Suspect Drew Peterson #3

[thesleuther]

I'm not sure of all the details, but DP did transfer funds in the amount of approx. $200,000 to his son, Steve. At the time we learned about it here, there was speculation that it was money to take care of the kids if DP went to jail, or bail money/defense funds. With the Savio family initiating a lawsuit for wrongful death, the first thing that came to mind was the money DP transferred to Steve. So I'm wondering if the funds DP transferred to Steve were DP's way of putting money somewhere where it was untouchable, or if a court of law would see it as hiding assets?

Technically, that money would be half Stacy's. I'll bet there's some kind of provision to get this money back. Also, I don't see Steve actually being involved in any way with Stacy's death nor do I see Drew having confided to him. If things get extremely heated, I can see Steve giving the money back.

Don't forget that Steve's mother was also wronged by Drew. She divorced him because he was cheating. Also, she couldn't afford a divorce attorney and Drew provided his for her (ahem). Her child support wasn't very much. Steve also still has his mother for counsel and advice. She's going to watch out for her son and if push comes to shove, I'll bet Steve bows out and thinks of his own future, marriage, home before going down with Drew.

 

[thesleuther]

One delicious thing about a civil suit is that Drew will have to testify. I wish Stacy's family would do the same.

 

[Taximom]

I still don't understand why Stacy's family would want any part of that home equity line. It's just money that has to be paid back! Someone help me understand this better.

 

[Taximom]

One delicious thing about a civil suit is that Drew will have to testify. I wish Stacy's family would do the same.

Exactly, which is what got OJ Simpson in big trouble. His own big mouth. :woohoo: Can't wait.

 

[DeltaDawn]

They wouldn't get that money Taximom..they would get money from Drew's holdings, bank account, retirement etc. The 200k given to Steve would still be Steve's I imagine..but what that does is tie up the house with a lien on the house. The house could not be sold sold or transferred without the lien being satisfied. Which of cousrse could be done either by Steve or Kitty's family ..so in effect it was useless.

 

[Taximom]

Thanks, DeltaDawn! :blowkiss:

 

[DeltaDawn]

You are very welcome Taximom!

 

[thesleuther]

I still don't understand why Stacy's family would want any part of that home equity line. It's just money that has to be paid back! Someone help me understand this better.

The money came from a home that was paid for - Stacy's home - and half of that unencumbered asset was hers. Now, Drew essentially took the equity out - again, half of which was Stacy's - and gave it to his son. Therefore, since Drew still has the asset (the house) and it can be sold to satisfy the loan, half of the money is Stacy's.

So, why would Stacy's family want it? Drew still has the asset (the house) and can sell it to satisfy the loan obligation.

The reason Drew did that, was to assure the safety of that quarter-million dollars. If someone took the house (to satisfy a judgment), it would be all equity. If they take the house now, they have to first satisfy the loan obligation, what's left would be a pittance. Drew still has his money, let someone else worry about the loan payment. It was done to protect the equity and half of that equity is Stacy's.

 

[Wudge]

One delicious thing about a civil suit is that Drew will have to testify. I wish Stacy's family would do the same.

If someone files a civil suit, it doesn't mean the Court would let the suit go to trial.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

(Sigh) Oh, Sure! Wudge! Take the wind right out of our sails.

 

[mysteriew]

It is very unusual for a court to refuse a wrongful death suit is it not Wudge? Yes, they can. But they don't.

 

[Wudge]

It is very unusual for a court to refuse a wrongful death suit is it not Wudge? Yes, they can. But they don't.

Wrongful death suits almost always follow another proceeding or finding.

Reflect on where we are. Drew has not been indicted. Drew has not been convicted of a crime. Even worse, the M.E. has not found Kathleen to have likely been murdered.

A Judge is certainly would look hard at the merits of the case, which are likely to be based in large part on inadmissable hearsay. Moreover, after a deposition in which he took the 5th amendment, Drew could ask for a proceeding stay pending resolution of the investigation.

 

[mysteriew]

Wrongful death suits almost always follow another proceeding or finding.

