Drew Peterson arrested! [Archive] - In Session Message Boards

TobyWong

05-21-2008, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by emdragon
I'd edit the thread title your going to get people excited thinking he was arrest on murder charges not a weapons violation, which is lame and borders on police harassment. [/*]
I saw the headline on Nancy Grace and with out listening,rushed to check here. This just gives drew and his "lawyer" more air time and does nothing for Stacy and Kahtleens cases. I can only hope and pray that they have something eles. Though I would love for drew to be put in jail I was really hoping it would be for something far more serious. Now we have to endure another round of poor drew bs. JMO

GentleBreeze

05-21-2008, 09:25 PM

I am just totally confused. I just googled SWAT team guidelines and all of them say if the weapon is used in a Swat team tactical unit it is always locked and secured in the police department's arsenal and never leaves the premise.

So he has used this same weapon for 10 years and they didn't know it was 3/8 of an inch off? Don't they have paperwork and inventory for each of their weapons? And if they did from day one then he couldn't have altered it.

And how are they charging him if he was a police officer when the SW was done the first of November when the panel didn't accept his retirement until November 15th?

If he wasn't legally supposed to have this weapon at his personal home then who signed the gun out and gave it to him?

imoo

GentleBreeze

05-21-2008, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by kizzzy
The GUN was NOT police issue !! [/*]

Did the media report that? TIA

Well one thing about it though... kizzzy, it was police accepted for 10 whole years.

imoo

unclezeek

05-21-2008, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

Did the media report that? TIA

Well one thing about it though... kizzzy, it was police accepted for 10 whole years.

imoo [/*]Police can purchase a gun and register it as a service weapon. This is what he is claiming he did.

Police are exempt from the length law so there would be no reason to ever measure the gun. In fact, most tactical officers do use shorter guns since it is easier to move around and such.

Anakerie

05-21-2008, 10:07 PM

A lot of what I've been hearing on the news are quotes from Drew and Brodsky. I have to ask myself, should we trust him?

For me, the answer is "no". He's a suspect. Suspect's statements need to be taken with a grain of salt... Or maybe a bucket full.

Fallen Angel

05-21-2008, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by emdragon

Who cares?

The charge stems from Nov. if they had a problem with it they should have arrested him then not 6 months later. [/*]why are you so upset about this? Doesn't matter when he gets arrested now does it? He broke the law. PERIOD.

They could have arrested Scott Peterson and many other criminals but they wait and sit on stuff and the right time will come. Guess what? Today was the right time:D

unclezeek

05-21-2008, 10:14 PM

kizzzy

05-21-2008, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

Did the media report that? TIA

Well one thing about it though... kizzzy, it was police accepted for 10 whole years.

imoo [/*]

BB PD just cleared that all up on Greta and earlier NG .
Maybe you can find the transcipt.
Also on NG they named many high profile arrests that started out with smaller charges.
Someone on NG also said having a felony on him could help regarding his taking the fifth,
I can't stay here tonight but check transcripts ......nighters

:seeya:

emdragon

05-21-2008, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
why are you so upset about this? Doesn't matter when he gets arrested now does it? He broke the law. PERIOD.

They could have arrested Scott Peterson and many other criminals but they wait and sit on stuff and the right time will come. Guess what? Today was the right time:D [/*]

It bothers me because it reek of harassment not justice.

The gun was OK while he was on the force and the legality of it wasn't questioned in court as a reason not to return it to DP.

He was never someone that was respected while on the force so I just don't see why he got away with the gun all that time but now that they are going to have to give it back they arrest him.

It looks vindictive and just gives DP more camera time.

wandering

05-21-2008, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by kizzzy

BB PD just cleared that all up on Greta and earlier NG .
Maybe you can find the transcipt.
Also on NG they named many high profile arrests that started out with smaller charges.
Someone on NG also said having a felony on him could help regarding his taking the fifth,
I can't stay here tonight but check transcripts ......nighters

:seeya: [/*]I also recall a TH on NG saying they might have done it to keep him from leaving the area.

aubrey04

05-21-2008, 10:43 PM

Holy Heck!

On Nancy Grace tonight - one of the TH's said that if Drew is convicted of this crime - he could lose his $6,000/mo pension.

If he is convicted of ANY crime that transpired during his police duty period --- they can take away his pension.

I will just say IMO on this until the transcript to tonights show is available on her website.

Also, they said that the type of gun drew had -- had to be modified and "sawed off:" to be that short length and the police are denying that -- that was the gun used by Drew when he was part of the SWAT team.

emdragon

05-21-2008, 10:45 PM

If he had plans to leave the area I could see the timing for the arrest but he has no such plans.. this guy thinks he is teflon (and to date he has been)

The reason for the arrest is clear, the hearing tomorrow about returning the guns.

And why they didn't just tell the judge the gun wasn't legal is the question. They could have kept the gun out of DP hands without causing the media circus that they did today.

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 10:45 PM

Although the AP article says the weapons charge isn't related to Stacy's disappearance, I still wonder if perhaps the BPD/DA believe that weapon might have been used to kill Stacy? Didn't Greta mention a suppressor?

Anakerie

05-21-2008, 10:46 PM

I just watched part of Greta's show.. When she was talking to Sharon. Drew's little game with the car alarms was stupid. Childish even... What a jerk. If he truly wants his "image" repaired, he should stop doing stupid stuff like that.

5boxersmom

05-21-2008, 10:47 PM

Did anyone see Greta? While she was trying to interview Sharon, Drew was pushing his alarm buttons on the car and SUV. Making the horns beep and the lights flash.

Sharon went right on with the interview.

:beer:

aubrey04

05-21-2008, 10:47 PM

Also. Pam Bosco phoned into Nancy Grace and said that the reason the forums on the Stacy Peterson website were shut down had nothing to do with Drew. She said they were getting too difficult to moderate and decided to terminate the boards.

Bosco, also, said that neither the FBI or local police have contacted them regarding Drew and Brodsky's claim that they contacted both to complain about being spied on and "harassed".

IMO again .. until I can get the transcript.

emdragon

05-21-2008, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04
Holy Heck!

On Nancy Grace tonight - one of the TH's said that if Drew is convicted of this crime - he could lose his $6,000/mo pension.

If he is convicted of ANY crime that transpired during his police duty period --- they can take away his pension.

I will just say IMO on this until the transcript to tonights show is available on her website.

Also, they said that the type of gun drew had -- had to be modified and "sawed off:" to be that short length and the police are denying that -- that was the gun used by Drew when he was part of the SWAT team. [/*]

Nothing against you but 80% of the information given on Nancy Grace turns out to be incorrect.

Greta is a bit better on the facts and she even showed where the charging documents aren't correct. (it can be amended but once again they gave DP and Brodsky ammunition to support their point of view,rather than having their ducks in a row to shut them down)

north-eh

05-21-2008, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by 5boxersmom
Did anyone see Greta? While she was trying to interview Sharon, Drew was pushing his alarm buttons on the car and SUV. Making the horns beep and the lights flash.

Sharon went right on with the interview.

:beer: [/*]

Yes I did, how childish was that?? He also did it a couple of times when the panel was on, and they figured he must have been watching because he seem to respond to them. OMG DP thinks this is really funny, and they are playing some kind of game. I think DP might just be teetering on the brink IMO. Strange.....
N

aubrey04

05-21-2008, 10:54 PM

Here is a copy of the warrant for Drew Peterson's arrest.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/21/peterson.weapon.charge.pdf

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by june1943

Wouldn't you think 4 kids in the house would have heard a gun shot? [/*]

Greta mentioned a suppressor, which is the favored term replacing silencer.

MystryPhobia

05-21-2008, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by grammybear
It seems to me over the years there have been a few cases where a wife has disappeared and no charges are filed, that eventually the charges do come. I cannot remember the name right now but there was one case where the woman disappeared and the husband/exhusband was the poi. He was only arrested later on for living off of the children's trust. I have not heard anything new about that case but I know it has happened in the past. I also think that in the case of Teresa Parker who disappeared her husband was recently arrested even though they have never found Teresa's body. So just because Stacy's body has not been found I am sure that this situation will come to an end one day soon.

jmoo [/*]

That does happen grammybear. I think about Theresa Parker often. Her husband still sits in jail charged. I don't think there is any pending trial yet tho. I really wish he and Drew Peterson would man up and tell where their wives are and end so much pain and heartache.

5boxersmom

05-21-2008, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by north-eh

Yes I did, how childish was that?? He also did it a couple of times when the panel was on, and they figured he must have been watching because he seem to respond to them. OMG DP thinks this is really funny, and they are playing some kind of game. I think DP might just be teetering on the brink IMO. Strange.....
N [/*]

That's what I thought too. He thinks it is all a big joke.
barf

aubrey04

05-21-2008, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by emdragon

Nothing against you but 80% of the information given on Nancy Grace turns out to be incorrect.

Greta is a bit better on the facts and she even showed where the charging documents aren't correct. (it can be amended but once again they gave DP and Brodsky ammunition to support their point of view,rather than having their ducks in a row to shut them down) [/*]

I wouldn't say 80% but you're right .. there is a lot of inaccurate information... but I think there is a possibility that it is true that they could yank his pension, if he convicted.

You're probably right about Greta having more accurate information but I was just flipping through the channels and was shocked when I saw the banner on NG, so I stuck with it.

MystryPhobia

05-21-2008, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04
Here is a copy of the warrant for Drew Peterson's arrest.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/21/peterson.weapon.charge.pdf [/*]

IIRC... didn't this have something to do with the gunshot at his home that went through the ceiling of the garage or is this something totally different. I had heard they were trying to bring some kind of charges against him for not reporting that incident or something. Sorry.. I am drawing a half blank about the whole thing.

aubrey04

05-21-2008, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by grammybear
It seems to me over the years there have been a few cases where a wife has disappeared and no charges are filed, that eventually the charges do come. I cannot remember the name right now but there was one case where the woman disappeared and the husband/exhusband was the poi. He was only arrested later on for living off of the children's trust. I have not heard anything new about that case but I know it has happened in the past. I also think that in the case of Teresa Parker who disappeared her husband was recently arrested even though they have never found Teresa's body. So just because Stacy's body has not been found I am sure that this situation will come to an end one day soon.

jmoo [/*]

Hans Reiser was recently convicted of his wife's murder, even though he body was never found.

Skylar and Jennifer Deleon were arrested for the murder of a couple - whose bodies were never found. Jennifer was convicted -- and Skylar will be tried some time soon.

Kenny and Sante Kimes were convicted of the murder of Irene Silverman -- her body was never found.

Diazien Hossencofft and Linda Henning were both convicted of the murder of Girly Hossencofft, -- her body was never found.

There have been plenty of "no body" murder convictions.

There just has to be evidence that the person was murdered and police have enough evidence to convict the person.

aubrey04

05-21-2008, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by MystryPhobia

IIRC... didn't this have something to do with the gunshot at his home that went through the ceiling of the garage or is this something totally different. I had heard they were trying to bring some kind of charges against him for not reporting that incident or something. Sorry.. I am drawing a half blank about the whole thing. [/*]

That PDF arrest warrant was issued for an incident on November 1st, 2007 .. I think that is when Drew's guns were taken from him. .. but that arrest warrant was signed and issued on May 20th, 2008 day (yesterday).

I think this is arrest warrant is solely based on him being in possession of an illegal gun --- a gun with a barrel that is less than 16 inches long... That's all that is stated in the arrest warrant, at least.

Ms. Monk

05-21-2008, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by emdragon
I'd edit the thread title your going to get people excited thinking he was arrest on murder charges not a weapons violation, which is lame and borders on police harassment. [/*]

You do know that he loves any attention he can get, even negative attention. I think you'd be better off if you saved your sympathy for someone who deserves it.

Mamie

05-21-2008, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by MystryPhobia

IIRC... didn't this have something to do with the gunshot at his home that went through the ceiling of the garage or is this something totally different. I had heard they were trying to bring some kind of charges against him for not reporting that incident or something. Sorry.. I am drawing a half blank about the whole thing. [/*]

Hi Mystry!:seeya: I remember the gun that was fired through the upstairs bedroom (I think) that went through the floor and into the garage. Stacy had told her sister about it that DP had asked her to go get him a soft drink or something from the garage and then the gun went off not too far from where she was at the time in the garage. DP said he was cleaning the gun and it discharged. I think.

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Mamie

Hi Mystry!:seeya: I remember the gun that was fired through the upstairs bedroom (I think) that went through the floor and into the garage. Stacy had told her sister about it that DP had asked her to go get him a soft drink or something from the garage and then the gun went off not too far from where she was at the time in the garage. DP said he was cleaning the gun and it discharged. I think. [/*]

I wonder if that was an attempt by DP to intimidate Stacy? When I first heard that story, I didn't believe the gun went off accidentally while he was cleaning it. I've always felt it was a threatening gesture. It might have been a warning of things to come.

IMO

velvetbrown

05-21-2008, 11:59 PM

So happy to see Drew P arrested. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Mamie

05-22-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

I wonder if that was an attempt by DP to intimidate Stacy? When I first heard that story, I didn't believe the gun went off accidentally while he was cleaning it. I've always felt it was a threatening gesture. It might have been a warning of things to come.

IMO [/*]

Hi there Paula----agree that it didn't sound like it was an accident to me either, but my thought was that he was hoping he would get lucky and she would have been gone then---before she had a chance to go to an attorney, or her minister, etc. Of course, he would just be worse off sooner because that would mean two wives of his dead and the re-autopsy would still have happened on Kathleen but there wouldn't be the extra stories from the attorney and the minister maybe----don't know about timeline regarding when that happened versus the gun going off. JMO

Amy S.

05-22-2008, 12:25 AM

Perhaps the police are trying to protect the 22 YO girlfriend, by letting her know how close they are looking at Drew.

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 12:32 AM

He looks SO handsome in his mugshot.

barf

What do women see in him? Seriously....?

