Stacy’s family, Kathleen’s son and Peterson react after viewing “Drew Peterson: Untouchable”

The family of Stacy Peterson watched the premiere of the Lifetime movie, Drew Peterson:Untouchable, from the Bolingbrook hotel where Stacy was working when she first met Drew Peterson. They later met with the news media and gave their impressions of the film.

Drew and Kathleen’s eldest son, Tom Peterson, made mention of the film with a dry comment on his Facebook feed: “I’d never thought I’d see it: public excitement, anger, and frustration over a new lifetime movie.” He goes on to state that his father was portrayed as a much bigger jerk than he is and that neither he nor his brother ever walked in on their parents having sex.

(Where did they get the idea for that scene? We’ve been asking around and no one will fess up to having told the writers this story.)

Earlier in the day Joel Brodsky brought a DVD screener to Drew Peterson to watch via his lawyer’s laptop, while detained in the Will County Adult Detention Center in Joliet. Peterson’s reaction was predictable. He deemed the movie to be “hysterical” and complained about the way his hairstyle was worn by actor Rob Lowe. Joel Brodsky seemed most concerned with making sure everyone knew that the movie was a fictionalized account of events, despite the fact that the movie has never been marketed as a documentary.

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


38 thoughts on “Stacy’s family, Kathleen’s son and Peterson react after viewing “Drew Peterson: Untouchable”

  1. As usual, Peterson’s lawyer thinks this is all funny, and conveys the same thought from his client. Instead of making a dignified, professional comment, he turns it into his usual comedy central soundbite.

    What the hell is so funny about his client sitting in jail, in the fight of his life for a murder charge?

    He may not think this movie is deserving of anything other than his moment to make a few media rounds, ad nauseum, but it sure has generated a lot of new interest in this case, and it’s not to slap either one of these two clowns on the back.

    This blog has been following the Peterson cases for years, and this movie generated the highest interest in the case to date. Thousands and thousands of people wound up here!!! Higher than win-a-date-with-Drew jokes, or his engagement to another 23 year old who was making Las Vegas wedding plans. She was worried about that trip, though, because she didn’t have a passport (that’s the truth!!!).

    A change of venue, say Peru where another misfit was tried, might be a good idea. Maybe they don’t know Drew over there.

  2. Doggiesallover said:

    “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.”

    It seemed like they wanted to compress two incidents – the day when he skulked around in the bandana and the occasion when he was joking around with the press and putting his face up in the cameras. Fast and loose with the facts..

  3. Call me crazy but, watching the movie once again tonight. I think I am getting more out of it the second time around. Maybe it’s due to the fact that I had high expetations last night.

  4. Leave it to the man who almost pissed himself when Drew’s lawyer called in to his radio show to propose a “Win a Date with Drew”competition to now act as if it was a good idea.

    From Dahl’s Twitter feed:

    Steve Dahl
    And CBS made me look like a pussy by not letting me do it! It would have been HUGE!!! Another disco Demolition!

    I believe Dahl presently does podcasts from his basement…

  5. 1. Yes Brodsky, a murdered woman and a missing women makes for hilarious movies. Why the rest of the defense team hasn’t put a gag on him I’ll never understand. The biggest inaccuracy they could find to pick on was Rob Lowe’s hair piece? I do agree though that he was far to good looking to actually pass as Drew.

    2. I feel bad for Stacy’s family, watching that movie had to be so painful to watch 5 years of what they have lived summed up in under 2 hours.

    3. Note that Tom didn’t say “my dad is not a jerk like that.” he said hes not as big of jerk. Personally I think he is bigger, but that is his father after all.

  6. Shorewood Patch has a story this morning that deals with the strategy of Brodsky in possibly asking for a change of venue because of the Lifetime movie. What’s strange about that is, how and why do you ponder such a move when, in reality, the movie is on national television? Of course, many are shaking their heads too because Peterson and Brodsky did enough of their own pre-trial damage to last a Lifetime.

    Of the three most known attorneys on this case, one speaks with a forked tongue, while the other two try to whip it back in. Strange team, no? Isn’t a team supposed to be united, not divided? We seem to know who’s running this show, but it’s puzzling why the other two attorneys would even want to be associated with such a road show. I guess they know what they’re doing, though. They’re using their years of experience and ability to help save a murder defendant from being found guilty by a trial jury, even if they have to fight off the inner roadblocks that they encounter. Surely, it’s not to hang on as long as possible to keep their names attached to a very high profile case. Naw, that can’t be it.

