Drew Peterson To Be On Matt Lauer AGAIN 11/19/07 WHY????

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
He's probably referring to what is called "fine" jewelry: pieces that have been made of the best grade of metal, and/or has finer cuts and settings of natural or well cultured gemstones. Think 24k gold, De Beers diamonds, rare natural pearls, well cultured pearls like the Mikimoto Pearls... real emeralds from places like Africa and Colombia, Tiffany's 925 silver.

DP's need to say he bought her high end jewelry could be considered a telling statement... and I don't mean a "see, I gave her the good stuff, so obviously I was good to her" statement... what I am getting at: it may be a part of his MO: part of his getting, controlling and keeping tactic of having way younger women in his life, by lavishing them with expensive goodies.

Speculation is that he probably has a hidden girlfriend: well... if buying high-end jewelry is his way of wooing and getting his claws into young women, perhaps if LE follows his financial trail they may be able to pick up on expensive jewelry purchases that do not connect back to being for Stacey. Just a thought...

I think what he was trying to say was he bought & paid for her.He owned her / *advertiser censored* / tummy tucks / braces / high buck jewelry. Yep he gave her the world now he owns her.

I also am convinced he has a girlfriend. He probably has given her all of Stacy's high buck jewelry too.
 
I'm sure a girlfriend has been showered with gifts, that's how he got Stacy, it's been said he gave her a car, what 17 year old wouldn't be blinded with things like that.
As he said, kids need A mom so in his mind he's doing good by lining the next 1 up for them.

VB
 
Remember in the first interview how the analyst commented about Drew P tapping his foot? He didn't move this am. Didn't move at all, didn't tap his foot, didn't change the angle of his head, didn't move his hands.

Yes, well, it is obvious that his attorney has coached him on keeping his "body language" in check. Body language, even eye movements, are very telling. And his attorney seems very much the drip! How ridiculous for him to appear on national tv, answering all the questions for Drew, as if he couldn't speak for himself! What a waste of the network's time and money! I'd rather they reran the Wizard of Oz! At least the cowardly lion speaks for himself!
 
Why is this guy going on the Today Show AGAIN tomorrow as just reported by Geraldo Rivera on Fox?
What do you all think?
I think he is trying to spin this as if she was really missing and possibly with another man.
The things he has said today seem to me a deliberate attempt to make people think that he really believes she is gone with another man.
"I have lost 30 lbs" (Like he is sending her a message..."I am not as fat anymore"
"Call my attorney"
I think it's deliberate spin.
This guy is SLICK.

Because it's my Birthday, keep talking Drew. Make my day! What a pressie? I think his ego is sooooooooo big, he thinks he ranks up there in prestige as Matt Lauer, probably has been watching him for years, and it's a macho ego thing for him. To be on tv with Matt.

Which I personally don't care for Matt myself, but I think Drew thinks he's all that and he's doing something great by being on the show. It's a macho man thang. Image! Can't wait to see how dressed up he will look. First interview was advertising for a lawyer, this second interview in my opinion is advertising for a new young girl, again! Out with the old, in with the new.
 
What's that saying...birds of a feather flock together?

Keep googling, Mr Brodsky!

IMO heh
 
Just a heads up everyone I posted a sticky at the top of the front page of Stacy's forum. There will be NO name calling of ANYONE involved in this case.
Thank you,
WindChime
 
Because it's my Birthday, keep talking Drew. Make my day! What a pressie? I think his ego is sooooooooo big, he thinks he ranks up there in prestige as Matt Lauer, probably has been watching him for years, and it's a macho ego thing for him. To be on tv with Matt.

Which I personally don't care for Matt myself, but I think Drew thinks he's all that and he's doing something great by being on the show. It's a macho man thang. Image! Can't wait to see how dressed up he will look. First interview was advertising for a lawyer, this second interview in my opinion is advertising for a new young girl, again! Out with the old, in with the new.

Happy Birthday to you, Kool Look:HappyBday
 
:HappyBday


:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

Because it's my Birthday, keep talking Drew. Make my day! What a pressie? I think his ego is sooooooooo big, he thinks he ranks up there in prestige as Matt Lauer, probably has been watching him for years, and it's a macho ego thing for him. To be on tv with Matt.

Which I personally don't care for Matt myself, but I think Drew thinks he's all that and he's doing something great by being on the show. It's a macho man thang. Image! Can't wait to see how dressed up he will look. First interview was advertising for a lawyer, this second interview in my opinion is advertising for a new young girl, again! Out with the old, in with the new.
 