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/lisle/archive/x1902443396/BREAKING-NEWS-Neighbors-Police-officials-at-Drew-Petersons-house

Hey Paula

05-22-2008, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Mamie

Hi there Paula----agree that it didn't sound like it was an accident to me either, but my thought was that he was hoping he would get lucky and she would have been gone then---before she had a chance to go to an attorney, or her minister, etc. Of course, he would just be worse off sooner because that would mean two wives of his dead and the re-autopsy would still have happened on Kathleen but there wouldn't be the extra stories from the attorney and the minister maybe----don't know about timeline regarding when that happened versus the gun going off. JMO [/*]

Hiya Mamie! :seeya:

I wouldn't be surprised if LE found something which had led them to suspect this particular gun might be tied to Stacy's disappearance, even though it's been stated as unrelated.

Since Stacy knew what happened to Katleen, and likely kept it to herself for some time before relating it to the minister, I honestly believe that near gunshot miss was a warning and not an accidental discharge.

IMO

Hey Paula

05-22-2008, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by aubrey04
He looks SO handsome in his mugshot.

barf

What do women see in him? Seriously....?

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/lisle/archive/x1902443396/BREAKING-NEWS-Neighbors-Police-officials-at-Drew-Petersons-house [/*]

I can't imagine what any woman would see in him. His immaturity, cockiness and arrogance are even less appealing than his mug.

IMO

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 12:41 AM

Transcript of Nancy's show is online right now. Here is part of it:

TERRY: Yes. I wanted to find out if Drew Peterson was charged with a felony. Why he -- when he was a police officer and he had the gun at the time, could he lose his pension?

GRACE: Excellent question. Jon Leiberman "America`s Most Wanted," clear it up for us.

JON LEIBERMAN, CORRESPONDENT, AMERICA`S MOST WANTED: That`s a great question. Yes, if he is found to have committed a felony while he was a police officer with Bolingbrook, his $6,000 a month pension can be taken away.

GRACE: Oh, excuse me, did you say $6,000 a month? The taxpayers are paying.

LEIBERMAN: That`s exactly what I said, Nancy. The taxpayers write him a check every month right now.

Full transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/21/ng.01.html

Amy S.

05-22-2008, 12:42 AM

I am about Drew's age and he is not very appealling to me. Those bags under the eyes are awful. Plus, I bet he snores.

Mayasmimi

05-22-2008, 12:54 AM

I have a friend who is kinda removed, but still knows some people who know some people and he has an opinion. I brought up the arrest. He said BS weapons charges. I replied that it seems like the police are messing with Peterson. He agreed. We agreed that we appreciate the effort. Also....talked about Peterson's new YOUNG girl friend? What took him so long?

Anyway....I wonder what the arrest was really about.

emdragon

05-22-2008, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by aubrey04

I wouldn't say 80% but you're right .. there is a lot of inaccurate information... but I think there is a possibility that it is true that they could yank his pension, if he convicted.

You're probably right about Greta having more accurate information but I was just flipping through the channels and was shocked when I saw the banner on NG, so I stuck with it. [/*]

I don't get home from work in time to see Nancy most nights, and she drives me nuts when I do watch... But I do watch when she has a case that others are not covering, but so many times her information is so far wrong that it takes away from the information she is trying to get out.

Ms. Monk- it has nothing to do with sympathy for him, I just don't like the tactics being used and feel they are so transparent it does a huge disservice to the case in general.
Your right he loves attention to bad BPD couldn't have kept the gun from him without GIVING him the attention he craves.

This has nothing to do with anything having to so with Stacy other than they seized the guns because of the case. They will have to return DP property tomorrow and that is why they arrested him today and no other reason.

And should Drew actually have the proof that the department knew this gun was in his possession and was used on the job they will look like fools.

Mayasmimi

05-22-2008, 01:45 AM

Not arguing, but this case is nearly 7 months old. IMO....no way LE is going to do something today that will make them look like "fools" tomorrow. Betcha there's more going on here. Well, hope so. We'll soon see.

magpie1

05-22-2008, 02:27 AM

On Greta tonight, Bolingbrook Police Chief McCury released a written statement which was read on the air.

In his statement, Chief McCury stated that law enforcement had returned the two service weapons that were issued to Drew Peterson to the Bolingbrook Police Dept.

He further stated that the gun in question was NOT a Bolingbrook PD weapon, had never been registered with the department, was illegal, and that Drew Peterson had purchased the gun from a third party for his own use.

So evidently the gun in question was NOT in any way associated with Drew's job as a police officer with the Bolingbrook PD.

Amy

05-22-2008, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by aubrey04
He looks SO handsome in his mugshot.

barf

What do women see in him? Seriously....?

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/lisle/archive/x1902443396/BREAKING-NEWS-Neighbors-Police-officials-at-Drew-Petersons-house [/*]

He must have some winning personality that he doesn't show to the media/public, I guess. Not my type, tho.

henry

05-22-2008, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by magpie1
On Greta tonight, Bolingbrook Police Chief McCury released a written statement which was read on the air.

In his statement, Chief McCury stated that law enforcement had returned the two service weapons that were issued to Drew Peterson to the Bolingbrook Police Dept.

He further stated that the gun in question was NOT a Bolingbrook PD weapon, had never been registered with the department, was illegal, and that Drew Peterson had purchased the gun from a third party for his own use.

So evidently the gun in question was NOT in any way associated with Drew's job as a police officer with the Bolingbrook PD. [/*]

excellent summary and the chief's written statement on GVS clarified this arrest . . . it's at the very end of the clip . . . and the chief invites jbrodsky to supoena their records . . . no serial number recorded and no inspection done . . . sounds like he used an illegal & unauthorized weapon on duty.

http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Mayasmimi
Not arguing, but this case is nearly 7 months old. IMO....no way LE is going to do something today that will make them look like "fools" tomorrow. Betcha there's more going on here. Well, hope so. We'll soon see. [/*]

I guess it all depends on who one believes :shrug:

My money is on the police chief . He spoke on Greta and made the facts clear, He was no fool

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Kathy*Rae
Snipped for space:

:lol: Yeah SO handsome....

He could have packed enough clothes for a few days in lock-up in those "bags" under his eyes..

I honestly think the strain is starting to get to Drew P.

Perhaps a wee bit....? I hope...

:D [/*]

I think searching for info online (about himself) and watching for any info about himself on TV could cause his narcisistic (sp) self to lose sleep.
He prolly has his eyes fixed all night to see who drives by his house.
He is too much the sociopath , no conscience = no worry !

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by magpie1
On Greta tonight, Bolingbrook Police Chief McCury released a written statement which was read on the air.

In his statement, Chief McCury stated that law enforcement had returned the two service weapons that were issued to Drew Peterson to the Bolingbrook Police Dept.

He further stated that the gun in question was NOT a Bolingbrook PD weapon, had never been registered with the department, was illegal, and that Drew Peterson had purchased the gun from a third party for his own use.

So evidently the gun in question was NOT in any way associated with Drew's job as a police officer with the Bolingbrook PD. [/*]

I posted that last night but further posts by others seemed to not believe ( or ignored) me lol.

Amy S.

05-22-2008, 08:31 AM

His little children have to be in a living H*ll.

First their mother is missing (and in the case of the 2nd wife, dead), then there is the removing them from the home, all the media attention, then moving them back home, goofy dad, new GF and their father sets off the car alarm whenever it suits him.

Little kids need a stable environment, not a 3 ring circus.

tallcoolone

05-22-2008, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by kizzzy

I posted that last night but further posts by others seemed to not believe ( or ignored) me lol. [/*]*sigh* No honey, me thinks some here exercise selective reading skills............... but it's okay, it might be all the exercise they get.........

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze
I am just totally confused. I just googled SWAT team guidelines and all of them say if the weapon is used in a Swat team tactical unit it is always locked and secured in the police department's arsenal and never leaves the premise.

So he has used this same weapon for 10 years and they didn't know it was 3/8 of an inch off? Don't they have paperwork and inventory for each of their weapons? And if they did from day one then he couldn't have altered it.

And how are they charging him if he was a police officer when the SW was done the first of November when the panel didn't accept his retirement until November 15th?

If he wasn't legally supposed to have this weapon at his personal home then who signed the gun out and gave it to him?

imoo [/*]

Gentle, they probably DID know all these things then. Remember, Drew got away with an awful lot with the "old" police job. I am sure that things have been revamped and a lot of things have changed since Drew has been in the news. He got away with abuse, "murder" (so far, as far as I am concerned) and all kinds of things being one of the "boys" Not sure why this is just now coming up, but am very glad that it has. I am happy that Drew cannot do, own or have just anything he wants. Makes my day, to say the least. I am sure that they know what they are doing. Or at least, I pray that they do and he will .do some time on this charge. Then, hopefully, on the big charge of murder later on. ;)

henry

05-22-2008, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by spiritwolf46

Gentle, they probably DID know all these things then. Remember, Drew got away with an awful lot with the "old" police job. I am sure that things have been revamped and a lot of things have changed since Drew has been in the news. He got away with abuse, "murder" (so far, as far as I am concerned) and all kinds of things being one of the "boys" Not sure why this is just now coming up, but am very glad that it has. I am happy that Drew cannot do, own or have just anything he wants. Makes my day, to say the least. I am sure that they know what they are doing. Or at least, I pray that they do and he will .do some time on this charge. Then, hopefully, on the big charge of murder later on. ;) [/*]

iirc . . . the reason - why now - in the recent articles, the judge was going to give his guns back today (?) . . . and they didn't want this "illegal" gun back in the community, so they had to bring the charge yesterday . . . jmo - no link.

AmndaRcknwth

05-22-2008, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by emdragon

Who cares?

The charge stems from Nov. if they had a problem with it they should have arrested him then not 6 months later. [/*]

I absolutely agree with you em.

His hearing is later today to see if Steve (his son) gets the guns. They are doing all they can to keep the guns from him.

fgs, the gun is his SWAT weapon, has been for 10 years, is registered with ISP, his FOID was revoked for what looks like spite/ballbusting. Bogus charge. They knew what size the gun was for six months.

All this tells me is the GOT NUTTIN.
If they had any evidence at all, he'd be arrested for KS or SP.

I've never seen anything like this crazy circus case. Well, not since the Natalee fiasco.
In that case the big difference was that the searching was endless and is still ongoing... remember poor Dave digging in the dump? That is what a father does.

Poor Stacy. She told everyone she could tell, including her pastor who isgnored her and did not go to authorities until she was gone. She told her family, asked them for a place to stay, a place to rent, they turned away. Her friend? According to her own words, she knew all about the fear. Instead they made a shrine to the neighbor and a circus site to spit on her memory, the clowns. Collecting money but not searching. Oh- but a boat is a good idea to purchase with the fund.

Poor Kathleen. She even wrote a letter, documented everything.

Yep, I think old Drew is walking.

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by AmndaRcknwth

I absolutely agree with you em.

His hearing is later today to see if Steve (his son) gets the guns. They are doing all they can to keep the guns from him.

fgs, the gun is his SWAT weapon, has been for 10 years, is registered with ISP, his FOID was revoked for what looks like spite/ballbusting. Bogus charge. They knew what size the gun was for six months.

All this tells me is the GOT NUTTIN.
If they had any evidence at all, he'd be arrested for KS or SP.

I've never seen anything like this crazy circus case. Well, not since the Natalee fiasco.
In that case the big difference was that the searching was endless and is still ongoing... remember poor Dave digging in the dump? That is what a father does.

Poor Stacy. She told everyone she could tell, including her pastor who isgnored her and did not go to authorities until she was gone. She told her family, asked them for a place to stay, a place to rent, they turned away. Her friend? According to her own words, she knew all about the fear. Instead they made a shrine to the neighbor and a circus site to spit on her memory, the clowns. Collecting money but not searching. Oh- but a boat is a good idea to purchase with the fund.

Poor Kathleen. She even wrote a letter, documented everything.

Yep, I think old Drew is walking. [/*]

I think you best catch up , It's NOT registered with ISP or anywhere, not SWAT issued etc etc etc It is totally illegal as per the BBP chief. (I choose to believe him over Brodsky)
Check the Greta transcript and a few posts on this page.
Also they will not release weapons to a person charged with felony weapon charges over him.

Edited to add he was charged with USE of the weapon, not possession,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,leads me to wonder what they know that we don't:shrug:

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Mayasmimi
Not arguing, but this case is nearly 7 months old. IMO....no way LE is going to do something today that will make them look like "fools" tomorrow. Betcha there's more going on here. Well, hope so. We'll soon see. [/*]

Good morning Mayas :seeya: I could not agree more. Let's face it, we may have opinions, but we are not LE and we do not know the in and outs of such things. There HAS to be something to this. I don't think they would take the chance of looking like fools again. They did that enough when DP was with them in allowing things to happen that were a disgrace. I feel that things have turned around now and no chances are going to be taken.

Let's hope that this will be just the beginning of good things to happen for DP. He deserves the best darned arrests that they can give. :D

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by magpie1
On Greta tonight, Bolingbrook Police Chief McCury released a written statement which was read on the air.

In his statement, Chief McCury stated that law enforcement had returned the two service weapons that were issued to Drew Peterson to the Bolingbrook Police Dept.

He further stated that the gun in question was NOT a Bolingbrook PD weapon, had never been registered with the department, was illegal, and that Drew Peterson had purchased the gun from a third party for his own use.

So evidently the gun in question was NOT in any way associated with Drew's job as a police officer with the Bolingbrook PD. [/*]

WOW! :eek: So in other words, just MORE lies from DP and Brodsky? Imagine that!

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by spiritwolf46

WOW! :eek: So in other words, just MORE lies from DP and Brodsky? Imagine that! [/*]

Exactly!!!:beer:

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by henry

iirc . . . the reason - why now - in the recent articles, the judge was going to give his guns back today (?) . . . and they didn't want this "illegal" gun back in the community, so they had to bring the charge yesterday . . . jmo - no link. [/*]

:seeya: Henry. I think you are exactly correct. Thank you for the reminder. :)

AmndaRcknwth

05-22-2008, 09:42 AM

Unlawful use = possesion. You don't have to fire the weapon.

