“Drew Peterson: Untouchable.” Live-blog here tonight

Tonight is the premiere of the made-for-TV Lifetime movie, Drew Peterson: Untouchable. I’ll be watching even though I’m not a fan of Lifetime movies and certainly not a fan of the title character. I am, however, interested in anything having to do with these cases and am curious to see how the story will be told.

Since I know we’re going to want to pick at every little thing in the movie we are going to live-blog it in the comments section. If you’d like to comment feel free to chime in as well.

The movie airs at 8 pm (7 central time). Check the listings in your area for channel, etc.

Official movie site

~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.~


65 thoughts on ““Drew Peterson: Untouchable.” Live-blog here tonight

  1. Brodsky is quoted in Sneed as saying he’ll be taking his laptop on over to the jail to meet with Drew Saturday night, so he can see the movie and go over their strategies for filing motions. Odd that he says Peterson is going to watch the movie on Brodsky’s laptop.

    He says the movie is so “divorced from the facts.” In all honesty, I would appreciate hearing just what Brodsky will say is non-factual. Not just that something is, but WHY it is. It’s like with anything–saying it’s not so is just talk. Show us the money!

  2. I imagine Drew’s first comment will have to be that the filmmakers cast an extremely attractive man to play the part of his character.

    Very “divorced from the facts”.

  3. We may soon see that Brodsky intends to file a motion for change of venue. Apparently, his co-counsels don’t agree on that, since they have alluded to the reality that pre-trial publicity on the part of Brodsky and Peterson is more troublesome for them than this movie.

    Would it not be difficult for a trial judge to ignore the massive amount of media tactics Peterson and his attorney engaged in prior to this movie’s existence, and then rule in their favor for the very thing they’re fighting? The jury poison pill due to pre-trial publicity has been out there for quite some time. Only, as long as it was slanted and favorable to them, it was okay. Now? Wah, wah, wah.

    If the defense is going to argue that the movie portrays Peterson as a creepy murderer, didn’t those two spend years portraying him as a clown who laughs off adversity as his way of survival? A guy who gets over losing his latest love as fast as you can snap your fingers? A happy-go-lucky, likable father of four minor children, who picks up young women faster than a speeding bullet?

    So, what’s the problem then? Are the boys saying the white noise is on life support?

  4. This looks like one of the best-written reviews I’ve seen so far. From Marcus Gilmer of the A.V. Club (he covered the Peterson cases for the Chicagoist for about three years).


    …Dent is given a meaty role as Karen who becomes a confidant for Stacy, leading the charge against Drew once Stacy disappears, and she does what she can with it. Karen is a composite character of one of Stacy’s real-life neighbor and other friends and family, something of a Greek chorus of common sense telling Stacy to get the hell out of the bad situation she’s in…

    But the portrayal of Peterson’s third wife, Savio, is particularly distressing. She’s painted as a shrill, vengeful woman, a stereotypical scorned harpie who seems to have it out for her husband. Meanwhile, though Peterson’s adultery is hardly forgivable, he’s still portrayed in a fairly positive light, almost as a victim to Savio’s erratic behavior. With the exception of one scene, in which Peterson locks her in a jail cell during an office holiday party as a joke-turned-power-play, there are few hints as to the abuse he was accused of inflicting on Savio. It’s a disorienting point-of-view, particularly since the movie later makes no bones about portraying Peterson as an abusive, manipulative asshole.

    If there’s one thing the movie does well, it’s capturing Peterson’s bizarre behavior after Stacy’s disappearance — bizarre public appearances like the “Win a date with Drew” radio conterst, mugging for the cameras, his engagement to his potential fifth wife while still technically married to the missing Stacy — all actually happened. But it was behavior that served as a smokescreen for Peterson, a circus that diverted attention away from the murder Peterson has been accused of and the disappearance he’s suspected in. The movie, again to its credit, never delves to far into the media circus, instead choosing to keep its focus on Stacy’s disappearance and, to a lesser extent, Savio’s murder, mainly through Karen’s crusading efforts alongside Stacy’s sister…


  5. Two other Peterson attorneys told the Tribune that they were more concerned with Peterson’s own pre-trial antics — including a win-a-date-with-Drew contest on a local radio station — than they were about the movie.