Reflect on where we are. Drew has not been indicted. Drew has not been convicted of a crime. Even worse, the M.E. has not found Kathleen to have likely been murdered.
A Judge is certainly would look hard at the merits of the case, which are likely to be based in large part on inadmissable hearsay. Moreover, after a deposition in which he took the 5th amendment, Drew could ask for a proceeding stay pending resolution of the investigation.

Do you have inside info on this? The last I have heard was the results of the latest autopsy haven't been released to the public. The family may have more info.

As far as no injdictment, no conviction how about OJ? No conviction but the family won a civil case. And recently in cold cases, I updated a cold case that I was aware of. 30 years ago a 16 year old girl was killed. Though most people believed they knew who killed her, no indictment was ever brought, no conviction. Authorities said not enough evidence. Recently the family brought a civil suit against the only surviving member of the persons suspected. They won. So just because they don't have a conviction doesn't mean the judge won't allow the case, or won't issue a judgement in favor of the plantiffs.

No there is no guarentee that it will be heard. But it is likely it will make it into court.

 

[SuziQ]

We do not know the findings of the ME. Glasgow made it clear from the beginning that the info will not be made public. And actually Glasgow's office declared, IIRC, that Kathleen's death was a homicide staged to look like an accident. I have a feeling this lawsuit has more to do with possible fradulent activity regarding Kathleen's estate and how that was handled. Anyone can file a civil suit...anyone. That's why our courts are clogged up with frivilous ones! Sorry Wudge, but it's the American way.

The interesting thing about pleading the fifth is that it does not apply to depositions. Man oh man do I know how depos go down. First off, any question can be asked whether or not it relates to the case at hand. The only thing your attorney can do is to protest the question on record. But you still have to answer the question. If you don't, a judge will be brought in to compel you to answer them. I'm not sure what the penalty is for refusing a judges order at a depo, I just know I was never going down that road.

Usually you can't plead the fifth in a monetary civil case at trial. It happens but it's not common. It usually applies to a witness so their testimony doesn't result in criminal charges later on. Drew will be a defendant, not a witness. Drew can ask for anything he wants, but it doesn't mean he will get it. If Brodsky is going up against JQK, then Drew won't get squat.

 

[thesleuther]

If someone files a civil suit, it doesn't mean the Court would let the suit go to trial.

But it doesn't mean they won't. My bet is that it would go forward. All indications are that the ME is going to rule this case as a homicide. The Bolingbrook Police Department has been greatly embarrassed by Drew Peterson. Kathleen's cries for help and her 911 calls went unheeded. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that he murdered Kathleen. I'm not going to review all of what is known, but in my opinion this particular case will go forward and I'll say it again, the delicious part is that Drew will have to testify. Let him plead the fifth and we'll see how impressed the jury is with that testimony. Then we'll see how they weigh it when it comes to the verdict.

 

[SuziQ]

The beauty of a civil trial is that Drew will have to testify and give answers. He can chose to tell the truth or lie. God help him if he is caught in a lie, because a judge will come down hard. Who is the Baseball player that's facing the same thing for lying under oath?

 

[chicoliving]

~snip~

At issue is a motion filed in December by Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, asking that the court order police to return his client's two vehicles, 11 guns, computers and other items seized as part of a search warrant.

The witness, forensic scientist Ann Chamberlain of Speckin Forensic Laboratories in Okemos, Mich., formerly worked for the Michigan State Police and is a medical examiner for Eaton County, Mich. She was fired from her job with the state police in 2007 after she admitted in a divorce proceeding that she had used state equipment to test her husband's underwear to determine whether he was cheating on her.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-drew-peterson_webfeb02,0,664906.story

Drew's "expert witness" had a thread of her own here at WS....

Scientists Test DNA On Hubby's Underwear For Signs OF Cheating

 

[philamena]

No way.:waitasec:
DP wants only the best attny and special witness doesn't he?

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

The last I have heard was the results of the latest autopsy haven't been released to the public. The family may have more info.

As far as no injdictment, no conviction how about OJ? No conviction but the family won a civil case.

SNIP

A revised M.E. autopsy finding would be public record.

OJ's civil suit followed his criminal trial, which was based on a finding of probable cause.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I wonder how many times DP requested she "examine" his wife's underwear?