Suspect Drew Peterson #3

[TGIRecovered]

I just heard reporters talking of a comment that Steve C. supposedly made about when he was present with the kids and Drew.

Okay, what am I missing? What was the comment and why is everyone :silenced: ? If you can't post it, can I get a PM pls?

TIA
Susan

 

[i.b.nora]

Steve Carcerano was on Nancy Grace on Monday night. His comments on that show is what people are talking about.

Nancy

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Okay, what am I missing? What was the comment and why is everyone :silenced: ? If you can't post it, can I get a PM pls?

TIA
Susan

I posted it earlier. What I am talking about is that I heard reporters saying that Steve C. said he and Drew were with the two older boys watching the news while Kathleen's family was on cam. Kathleen's family was talking about incidents that supposedly happened years before when they lived together and the boys, according to Steve, jumped up and started yelling that they were liars etc.

My question is simple: WHY were these children being subjected to such media reports in the first place?!

 

[TGIRecovered]

Thanks i.b. and SS.

I don't know which would be worse...letting them hear what is going on in the investigation or try to keep two young teens from seeing news reports while they are left in the home of a murderer.

One thing I do believe is that when you are a child living in the home with a violent and controlling person like Drew, you do what you have to in order to stay on the "good side" of the man. Add to this the fact that Drew is the closest thing to a parent they have left and you'll find a powerful motivation for these boys to defend Drew. I say good for them; tell Drew whatever he wants to hear if that is what it takes to keep Drew happy until the children are in a safe place away from their father.

The veracity of the claim that Drew physically abused Stacy doesn't depend upon whether the boys witnessed it or not anyway.

Susan

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I think allowing them to watch news reports about their mother being abused is sadistic. Their mental health right now is an issue and how they are getting through this horrible time after losing not one, but two mothers is critical. Helping the children cope should not consist of doses of media telling horror stories about their moms, imo.

 

[panthera]

I think allowing them to watch news reports about their mother being abused is sadistic. Their mental health right now is an issue and how they are getting through this horrible time after losing not one, but two mothers is critical. Helping the children cope should not consist of doses of media telling horror stories about their moms, imo.

It's the last thing they should be allowed to watch now. I agree it's bad enough that they've lost their mothers without subjecting the kids to media and speculation.

 

[curiositycat]

I think allowing them to watch news reports about their mother being abused is sadistic. Their mental health right now is an issue and how they are getting through this horrible time after losing not one, but two mothers is critical. Helping the children cope should not consist of doses of media telling horror stories about their moms, imo.

I agree SS. I feel so sorry for those kids. They will end up needing therapy one of these days.
I bet that DP is trying to convince the older kids that SP left him and she has done all this to their poor dad and THEM.
They must be so confused. God love them!:twocents:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

NAUERT: Joel, you are his attorney, why can't you tell us what his alibi is?

BRODSKY: Well, because as any good lawyer will tell you, once you give a statement once and give it to the authorities — that's where it ends. And we're not going to go into the detail about that. Now, if the Illinois State Police wish to release the copy of Drew's statement, that's fine, but we're not going to give another statement or another explanation about the timeline on that night. Remember, they said he's a suspect. He's the target of their investigation, so we have to be cautious.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317634,00.html

Isn't this the way it should be if the timeline is accurate and true? Why would anyone find a need to go back and change it later? You tell LE where you were during the time in question and they verify it. The initial statement shouldn't change. Right? (BTW~I added the bold to the line above.)

 

[Littledeer]

once you give a statement once and give it to the authorities — that's where it ends.

Powerful words from the attorney HIMSELF on his client's behalf.

So, considering DP has given a statement. Are we to then "assume" that anything DP has said afterwards, is not the truth????

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................There have been so many "words" "out of DP'S mouth since the "original statement" that have been found to not be the "whole truth and nothing but the truth."

So Brodsky is trying to say that DP told the truth in his "original statement" and everything afterwards has been a lie?

Any opinions?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Why would Drew or Brodsky have a problem with going public about where Drew was at that time, if it is the truth? Why is he hiding behind LE at this point when he has been so brazen and bold about making other statements? I need to go back to his comments the last visit to Greta.

 

[chicoliving]

From Drew's perspective absolutely no good would come of him giving his timeline to the public....

 

[Littledeer]

chico:

I agree. First, DP knows that the "Public" would tear his timeline apart minute by minute (IF THEY COULD).

But it can be torn apart.....................between Cassandra, kids, neighbors, pings, vehicles, etc. etc. etc.