  7. WGN News
    9:23 a.m. CST, January 23, 2012

    Fatal Vows author discusses Drew Peterson movie
    Some of the most critical viewers of the made-for-TV Drew Peterson movie, are those who are portrayed in it.

    “Drew Peterson: Untouchable” premiered on Lifetime Saturday, January 21.

    The movie jumps all over a five year timeline to tell the story of Drew Peterson, his third wife Kathleen Savio, and his fourth wife Stacy Peterson.

    Peterson is played by Rob Lowe.

    His attorney Joel Brodsky says Peterson watched the movie in jail and thought it was ‘hysterical.’

    Brodsky said that Peterson chuckled at inaccuracies in the film and events that were portrayed but never happened.

    The movie’s screenplay was adapted from Joe Hosey’s book, “Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Drew Peterson.”

    Hosey is a newspaper reporter who covered the story when Stacy Peterson disappeared.

    On Monday, Hosey told the WGN Morning News that he has watched the movie twice and was “impressed.”

    “I wrote the book, and I sold the book, and the screenwriter took a few liberties,” said Hosey. “There was some changes in the chronology and (the screenwriter) invented dialogue, as well, that’s not in my book or probably in real life either.”

    “The chronology was changed, but the screenwriter packed five years of complex storyline into a couple of hours, so she had to take a few liberties I would think,” said Hosey.

    Peterson is charged with murdering Savio in her home.

    He has been in the Will County Jail for over two years, while lawyers argue over hearsay testimony in the case.

    Brodsky says the Peterson movie could taint the jury pool and justify a change of venue for the trial.

    “I don’t know what venue he’s going to find where they don’t have cable television or find a jury that doesn’t have access to this movie,” said Hosey. “If anything I think the movie heightened awareness of the case, the plight of two women where one is missing and one is dead. If anything, it’s a good thing.”

    As for Peterson’s reaction to the movie, Hosey, who has interviewed Peterson, said, “He’s got one dead wife and one missing wife.. if he thinks that’s hysterical, that sounds like Drew to me.”,0,5180881.story

  8. The airwaves and Internet Peterson stories are all abuzz with the word “hysterical,” about Peterson’s reaction to Untouchable. IMO, I don’t quite think that was a word that I’d want sticking in the minds of people who were interested in what Peterson’s reaction to the movie was. After all, the movie was about an ex-police sergeant who has a dead ex-wife and a missing fourth wife. Oh, and it didn’t leave out the fact that he was working on wife #5 while still married to missing wife #4. This may all sound like Hollywood, but it is, in fact, the truth!

    I can say that the interest the movie generated is continuing to soar like I’ve never seen, judging by the amount of hits this blog has received. Kathleen and Stacy, their children and families, the death photo, the almost-fifth wife, Raines, is what they’re wanting to learn the truth about. Hits from all over the world (so, forget about moving that trial to a new venue; you can run but you can’t hide).

    Yesterday’s Justice Cafe views: 20,608

  9. For the record, an actual quote of what Tom Peterson said about his dad’s depiction in the movie:

    I think i need to clear up some generalizations…
    1) My dad is DEFINITELY NOT as much of a bad ass as Lowe portrayed him to be, nor as a jerk of a father
    2) Neither Kris or I have ever called him ‘big daddy’…or walk in on him having sex….
    there are more…but I think those were my big ones…

  10. On behalf of the Chicagoist staff and Do312, I wanted to thank everyone who attended Saturday night’s Drew Peterson: Untouchable viewing party at Liar’s Club. Amy Cavanaugh wrote about what the real D-Pete thought of the movie, and Marcus Gilmer weighed in with his review of the movie at the A.V. Club. For us, the combination of Rob Lowe being miscast as Peterson, yet attacking the role with the campy relish the Lifetime production required, made for mesmerizing, but not good, television. Lowe apparently decided that Elwood Blues would serve as the baseline for his Chicago accent, with some of Steve Dahl’s “Anthony” character t’rown in.

    We also wanted to thank you for helping raise money and supplies for Metropolitan Family Services.

    We raised $224 dollars in cash and some of you brought board games, toiletries and other supplies which will be put to good use by the organization. You helped make the best of a surreal situation.


    World Premiere Starring Rob Lowe and Kaley Cuoco Becomes Cable’s Most Watched Original Movie among Total Viewers in Two Years

    LOS ANGELES, CA (January 23, 2012) – In its world premiere Saturday night, the Lifetime Original Movie Drew Peterson: Untouchable, starring Golden Globe® and Emmy® Award nominee Rob Lowe and Kaley Cuoco, generated record viewership, averaging 5.8 million Total Viewers, making it cable’s most watched original movie in the demo in two years since Lifetime’s The Pregnancy Pact on January 23, 2010. Additionally, the 5.8 million Total Viewers represent a 241% jump versus Lifetime’s original movie premiere average in 2011…….

