at the Oak Brook Police Department for accepting weapons from his father in the days following the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and in so doing, obstructing the investigation.

Today’s Herald News printed some comments from Drew Peterson taken from an email that Drew Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, sent to them. Drew, reportedly “angry” over his son’s firing attempted to set the record straight as per his recollections of the exchange:

When I gave Steve my guns there was no investigation to impede,” Peterson said. “They were my favorite guns, and I was going to give them to Steve when I retired anyway. I only gave him three of the dozen or so guns I owned, and I kept most of my guns in my house and the police confiscated them all, so how could giving him those three guns impede anything?”

Interesting version of the facts, especially if one recalls that Stephen testified at his own hearing to save his job that he had received the guns because they were his fathers favorites and that he was worried they might be damaged when they were seized by law enforcement. Would it help if you heard Stephen say this with your own ears? Check out the video at the top of this post.

By the way, I realize that October 2007 was a long time ago, and maybe Drew has a hard time remembering the actual sequence of events surrounding the disappearance of his wife, but luckily the Internet has an uncanny ability to store information. According to online transcripts of the Nancy Grace show, there was an investigation as early as October 30—two days after Stacy disappeared:

Aired October 30, 2007 – 20:00:00 ET

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.


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.

Yes, there was an investigation at the time of the gun transfer.

Even a lay person would know that law enforcement was going to be interested in in examining all of the weapons that Drew Peterson kept in his house. Both Drew Peterson and Stephen Peterson were police officers. They both knew that it would be an obstruction of justice to remove those guns. Is the public really supposed to believe that either of them are so ignorant of police protocol? If they are — then all the better that they are both off the force.

Read story at the Herald News
Decision rendered in Officer Peterson Discipline Matter

~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.~


27 thoughts on “Drew Peterson and Stephen Peterson remember gun hand-off differently

  1. If Steve Peterson is ever going to have a chance to get his job back and right what he thinks is wrong, he needs to have a long talk with his father’s lead attorney and tell him to mind his own business and keep his nose out of his. It is insane to allow this kind of rambling out, especially when it is in direct contrast to sworn testimony by Steve.

    What is noticeably absent is Drew Peterson’s explanation of why he even led the cops to his son in the first place. When the cops asked him where his missing guns where, why couldn’t he have had a short term memory lapse rather that implicate his son? I’ll never figure that one out. Steve was loyal and tried to help his father. His father wasted no time, though, sending the cops to his door.

    Could it be that Mr. Peterson is feeling the effects of what he’s done to his son’s life by passing along some particular guns right in the midst of the investigation into where his young wife disappeared to? The blame rests solely with the two Petersons. Drew initiated the mess by calling his son to hurriedly take in some guns and his son obliged. Nevertheless, the cops would not have known otherwise had this not been made known:

    Although Stephen Peterson went out of his way to help his father, Drew Peterson sent investigators in his son’s direction, when unloaded ammunition magazines for the AR-15 were found at Drew Peterson’s home.

    According to Charles Hervas, the attorney representing the Oak Brook Police Department at the hearing, Drew Peterson told the detective, “I knew you guys were coming and I took it to my son’s house Tuesday.”

    Maybe Brodsky could get this clarified and explain why he did this. Or is there someone else to blame, as always?

  2. Why is Brodsky relegated to non-court battles anymore, and merely in charge of media sound bites and passing along of letters? Did the others tell him to STFU or they’d walk? Did they convince Drew Peterson that he needs to be kept out of legal proceedings if he wants a chance to be acquitted of the murder charges against him?

    After being Drew Peterson’s “able” lead defense attorney for over three years, why was a recently admitted lawyer, Joe “Shark” Lopez’s wife, sitting at the defense table with Steve Greenberg at the landmark televised Appellate Court Hearing and not Brodsky? She was supposedly taking notes to find flaws in the State’s arguments. Couldn’t Brodsky have done that? Instead, he sat in the background like anyone else. The lead Drew Peterson defense attorney. Hmmm. Although, it does seems like none of the other defense attorneys even want to be in the same space with him. Being told to STFU by Greenberg, and it being noticed that Lopez doesn’t even want to sit with him at the defense table in past Will County Court hearings, does have a interesting edge to it. Three past defense attorneys walking off the case because of conflicts with Brodsky does say something.

    I guess it’s Brodsky’s “job” to spin the news and create illusions in the media. I don’t think one needs to be a lawyer to do that, but it looks like the other boys (and girl) threw him some crumbs and that’s what he does now.

    Guess Brodsky knows what he’s doing, since he’s done a magnificent job so far for his client. The one sitting in confinement coming up on two years now. What an inspiration that must be to anyone looking to hire him for his outstanding abilities.