    Peterson also did not seem overly worried about the movie’s impact on prospective jurors, Brodsky said.

    “Obviously he is concerned people might be influenced by the movie’s inaccuracies,” Brodsky said. “But we agreed that anyone who thinks a Lifetime movie is factual shouldn’t be on a jury in the first place.”

    So it’s agreed then. No reason to sue or move the trial and let’s all get on with our lives.

  6. Well, that’s comforting to know that he’s not worried about it.

    Yeah, I would imagine the domestic abuse and all was accurate. He has at least one son that was man enough to admit to his father’s abuse of Kathleen, and there is an ER report that documents her beating.

    As to their nonchalant attitude now, I would think that Peterson might be pondering what his other two attorneys have said is concerning to them, and it’s not this movie.

  7. Offering a plane ride? Well we know his plane was nothing like that one, but there are a few people who can attest that the first thing he offers women is a ride on either the plane or bike.

  8. OK, this liveblogging is kind of a pain in the ass. I think I’ll just watch the movie and if I see anything that I just have to comment on I will. But so far nothing that interesting…

  9. The guy playing Joe Hosey is made out to be a drinking bud of Drews. Truth is, Brodsky was calling his newspaper editor on a regular basis, trying to get him fired for one reason or another. Hardly a BFF of Big Daddy’s, no?

  10. I would like to know how does Lifetime know what the women in his life said if it was just them two together in some parts of the show? Do they just make up what they think may have been said? If that is the case it really doesn’t seem very fair or a correct evaluation of the situation? I understand dramatic licence…But by doing that and saying it is based on a true story… does that just mean anyone can make up something do a show and say anything just to sell a show? Drew Petterson may be guilty… Because you can never really know people. But that goes both ways. If people are not sure what really was said… by putting out a movie the public in general takes it as fact. Do they not? Of course the family is going to try to bring someone down if they are mad at them right…? Ever play telephone when you were a kid? The game of whispering a saying into one ear and watching it be morphed as it passes through a series of ‘neural networks’ – different brains sitting around the kitchen table. The Internet provides a glimpse at this process with quotations as the object of attention. It is part of our human nature to error because of our attentional biases shaped by culture and memories. It was a brilliant reminder that I will continue to ‘miss things’ or ‘see things from my history of experience’ regardless of my dedication to practicing mindfulness. So do we see what we want? Or do we tell what we think the truth is? Each choice is not wrong… but we have to make a choice and ask if what we are saying is the real thing? Not so clear now right? Why? Because what we say may convict a person or say a person is not guilty… right? People need to make up their mind. Guilty or not Guilty… Take a side but do not stand in the middle of the road… Now not saying it is not true… But What you tell a priest cannot be told to anyone else… They take a vow of silence… So why would a priest break that and is he excommunicated…? How does anyone know that garage thing is true? She cannot prove it…? right?
    Not on anyone persons side… But making up things is not right… A person maybe guilty… But that does not mean we sink to their level to bring them in… People may do that… But that is up to them… right…?

  11. Sorry about bailing but it was too hard to watch, think and comment at the same time.

    Now that I’ve seen the movie I don’t really have much of a reaction. The story was told, sort of. A lot was left out because it’s pre-trial–I get that–but the result was just sort of muddled.

    The show I’m waiting to see is Drew Peterson’s trial.

  12. I didn’t care much for this movie either. But, I think that being so involved in this story, knowing so much of the circumstances, makes it hard to judge it. I really do think that most who watch it, meaning those that didn’t follow this story as closely as we have, would think he’s a lousy, creepy jerk, and he has no one to blame but his arrogant self. No matter who tells the story and how.

  13. The timeline was so skewed and time was so condensed. That baby was still a newborn at the end! Drew was dating Raines before Morphey talked to state police (which in reality happened in the first 72 hours). I knew it would be a weird experience to see this stuff recreated for a movie, but I had no idea how strangely it would be depicted.