It's in the code.

AmndaRcknwth

05-22-2008, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by spiritwolf46

Good morning Mayas :seeya: I could not agree more. Let's face it, we may have opinions, but we are not LE and we do not know the in and outs of such things. There HAS to be something to this. I don't think they would take the chance of looking like fools again. They did that enough when DP was with them in allowing things to happen that were a disgrace. I feel that things have turned around now and no chances are going to be taken.

Let's hope that this will be just the beginning of good things to happen for DP. He deserves the best darned arrests that they can give. :D [/*]

Keep in mind that elections are around the corner.
Will County is second only to Cook in corruption in IL.

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by AmndaRcknwth
Unlawful use = possesion. You don't have to fire the weapon.

It's in the code. [/*]

http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

Mzeez

05-22-2008, 09:58 AM

Chief McGury’s email to On The Record concerning the gun charge.

"We believe Drew Peterson purchased that weapon, an AR15, from a third party. Drew Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon and it is not registered with the BBPD. No PO is authorized to carry such a weapon, however a SWAT team member is, but that weapon must be brought in and inspected by our firearms expert to make sure it doesn’t violate any state or federal laws. The serial number must be recorded and they must pass a qualifications test. Mr. Peterson did none of these. Because it was altered this weapon is a clear violation of any regulations and Mr. Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon. I challenge Mr. Brodsky to subpoena our records as he has threatened to do. He will find no record of this weapon."

Fallen Angel

05-22-2008, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by spiritwolf46

WOW! :eek: So in other words, just MORE lies from DP and Brodsky? Imagine that! [/*]ohhhhhh the plethora of lies from DP and brodsky. How do they come up with some of this stuff? Honestly.

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 10:08 AM

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
ohhhhhh the plethora of lies from DP and brodsky. How do they come up with some of this stuff? Honestly. [/*]

:seeya: Fallen! Boy don't ya know it? I still, even though I should, cannot believe what comes out of their mouths everytime their faces are on TV programs, or just the news for that matter. Makes me go....WTH????????? Then it is like, Oh yeah, it is DP and Brodsky again. Lies, lies, lies.

He** is waiting impatiently for both in my opinion.

GentleBreeze

05-22-2008, 10:29 AM

mollybrown

05-22-2008, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

What I cant wrap my mind around if someone was going to alter the barrel length then why do it only a measly tiny 3/8s of an inch?:confused:

imoo [/*]

If I understand the length issue correctly. The barrel of the gun IS 3/8's of an inch TO SHORT, based on the laws in IL. Interesting that Drew P never registered that GUN. You would have thought he would have dumped that gun shortly after He got rid of Stacy...... um I mean she ran off with her bikini...... ;)

north-eh

05-22-2008, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Amy S.
I am about Drew's age and he is not very appealling to me. Those bags under the eyes are awful. Plus, I bet he snores. [/*]

Yeh, I'm the same age as DP myself, and I sure as heck wouldn't be calling him in the middle of the night for a ride. I'd be calling for a ride to get away, more like it! :rolleyes:

N

BobbysGirl

05-22-2008, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze
snipped

What I cant wrap my mind around if someone was going to alter the barrel length then why do it only a measly tiny 3/8s of an inch?:confused:

imoo [/*]

IMO It would depend on who and what tool was used to measure the shortening of the barrel.

If one new the law and used a ruler and eyeballing it; then they could be off a teeny tiny 3/8" w/o knowing.

Using manufactured calipers: jpg below is a digital caliper.

http://www.victornet.com/productimages/41.jpg

An accurate measurement could keep the barrel within legal limits.

My guess, the LE has more than one of these instruments and measured length of the barrel.(As it can be noticed to be sawed off). They come in many sizes. We have several and one is 2' long. Down to few inches long. Ours are not digital but work.

Both Bobby and I worked in a machine shop.

All in MO

BG

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Mzeez
Chief McGury’s email to On The Record concerning the gun charge.

"We believe Drew Peterson purchased that weapon, an AR15, from a third party. Drew Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon and it is not registered with the BBPD. No PO is authorized to carry such a weapon, however a SWAT team member is, but that weapon must be brought in and inspected by our firearms expert to make sure it doesn’t violate any state or federal laws. The serial number must be recorded and they must pass a qualifications test. Mr. Peterson did none of these. Because it was altered this weapon is a clear violation of any regulations and Mr. Peterson was not authorized to carry that weapon. I challenge Mr. Brodsky to subpoena our records as he has threatened to do. He will find no record of this weapon." [/*]

Well that clears up that. Maybe we can see the posts about him being illegally arrested tone down now?

If any of us had that weapon -- an unauthorized, illegal, unregistered weapon in our possession, we would be charged, too. And there is a VERY good reason why people are charged with possessing unregistered and altered firearms! If the illegal and unregistered gun is used in a criminal activity -- then it could be very difficult to trace, hence the reason assault weapons are all supposed to be registered.

This one had been altered, too... Why was he carrying around an altered, unregistered assault rifle?

At first, I thought the BBPD might be trying to get him on anything they could, but now I believe there was just cause for the arrest.

In that statement, the police chief states that Brodsky can challenge the charge and look for registration records on the gun Drew is charged with possessing.

So, let's see who is telling the truth. Let's see if Brodsky can find some proof that the gun was registered.

Somehow, I think Brodsky and Peterson might decide this is the appropriate time to clam up and not speak on the issue...which would be very wise.

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

Wasn't Steve, DPs friend or ex friend on Greta last night and he said this is the way the gun looked when DP bought it. So if it turns out to be altered then can they go back and arrest the guy that probably altered it before selling it to DP?

What I cant wrap my mind around if someone was going to alter the barrel length then why do it only a measly tiny 3/8s of an inch?:confused:

imoo [/*]

I have no idea why the gun was altered or who did it but the fact remains that Drew was in possession of an assault rifle that was not registered; therefore, it is against the law.

I don't want police bending any rules just to harass Peterson, even if he is a double murderer (IMO)... that is why I waited to discuss this further until the police issued a statement.

Unless Brodsky can prove that Peterson did register that gun, I believe the police did the correct thing in arresting Peterson.

Like I said in a previous post, any one of us would be arrested and charged if we were found with an unregistered firearm.

We will just have to see if Brodsky can prove them wrong, but from the statement given out by the BBPD- it seems they are confident that the arrest had just cause.

~IMO, of course~

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 12:50 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_22may22,0,5450079.story

"
"The weapon was illegal, and it was privately owned," said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the state's attorney's office. "Up to this point, it's been in the possession of the Illinois State Police so it wasn't really an issue. But we can't allow an illegal weapon to go back out on the street. At this point, it was appropriate to file the charge."

Pelkie said the rifle barrel was slightly more than 11 inches long—almost five inches shorter than required by law. He said that even with a removable flash suppressor attached to the end—which legally cannot be considered part of the barrel—the gun was still too short."

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_22may22,0,5450079.story

"
"The weapon was illegal, and it was privately owned," said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the state's attorney's office. "Up to this point, it's been in the possession of the Illinois State Police so it wasn't really an issue. But we can't allow an illegal weapon to go back out on the street. At this point, it was appropriate to file the charge."

Pelkie said the rifle barrel was slightly more than 11 inches long—almost five inches shorter than required by law. He said that even with a removable flash suppressor attached to the end—which legally cannot be considered part of the barrel—the gun was still too short." [/*]

VERY interesting. And Drew Peterson, as a cop, should have known that the flash suppressor attachment would not be considered part of the barrel.

I am following what the police are saying now, it is getting more clear by the minute. Of course, the police couldn't release that gun back into society since it is modified in an illegal fashion, plus not registered.

It's all making sense now.

TY for the link.

magpie1

05-22-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by AmndaRcknwth

I absolutely agree with you em.

His hearing is later today to see if Steve (his son) gets the guns. They are doing all they can to keep the guns from him.

fgs, the gun is his SWAT weapon, has been for 10 years, is registered with ISP, his FOID was revoked for what looks like spite/ballbusting. Bogus charge. They knew what size the gun was for six months.

All this tells me is the GOT NUTTIN.
If they had any evidence at all, he'd be arrested for KS or SP.

I've never seen anything like this crazy circus case. Well, not since the Natalee fiasco.
In that case the big difference was that the searching was endless and is still ongoing... remember poor Dave digging in the dump? That is what a father does.

Poor Stacy. She told everyone she could tell, including her pastor who isgnored her and did not go to authorities until she was gone. She told her family, asked them for a place to stay, a place to rent, they turned away. Her friend? According to her own words, she knew all about the fear. Instead they made a shrine to the neighbor and a circus site to spit on her memory, the clowns. Collecting money but not searching. Oh- but a boat is a good idea to purchase with the fund.

Poor Kathleen. She even wrote a letter, documented everything.

Yep, I think old Drew is walking. [/*]

The ISP cannot arrest Drew Peterson on anything connected to the death of Kathleen Savio or the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, without an indictment from the grand jury.

Here's the law taken directly from the 19th Circuit Court of Illinois:

The Constitution and laws of Illinois provide that no person shall be brought to trial for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary unless either the initial charge has been brought by indictment of a grand jury or the person has been given a prompt preliminary hearing and a judge has found probable cause.[/*]

About half the states in the U.S. are using the grand jury procedure in capital crimes. So, in this case, it's not a matter of "they don't have any evidence to charge him." It's out of the hands of LE. They have to wait for the grand jury to wrap up and hand down an indictment. Only then, will LE be able to make an arrest.

None of us have any intimate knowledge of what evidence the grand jury has.

Editing to provide link:
http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/jury/jury3.htm

magpie1

05-22-2008, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

Thank you for posting this again. :)

I thought everyone posting here would know that Drew Peterson would not be charged in the death of either wife until the Grand Jury indicts him. Guess I was wrong.

One odd thing though.... why anyone would believe Brodsky & Drew Peterson over the chief of police is beyond me.

The gun was never registered with the department that employed Drew Peterson. Period.

I think he's screwed on this one. For sure. IMO. [/*]

I get frustrated when people say, "if the POLICE had anything in regards to the death of Kathleen Savio or the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, they would have arrested him by now."

People don't seem to realize that it's out of the hands of the POLICE. The Police can't arrest Drew until they have the authority to do so, and that authority rests with the grand jury. The police can only make an arrest in the cases of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson, when the grand jury hands down an indictment.

MystryPhobia

05-22-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Mamie

Hi Mystry!:seeya: I remember the gun that was fired through the upstairs bedroom (I think) that went through the floor and into the garage. Stacy had told her sister about it that DP had asked her to go get him a soft drink or something from the garage and then the gun went off not too far from where she was at the time in the garage. DP said he was cleaning the gun and it discharged. I think. [/*]
Hi Mamie.. that is right! Thanks for reminding me. I knew there was something about that. I guess this had nothing to do with that tho.

I don't really understand why they arrested him for that tho. Not that I am DP fan but I am wondering what the heck is up with that. Seems petty. I would hate for them to make it look like they are picking on him when a criminal charge may be coming down the pike soon.

MystryPhobia

05-22-2008, 02:04 PM

MystryPhobia

05-22-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by kizzzy

I think you best catch up , It's NOT registered with ISP or anywhere, not SWAT issued etc etc etc It is totally illegal as per the BBP chief. (I choose to believe him over Brodsky)
Check the Greta transcript and a few posts on this page.
Also they will not release weapons to a person charged with felony weapon charges over him.

Edited to add he was charged with USE of the weapon, not possession,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,leads me to wonder what they know that we don't:shrug: [/*]

oooh... I see now.

I was thinking it was just because someone had made it smaller. Seemed petty. Didn't realize it wasn't registered to him and the "USE" part. Thanks for clarifying that.

MystryPhobia

05-22-2008, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by magpie1

I get frustrated when people say, "if the POLICE had anything in regards to the death of Kathleen Savio or the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, they would have arrested him by now."

People don't seem to realize that it's out of the hands of the POLICE. The Police can't arrest Drew until they have the authority to do so, and that authority rests with the grand jury. The police can only make an arrest in the cases of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson, when the grand jury hands down an indictment. [/*]
What is up with the grand jury? I don't understand it taking this long. Is this how it is for all crime in Illinois or are they just buying time?

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 02:33 PM

MystryPhobia

05-22-2008, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04
[/color]

This needs to be reposted.... :read: [/*]

Thanks!

And just for good measure.. Brodsky is an idiot!:D

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

VERY interesting. And Drew Peterson, as a cop, should have known that the flash suppressor attachment would not be considered part of the barrel.

I am following what the police are saying now, it is getting more clear by the minute. Of course, the police couldn't release that gun back into society since it is modified in an illegal fashion, plus not registered.

It's all making sense now.

TY for the link. [/*]Actually, according to the law, the flash suppressor CAN be considered part of the barrel so long as it is PERMENATLY attatched.

From what they are saying this one was not.

Also, nobody has said the gun wasn't registered, just that it was not registered as a service wepon. There is a difference.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by MystryPhobia

oooh... I see now.

I was thinking it was just because someone had made it smaller. Seemed petty. Didn't realize it wasn't registered to him and the "USE" part. Thanks for clarifying that. [/*]It is petty. It's like getting a speeding ticket for going 46 in a 45.

MysteryMachine

05-22-2008, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

PROTECT HER? They need to do a freaking intervention or something to get this idiotic woman away from DP. Does she have a death wish? Has she not noticed how his last 2 love interests ended up?

Talk about stupid. I just don't get some women.:rolleyes:

SM [/*]

And how.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 04:37 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-web-may23,0,6606743.story

"By Matthew Walberg | Tribune reporter
1:46 PM CDT, May 22, 2008
Drew Peterson's attorney filed subpoenas late Thursday morning seeking documents related to a gun at the center of a felony weapons charge against his client."