  12. Lengthy interview with Brodsky is at the link below. Typical Brodsky bluster and BS but a few interesting statements. He claims:

    1. He has no idea where Michael Sneed gets her information. “she’s got some great sources” (Ummm…OK. So I wonder what he and Sneed are talking about when they’re seen having drinks together?)

    2. Sharon was “much worse” than the way the neighbor “Karen” was depicted in the movie. (But Joel was too scared to say her last name. Wuss.)

    3. They probably won’t try to move the trial because of the movie and he thinks they will be able to get fair jurors despite the movie

    4. Once Drew is acquitted they’ll consider legal action against Lifetime

    5. He’s “glad” that he wasn’t depicted in the Lifetime movie (Hoo boy I’ll bet he is. Especially since he was the idiot who proposed the “date with drew” game and instigated most of the stunts)

    A couple good calls from listeners, too:,0,2416032.mp3file

  13. You know, I expect him to say bad things about the movie. It’s his job. The movie is what it is, as far as how the sequence of events occurred, etc.

    The truth is, and this is what they should be worried about, the movie generated so much interest and attention, like it or not, people want to know what happened to these two women, not what the defense says happened to them. For two years prior to his arrest, Peterson and Brodsky blubbered their way through interview after interview.

    In that one part of the movie, where Peterson is seen walking away from an interview because it wasn’t going the way he wanted to, that was an actual event, but not as it was portrayed.

    Shepherd Smith was interviewing Peterson, he was smiling and joking, UNTIL Smith brought up the blue barrel. Peterson got hissy, pulled off his media gear, and walked away like a spoiled brat.

    Brodsky’s intent was to use his “white noise” theory to keep Peterson in the public eye. He said it worked for Robert Blake. He knows he’s going against what is advised by other defense attorneys by way of keeping their clients quiet. But, obviously, he meant to play to the jury pool of the future.

    Now, he’s worried about how people perceive this movie, and doesn’t want them to think it’s factual or worthy. Well, you reap what you sow.

    Play it again, Sam. Cue up the muzak.

  14. In this interview, Brodsky is not flattering to Sharon, the neighbor, who was portrayed prominently in this movie. What comes out of his mouth is about as worthless as the time it took to listen to it.

    Brodsky and Peterson obtained and paid for some pictures of Tom Morphey, that were provided to them by an ex-girlfriend. The pictures were approximately 10 years old. Brodsky used to get those pictures published, and said they depict Morphey as the druggie they made him out to be. They also passed them off as recent. Brodsky also tried to get those pictures on camera on a Dan Abrams segment, but they didn’t accommodate him.

    We know what he’s capable of, and he tends to twist the facts himself. I wouldn’t put much stock into what he says is or isn’t Sharon’s real demeanor, since he’s the one that has a client cooling his jets in a jail cell for the crime of murder. Ya think?

  15. Oh and let’s not forget this video! What a slip of the tongue!

    1:30 into video he says he told the kids she is on vacation and isn’t coming back! Then when they ask him why he said that, he said he didn’t say that! He then changes it to he didn’t mean that, and he meant he doesn’t know when she is coming back.

  16. Yes!!!!!

    The Illinois Supreme Court is expected to announce Tuesday an experimental ruling to allow cameras in Illinois courtrooms.

    For the last 194 years, sketch artists or other means of creativity have been the only way to visually depict what’s transpired during proceedings.

    “The idea behind this is simple. We need to have the courts be more open. By having the public keeping an eye on what is going on in the courtroom, it can act as a check in the balance of power,” Illinois Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride told Illinois Statehouse News in an exclusive interview.

    The new policy includes some restrictions:

    Jurors and potential jurors may not be photographed.
    Cameras and recording devices will not be allowed in juvenile, divorce, adoption, child custody and evidence suppression cases.
    No more than two television cameras and no more than two still photographers will be allowed in a courtroom at one time.
    Victims of violent felonies, police informants and relocated witnesses may request that the judge prohibit them from being photographed.

    Illinois currently is just one of 14 states where cameras in trial courtrooms are either not allowed or not used. Another is Ohio, which is currently using puppets to depict a corruption trial.

  17. I was just thinking, is Joel Brodsky saying that Michael Sneed “has some great sources” like when he used to say that he “knew” the owner of Addiction Bar and Grill?

    The guy can lie like a pro!