    As Rescue says, I think we’re just too familiar with the subject matter for it to resonate with us.

  14. Close to 9,000 views now.

    Maybe this movie will turn out to be a good thing. All of those views mean that people are looking for the facts of this case. Something they won’t get from Drew’s PR people.

    I’m feeling better now. 🙂

  15. I so agree with Rescue and Facs, being involved in one way or another, makes this movie hard to follow. It still made it somewhat hard to watch. The good thing though is keeping Kathleen and Stacy out there.

  16. Good job girls, You rock. This will spark peoples interest which is wonderful that they are coming here for info, and the truth.

  17. Being someone who is not familiar with the case, I thought the movie put a light on rekindling the flame to help find Stacy Peterson. Yes, alot of it was focused on Drew Peterson, but hey, he is the one the movie was made about… I think the movie did one thing right. I think it showed the world how big of a creep Peterson really is.

  18. I think there is a huge interest in this case still, and people want to see it through the end of the trial. I think it’s an insult to the intelligence of people to hear and see what comes from Peterson (now, solely through his mouthpiece, Brodsky), and be expected to believe in him. There is a total lack of support for Peterson by most everyone that passed through his life, and his dark, cold demeanor will be his downfall. The majority of the public, I believe, does not find humor in the death of two women, with four children between them. Those days are over. Peterson should start worrying about the monster he created with his mugging for the camera.

  19. I did like the character of Karen. I know she was based on Sharon but I think beyond that she did kind of encompass all the people who have been sympathetic to the families and interested in seeing justice. I liked Dent’s acting too.

  20. the Movie “Drew Peterson: Untouchable”
    Upcoming Airdates
    Sat Jan 21 at 8 PM Lifetime
    Sun Jan 22 at 12 AM
    Sun Jan 22 at 8 PM
    Mon Jan 23 at 12 AM
    Mon Jan 23 at 8 PM
    Tue Jan 24 at 12 AM
    Sat Jan 28 at 10 PM
    Sun Jan 29 at 2 AM
    Sat Feb 4 at 6 PM

  21. If Drew Petersen was portrayed correctly by Rob Lowe, my God what a scary sociopath. I believed he murdered poor Stacey, it seems to me she was a very good Mom, and would never have left her children. I live in Illinois, not to far from Bolingbrook, and have followed this story over the years. I find it hard to believe that she just called Drew and told him, she’s leaving with some guy, do they have his phone records, or did she conviently call from a pay phone?? Do they even have those still??? What a scary scary man.

  22. I think there is a lot of interest in this case. People are just waiting for the trial to finally begin.
    I’m disappointed in the movie, but is it possible the changes were made to avoid lawsuits?

  23. Sharon Bychowski wanted Stacy’s character accurately portrayed as being a very devoted mother, and whose friends and family meant so much to her. She continues to miss her presence so much. That came through in the movie.

    Many of us do agree that so much of what Peterson said and did is so bizarre, it’s hard to imagine it is true–but it is. When he was through with a love interest, he’d disconnect and get her out of his life, one way or another. Soon, he’ll get his chance to explain why he shouldn’t be convicted for Kathleen’s death, but he sure makes it hard to believe anything he says in his defense. He made his clowning around so public. He’s very hard to take.

  24. DD – I think everything in the movie was pretty accurate, since almost all of the lines and bits are in the public, online, in Fatal Vows, and in the media. Most of it can be found on this blog somewhere or other. Years of information is cataloged here!

    It’s just that the sequence of events were not as we may know them. I’m still not aware of where that opening scene information came from, if it is true and accurate. If anyone involved with this case knows, I wish they’d post here and let us know.

  25. Peterson is portrayed as a womanizing, despicable POS in this movie, if nothing else. Instead of his lead attorney using common sense and following protocol about keeping silent, what does he do? He takes what his client said, in confidence, I would assume, and passes it along to a newspaper columnist. Unless, of course, his client willingly told him to make a joke out of all of this, even with an upcoming trial for the murder of his ex-wife. No wonder Lifetime swept the floor with his character. He and his attorney pass along so much material….