Read on:

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I believe Brodsky's in for one helluva surprise.

But not Drew. Drew won't be surprised at all. IMO. [/*]

Brodsky wants reports dating back since Jan. 1, 1985
Amazing.
IMO

Nova

05-22-2008, 04:48 PM

Hey Everybody :seeya:
I went from lurking and posting constantly to nothing at all. Got a new job and I can't post or read until late in the day ... and Boy I do feel completely out of the loop.
Anyway ... IIRC the GJ is working on Kathleen, Stacy and Lisa Stebic's cases all at once, that's why it is taking sooooo long. They should have decision by end of May as to whether or not they are going to call DP's sons in to testify.
Regarding DP's arrest ... I don't care if it is petty or not, he broke the law and was arrested.
As far as I'm concerned this was practice, a trial run if you will concerning DP's arrest. I hope he gets used to it, because I truly believe he will be indicted for not only Kathleen's death BUT also Stacy's. JMO, IMO
Nova

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
Actually, according to the law, the flash suppressor CAN be considered part of the barrel so long as it is PERMENATLY attatched.

From what they are saying this one was not.

Also, nobody has said the gun wasn't registered, just that it was not registered as a service wepon. There is a difference. [/*]

Okay. Help me out here. Drew is claiming that the gun is one used while he was a police officer and that SWAT police officers are exempt from the length of the barrel law... Here is Brodsky's comment:

"This was Drew's registered duty weapon as a SWAT team member and the last time when it was in his possession was when he was still on the Bolingbrook Police Department," Brodsky said. "Therefore under the Illinois law he can have a non-conforming weapon with a short barrel."

(link: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.guns.2.730052.html )

but......The statement put out by police -- is that the gun was not registered with the BBPD -- the serial number was never recorded or checked out by the BBPD and cleared for use after a "qualifications test".. and because the gun was altered - it is in violation of the law, per Mzeez's post--Mzeez got that statement by Chief Ray McGurry in the transcript for Greta's show last night here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357225,00.html

You might think it is "petty" but if he violated the law and if the gun is illegal -- then it needs to be taken out of circulation. I am sure, if convicted - he would pay a measly fine and the gun would be kept in police custody or destroyed --- which it should be, if it is an illegal firearm.

Brodsky can either prove or disprove that Peterson had a legit purpose for the gun and that it is all on the up and up.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

But wait... what the heck is this qoute from the Chicago Tribune?

Authorities said the weapon was privately owned by Peterson and that the barrel was nearly 5 inches shorter than required by law.

I thought it was 3/8ths of an inch shorter. :shrug: [/*]

You missed my post up thread.

3/8" or 5" short

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...0,5450079.story

"
"The weapon was illegal, and it was privately owned," said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the state's attorney's office. "Up to this point, it's been in the possession of the Illinois State Police so it wasn't really an issue. But we can't allow an illegal weapon to go back out on the street. At this point, it was appropriate to file the charge."

Pelkie said the rifle barrel was slightly more than 11 inches long—almost five inches shorter than required by law. He said that even with a removable flash suppressor attached to the end—which legally cannot be considered part of the barrel—the gun was still too short."

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:06 PM

I know, I know. 3/8 inch too short is against the law.
So is doing 46 in a 45.

My opinion (as I sit here and look at a tape measure) is that 3/8 inch does not make a 25 inch rifle any more concealable (which is why there is a length law), but that is the law, you're right, there should never be any leniency, people going 1 mile over the speed limit should all get tickets.

Or maybe ISP new that Drew would get his guns back today and found whatever reason they could to delay that.

Nova

05-22-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
I know, I know. 3/8 inch too short is against the law.
So is doing 46 in a 45.

Or maybe ISP new that Drew would get his guns back today and found whatever reason they could to delay that. [/*]
(edited for space)

I thought DP was never getting hold of his guns, and that it might be his son Steve???? Not sure, but I think ISP is probably gonna ride his a$$, and get him for anything they can at the moment ... and I have to admit that puts a big ole fat smile on my face. ;)

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:12 PM

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:13 PM

Unclezeek, this not about the ability for a firearm to be concealed or concealable.
Possession of an illegal firearm speaks for itself.
Yes, there is wiggle room when it comes to traffic violations.
IMO

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Nova

(edited for space)

I thought DP was never getting hold of his guns, and that it might be his son Steve???? Not sure, but I think ISP is probably gonna ride his a$$, and get him for anything they can at the moment ... and I have to admit that puts a big ole fat smile on my face. ;) [/*]That would be true since they revoked his FOID card. If he gets a valid FOID card he can own them again. But giving them to his son seems to be a problem with LE as well.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
Unclezeek, this not about the ability for a firearm to be concealed or concealable.
Possession of an illegal firearm speaks for itself.
Yes, there is wiggle room when it comes to traffic violations.
IMO [/*]Why is there a length law in the first place?

I could drive down the street right now and buy that same gun and so long as the barrel is the correct length I am not breaking any laws.

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

VERY interesting. And Drew Peterson, as a cop, should have known that the flash suppressor attachment would not be considered part of the barrel.

I am following what the police are saying now, it is getting more clear by the minute. Of course, the police couldn't release that gun back into society since it is modified in an illegal fashion, plus not registered.

It's all making sense now.

TY for the link. [/*]

They also did it when they did because the courts won't release the other guns to someone facing felony weapons charges.
Makes sense to their timing. :biggrin:

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by kizzzy

They also did it when they did because the courts won't release the other guns to someone facing felony weapons charges.
Makes sense to their timing. :biggrin: [/*]Which could backfire since they would be releasing them to his son Steve who is not facing felony weapons charges.

They were not going to release the guns to Drew today with or without this charge. His FOID card is revoked.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
Why is there a length law in the first place?

I could drive down the street right now and buy that same gun and so long as the barrel is the correct length I am not breaking any laws. [/*]

1. Gun laws.
2. Yes, you can.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

1. Gun laws.
2. Yes, you can. [/*]You did not answer my question.
In your OP to me, you said concealment was not an issue.

Why do they regulate the length of a rifle?

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:32 PM

Believes thru his sources that DP will be indicted for murder in mid to late summer?
Wow, anyone catch it.
IMO

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I believe Brodsky's in for one helluva surprise.

But not Drew. Drew won't be surprised at all. IMO. [/*]

I believe Drew lies to Brodsky as well ....what a couple of idiots.

Anyone hear what Geraldo just said about Aug 1st.
I would post it all but am totally ignored anyway. Someone else post it if you saw it !

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
You did not answer my question.
In your OP to me, you said concealment was not an issue.

Why do they regulate the length of a rifle? [/*]

Gun Mfg's register specs and patent.
They cannot be modified without breaking the law.
IMO

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
Believes thru his sources that DP will be indicted for murder in mid to late summer?
Wow, anyone catch it.
IMO [/*]Randy Mucha will be glad to hear that.

Think Geraldo and Nancy Grace ever dated?

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

Okay. Help me out here. Drew is claiming that the gun is one used while he was a police officer and that SWAT police officers are exempt from the length of the barrel law... Here is Brodsky's comment:

"This was Drew's registered duty weapon as a SWAT team member and the last time when it was in his possession was when he was still on the Bolingbrook Police Department," Brodsky said. "Therefore under the Illinois law he can have a non-conforming weapon with a short barrel."

(link: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/drew.peterson.guns.2.730052.html )

but......The statement put out by police -- is that the gun was not registered with the BBPD -- the serial number was never recorded or checked out by the BBPD and cleared for use after a "qualifications test".. and because the gun was altered - it is in violation of the law, per Mzeez's post--Mzeez got that statement by Chief Ray McGurry in the transcript for Greta's show last night here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357225,00.html

You might think it is "petty" but if he violated the law and if the gun is illegal -- then it needs to be taken out of circulation. I am sure, if convicted - he would pay a measly fine and the gun would be kept in police custody or destroyed --- which it should be, if it is an illegal firearm.

Brodsky can either prove or disprove that Peterson had a legit purpose for the gun and that it is all on the up and up. [/*]

I have to believe BBPD. No one can believe DP or JB!

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

Gun Mfg's register specs and patent.
They cannot be modified without breaking the law.
IMO [/*]Please tell me that was just a guess.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
Randy Mucha will be glad to hear that.

Think Geraldo and Nancy Grace ever dated? [/*]

That is worth a chuckle.

Geraldo's statement was borderline of a "shock jock". We will see if Geraldo crystal ball batteries are recharged in Aug.2008.
IMO

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

I just asked my DH who is a gun freak, and he concurs. [/*]So you're saying it is illegal to modify a firearm?

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
So you're saying it is illegal to modify a firearm? [/*]

Yes.
Hypothetically, if I were to buy a .22 rifle from a legit dealer, register and drill 1/32 holes in the bottom of the barrel, I would be violating gun law.
Now, if one is talking about adding a scope, hand grip, etc then the answer would be NO.
IMO

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

Yes.
Hypothetically, if I were to buy a .22 rifle from a legit dealer, register and drill 1/32 holes in the bottom of the barrel, I would be violating gun law.
Now, if one is talking about adding a scope, hand grip, etc then the answer would be NO.
IMO [/*]How about a flash suppressor?

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:04 PM

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

Where exactly are you going with this?

Drew Peterson was in possession of an illegal weapon. Period.

I don't understand what any poster's thoughts on whether or not it is legal to modify a gun has to do with this.

:shrug: [/*]The 16 inch law was put in place in 1938 as a means to keep rifles from being concealable.
I said that i didn't feel 3/8 inch make a gun any more concealable.....It doesn't

It is still against the law.
But it's a petty charge that IN MY EYES makes the ISP look helpless and desperate and Drew will most likely walk with a fine and probation.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
How about a flash suppressor? [/*]

I guess that there are accessories for guns that do change or modify the guns original production.
Now we are down to buyer beware.
IMO

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
I know, I know. 3/8 inch too short is against the law.
So is doing 46 in a 45.

My opinion (as I sit here and look at a tape measure) is that 3/8 inch does not make a 25 inch rifle any more concealable (which is why there is a length law), but that is the law, you're right, there should never be any leniency, people going 1 mile over the speed limit should all get tickets.

Or maybe ISP new that Drew would get his guns back today and found whatever reason they could to delay that. [/*]

You equate that assult rifle with going one mile over the speed limit?
rotflmbo
moo

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

You equate that assult rifle with going one mile over the speed limit?
rotflmbo
moo [/*]I do. 3/8 of an inch did not make that gun any more dangerous in Drews hands. And if it were 3/8 of an inch longer he could legally own it (if his FOID card were not revoked).

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
That would be true since they revoked his FOID card. If he gets a valid FOID card he can own them again. But giving them to his son seems to be a problem with LE as well. [/*]

Seems strange to me how hoppin hot peterson is to get those guns out of police custody. Being he can't possess one and all.
Doesn't he trust his brothers in blue anymore?
ha
moo

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

I guess that there are accessories for guns that do change or modify the guns original production.
Now we are down to buyer beware.
IMO [/*]Sure are. They make 11.5 inch barrels for the ARs and they are sold so you can attatch a 5.5 inch flash and still have a legal firearm.

Google it, you'll see.

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by kizzzy

I have to believe BBPD. No one can believe DP or JB! [/*]

'zactly.

hey, he saved on his car insurance yesterday.:rolleyes:

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

Seems strange to me how hoppin hot peterson is to get those guns out of police custody. Being he can't possess one and all.
Doesn't he trust his brothers in blue anymore?
ha
moo [/*]I think it's a game being played by both sides. It is Drews property, and if LE cannot provide a solid reason to hold on to it, they should give it back. Doesn't matter to me if it's guns or refrigerator magnets, whats right is right.

But I also think Drew is doing this to rub their noses in it.

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
I do. 3/8 of an inch did not make that gun any more dangerous in Drews hands. And if it were 3/8 of an inch longer he could legally own it (if his FOID card were not revoked). [/*]

The point tho is this. It is not legal to have the weapon that length. Any of us other citizens would have been arrested for that just like he was.
It doesn't matter if one thinks of it as "petty". It is what it is.

Sure, he may just get a fine for the violation, we'll have to just wait and see.

Did my husband hear right last night when he told me the cal-sag was going to be dragged soon?

ETA: I don't think the length of the rifle is the only issue. It wasn't registered with BBPD, something about the serial nmbers and also it's useage.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
Sure are. They make 11.5 inch barrels for the ARs and they are sold so you can attatch a 5.5 inch flash and still have a legal firearm.

Google it, you'll see. [/*]

After your post, I did. Yes 11.5 barrel is available, but the legal paperwork is still required.
IMO

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

The point tho is this. It is not legal to have the weapon that length. Any of us other citizens would have been arrested for that just like he was.
It doesn't matter if one thinks of it as "petty". It is what it is.

Sure, he may just get a fine for the violation, we'll have to just wait and see.

Did my husband hear right last night when he told me the cal-sag was going to be dragged soon?

ETA: I don't think the length of the rifle is the only issue. It wasn't registered with BBPD, something about the serial nmbers and also it's useage. [/*]It is not legal to have a rifle that length.
It is not legal to drive 46MPH in a 45 MPH zone.

The part about the registration with BBPD has to do with whether it could be classified as a service weapon....It wasn't it isn't. So it does have to meet with the regulations of a privately owned firearm.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I respect unclezeek but I did have quite the chuckle when I read that one. :) [/*]And I am a little amused at how y'all think Drew had a nuke in his basement.

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
I think it's a game being played by both sides. It is Drews property, and if LE cannot provide a solid reason to hold on to it, they should give it back. Doesn't matter to me if it's guns or refrigerator magnets, whats right is right.