  3. I couldn’t agree more Rescue. Brodsky is all washed up now. Maybe he will be opening up a new place called QUACKERS….

  4. Anyone notice:

    As soon as Stephen Peterson was fired from his job, a campaign has started to discredit the Oak Brook Police Chief –

    Hmmm, is that another coincidence ?

  5. Oh and Drew took the guns to his son but forgot about the ammunition (!)

    Who always says Drew knows how to commit the perfect crime ?

    Oh yeah, that’s right, it was Drew himself …….

  6. It would seem that Drew’s actions are not always in the best interest of his family members. I hope his young sons are taking notes. JMO

  7. Agreed, Noway. I think Drew Peterson must be feeling an awful lot of remorse just about now. He can state that he’s ‘angry’ that his son was fired, but he should really steer some of that anger towards his own selfish motives that got his son involved in this mess.

    After all, it wasn’t Steve who called up his dad and announced, “Hey Dad, hear the ISP is investigating Stacy’s disappearance, better hand me a large amount of dough and a few of your firearms.” Nope. It was Drew’s scramble to ‘prepare’ himself for the investigation that screwed Stephen.

    If only Drew had acted like a man with a missing wife and less like a man who killed his wife. Instead of asking friends to move heavy plastic containers, to fetch cars, to move cars, to carry trumpet cases, to say nothing to the police, to accept cash and guns, to bury things in their backyards…

    Oh well, he’s had a lot of time to think about that now.

    On the other hand, how great for the investigation that he did involve so many other people…all potential witnesses now.

  8. We’ve got a follow-up for you on this blog post:


    The BB ‘watchdog’ group wanted to know what the payout was to a “D. Peterson” in the amount of $73,577 and if it was money given to Drew Peterson for some reason. They hinted that it was some sort of underhanded payoff.

    We looked up the Treasurer’s report in question which you can find at:


    The bit about D. Peterson is on page 31 of that PDF.

    Screen grab of page 31

    The Viillage Attorney, Jim Boan, who for some reason would not answer a direct question, did have this to say:

    Police officers do not get IMRF pensions. Police pensions are controlled by local pension boards. The Village does not control the local Police Pension Board. By statute the Union has the majority of the members on the Pension Board.

    …and when pressed further:

    That “block” of payments are all retirees. That is why they are not listed is the main list of Village expenses or why these names are not listed with the Village’s employee salaries. These are pension payments made and approved the local pension boards and distributed by the pension funds administrative firm, Lauderbach [correction: Lauterbach & Amen, LLP]. The Village did not pay anything to Drew Peterson

    So, draw your own conclusions. To me it looks as if he is saying that the money was paid to Drew Peterson, and that it reflects his pension payout for the year, and that it was not paid by the Village of Bolingbrook (even though it is part of the treasurer’s report for the Village).

    Thanks to a certain someone who went after the answers for us! 😉

  9. The answer by village attorney Jim Boan does make sense in as much that the amount in question ($73.577.00) does tally with Drew Petersons pension, considering he gets around $ 6.100.00 a month x 12 = $ 73.200.00 annually and that Drew does not get this payment directly from the Village as a lump sum or ex gratia payment because he is Drew, but as a Village retiree it is paid via the pension funds adminstrative firm, so that part makes sense, but what is does show how Drew could have had $ 25.000.00 sitting around in cash in his safe at the time that was supposedly “stolen” by Stacy when she “left” as that would have represented more than 1/3 of his annual salary (!!), which means around 2007 he had an unencumbered house, was able to support a wife and four minor children, pay for lots of toys, cosmetic surgery and what have you and still squirrel 25 grand away in a safe (!!)

    As his young son said: “Do The Math ” – LOL !

  10. JAH, I was watching some court show the other day and when someone said they paid for a car in cash that they kept at home, the judge lifted an eyebrow. She pointed out that it’s been her experience that people who keep large sums of cash at home are doing so in order to hide something.

    It’s a good point. In this day and age, why would anyone need to keep a large amount of cash on hand? Money transfers are a click away.

    From what I understand, Stacy didn’t disappear with any cash at all. Although, I do understand that she transferred some funds to pay off a motorcycle.

    On the other hand, I do believe that some cash may have left the family’s safe. Didn’t Drew give some unspecified amount to Tom Morphey–money that he then tried to give to Tom Martinek? We can only imagine how many other people were paid to do some service for Drew that day…

  11. Yes, that’s why Joel suddenly denied Drew ever said Stacy took 25K when she “absconded with her lover”, when they realized the very public skiting and big noting about Drews financial situation was raising eyebrows how Drew could have so much cash lying around, afford all these luxuries etc etc on a Police Sergeants salary, so back to the drawing board they went real quick – LOL !

  12. Interesting case having to do with a hearsay statement:

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a shooting victim’s statement to the police at a crime scene can be used in court, even if the victim later dies and cannot testify at a trial.