    While watching the movie, Peterson chuckled at Lowe’s portrayal, and likened it to “Fantasy Island” and the popular film “Twilight.” “I guess I’m considered a vampire now,” he told Brodsky.

    Peterson quipped throughout the film with comments like, “That never happened . . . at least they got the names right.”

    † Peterson, who has used humor to deflect the seriousness of his situation, added some levity during one of film’s love scenes.

    During the sex scene, he is referred to as “Big Daddy.”

    “I guess I’m going to disappoint a lot of people when I get out,” he said.


  26. These times are for Eastern Time Zone

    the Movie “Drew Peterson: Untouchable”
    is now showing (11:00pm on Comcast channel 33 in Chicago

    Upcoming Airdates Eastern Time
    Sun Jan 22 at 8 PM
    Mon Jan 23 at 12 AM
    Mon Jan 23 at 8 PM
    Tue Jan 24 at 12 AM
    Sat Jan 28 at 10 PM
    Sun Jan 29 at 2 AM
    Sat Feb 4 at 6 PM

  27. I think some changes were made just to make for a better shot or story. For instance, the blue barrel being carried out to the street rather than Drew backing the Denali up to the garage.

    I thought it was odd that only Carcerano entered the house and found Kathleen’s body, when we know that Mary Ponterelli and her son were also there.

    You could pick the film apart scene for scene and find a thousand things that didn’t gel with the facts as we know them (we know that Brodsky suggested the ‘date with Drew’ game-not a radio personality) some of the omissions I’m sure were on the advisement of Lifetime’s legal team, don’t you think?

  28. Lyn, they do have the phone records from that night. Although Tom Morphey was told not to answer the phone that had been given to him to hold, he inadvertently answered one call which lasted for a few minutes.

    It’s possible that Drew created the “I’m leaving you” phone conversation fiction to cover the fact that despite his instructions, Morphey did answer the phone once.

  29. The beginning scene of the movie shows when DP was getting ready to appear on TV for the first Matt Lauer interview. This is where the story is based…the Matt Lauer TV interview.

  30. The good news is that the movie is generating a lot of interest! There is a wealth of information available about the true facts of the case for anyone that wants to research them.

  31. I wish I could tell Cassandra how many people are finding our blog tonight by search for the term “Stacy Peterson”, looking at pictures of Stacy and her children and searching for information about her. Not nearly as many are searching for anything about Drew.

    It breaks my heart so see how many people are searching with the term “Where is Stacy Peterson?” If only it was as easy as that to find her…

    It’s so weird though. Tonight this blog had its most views ever – more than when Drew was arrested. We’re just amazed.

  32. This is exactly what anyone would hope to accomplish or see–interest generated for the victims, not the murder defendant. We already know he’s a cold-hearted, arrogant SOB. He made jokes about the death of his ex-wife and the disappearance of his present wife, and judging by the comments being given the media from his lawyer, he continues to think this is one big joke.

    It’s not.

  33. I have to agree with what Cassie said about the movie and how it made stacy out to be this young women who was nieve and didnt know what was going on in her life or her husband life. Personally I think the movie was a joke and it was far fatch from the book itself, which i have read. My heart goes out to both kathleen and Stacy family.

  34. I only watched a portion of the movie, near the date with Drew Contest. The best thing I can say about the moving was the very end where they put up the fact that Stacy is still missing. Even if people are using the search term “Where is Stacy Peterson” that still means that people still got the message that this is more about a missing woman than the a$$ sitting in jail.

  35. I will be curious to see if the murder defendant, via his attorney, will let this movie firestorm calm down, as they should, or if they will ride the coattails of media attention and milk it for all they can.

    I was so surprised to see that Peterson’s lead attorney would provide idiotic soundbites to the media about Peterson’s reaction to watching the movie. As usual, it’s made out to be a silly joke. People don’t think the lives of these two moms of Peterson’s children are a joke.