But I also think Drew is doing this to rub their noses in it. [/*]
It's his property but he'll get it back when the police are ready to return them. Maybe they have a reason to hold on to them. Like I said, he can't have them in his possession anyhow right now.
Does his son reall have to have them at this point?
It may be a cat and mouse game of sorts but it needs to be this way. The law doesn't want peterson to get too comfy.
Keep him on his toes. Besides, he was lucky he got out of that speeding ticket.
jmo

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

Thank you for the explanation.

The ISP is helpless right now. The ISP can't arrest Drew for murder until the Grand Jury indicts him.

Desperate?

I don't think so.

It's my belief that there is more than meets the eye with this charge.

I do hope they tested this gun forensically against any ballistics they have from unsolved cases.

ETA: I do hope they tested all of his guns. [/*]

I have no doubt the Grand Jury will indict peterson. No doubt.at all.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I would be amused by that too.

When did that happen?

I missed it. [/*]Let me ask you this. What makes having a rifle with a barrel 3/8 inch too short so bad in your eyes?
I know it's against the law, but what makes it worse than going, let's say' 3 MPH over the speed limit?

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I respect unclezeek but I did have quite the chuckle when I read that one. :) [/*]

It was quite the comparison.;)

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

It was quite the comparison.;) [/*]I still don't see the difference.

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
Let me ask you this. What makes having a rifle with a barrel 3/8 inch too short so bad in your eyes?
I know it's against the law, but what makes it worse than going, let's say' 3 MPH over the speed limit? [/*]
I'll say it.
It's worse because he is a murder suspect. A 2x murder suspect.
Anything he has done, anything he is doing and anything he plans on doing will be watched and put under the microscope.
The police believe him to be a murderer and the fact that he was a cop is a big deal to them. They are embarrassed.
peterson and brodsky don't like it? too bad.
IMO MOO

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 06:56 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-webmay23,0,1197173.story

"By Matthew Walberg and Erika Slife | Tribune reporters
4:40 PM CDT, May 22, 2008
"A Will County judge Thursday ordered the state police to turn over 8 of Drew Peterson's guns to his son, a day after Peterson was arrested on a charge of felony unlawful use of a weapon."

Ok,only 8 guns returned?
One gun we know that is what DP was charged with, but what about the other 2?

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

I'll say it.
It's worse because he is a murder suspect. A 2x murder suspect.
Anything he has done, anything he is doing and anything he plans on doing will be watched and put under the microscope.
The police believe him to be a murderer and the fact that he was a cop is a big deal to them. They are embarrassed.
peterson and brodsky don't like it? too bad.
IMO MOO [/*]

I am not happy with Drew being inconvenienced, I do not want him in jail because I hate him.

I want him to pay for what he did to Stacy.

So I'd like it if they'd stop screwing around with the length of his gun and get on with that.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-webmay23,0,1197173.story

"By Matthew Walberg and Erika Slife | Tribune reporters
4:40 PM CDT, May 22, 2008
"A Will County judge Thursday ordered the state police to turn over 8 of Drew Peterson's guns to his son, a day after Peterson was arrested on a charge of felony unlawful use of a weapon."

Ok,only 8 guns returned?
One gun we know that is what DP was charged with, but what about the other 2? [/*]Service weapons that belong to BBPD. They took those too.

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-webmay23,0,1197173.story

"By Matthew Walberg and Erika Slife | Tribune reporters
4:40 PM CDT, May 22, 2008
"A Will County judge Thursday ordered the state police to turn over 8 of Drew Peterson's guns to his son, a day after Peterson was arrested on a charge of felony unlawful use of a weapon."

Ok,only 8 guns returned?
One gun we know that is what DP was charged with, but what about the other 2? [/*]

The only one they mentioned keeping was the assult rifle.

The son will get possession within 14 days.
I guess peterson could go and look at them.:shrug:

drip~drop1

05-22-2008, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek

I am not happy with Drew being inconvenienced, I do not want him in jail because I hate him.

I want him to pay for what he did to Stacy.

So I'd like it if they'd stop screwing around with the length of his gun and get on with that. [/*]
Personally, I don't care if he is inconvienced. He acts like a jerk.imo

I'd like to see him pay for his crimes too. That we agree on.
I believe they are trying to get on with things. They need time and they need to cross every T and dot every I. Yanno? They need a win, he can't be tried twice.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

The only one they mentioned keeping was the assult rifle.

The son will get possession within 14 days.
I guess peterson could go and look at them.:shrug: [/*]

11 total.
1 held for federal violation.
8 ordered transferred to DP's son.
My count is 2 guns not accounted per inventory.
IMO

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

11 total.
1 held for federal violation.
8 ordered transferred to DP's son.
My count is 2 guns not accounted per inventory.
IMO [/*]Again, those two were police issued.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

That makes the AR-15 not police issued.
Correct? [/*]That is correct.

Just for the record nobody ever said it was.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
That is correct.

Just for the record nobody ever said it was. [/*]
I deleted my post, you are quick.
I re-thought my post and considered it a moot point.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

I deleted my post, you are quick.
I re-thought my post and considered it a moot point. [/*]LOL, sorry, I've been reading alot about this the last 24 hours (well, I did sleep and go to work for awhile), nothing to do till my girlfriend gets home so I've been hanging around to see what the judge said today.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
LOL, sorry, I've been reading alot about this the last 24 hours (well, I did sleep and go to work for awhile), nothing to do till my girlfriend gets home so I've been hanging around to see what the judge said today. [/*]

Enjoy. Take care.
The media will take over now.
Waiting for Geraldo vs Brodsky battle.
IMO

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_22may22,0,5450079.story

"
"The weapon was illegal, and it was privately owned," said Charles Pelkie, spokesman for the state's attorney's office. "Up to this point, it's been in the possession of the Illinois State Police so it wasn't really an issue. But we can't allow an illegal weapon to go back out on the street. At this point, it was appropriate to file the charge."

Pelkie said the rifle barrel was slightly more than 11 inches long—almost five inches shorter than required by law. He said that even with a removable flash suppressor attached to the end—which legally cannot be considered part of the barrel—the gun was still too short." [/*]

Reposted.

Was the gun only 3/8 of an inch too short or was it FIVE inches too short?

That article says almost 5 inches. Which is it?

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

Reposted.

Was the gun only 3/8 of an inch too short or was it FIVE inches too short?

That article says almost 5 inches. Which is it? [/*]Both. There is a flash suppressor on it. The actual barrel is in the 11 inch range, but with a permanently attached FS it measured 15 and 5/8 inches.......However it is still unclear if it was or wasn't "permanently" attached.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 08:03 PM

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

Reposted.

Was the gun only 3/8 of an inch too short or was it FIVE inches too short?

That article says almost 5 inches. Which is it? [/*]

The barrel was up to 5 inches short.
Total length with suppressor was still short.[3/8"]

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

The barrel was up to 5 inches short.
Total length with suppressor was still short.[3/8"] [/*]Right, but if the suppreesor was not permanent, it is not concidered part of the barrel.

Reports are going to be different because of this.

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 08:14 PM

Thanks UncleZeek and SoggyBayou!

:seeya:

I am still a little confused because I saw a news report on Fox and they were saying that it was 5 inches too short.

This newest article, which discusses Drew's son getting most of DP's guns back -- states it was 5 inches too short, too. Oh well -- I will just sit on it until it all becomes more clear. The media aren't always the most accurate with information.

Drew Peterson, 54, was arrested and charged with a felony weapons violation Wednesday after one of 11 firearms seized by police during the execution of a search warrant in November was found to be nearly 5 inches shorter than required by law, officials said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-webmay23,0,1197173.story

Anakerie

05-22-2008, 08:22 PM

So who testified before the Grand Jury today? Anyone see anything about that?

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04
Thanks UncleZeek and SoggyBayou!

:seeya:

I am still a little confused because I saw a news report on Fox and they were saying that it was 5 inches too short.

This newest article, which discusses Drew's son getting most of DP's guns back -- states it was 5 inches too short, too. Oh well -- I will just sit on it until it all becomes more clear. The media aren't always the most accurate with information.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson-23-webmay23,0,1197173.story [/*]It is confusing, they may be accurately reporting the length of the actual barrel....But with the right attachment permanently attached, the gun could still be legal.
The type of suppressor (this hides the flash when the gun is fired) is a screw on type.
That means the end of the guns barrel had to be threaded. If it was not originally, it could be done afterwards, and that type of modification may be where 3/8 inch was lost

What I'm saying is it is possible that Drew never new the gun wasn't the proper length, because 3/8 inch isn't that noticeable to the naked eye, and if nobody ever checked....Or cared for that matter, it could easily be overlooked.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Anakerie
So who testified before the Grand Jury today? Anyone see anything about that? [/*]I'm hoping it was Geraldos "sources"!

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
It is confusing, they may be accurately reporting the length of the actual barrel....But with the right attachment permanently attached, the gun could still be legal.
The type of suppressor (this hides the flash when the gun is fired) is a screw on type.
That means the end of the guns barrel had to be threaded. If it was not originally, it could be done afterwards, and that type of modification may be where 3/8 inch was lost

What I'm saying is it is possible that Drew never new the gun wasn't the proper length, because 3/8 inch isn't that noticeable to the naked eye, and if nobody ever checked....Or cared for that matter, it could easily be overlooked. [/*]

I just gotcha. I will watch Greta later and see what she says. Nancy Grace is on right now but I don't know if I can stomach her tonight --- she was extremely rude to Mike Brooks last night. I love Mike Brooks - he is a stand up guy and she just berated him when he said he owned the same type of gun... Asking him why he would need it.. he said that he was on a hit list, at one point in his career and needed protection. Her tone was completely inappropriate and sarcastic...

Anyway, that was totally off topic, sorry.. but I will watch Greta and see if she has better information.
:seeya:

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
I'm hoping it was Geraldos "sources"! [/*]

LOL :lol:

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 08:53 PM

Geraldo is a Fox talking head that always stirs the pot. He again has stuck his journalistic neck out again.
Anyone think that Brodsky will appear on Fox News or any other network?

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

I just gotcha. I will watch Greta later and see what she says. Nancy Grace is on right now but I don't know if I can stomach her tonight --- she was extremely rude to Mike Brooks last night. I love Mike Brooks - he is a stand up guy and she just berated him when he said he owned the same type of gun... Asking him why he would need it.. he said that he was on a hit list, at one point in his career and needed protection. Her tone was completely inappropriate and sarcastic...

Anyway, that was totally off topic, sorry.. but I will watch Greta and see if she has better information.
:seeya: [/*]LOL, Nancy Grace is as much a journalist as John Stewart, and I still think John Stewart is more sincere.
She plays to an audience and she does it rather well. you don't watch her for anything new, you watch her to validate your opinions and if it's not doing that, you wouldn't be watching her.

I never watched Greta until Stacy went missing and I must say I like her.

Off topic or not, nice talking with you.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou
Geraldo is a Fox talking head that always stirs the pot. He again has stuck his journalistic neck out again.
Anyone think that Brodsky will appear on Fox News or any other network? [/*]Of course he will.
Don't forget, Brodsky can lie to the media, or to anybody for that matter, and it will never be held against Drew Peterson.

And if Drew doese not get charged, this guy will be one of the most sought after DAs. He's taking a gamble and so far....it's working.

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
Of course he will.
Don't forget, Brodsky can lie to the media, or to anybody for that matter, and it will never be held against Drew Peterson.

And if Drew doese not get charged, this guy will be one of the most sought after DAs. He's taking a gamble and so far....it's working. [/*]

IMO, Geraldo's statement today is a ploy to force a reaction. Geraldo's prediction is absurd.
While Brodsky is busy with the gun charge he has to defend the media countdown.

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

IMO, Geraldo's statement today is a ploy to force a reaction. Geraldo's prediction is absurd.
While Brodsky is busy with the gun charge he has to defend the media countdown. [/*]The guy has been practising law for like ...20 years???
I have to think he knows a little bit about what he's doing.

Can't say I understand it, but I don't see where he has failed in defending DREW.

Mamie

05-22-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

The barrel was up to 5 inches short.
Total length with suppressor was still short.[3/8"] [/*]

But in your earlier post, didn't Pelkie say that the suppressor was not to be considered part of the barrel, therefore it is still 4 inches and change short. Atleast that's what I got out of it. It sounds as if Pelkie is saying that the suppressor IS a removable attachment in his statement about the gun still being too short, as because it is removable, it cannot be considered. JMO

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by SoggyBayou

IMO, Geraldo's statement today is a ploy to force a reaction. Geraldo's prediction is absurd.
While Brodsky is busy with the gun charge he has to defend the media countdown. [/*]

Geraldo did say the GJ had 3 cases Peterson Stebic and 1 other and that the GJ has a deadline of Aug 1st .:biggrin:

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by MystryPhobia

Thanks!

And just for good measure.. Brodsky is an idiot!:D [/*]

:beer: :D

kitty1182

05-22-2008, 10:53 PM

I have not read this whole thread, but I think his wife is in his house somewhere..Dead!

kizzzy

05-22-2008, 10:56 PM

That 3rd case was Kathleen Savio (duh me )

SoggyBayou

05-22-2008, 11:00 PM

She only reported in the last 5 min. of her report. Greta didn't say much but seem to lean towards the GJ and Savio death.
IMO

aubrey04

05-22-2008, 11:01 PM

Joe Hosey is on Greta. He said that Drew is dating a 22 year old and he's (Joe) met her. He said he isn't sure what she is thinking since Drew is 54.

He said someone... I forgot who... a woman testified at the grand jury today. Hopefully the transcript of tonight show will be on Greta's website soon.

There was an order to release the guns that they showed and it looked like a mess. Greta was ragging on it since it had scratched out words and was hard to read. Hosey said that the judge did NOT write the order -- Brodsky did and the judge just signed it.