    The 6-2 decision retreats somewhat from recent rulings by the high court that held that the Constitution strictly forbids prosecutors from using “hearsay” statements to the police unless the witness testifies. The 6th Amendment says an accused person has a right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.”


    I’m confused about this though. I thought that a ‘dying declaration” was already an accepted hearsay exception.

    Dying Declarations

    Dying declarations of a victim that relate to facts surrounding the act that caused his or her dying condition are excepted from the hearsay rule. Such declarations are admissible in homicide cases. To be admissible as a dying declaration, the declaration must have been made while the victim was at the end of life (extremity) or under a sense of impending death and without hope of recovery.

    In most jurisdictions, if the statement is to be introduced at a trial for criminal homicide, the person making the declaration must actually have died. If that person did not die, he or she would, of course, appear as a witness. A transcript of oral evidence of the dying declaration of the victim is admissible and may be repeated in court provided it is shown that the person knew that he was dying when the declaration was made, that the statement pertained to his own homicide, and that he was competent to testify. In the trial of A for murder, for example, the statement the deceased made, a few minutes before his death, that A shot him will be held admissible.

    Here’s a somewhat recent case in which a ‘dying declaration’ lead to a murder indictment:


  13. Yes, please let their be justice! I belive there will be. We all must be pateint. But to tell you the truth, it can’t come soon enough. My prayers are with the Savio family today as every day.

  14. Some information regarding the Stephen Peterson matter — his attorney has been unavailable to file the appeal as promised relating to his dismissal. She plans on getting it ready and filed as soon as she can. It was originally to be filed the Tuesday after Presidents’ Day

    We’ll post the document, as we do the others, once it is available to us.

    Kathleen was suddenly taken from the lives of her children, family members and friends seven years ago. We’re sure Kathleen would be so proud of her son, Tom, in his ambitious college endeavors, as she would be of Kris when he is college bound. Good luck to them as they continue to journey through their young lives without either of their parents.

    May justice be served.

  15. IMO, Joel Brodsky needs duct tape plastered across his mouth.

    He posted personal information about Tom on his facebook page, and I think he’s got a lot of nerve doing that. Tom is 18 years old, and he has a right to keep his business in his own back yard and not have that goof posting it.

    I wonder if Brodsky was in touch with him, and asked for his permission to do that? Maybe he did, but I still have a hard time believing that it was nothing more than Brodsky taking matters in his own hands and trying to keep things happy and pleasant in Drewland.

    Tommy again. He seems to be stuck on that nickname. One time it’s Thomas and the next sentence it’s Tommy. He can’t keep it straight.

  16. Drew Peterson’s Cop Kid Bids to Win Back Badge
    Fired last month, the Oak Brook police officer son of accused wife-killer Drew Peterson has filed to appeal his termination.
    By Joseph Hosey

    The lawyer for Drew Peterson’s Oak Brook cop son has filed papers in DuPage County Circuit Court in a bid to get his badge back.

    The attorney, Tamara Cummings, put the blame for the firing of Peterson’s son Stephen Peterson on Oak Brook Police Chief Thomas Sheahan.

    Cummings, the general counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police, called Sheahan’s actions “vindictive, retaliatory, unfounded, excessive and part of a pattern of harassment” in the complaint for administrative review she filed Friday.

    Sheahan had been trying to fire Stephen Peterson since August, when he put the patrol officer on paid suspension pending the outcome of the disciplinary process…


  17. “After the commission announced its decision to fire Stephen Peterson, Cummings called it a “kangaroo court.” On Friday, she spoke of her eagerness to get the case out of Oak Brook’s hands and into DuPage County court.”

    Once it does get heard in the court, whatever the decision is, should clear this controversy up once and for all. There’s never going to be an agreement from opposing sides as to whether what Steve Peterson did was right, legal or ethical, IMO. What should only matter is whether the turn of events was against department policy, he violated that policy and the department is within their right to terminate him, since he has not been charged with committing a crime.

  18. “Rescuepet, “What should only matter is whether the turn of events was against department policy, he violated that policy and the department is within their right to terminate him, since he has not been charged with committing a crime.”

    Godd point, Rescue. All of the “because he’s Drew Peterson’s son” needs to be placed on the side, and a clear examination of the department policies, and Stephen’s actions in whether he followed the expected protocal of his job/employer, are what the court will address.

  19. Rescue, do you know if a police officer in Stephen’s situation is responsible for paying the legal fees for the appeal, or does the police union contribute to the legal fee costs? Just curious.

  20. DD – I asked my husband that, and he said, “well, if he was off duty at the time, they might not.” They pay for representation if it was duty related, and I’m not sure how that fits Stephen. He might very well not be getting free representation.

Comments are closed.