I wanted to see the Today Show video before responding. All I can say is that Matt is an excellent interviewer, asking all the right questions, and DP has a fool for a lawyer.

Although the attorney didn't attack Dr. Baden's credentials, he did attack Dr. Baden's intention and motive for doing the autopsy. And, there seemed to be a little desperation to stick to the original "accidental" ruling in Kathleen Savio's death. Now, how are they going to respond when the ME who were hired by Will Co. to do the second autopsy on the exhumed remains of KS, come to the same conclusions at Dr. Baden?

Throughout the entire interview, it was so evident that it was a very controlled interview and DP's attorney isn't smart enough to tell his client to show a little emotion. And that's what gets me.........the complete lack of any emotion!
 
Any link to this blog. I went to Foxnew.com, Greta Wire and couldn't find it:confused:

I'm hunting this down. I now don't think that came from Greta, but a commenter on her site. As soon as I find it. I'll link it.
 
I'm hunting this down. I now don't think that came from Greta, but a commenter on her site. As soon as I find it. I'll link it.
Is this what you are looking for?

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/19/monday-morning-2/#comments

Comment by laura
November 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am

when you really have no more to say about the suspect…try his attorney

On May 8, 2001 the Administrator filed a one-count complaint against Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky alleging that he forged a signature on bank forms in order to withdraw client funds from the bank, falsely endorsed a cashier’s check issued by the bank, failed to deposit the proceeds in a separate identifiable trust account and kept the funds for his own purposes. He was charged with the following misconduct:

conversion;

failure to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account in violation of Rule 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing the

PAGE 2:

crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3);

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4);

conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

he was only suspended 3 months for this…have fun, bloggers
 
Info re: DP's attorney:

M.R.19007
-
In re: Joel Alan Brodsky. Disciplinary Commission.
The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for leave to file exceptions to the report and recommendation of the Review Board is denied. Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months, as recommended by the Review Board. Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky shall reimburse the Disciplinary Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension. Order entered by the Court.


Source: http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/announce/2004/Pdf/Ann0120.pdf
 
Is this what you are looking for?

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/19/monday-morning-2/#comments

Comment by laura
November 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am

when you really have no more to say about the suspect…try his attorney

On May 8, 2001 the Administrator filed a one-count complaint against Respondent Joel Alan Brodsky alleging that he forged a signature on bank forms in order to withdraw client funds from the bank, falsely endorsed a cashier’s check issued by the bank, failed to deposit the proceeds in a separate identifiable trust account and kept the funds for his own purposes. He was charged with the following misconduct:

conversion;

failure to deposit and maintain client funds in a separate identifiable trust account in violation of Rule 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing the

PAGE 2:

crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3);

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4);

conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

he was only suspended 3 months for this…have fun, bloggers

Thanks for reposting this. I was looking for it earlier, and apparently this was deleted by admin. *shrugs* I must have been posting while you were, IB...I did provide the IL state source FWIW.

[FONT=Times, Times Roman, serif]JOEL ALAN BRODSKY, Wilmette: Brodsky, who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for three months. In order to close a probate estate's bank account and receive the funds, he signed the dead executor's name to bank documents needed to release the funds.
Source: http://www.isba.org/association/042h.htm

[/FONT]
 
I wanted to see the Today Show video before responding. All I can say is that Matt is an excellent interviewer, asking all the right questions, and DP has a fool for a lawyer.

Although the attorney didn't attack Dr. Baden's credentials, he did attack Dr. Baden's intention and motive for doing the autopsy. And, there seemed to be a little desperation to stick to the original "accidental" ruling in Kathleen Savio's death. Now, how are they going to respond when the ME who were hired by Will Co. to do the second autopsy on the exhumed remains of KS, come to the same conclusions at Dr. Baden?

Throughout the entire interview, it was so evident that it was a very controlled interview and DP's attorney isn't smart enough to tell his client to show a little emotion. And that's what gets me.........the complete lack of any emotion!



--->>>Well his attorney could not help him with emotion because he did not show any either.

To our dear moderator, MAY we feel free to call DP's attorney J.A.B. since those are his initials er uh, could we just use JAB without the periods ?, it does seem appropriate.

.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
257
Guests online
533
Total visitors
790

Forum statistics

Threads
608,077
Messages
18,234,213
Members
234,284
Latest member
LexaJ
Back
Top