    Two of Peterson’s other defense attorneys have only said that they are more concerned about the nonsense that Peterson and Brodsky engaged in prior to this movie. I see that even more, since there’s a few incidents featured in the movie that are the brainstorm of the murder defendant and his lead attorney. The radio win-a-date-with-Drew contest just weeks after Stacy disappeared, and then the Christina Raines “engagement” are two of them. Clowns, both of them.





  36. This didn’t make it in the movie, but another brainstorm of the twins was the attempt to sell Peterson’s Harley on Ebay for in excess of $50,000. It was taken down by Ebay and called murderabelia.


    Here’s where the striptease joke was first mentioned in a letter by Peterson, which his attorney happily passed along to a Chicago newspaper columnist, as he usually does.

    …accused wife murderer Drew Peterson, who is facing trial June 14, was strip searched and his cell was searched by a posse of Will County sheriff’s deputies looking for contraband last week, according to a source.

    • The upshot: The strip search reportedly prompted Peterson to say something like: “Why are you guys staring at my manhood? You interested in knowing why I do so well with women?”

    (scroll down)

  37. Please remember the victims!!!

    Drew Peterson is **Hopefully** Not #Untouchable

    After watching the movie that is about the exploits of Drew Peterson, I’m ready for people to step up and change this system that rewards the actions of people who do wrong and minimizes the pain of victims. The Lifetime TV network is supposedly “FOR women.” If that is true, then I want to see them do something that will be beneficial for real women who are abused.

    The only way this will happen is if we rise up and tell them that we want that to happen. Stop being silent. Silence is passive acceptance. We can no longer do that. It is not acceptable.

    I was Stacy Peterson’s pastor. And today, I’m a domestic violence activist because of her. Please, join me in making a difference today. Speak up about this! Tell everyone you know about this site: http://www.documenttheabuse.com. It is groundbreaking and will help give voices back to women whom have been silenced by their abusers.

    If you don’t do anything, the culture won’t change and 8 women will continue to die each day at the hands of their abusers. And abusers will remain untouchable.

    Rise up now to honor past victims and for the wives and mothers and daughters of tomorrow.




  38. From Susan Murphy Milano:

    Stacy Peterson: Searching Till She is Found
    Stacy Ann Peterson vanished on October 28, 2007, from the house in the Illinois suburb of Bolingbrook that she shared with her police-officer husband Drew Peterson, her two children and his two sons, whom she’d adopted.

    Within 48 hours, camera crews and journalists besieged the once quiet suburban cul-de-sac. Peterson, then a police sergeant, gave them a show — a bizarre public display including personal attacks on his wife and her family in the wake of her disappearance. The national media covered Peterson’s act like a low-life reality TV show. Each day as Peterson left his house, journalists shoved microphones in his face, hungry for a sound bite for evening crime or news broadcasts. If you were a resident of Illinois during the first three weeks after Stacy vanished, you saw Peterson served up on local, cable and radio programs like a charred chicken flapping its wings almost around the clock.

    After several months of being stalked and living under her husband’s tight, controlling reins, Stacy Peterson told her husband the marriage was over. In October 2007, Stacy met and consulted with divorce attorney Harry Smith — ironically, the same lawyerKathleen Savio hired to represent her when she decided to divorce Peterson.

    When Stacy failed to show up at her brother’s house that late-October day, family members were concerned, especially her sister Cassandra Cales. Just two days earlier, after a cozy family night of movie and pizza, Stacy warned Cassandra that she planned to leave Peterson and said: “If something happens to me, I just want you to know it was Drew.” When Cassandra couldn’t reach her missing sister, she went to Stacy’s house and found the four children home alone, with no sign of Peterson’s car. At theBolingbrook Police Department, Cassandra filed a missing-person report…….http://murphymilanojournal.blogspot.com/2011/06/stacy-peterson-searching-till-she-is.html

  39. I was angry when they showed Drew in the flag bandana. If they mentioned the 2-3 day he was mysteriously missing, I missed it-and THEN he took off the bandana! If I remember correctly, he never did that, leading to many suspicions and speculations of possible injuries to his face, hence the coverup.

Comments are closed.