At the very end, Greta was rushed for time and tried to shoo off Hosey but Hosey jumped in before she could and mentioned his book coming out on such and such date.. Greta said in a condescending voice, "I know Joe.. you already told me"

It didn't seem like Greta wanted to give him free advertising..

interesting stuff.

juliekan

05-22-2008, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by aubrey04

I just gotcha. I will watch Greta later and see what she says. Nancy Grace is on right now but I don't know if I can stomach her tonight --- she was extremely rude to Mike Brooks last night. I love Mike Brooks - he is a stand up guy and she just berated him when he said he owned the same type of gun... Asking him why he would need it.. he said that he was on a hit list, at one point in his career and needed protection. Her tone was completely inappropriate and sarcastic...

Anyway, that was totally off topic, sorry.. but I will watch Greta and see if she has better information.
:seeya: [/*]

My only post tonight, and CW I promise I'm off....Love Nancy when she's after who I think is a bad guy, can't stand her when I don't agree with her. So if she's after DP, I'm happy, except when she gets sarcastic when I think someone is talking good sense. :seeya: all.

spiritwolf46

05-22-2008, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
The guy has been practising law for like ...20 years???
I have to think he knows a little bit about what he's doing.

Can't say I understand it, but I don't see where he has failed in defending DREW. [/*]

Uncle Zeek...with all due respect, and believe me, I do respect you...but only to a certain degree. I am not sure where you come from most of the time. I do know that you are a relative or distant to Stacey. I have read and re-read a lot of your posts and all I can say is that I am totally confused from one post to a few down the road. I never know where you are coming from, where your beginning is or where your end is. I mean no desrepect, but one minute you seem to stand up for Drew and then you don't.

I guess maybe i am confused here. Again, please, no disrespect, I just find it hard to read you is all.

Please no one blast me for this.....I just truly don't know where he is coming from. :(

unclezeek

05-22-2008, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Mamie

But in your earlier post, didn't Pelkie say that the suppressor was not to be considered part of the barrel, therefore it is still 4 inches and change short. Atleast that's what I got out of it. It sounds as if Pelkie is saying that the suppressor IS a removable attachment in his statement about the gun still being too short, as because it is removable, it cannot be considered. JMO [/*]The law states if the supressor is permenatly attatched, it counts as part of the barell. It is so vauge that duck tape might count, but I do know that Elmhers Glue does.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Now that I have found out what gun it was, it was more likely to jam up than kill someone.
I want Drew to go to jail, but not for some weak assed charge like this.

unclezeek

05-23-2008, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by spiritwolf46

Uncle Zeek...with all due respect, and believe me, I do respect you...but only to a certain degree. I am not sure where you come from most of the time. I do know that you are a relative or distant to Stacey. I have read and re-read a lot of your posts and all I can say is that I am totally confused from one post to a few down the road. I never know where you are coming from, where your beginning is or where your end is. I mean no desrepect, but one minute you seem to stand up for Drew and then you don't.

I guess maybe i am confused here. Again, please, no disrespect, I just find it hard to read you is all.

Please no one blast me for this.....I just truly don't know where he is coming from. :( [/*]I want to know what happened to Stacy....that is all.

SoggyBayou

05-23-2008, 12:08 AM

One thing is for sure, we did not see this gun charge coming.
If Brodsky's past claim of GJ leaks,public and media harassment, is now sort of quashed.
IMO

Poochie Pie

05-23-2008, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by drip~drop1

Personally, I don't care if he is inconvienced. He acts like a jerk.imo

I'd like to see him pay for his crimes too. That we agree on.
I believe they are trying to get on with things. They need time and they need to cross every T and dot every I. Yanno? They need a win, he can't be tried twice. [/*] Exactly right drip~drop..!! He appears to be very clever and cunning... He has an advantage dealing with LE... as he was one of them..!! He knows all of the "ins" and "outs"... And it seems (so far at least) that he is always one step ahead of them... Which is probably why they are making sure they cross every T and dot every i... IMO

Poochie

Grins

05-23-2008, 02:20 AM

Illinois laws regarding: Felony unlawful use of a weapon

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.

ARTICLE 24. DEADLY WEAPONS

Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
...

(7)...possesses or
carries:
(i) ...

(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less
than 16 inches in length

or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches;..."

Sentence
[*[
... a person convicted of a violation of subsection ...,24‑1(a)(7)(ii)... commits a Class 3 felony."

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+24&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3*5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60752&SeqStart=50800000&SeqEnd=53500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E

_________

"(6) for a Class 3 felony, the sentence shall be not
less than 2 years and not more than 5 years;.."

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073000050K5-8-1

FREEMORE

05-23-2008, 06:28 AM

Well, I guess he did not tell where he put Stacy. Darn! OOPs He stated she ran away.
I'm sorry for this post. I just want to know where is Stacy!!!!

GinoA797

05-23-2008, 06:33 AM

If Stacey did run away(?) you'd think that she would come back for her kids, when he goes to jail.

spiritwolf46

05-23-2008, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by unclezeek
I want to know what happened to Stacy....that is all. [/*]

Thank you for your response. :)

GinoA797

05-23-2008, 09:41 AM

I wanna to know where she is too. What happened to Stacey??:confused:

Anakerie

05-23-2008, 10:04 AM

With all the hoopla dying down a bit over Drew's weapon charges, the FOID card and all, I found an article about Craig Stebic and his weapons...

State Police Revoke Stebic's FOID Card
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/craig.stebic.FOID.2.731011.html

Curious, eh?

And the following link goes to an article that sort of clears up the confusion about the 2 guns that aren't going to Drew's son.. (IF you believe Brodsky, that is.)

Drew Peterson son to get most of ex-cop's weapons
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_23may23,0,5908833.story

Though 11 guns were initially taken by police, an MP5 submachine gun was the property of Bolingbrook, Brodsky said, and a revolver belonged to another person.

I wish the GJ would wrap things up... And I wish that one of the searches would turn up something positive in the way of locating where Stacy is. Stacy needs to be found!

Jpanda

05-23-2008, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by gerald1
Maybe she doesn't want her kids and thats part of the reason she's in hiding. She doen't want to be arrested for child abandonment. Before you say Oh No! remember we live in a society where people do all sorts of unconventional things.:cool: [/*]

That's always a possibilty, but IMO she would have contacted SOMEONE or LE would have been able to track her by now. I don't think she'd be able to just disappear without a trace for this long, IMO.

aubrey04

05-23-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

Your ignorance of the law amazes me.

There is absolutely nothing phony about this gun charge.

Just reading the reports about this arrest would enlighten you to that fact. :cool: [/*]

It will all be hashed out in court. Either Drew Peterson was in possession of an illegal gun or he wasn't. I don't get why people are saying the police are harassing him. If it was one of us that was in possession of an illegal firearm, we would get charged with it.

My mind can't wrap around people who are calling it a "petty" charge and used as a cause to arrest him. Last time I checked a FELONY arrest for an illegal firearm was not a petty offense. Compared to murdering two people,.. I guess a felony for possession of an illegal firearm is "petty" but it still a major offense and if he broke the law, he needs to pay for his crime.

drip~drop1

05-23-2008, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by gerald1
Yes!! Like his poor lawyer.:cool: [/*]

barf
just mo.....:patriot:

spiritwolf46

05-23-2008, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I forgive you. ;)

I know what your pitching & it sure isn't a curve. :cool: [/*]

Snicker, snicker, snicker.....

Anakerie

05-23-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I forgive you. ;)

I know what your pitching & it sure isn't a curve. :cool: [/*]

lol, no.. No curves on that one. Just plain derailments... :D

no1what

05-27-2008, 10:34 AM

IMO I am sure that Stacy's family is glad to see some progress. I know they would want some what of a more serious charge against Peterson but I'm not sure that can happen until the GJ has completed it's findings and testimonies.

IMO no one from Stacy's family would take 5 seconds to defend anything that Drew is accused of whether they felt the charge was right or wrong.

IMO this is a win no matter how small for Stacy. I hope there are many more wins to come.

kimmy56

05-27-2008, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by no1what
IMO I am sure that Stacy's family is glad to see some progress. I know they would want some what of a more serious charge against Peterson but I'm not sure that can happen until the GJ has completed it's findings and testimonies.

IMO no one from Stacy's family would take 5 seconds to defend anything that Drew is accused of whether they felt the charge was right or wrong.

IMO this is a win no matter how small for Stacy. I hope there are many more wins to come. [/*]

Whether we agree with the arrest for this type of charge, after talking with a friend police officer of mine, he suggested that this was, indeed, a show to the family and the public that this is still being worked. And that in my mind is a good thing whether you think this is a minor thing or not. It still shows that the BBPD is motivated.

no1what

05-27-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by no1what
IMO I am sure that Stacy's family is glad to see some progress. I know they would want some what of a more serious charge against Peterson but I'm not sure that can happen until the GJ has completed it's findings and testimonies.

IMO no one from Stacy's family would take 5 seconds to defend anything that Drew is accused of whether they felt the charge was right or wrong.

IMO this is a win no matter how small for Stacy. I hope there are many more wins to come. [/*]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by kimmy56

Whether we agree with the arrest for this type of charge, after talking with a friend police officer of mine, he suggested that this was, indeed, a show to the family and the public that this is still being worked. And that in my mind is a good thing whether you think this is a minor thing or not. It still shows that the BBPD is motivated. [/*]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:beer: This is exactly my point.

kizzzy

05-27-2008, 05:29 PM

Fox now reporting search going on on a high tech boat called the Stacy-Anne.
They have checked 40 blue barrels and said the number of these barrels found is insane.
The report did sound promising overall and if I was DP I would be shaking.
:biggrin:

They said Illinois waterways but would not say a specific location.

Marcusd72

05-27-2008, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by kizzzy
Fox now reporting search going on on a high tech boat called the Stacy-Anne.
They have checked 40 blue barrels and said the number of these barrels found is insane.
The report did sound promising overall and if I was DP I would be shaking.
:biggrin:

They said Illinois waterways but would not say a specific location. [/*]

Link available?

kizzzy

05-27-2008, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Marcusd72

Link available? [/*]

I stated what I was watching on FOX , River Walk posted a link of video in the 27th thread that verifies it!

SoggyBayou

05-29-2008, 09:15 AM

http://www.tmz.com/2008/05/29/will-travolta-help-get-drew-peterson-off/

no1what

05-29-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by asurvivor
He can't prove this is the same gun nore can he prove he did not motify it later [/*]

-----------------------------------------------------

IMO he may even be making the prosecutors case for them by providing a picture of himself using an illegal; non-registered with the police department fire arm while on duty.

Land Shark®

05-29-2008, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by no1what

-----------------------------------------------------

IMO he may even be making the prosecutors case for them by providing a picture of himself using an illegal; non-registered with the police department fire arm while on duty.

I'm thinking the same thing.

SoggyBayou

05-29-2008, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by asurvivor
He can't prove this is the same gun nore can he prove he did not motify it later [/*]

I agree, the thought that this pic will exonerate Drew is ridiculous.
I think that this pic with Travolta is going spark some complaints from John.
Does JTravolta want to be involved?
IMO

wandering

06-01-2008, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by unclezeek
LOL, Nancy Grace is as much a journalist as John Stewart, and I still think John Stewart is more sincere.
She plays to an audience and she does it rather well. you don't watch her for anything new, you watch her to validate your opinions and if it's not doing that, you wouldn't be watching her.

I never watched Greta until Stacy went missing and I must say I like her.

Off topic or not, nice talking with you. [/*]Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor, who won 99 out of one hundred cases she tried.

unclezeek

06-01-2008, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by wandering
Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor, who won 99 out of one hundred cases she tried. [/*]...And she is a current sidshow freak.

wandering

06-01-2008, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by unclezeek
...And she is a current sidshow freak. [/*]So don't watch her. :shrug:

unclezeek

06-01-2008, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by wandering
So don't watch her. :shrug: [/*]I don't. It's pointlees. I get more truthfull info watching The Simpsons.

annalyzer

06-02-2008, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

Really? Please a provide a link to a credible source, unless you're just posting an opinion. I don't believe you are correct with your figures there.

my opinions [/*]

Have you ever heard of Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace#Career_as_prosecutor

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

I doubt he'll search for his "missing" wife because he said she took off with another man. If my husband took off with another woman, I wouldn't expend the energy to look for him. I'd consider him a waste of skin.

mho [/*]

First of all, if you trust what DP says then you're very naive.

But for the sake of argument, let's go with his premise that she ran off (even though no one else who knew Stacy agrees that she would ever do that). My first inclination might be to write off a spouse who ran off; however, I would want to be able to get on with my life which means finding out if I can divorce him and also to find some answers for the children. In order to do that, the spouse would need to be found. There's no way I could just cavalierly go ahead with my life without looking for him.

no1what

06-03-2008, 10:46 AM

imo I guess you could be correct in saying "if we just stated facts there would be nothing to argue."

Maybe we can just make a list of what the facts are.

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

snipped

Maybe Drew isn't interested in getting a "divorce."

snipped
mho

You couldn't be more wrong about that:

Former Illinois Sgt. Drew Peterson wants to divorce his wife who vanished more than three months ago, The Herald News reported on Thursday.

"Yeah, but I don’t think I can for a year or so," Peterson told the newspaper about his divorce plans.

~End Link Quote~

Drew Peterson Wants to Divorce Missing Wife - January 31, 2008 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327047,00.html)

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Kindly, do not make this personal and call me "naive." Our beliefs are not sprinkled with gold dust. They are just a belief. Many believe the people who say Stacy would not run off; I believe Drew when he said she ran off with another man. It all boils down to who we believe.

Maybe he considers it best to use his money to feed his kids, house them, and clothe them, and that his time belongs to his children, not time to be spent searching for a woman who took off with another man and left their children behind.

For the record: I have no doubt some of his time is set aside for entertainment, like most parents do...but I believe he cares deeply for his kids...and his time is better spent with them instead of searching for a woman who, according to Drew, took off with another man.

Maybe Drew isn't interested in getting a "divorce." Maybe he doesn't want to marry again.