  18. Interview with Pamela Bosco on the phone with “Big John and Amy” on WIND today.

    Highlights include:

    1. She says it was just weird watching the movie because the details as they were depicted were so inaccurate. Like the story of people they didn’t know.

    2. She doesn’t think the movie will have any impact on the jury pool or trial because of the media saturation done by Joel and Drew.

    3. Pam says there was no “other man” and the Stacy would never have left her children.

    4. Cassandra and she discussed that there was no incident that they know of when Drew threw her into a TV (although there was a damaged TV), but that he was stalking and harassing her.

    5. She says that she believes there is evidence enough to convict Drew and that is why he has not been allowed his freedom while he awaits trial.

    6. Pam gives an accurate run down of the events on the day that Stacy disappeared, complete with small details like Cass coming to Pam’s to bring her a puppy.

    7. Also a creepy revelation about going to Kathleen’s house after she had died and Drew trying to sell her Kathleen’s belongings…

    You should listen to this for yourself!

  19. Newsflash. We HAVE seen cameras in the courtroom on TruTV. We don’t live in caves. We know what trials are like and what happens in a courtroom. Yeah, we’ll be impressed by how hard the professionals work in the system, not mugging for the cameras and winning dates for Drew on radio. Bah!


    Peterson’s lead defense attorney, Joel Brodsky, said allowing cameras in court will dispel myths about the court system that are often created in movies and TV shows.

    “People get the impression of what a trial is like or what happens in a courtroom from TV and from made-for-TV movies, and that’s not reality,” he said. “I really think that people, when they actually see the system working and the professionals that work really hard in the system, they’re going to be impressed and they’re going to have a better understating of what the justice system is all about.”,0,1407306.story

  20. Golly gee. You mean they can send a movin’ piktcher from a courtroom out into my livin’ roooom???

    Next thing ya know they’ll be constructin’ one of them there inormashion highways…

  21. The way the movie portrays the situation … one gets the impression that Stacy did not even worry about the probable murder of Kathleen until she herself felt threatened. Why is that? Was Kathleen just a bitch in her mind, meriting whatever fate befell her? Did she not even care what happened to Kathleen, and her children, as long as she was “getting hers”? Or, even at that point, was she terrified of her husband? The best guess one can make from the movie is that she was full of wishful thinking, turning a blind eye to the evidence and relieved when the coroner’s report came back stating accidental death by drowning. Unfortunately, Stacy’s failure to come forward with the evidence of her husband’s probable hand in his former wife’s death probably cost her her life.

  22. Rhonda, I think one could speculate endlessly about Stacy’s feelings and motivations, but I’d be careful not to base any opinions on what was depicted in the Lifetime movie. It’s just a movie.

    Personally, I try not to blame Stacy so much for her period of silence. Peterson has a track record of preying on young women with unstable backgrounds. He met and wooed Stacy at the age of 17 and eventually came to control and manipulate her to a dangerous degree. When she eventually matured and tried to escape the relationship and threatened to tell the truth, he ended her life (I believe). If you feel that she was complicit and deserved some measure of comeuppance, then she surely got it and without the benefit of trial, judge or jury.

    At this point both the Savio and Cales families have put aside any animosities and are joined in supporting justice for both women. I think that’s the wisest course. If Drew Peterson is the man who killed them both, then he’s the one who needs to be convicted and punished.

  23. For the record, Stacy’s step-sister remembers an incident in which Stacy was thrown into a TV (and that’s most likely where the Lifetime people got the idea for that incident). It’s possible Pam and Cass don’t remember or never heard about it.

    …Kerry says Stacy confided that Drew got physical with her too.

    Kerry Simmons: He threw her down the stairs. There was an instance where he had knocked her into the TV. I think one time he actually picked her up and threw her across the room. I mean she’s small. She’s 100 pounds.

  24. The incident with the tv – I remember seeing that from somewhere. The point with that or any other incident is, just because one person or another wasn’t aware of it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Most sisters are close and share life stories. But, being and having a sister doesn’t mean every possible detail of each other’s lives are shared. I can understand that a woman in an abusive relationship might not blurt out the gory details to her family because of embarrassment, or because of not wanting others to think badly of the abusing spouse. Until it gets to the point where it can’t be hidden anymore.

    As Facs and I were talking about the other day, Facs made a good point — Peterson might not have walked down the street kicking puppies on a regular basis, but that doesn’t mean he’s the great guy he wants us to think he is. And, as Joe Hosey pointed out Peterson may have come across as a likeable, joking guy, but he wasn’t married to him. 😉

Comments are closed.