To me, that was a smart saying on HIS ATTORNEY,...........hey my client, gave his first statement, it's out there, nothing more to say. (It's ended)

It's your job to dispute it.

Mr. Brodsky.............there are a lot of LE, and others who have done nothing but try to dispute it.

It just takes time, patience, smarts, rethinking, etc. Just a couple of more dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

From Drew's perspective absolutely no good would come of him giving his timeline to the public....

If he is telling the truth, wouldn't it allow for more people to come forward to cooberate his timeline? Joe Blow could have seen him at a convenience store at such and such time or maybe someone could place him driving to his home while he is supposedly being pinged near the canal...etc. Wouldn't it be a positive for his case? If he isn't afraid of his timeline, I would think it could help instead of hurt his case. However, his refusal to detail or account for his whereabouts could hurt him with a jury pool later on, imo. (Craig Stebic was upfront with what he was doing and where he was when Lisa went missing...it obviously hasn't hurt him!)

 

[thesleuther]

I posted it earlier. What I am talking about is that I heard reporters saying that Steve C. said he and Drew were with the two older boys watching the news while Kathleen's family was on cam. Kathleen's family was talking about incidents that supposedly happened years before when they lived together and the boys, according to Steve, jumped up and started yelling that they were liars etc.

My question is simple: WHY were these children being subjected to such media reports in the first place?!

Drew is a selfish, slimy monster. Letting those kids imagine what happened to their mother is cruel. They shouldn't be exposed to that. He's only letting them see it so he can put his spin on it. Specifics for children of that age are not appropriate. Selfish, slimy monster.

 

[Littledeer]

SS:

It's your job to dispute it.

DP probably disguised himself, could that be a reason why no one has come forward saying "I saw DP at this place, at such and such a time.... etc. on Sunday????

Other than TM...............his kids, who has come forward and said absolutley and it has been proven, that DP was seen at such and such a location??

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Drew is a selfish, slimy monster. Letting those kids imagine what happened to their mother is cruel. They shouldn't be exposed to that. He's only letting them see it so he can put his spin on it. Specifics for children of that age are not appropriate. Selfish, slimy monster.

Would this be considered a form of psychological abuse or just poor judgement?

 

[philamena]

If he didn't know what the news media was reporting and let the children hear something sinister, I'd say that was poor judgment.
BUT because he knows exactly what the media is reporting about Stacey and what probably has happened to her, I think what he's doing is abuse....possibly even brain washing.

 

[mysteriew]

It's a form of brainwashing. He lets them watch, he shows the parts that upsets him, he offers his denials as anger that anyone could say such a thing. And he shows how upset the situation is making him, which leads the kids to offer their support for him and anger at anyone who is accusing their father.

But we all need to keep in mind who the story came from. Steve C. He was the witness to the event. So did it really happen or was it a figment of his imagination and said to be supportive of DrewP- ie the kids don't think he is guilty of anything. When I saw that I was concerned at first. But then got to thinking about who was saying it.

Remember what DrewP said about the little ones early on? Something about they hadn't really asked about Stacy and they were just keeping them busy? A 2 year old and a 4 year old that doesn't ask about their Mother???

 

[SeriouslySearching]

If this is happening, certainly they are not responding as I would expect. I know from personal experience in dealing with such circumstances.

I wonder if he has told the children of her running away with this unknown man or who knows what?! Wouldn't children this age still not cry for their mother, especially at bedtime? You can't make me believe for a minute those children aren't suffering and missing Stacy. However, it is possible they are so afraid of showing those emotions around Drew...they only cry themselves to sleep where he can't hear them.

 

[mysteriew]

Why would Drew or Brodsky have a problem with going public about where Drew was at that time, if it is the truth? Why is he hiding behind LE at this point when he has been so brazen and bold about making other statements? I need to go back to his comments the last visit to Greta.

1st of all, this is a new strategy. Before he just refused to talk about DrewP's timeline. Now suddenly he is saying it is because of LE. I wonder why the change in strategy.
If his client was innocent and had a legitimate alibi for his activities that day you can be sure that Brodsky would be shouting that alibi from the rooftops. He would be shouting that timeline and making accusations about police not looking for the guilty and making his client the scapegoat (notice how he isn't doing that?)

JAB knows LE won't give out DrewP's timeline, and he would be the first one to scream if they did. Remember this is the attorney who is bad mouthing anybody who speaks publically, and is talking about a lawsuit over possible leaks from the Grand Jury (lol, I still think those leaks most likely originated with DrewP.) So should LE break protocol and offer the timeline to the public, JAB would be screaming the jury pool was tainted.