As I stated in a previous post, I would consider my husband a waste of skin if he took off with another woman. I wouldn't take away the time away from my children, to go searching for him.

mho [/*]

I'm curious - what gives you the impression that Drew is more trustworthy than friends of Stacy? I find this a very interesting perspective considering DP's demeanor and actions (and non actions). Why would you automatically believe Drew who has had control issues with all of his wives over Stacy?

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

You couldn't be more wrong about that:

Former Illinois Sgt. Drew Peterson wants to divorce his wife who vanished more than three months ago, The Herald News reported on Thursday.

"Yeah, but I don’t think I can for a year or so," Peterson told the newspaper about his divorce plans.

~End Link Quote~

Drew Peterson Wants to Divorce Missing Wife - January 31, 2008 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327047,00.html) [/*]

What I find interesting is it seems that DP (looking at history) only gets divorced when he's got someone else lined up.

MyrDawn

06-03-2008, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

You couldn't be more wrong about that:

Former Illinois Sgt. Drew Peterson wants to divorce his wife who vanished more than three months ago, The Herald News reported on Thursday.

"Yeah, but I don’t think I can for a year or so," Peterson told the newspaper about his divorce plans.

~End Link Quote~

Drew Peterson Wants to Divorce Missing Wife - January 31, 2008 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327047,00.html) [/*]

He doesn't "think" he can divorce her for a "year or so"? Doesn't his attorney Brodsky know the law? Or is he too busy doing damage control on TV talk shows for Drew to be able to ask him about it?

MyrDawn

06-03-2008, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

How can I be wrong with a "maybe?" I didn't state he was not going to get a divorce.

So now you've given a link stating he is trying to divorce his wife, which proves to me that he believes she is alive. It's highly unlikely he is trying to divorce a "dead" woman.

mho [/*]

Which link states he's trying to divorce his wife? The one in your quote only says he told the newspaper he doesn't think he can "for a year or so". If he was serious about it, he would have talked to his attorney and would know exactly when he could file for divorce.

I believe he's just spouting words trying to make people think he believes she's still alive.

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

How can I be wrong with a "maybe?"

snipped
mho

It's very simple.

There is no maybe about it.

"Maybe Drew isn't interested in getting a divorce" is inherently wrong.

Per the link provided. ;)

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Simple: Right there is no "maybe" about it---NOW that you provided the link, but BEFORE you provided a link there was a "maybe" about it. I said "maybe" before the link...so there certainly was a "maybe" about it.

mho

Uhhh.. no.

As of January 31, 2008... there hasn't been a 'maybe' about it.

Today is June 3, 2008. ;)

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

I was talking about the "maybe" in my post.

True there hasn't been a "maybe" about it, but I did not know that until I saw the link...BEFORE that, according to my belief system, there was a "maybe" about it. This can be twisted until until the end of time, but there was a "maybe" in my belief BEFORE I saw the link.

mho

Oh. I see.

You're basically saying that you are posting without knowledge of what has transpired in this case.

I get it now.

Thanks.

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

How can I be wrong with a "maybe?" I didn't state he was not going to get a divorce.

So now you've given a link stating he is trying to divorce his wife, which proves to me that he believes she is alive. It's highly unlikely he is trying to divorce a "dead" woman.

mho [/*]

Actually, if he really wants to divorce (and, as you say, you believe what he says), his "missing" wife, he will have to find her to divorce her. Since he's not looking for her, I have to assume he knows she's dead. How would he know that? Only if he saw her dead.

Jpanda

06-03-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

He does not believe she is dead, according to what Drew has said in interviews. He believes she took off with another man. Since he is not looking for her now, I have to assume she is not dead. Why? I believe him when he said she took off with another man.

mho [/*]

But didn't DP say recently in an interview that he is now concerned about her? I thought I read somewhere that he now thinks something may have happened to her. I'll try to find a link, but I could have sworn I read that. If that IS the case, then he is still not looking for her.

jmo

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

He does not believe she is dead, according to what Drew has said in interviews. He believes she took off with another man. Since he is not looking for her now, I have to assume she is not dead. Why? I believe him when he said she took off with another man.

mho [/*]

I understand that's what you think. I am just saying that there are two different perspectives. That's all - not saying you're wrong and I'm right. Obviously, whether we believe DP or not has alot to do with what we think of him personally. Two people can see the same actions, behavior, news reports, etc. and have two totally different opinions.

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

True, but I am not "naive" because I have a different perspective.

mho [/*]

Well, naive is not a bad thing. But from where I sit, I think that anyone who sees what's going on is naive if they think DP is a "nice" man.

There have been cases before where a wife goes missing and I have not automatically believed in the husband's/bf's guilt or innocence because the guy seems "nice". I will wait to see what happens. But it's happened too many times to automatically believe him based on my opinion of him. But with the history in this case, there are too many indications to believe anything DP says.

From what I see (and altho I am not privy to any inside info), and I do live within 5 miles of his home and the community, DP seems to have conducted his life with an arrogance and condescension that he can get away with whatever he wants. And it seems like he has - he seems to have no shame about the things he has done. Rather, he seems rather proud of his marriages and how he's gone about getting those marriages. I am not saying that my opinion of his wives is any better; however, I've known men like him and I've known women who get bowled over by men like him - especially young and yes, naive women who may have a need to have a "father figure" and that is exactly why the kind of man DP is focuses on dating younger women because they believe him. Along with his history of domestic abuse and the many "coincidences", makes me lean towards the guilty side. But I could be wrong.

And that's why we're all here discussing it! :)

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 01:42 PM

In the context of levity... I found it quite humorous that Drew's latest girlfriend had no clue the phone Drew supplied her was GPS enabled.

Someone in the Grand Jury proceedings pointed it out to her.

Jpanda

06-03-2008, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®
In the context of levity... I found it quite humorous that Drew's latest girlfriend had no clue the phone Drew supplied her was GPS enabled.

Someone in the Grand Jury proceedings pointed it out to her. [/*]

Do you have a link for that? I don't think I've read that! Very interesting - he gave her a phone, huh? Wow.

jmo

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Jpanda

Do you have a link for that? I don't think I've read that! Very interesting - he gave her a phone, huh? Wow.

jmo

Sure. Here you go:

The grand jury also heard from 22-year-old Kimberly Matuska of Darien, who declined to discuss her testimony afterward and denied a law-enforcement source's contention that she and Peterson had a relationship.

A law-enforcement source told the Tribune that Matuska began a relationship after meeting Peterson on April 25 at a Bolingbrook bar through their mutual friend, Steve Carcerano.

The source said Matuska told investigators Peterson gave her a cell phone, which she showed to police. Investigators found the phone was equipped with a GPS function, but the source said it was unclear whether Matuska knew about that feature.

~End Link Quote~

Aunt: Stacy 'Wanted Out' (http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020825&docId=l:799580008&start=5)

In the article above it says 'the source said it was unclear whether Matuska knew about that feature.'

Another article I read claimed she hadn't any clue the GPS function was on her phone. I'll try to find a link to that article.

I believe the law enforcement 'source'. :)

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 01:57 PM

Land Shark®

06-03-2008, 02:03 PM

Another link to the same story but with more info:

Matuska also said she met Peterson's children, and that at one point he told her he loved her and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her, the source said.

Peterson sounded disgusted to learn Matuska was the target of a barrage of media coverage Thursday.

"We're no longer seeing each other," he said.

~End Link Quote~

Stacy Peterson's aunt talks to grand jury (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_30may30,0,5122397.story?track=rss)

"Told her he loved her & wanted to spend the rest of his life with her"?

Unreal.

She denies they had a relationship and then Drew is quoted as saying "We're no longer seeing each other".

Again... I believe the law enforcement 'source'. :)

Jpanda

06-03-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Another link to the same story but with more info:

Matuska also said she met Peterson's children, and that at one point he told her he loved her and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her, the source said.

Peterson sounded disgusted to learn Matuska was the target of a barrage of media coverage Thursday.

"We're no longer seeing each other," he said.

~End Link Quote~

Stacy Peterson's aunt talks to grand jury (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_30may30,0,5122397.story?track=rss)

"Told her he loved her & wanted to spend the rest of his life with her"?

Unreal.

She denies they had a relationship and then Drew is quoted as saying "We're no longer seeing each other".

Again... I believe the law enforcement 'source'. :) [/*]

Thanks LandShark!! Wow. That's pretty creepy, IMO. I can't believe he told her that he wanted to spend the rest of his life with her, too. That's pretty odd.

jmo

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Good or a bad thing, I am not "naive."

We were talking about "demeanor" and "actions" until it all twisted in another direction. I do not think Drew is "arrogant" or "condescending," as you obviously do. I find his "demeanor" and "actions" to be that of a nice man.

You extracted all that living "five" miles from him? Amazing.

mho [/*]

So sorry - I thought this was a place to have conversations - my bad

never mind:confused:

snap4

06-03-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

[Good or a bad thing, I am not "naive."

We were talking about "demeanor" and "actions" until it all twisted in another direction. I do not think Drew is "arrogant" or "condescending," as you obviously do. I find his "demeanor" and "actions" to be that of a nice man. ]end quote

Ok, so you believe him to be a "nice" man...I just am trying to understand where you are coming from but... Do you consider a "nice man" to be a man who beats, threatens, stalks, harrasses, controls, and frightens his girlfriends and/or wives? Because that to me has never been top qualities in a man. Who would you consider to be a "bad" man? If you do not consider a man who does all these things to be a "nice' man... then what makes you so convinced that Drew is a "nice" man, when he has been PROVEN to do ALL of these things? WHat is your definition of NICE?

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Yes, it is a place to have "conversations," and that is exactly what I am doing--having a conversation. Just because I don't have the same perspective as you do, it doesn't mean we are not having a converstion. Having a conversation doesn't mean ditto postings.

mho [/*]

then maybe you could address the issues I raised instead of making a sarcastic remark

:shrug:

kimmy56

06-03-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by snap4
Originally posted by mcannie1965

[Good or a bad thing, I am not "naive."

We were talking about "demeanor" and "actions" until it all twisted in another direction. I do not think Drew is "arrogant" or "condescending," as you obviously do. I find his "demeanor" and "actions" to be that of a nice man. ]end quote

Ok, so you believe him to be a "nice" man...I just am trying to understand where you are coming from but... Do you consider a "nice man" to be a man who beats, threatens, stalks, harrasses, controls, and frightens his girlfriends and/or wives? Because that to me has never been top qualities in a man. Who would you consider to be a "bad" man? If you do not consider a man who does all these things to be a "nice' man... then what makes you so convinced that Drew is a "nice" man, when he has been PROVEN to do ALL of these things? WHat is your definition of NICE? [/*]

So.....Snap4 - what would you like to talk about? :)

MyrDawn

06-03-2008, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

What link did I provide? I provided no link. It was the poster I responded to who provided the link.

Here: Ask the poster who provided the link (page 6)

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?threadid=331838&perpage=40&pagenumber=6

mho [/*]

I didn't say you provided the link. I said it was the link in your quote...referring to your quote of LandShark.
"How can I be wrong with a "maybe?" I didn't state he was not going to get a divorce.

You are the one that said "So now you've given a link stating he is trying to divorce his wife, which proves to me that he believes she is alive. It's highly unlikely he is trying to divorce a "dead" woman."

I am wondering where it says he is trying to divorce his wife, because that link you had in your quote didn't say anything about his trying to divorce his wife. Only that mumbo jumbo he told a newspaper, which shows he hadn't even talked to his attorney and found out when he could file for divorce.

not.another

06-03-2008, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I didn't say you provided the link. I said it was the link in your quote...referring to your quote of LandShark.
"How can I be wrong with a "maybe?" I didn't state he was not going to get a divorce.

You are the one that said "So now you've given a link stating he is trying to divorce his wife, which proves to me that he believes she is alive. It's highly unlikely he is trying to divorce a "dead" woman."

I am wondering where it says he is trying to divorce his wife, because that link you had in your quote didn't say anything about his trying to divorce his wife. Only that mumbo jumbo he told a newspaper, which shows he hadn't even talked to his attorney and found out when he could file for divorce. [/*]

I think we are all reading too far into this divorce stuff. He obviously checked into it in January as he knows he has to wait a year to file. Per his own words. Why would he be so quick to get a divorce if he believes his wife just "ran off"? IMO, because she isn't coming back and he knows it.

no1what

06-03-2008, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Good or a bad thing, I am not "naive."

We were talking about "demeanor" and "actions" until it all twisted in another direction. I do not think Drew is "arrogant" or "condescending," as you obviously do. I find his "demeanor" and "actions" to be that of a nice man.

You extracted all that living "five" miles from him? Amazing.

mho [/*]

---------------------------------------------------------

Since you feel your instincts on Drew’s personality is more accurate does that mean you live closer than 5 miles from Drew?

Exactly how close do you have to live to have a valid perspective?

MyrDawn

06-03-2008, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by not.another

I think we are all reading too far into this divorce stuff. He obviously checked into it in January as he knows he has to wait a year to file. Per his own words. Why would he be so quick to get a divorce if he believes his wife just "ran off"? IMO, because she isn't coming back and he knows it. [/*]

ITA

no1what

06-03-2008, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

No, I don't believe a man who beats, thereatens, stalks, harasses, controls, and frightens his girlfriends or wives. I don't believe he does all this.

IMO, he is a NICE man.

I refuse to nit pick this to bare bones, and you don't need to understand where I am coming from. It is my perspective and view from the bridge, accept it or reject it.

mho [/*]

---------------------------------------------------------------

That would mean that anyone who says those things are true about Drew are all lying. So Bolingbrook has a lot of liars except of course Drew!

not.another

06-03-2008, 06:28 PM

no1what

06-03-2008, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by not.another

Right! Especially the pastor - how dare he lie like that. What a shame! j/k [/*]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a list of all of the statements made regarding Drew's demeanor/personality?

not.another

06-03-2008, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by no1what

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a list of all of the statements made regarding Drew's demeanor/personality? [/*]

Do you mean statements by Drew showing his personality? Or, from family, friends & previous wives?

magpie1

06-03-2008, 07:06 PM

What we have to go on is what we've heard in numerous media reports.

Those that know Drew Peterson well, describe him as controlling and abusive.

Although Drew Peterson's first wife, Carol Brown, didn't portray Drew as abusive, she did say that he tended to be controlling.

Drew Peterson's second wife, Vickie Connolly, is still afraid of Drew, and states that he was both controlling and abusive during their marriage. Vickie's daughter, Lisa Ward, also described Drew as controlling and abusive during the time he was her step-father.

Drew Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, now deceased, her death a homicide, left behind copies of letters she had sent to authorities describing the abuse she suffered from Drew Peterson, and her fear that he would kill her. Her family saw evidence of that abuse.

Drew Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, is missing, disappearing under circumstances that are very suspect. Police state that she didn't leave her home willingly, and Drew Peterson is their only suspect.

Since Stacy's disappearance, Drew Peterson has done nothing to help find her, insisting she took off with another man, even when there's no evidence to support this. Drew has made contradictory statements about the events of October 28th, refuses to state publicly where he was and what he was doing during the 24-hour period in which Stacy went missing, and took the 5th at his grand jury appearance.

IMO, Drew Peterson is a very arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic, controlling man. He may very well be a sociopath, as he exhibits no remorse for his actions, and ignores social norms. He preys on young girls more than half his age and has committed adultery many times over. IMO, Drew Peterson is an evil man.

no1what

06-03-2008, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by not.another

Do you mean statements by Drew showing his personality? Or, from family, friends & previous wives? [/*]

---------------------------------------------------------

I say we go all the way and get both.

unclezeek

06-03-2008, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by no1what

---------------------------------------------------------------

That would mean that anyone who says those things are true about Drew are all lying. So Bolingbrook has a lot of liars except of course Drew! [/*]They do say Bolingbrook is the new Goldcoast.

Personally, I was happy to get away from that piece of crap..

I'm sure some people enjoy drugs, gangs, crime, and corrupt police though. I'm just the idiot who likes to walk out of my house and find my car where I left it.

mcannie1965

Drew killed Stacy.There is no other explination for why nobody knows where she is.

BobbysGirl

06-03-2008, 10:02 PM

OH MY! Could it be that Stacy is in protective custody or the witness program?

WOW That would be a time bomb (for the GJ etal).

Serious, Reading this thread, nothing would surprise me and my imagination. I am entitled to voice and throw something in.

So many maybes. I love the drama. :)

JMHO

Mamie

06-03-2008, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

(snipped)

I believe he's just spouting words trying to make people think he believes she's still alive. [/*]

And there, you've got it! Just in that last sentence. Whatever he can get the public to believe that HE BELIEVES is his current angle. JMO

BobbysGirl

06-03-2008, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Mamie
snip

HE BELIEVES JMO [/*]

Exactly! In the mind of the beholder. IMHO

kimmy56

06-04-2008, 11:47 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by unclezeek
They do say Bolingbrook is the new Goldcoast.

HA! That's a good one unclezeek! :D

Jpanda

06-04-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

respecyfully snipped

Stacy will turn up alive. Wait and see. She will be found alive.

mho [/*]

That would be more than wonderful if you are correct. However, since LE has labeled this a "potential homicide" that leads me to believe that they have evidence that we don't know about yet, that lead them to that conclusion.

JMO

tagalong

06-04-2008, 02:38 PM

Something I’ve wondered about is, why would a computer be missing? Usually computers reveal secret love e-mails, so in this case this would be helpful to DP, if Stacy had been corresponding with a secret lover via e-mail. Then why would it be missing?? After much pondering, I believe DP used this computer to e-mail the person he needed to help him get rid of the body. DP knows or has something on that person he e-mailed, bad enough that DP doesn’t have to worry about that person talking. Also, instructions were in the e-mail for this “person” to meet DP at Cushing Airport. This is where the particulars were worked out. This is also where the $25,000.00 went. DP gave “this man” $25,000.00 to make sure that Stacy’s body will never be found. Cremated?? This e-mail was probably sent to “this person” when DP needed the 15 minutes when the kids were over at Sharon’s. (I still don’t know if Kris and Tom went to Sharon’s.) After sending the e-mail, the computer was put in the “box”, “container”, “whatever” along with Stacy’s body and the $25,000.00. (Stacy took it with her DP said.) The money was removed when the two men met around 10:00 pm 10/28/07. DP went to Cushing Airport under the pretense to place a sticker on his plane, and he took Anthony and Lacy along with him to make everything seem kosher and innocent.

Have at it chatters!! Anyone know of anyone who can cremate a body, maybe has a questionable background, and could possibly need $25,000.00 for a crisis? I don’t know a thing about Cushing Airport. Someone please fill me in. This ranting is JMO, IMO.

not.another

06-04-2008, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by tagalong
Something I’ve wondered about is, why would a computer be missing? Usually computers reveal secret love e-mails, so in this case this would be helpful to DP, if Stacy had been corresponding with a secret lover via e-mail. Then why would it be missing?? After much pondering, I believe DP used this computer to e-mail the person he needed to help him get rid of the body. DP knows or has something on that person he e-mailed, bad enough that DP doesn’t have to worry about that person talking. Also, instructions were in the e-mail for this “person” to meet DP at Cushing Airport. This is where the particulars were worked out. This is also where the $25,000.00 went. DP gave “this man” $25,000.00 to make sure that Stacy’s body will never be found. Cremated?? This e-mail was probably sent to “this person” when DP needed the 15 minutes when the kids were over at Sharon’s. (I still don’t know if Kris and Tom went to Sharon’s.) After sending the e-mail, the computer was put in the “box”, “container”, “whatever” along with Stacy’s body and the $25,000.00. (Stacy took it with her DP said.) The money was removed when the two men met around 10:00 pm 10/28/07. DP went to Cushing Airport under the pretense to place a sticker on his plane, and he took Anthony and Lacy along with him to make everything seem kosher and innocent.

Have at it chatters!! Anyone know of anyone who can cremate a body, maybe has a questionable background, and could possibly need $25,000.00 for a crisis? I don’t know a thing about Cushing Airport. Someone please fill me in. This ranting is JMO, IMO. [/*]

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't remember anything about a missing computer. I know they did take a few out of DP's residence and then gave them back eventually. Is there a missing one?

no1what

06-04-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by tagalong
Something I’ve wondered about is, why would a computer be missing? Usually computers reveal secret love e-mails, so in this case this would be helpful to DP, if Stacy had been corresponding with a secret lover via e-mail. Then why would it be missing?? After much pondering, I believe DP used this computer to e-mail the person he needed to help him get rid of the body. DP knows or has something on that person he e-mailed, bad enough that DP doesn’t have to worry about that person talking. Also, instructions were in the e-mail for this “person” to meet DP at Cushing Airport. This is where the particulars were worked out. This is also where the $25,000.00 went. DP gave “this man” $25,000.00 to make sure that Stacy’s body will never be found. Cremated?? This e-mail was probably sent to “this person” when DP needed the 15 minutes when the kids were over at Sharon’s. (I still don’t know if Kris and Tom went to Sharon’s.) After sending the e-mail, the computer was put in the “box”, “container”, “whatever” along with Stacy’s body and the $25,000.00. (Stacy took it with her DP said.) The money was removed when the two men met around 10:00 pm 10/28/07. DP went to Cushing Airport under the pretense to place a sticker on his plane, and he took Anthony and Lacy along with him to make everything seem kosher and innocent.

Have at it chatters!! Anyone know of anyone who can cremate a body, maybe has a questionable background, and could possibly need $25,000.00 for a crisis? I don’t know a thing about Cushing Airport. Someone please fill me in. This ranting is JMO, IMO. [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------

Too bad that lap top didn't have an anti theft chip installed.

Or did it????

:shrug:

magpie1

06-04-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by tagalong
Something I’ve wondered about is, why would a computer be missing? Usually computers reveal secret love e-mails, so in this case this would be helpful to DP, if Stacy had been corresponding with a secret lover via e-mail. Then why would it be missing?? After much pondering, I believe DP used this computer to e-mail the person he needed to help him get rid of the body. DP knows or has something on that person he e-mailed, bad enough that DP doesn’t have to worry about that person talking. Also, instructions were in the e-mail for this “person” to meet DP at Cushing Airport. This is where the particulars were worked out. This is also where the $25,000.00 went. DP gave “this man” $25,000.00 to make sure that Stacy’s body will never be found. Cremated?? This e-mail was probably sent to “this person” when DP needed the 15 minutes when the kids were over at Sharon’s. (I still don’t know if Kris and Tom went to Sharon’s.) After sending the e-mail, the computer was put in the “box”, “container”, “whatever” along with Stacy’s body and the $25,000.00. (Stacy took it with her DP said.) The money was removed when the two men met around 10:00 pm 10/28/07. DP went to Cushing Airport under the pretense to place a sticker on his plane, and he took Anthony and Lacy along with him to make everything seem kosher and innocent.

Have at it chatters!! Anyone know of anyone who can cremate a body, maybe has a questionable background, and could possibly need $25,000.00 for a crisis? I don’t know a thing about Cushing Airport. Someone please fill me in. This ranting is JMO, IMO. [/*]

Very interesting theory! Everything Drew Peterson did on October 28th was part of the murder cover up. So the trip to Cushing airport has to be part of the overall plan to dispose of Stacy's body. I wonder if he met with someone who had an airplane and for a price would take the body out of state.

Was it ever confirmed if the missing laptop was Drew's or Stacy's? If Drew has incriminating emails on that computer, it's a good reason to dispose of it.

no1what

06-05-2008, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by gerald1
Since it's all wild speculation, it's also possible Stacy took her laptop with her to cover her tracks. She may have e-mails to her lover on it. If your going to speculate why not do it for both. Seems only fair.:patriot: [/*]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So she took her laptop (which probably has gps tracking) but not her cell phone that had racy text messages on it that.

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

There is another explanation. Maybe she doesn't want to be found.

Nobody knew where Brandi Starr was for years, or where John List was for 18 years, or where Abby Hoffman was for years.

mho

mho [/*]Those people had reasons to dissapear. Stacy is not charged with or suspected of cocaine dealing or mass murder, so what would be herf reason for falling off the face of the planet?

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Stacy may have had reasons to disappear. Could be she wanted to start a new life with a new love. It wouldn't be the first time a woman took off with a new love, and left her children behind.

I am giving Drew Peterson's story a benefit of a doubt.

mho [/*]Looks more like your trying to write his side of the story for him. All he's said is she called him and told him she's leaving him for another man (which doesn't sound like a reason to cut yourself off from the entire world).

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Stacy may have had reasons to disappear. Could be she wanted to start a new life with a new love. It wouldn't be the first time a woman took off with a new love, and left her children behind.

I am giving Drew Peterson's story a benefit of a doubt.

mho [/*]Funny how nobody can tie her to a new love. Or provide any proof she is still alive.

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Nobody can provide any proof she is dead. If they can't tie her to a new love, she kept him hidden.

mho [/*]No contact or activity since October leans more towards dead than alive and how is it this new love is the only thing she could keep hidden?

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Jennifer Wilbanks had a hidden bank account. Brandi Starr had no activity for years. She didn't apply for a credit card, bank account, and she lived under her own name for years. She never changed her identity.

mho [/*]Wilbanks claimed she was kidnapped. Stacy just (supposedly) said she was leaving which makes no sense whay she would then cut herself off from her family who she was very close with (and she knew most of them would turn summersalts if they knew she was leaving Drew).

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

People who want to disappear will cut themselves off from their family. Stacy's family may have turned summersaults, but she wanted to start a new life. It's a new beginning. I believe Drew Peterson, that she took off with another man.

Wilbanks claimed she was kidnapped when she wanted to come back. She claimed being kidnapped to explain why she took off.

Brandi Starr's family said they were close: Wilbanks family said they were close, but it didn't stop these two from "disappearing." Some people just don't give a darn about who they leave behind.

In my opinion, Stacy had something to do with KS's death...and she tried to make it appear Drew killed her. I am fully aware the homicide was declared AFTER her disappearance, but I believe Stacy may have had something to do with her death.

mho [/*]So many things here. None of them make sense.

Who is this "other man" and how could NOBODY know about him?
You keep bringing up these other people who willingly dissapeared, but you have yet to provide any correlation between this case and those.
And what the hell would Stacys involvment in Kathleens death have to do with her running off with another man 3 1/2 yaers later?

I DARE you to give me an answer without bringing up an unrelated case. Talk about Stacy......not Briny Whosehrfrickenname.

unclezeek

06-05-2008, 07:27 PM

Respectfully, the only thing on that list we know he knew was where she had lunch....Because he showed up there. It was a pretty good guess because when we all lived in that area, it was that Denneys, Family Square, or if it was real late, The truck stop on the south side of I55.
Tina and Stacy were going to these places with friends before I met them in 2000.

no1what

06-06-2008, 09:32 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by unclezeek
Respectfully, the only thing on that list we know he knew was where she had lunch....Because he showed up there. It was a pretty good guess because when we all lived in that area, it was that Denneys, Family Square, or if it was real late, The truck stop on the south side of I55.
Tina and Stacy were going to these places with friends before I met them in 2000. [/*]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Kathy*Rae

:read:

Lunch, where he showed up after circling the resturant..Right?

Hair appointment because a family member/friend stated he called her 7-8 times during her appointment.

Her visit to the pastor because I believe the pastor..... and didn't Drew P. say she was dressed sexy to go and see him?

How about the GPS? Was it on the phone he gave Stacy? I don't recall.. [/*]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn’t that lunch meeting a recent luncheon that occurred last summer? Bolingbrook has a plethora of Restaurants. Some might call it restaurant row. IMO if you go back and review various statements by family and friends it will show that he did follow her so excessively that it should have been defined as stalking.

:beer: