I’m watching Greta Van Susteren right now on Fox, and Dr. Baden is talking about the autopsy he just did on Savio today. Dr. Baden’s finding is that Savio died from homicide.
What was fascinating for me, and very damning for Drew Peterson was that Dr. Baden said that he believes Kathleen Savio’s time of death was a minimum of 10 hours prior to her behind found — but could be upwards of 24 to 36 hours.
Remember what Peterson said in the interview with Matt Lauer yesterday?
Mr. PETERSON: So when I heard screaming, I went inside and there she was in the bathtub.
LAUER: What did you see? And did it look like an accidental drowning to you at that time?
Mr. PETERSON: I felt the p–I didn’t know if she was dead or live, so I felt her pulse and, you know, being a policeman, I basically didn’t want to touch anything or disturb anything.
We all know that after ten hours of dying bodies cool. I wonder how Peterson is going to explain this one?
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2007-11-16 22:36:002007-11-16 22:36:00Greta, Dr. Baden, Savio and Peterson
When I watch Drew Peterson talk to Matt Lauer on the Today Show, I get a sense that some people will stop for a second when watching Peterson talk, and wonder for a minute, if maybe, just maybe, Peterson is innocent of the crimes he is suspected to be involved. If they listen to what he says, however, I am confident many people will doubt Peterson’s story.
Peterson’s demeanor during the interviews is strong, smooth, and without so much as a flinch. Peterson comes across as confident yet for those of you who pick up on it, there is an palpable air of arrogance about Peterson that is undeniable.
Why is Peterson so arrogant? For an innocent man, arrogance would be the last emotion he would feel right now.
Read moreIf you are wrongly accused or suspected of murdering one, let alone two people, and you know you didn’t do it, how would you feel?
I can be confident when I say you would feel frustrated, misunderstood, angry, and violated, but certainly not arrogant. It is an unnatural emotion for a man who is uninvolved, and furthermore, it is a complete contradiction to his claimed circumstances.
A person who committed the perfect crime and appears to have gotten away with hiding the body, however, would feel arrogant and most definitely superior. It is this arrogance that disturbs me the most. Second, are Peterson’s answers, smirks and inappropriate laughter.
If you want my opinion, I suspect Peterson has been accomplished at deceiving others for many, many years. I suspect he is one of those people who can look you in the eye, and lie, and not flinch one inch. Furthermore, I suspect Peterson has learned the evil trick of the master deceivers–admit to some of the truth to keep them guessing!
Be cautious.
With that, I have reviewed the first video only at this point, but rest assured, it didn’t take long to see red flag after red flag. The review is long. I apologize. I didn’t have the time to go back through it, and cut it down.
Interview Review:
When Matt Lauer talks to Peterson about the exhumation of his third wife, notice Peterson’s answer. At first, he said, “It’s a a shame her rest in peace has to be disturbed.” A minute later, he says, “But ah, I really…ah…have no opinion on…ah…”
Then he says that …”if anything happened to her, then it should be found out. “
Is Peterson just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear here? He changes his tune with the wind: “It’s a shame”, “I have no opinion”, “they should find out.”
Is this how you would feel if your ex-wife was being exhumed on the suspicion of murder, if you had nothing to do with it? I can bet my bottom dollar, if you were innocent, you would react with emotions, feelings and opinions. Why isn’t Peterson showing any of these?
When Lauer asks Peterson what his life has been like since the media moved in, notice how Peterson only reflects on his kids. He doesn’t talk about how horrible it feels to be wrongly accused.
Why doesn’t Peterson direct the focus back to finding Stacy?
He also has no emotions again. He only seems to feel the pain of having to deal with his two oldest children. It appears it has been an inconvenience for him to have to get them to school, and so forth, because of the media. That’s his only complaint: certainly strange.
Why doesn’t he feel anger towards Stacy for running away and leaving him in this mess? It’s strangely missing.
Matt Lauer (ML), Drew Peterson (DP)
ML: They’ve (the police) have decided that you are, in fact, a suspect in this case (4th wife). Why do you think, in your opinion, they’ve changed their characterization of you?
DP: I think they’ve always considered me a suspect.
When Peterson says this, look at the arrogance. He is smirking, and swaggers his head with attitude. It’s mind boggling. Why is he cocky about this? It’s flat out inconsistent.
Lauer talks about an email from Stacy to her friend about her relationship being manipulative, controlling and somewhat abusive.
ML: What do you think she meant by that?
DP: I don’t believe that’s her words. That doesn’t sound like a
thing… she would say.
Peterson says that he believes this e-mail was made up.
His enunciation of the words “thing” and “say” stand out to me as unusual. It hints that he is spouting off the top of his head saying whatever comes to mind — not talking about what he believes to be true.
Clearly, there are plenty of people speaking out about Peterson here to support that this was not made up. Lauer then plays a video of Stacy’s sister which clearly supports the fact Stacy was afraid, and to that Peterson has no answers.
Lauer asks Peterson what is relationship was like with Stacy Peterson. This is interesting. Peterson talks very little about the positives of their relationship, and instead gets right to the heart of what bothered him the most. Drew Peterson talks about how after Stacy’s sister died, every day thereafter, life was an emotional roller coaster.
It really bothered Peterson because later on in the interview, he talks about how his third wife, Kathy Savio, became emotional after she had children (time marker 8:58). He uses the word “again” which tells me he had issues with women when they were emotional–especially after they had children. It’s like women weren’t allowed to have emotions with Peterson. Or, he really resented hormones. This is telling, and it furthermore shows that he likely had no ability to empathize or sympathize with others–especially those he supposedly loved–when they were going through difficult times.
Lauer asks if Peterson’s relationship with Stacy was ever violent. Peterson says “I don’t believe it was ever violent.” Lauer retorts back at Peterson when he should, by saying to Peterson it’s all or nothing here. It either is, or is not violent. Peterson is hedging here ,trying to paint a different reality when he says “I don’t believe it was…”
Yet oddly, he admits that he would get in verbal confrontations with Stacy, that he would get into her face, and that she hated to be cornered. He also later admits that he had a one-up relationship with his third wife, that they each had to prove who was smarter. Did he have the same with Stacy?
ML: You have said that Stacy came to you and said she was seeing someone else. That there was another man. And is it fair to say that you believe, Stacy, right now is with that other man?
DP: She never told me she was seeing another man. The…ah…ah…well, maybe she did. But I believe she is with someone else right now.
ML: Did she or did she not tell you she was seeing someone else, Drew?
DP: It wasn’t put like that. She
found somebody else.
Good old argument of semantics: A trait of liars. Need I say more?
Lauer talks about how Peterson has said that Stacy was a great mom. So then, asks Lauer, how does a good mom go off with another man, and never call the kids to see how they are doing, or to tell the kids that she is okay?
DP: I don’t know. I can’t answer that.
Peterson seems to say “I don’t know” a lot. I would expect more of an answer from someone who is wrongly being accused of a crime they know they did not commit.
I would expect anger, pain, frustration and perhaps and answer like “I don’t know why she hasn’t called! She should. There is no reason for her not to. We will leave her alone if she’d just tell us where she is–all of this would go away!!!”
Why aren’t we seeing any of it??
* I can hear the responses now: He is a cop. He is trained to not show emotions. But you must realize that not all of our facial expressions are under conscious control. I should see some leaks of anger, pain, feelings of being violated by Stacy if she ran off, if they truly exist, but I do not see a hint of it. I do see anger at the media, and arrogance towards everyone except the media which tells a very different story than what Peterson wants us to believe.
Lauer asks if Peterson has gone out, and helped in the search for Stacy. Peterson’s answer here is clearly off. He says the search would be “hampered” by all the media attention he would be getting, and two, why would he want to search when he doesn’t believe she is missing.
Peterson is talking out of both sides of his mouth here. You either believe one, or the other. If you truly believe she ran off, you don’t even think about the search, and media because it is absurd–let alone come up with the ridiculous statement that you would detract from the search efforts!
This statement is an absolute contradiction to what an honest person would never ever say, think or even consider.
Also, has any suspect of a crime who has searched for their loved one detracted from the search in any way, ever? If anything, they keep the story in the news which draws attention to it. Peterson’s answer is pure nonsense.
When Peterson says “She is where she wants to be.” It is just a chilling statement. If he truly believes she is with another man, why isn’t he pleading to Stacy to make her whereabouts known, even if confidentially to the police, to stop their ridiculous media frenzy?
He should show some anger, but he doesn’t at a very key time. If she is messing up his life because she is in hiding with another man, he should be furious! He is not. It speaks volumes to me over, and over again.
Regarding Kathleen Savio:
ML: Now state officials are saying that it looks like an accident staged to cover a murder. What was your impression at the time when she died. Did you think it looked like an accident?
Notice Peterson doesn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he tells you what he wants you to know. He is controlling the situation not recollecting things like honest people do.
Peterson does say that he couldn’t tell if Savio was dead or alive.
I’d be curious to know what Savio’s time of death was approximated to be. This could be telling.
Peterson talks about how Savio, and him had a “one-up” relationship, where each partner was trying to prove he/she was more intelligent. This shows us several things. One that Peterson was an insecure guy. It also shows us that he was competitive, and had a need to be the smartest. He had an ego.
Was he ultimately the smartest person in their relationship? It obviously was a goal of his. Notice how he smiles when he talks about it?
He has no pain, or emotions when recollecting Savio’s death either. He is absolutely emotionless!
Lauer asks Peterson what drew him to these women if they were both from troubled homes? Peterson says that they were both fun and exciting. Did kids then come along, and ruin the excitement, Drew?
Children raised in abusive homes often end up in abusive relationships.
ML: Can you look me straight in the eye and tell me you had nothing to do with the death of your third wife, Kathy, or the disappearance of your third wife, Stacy?
When Peterson answers this question, he is absolutely bone-chilling. He doesn’t flinch, respond, or act in anyway that tell us he is being deceptive. Does that mean he is being honest? It does not.
People who are psychopathic do not feel guilt or remorse, and hence they do not always leak facial clues. Essentially, what would emotionally arouse you, won’t arouse them. Psychopaths can be the hardest people to read because of this.
In reading people who don’t feel guilt, or remorse, you must focus on inappropriate emotions, if they do display themselves, and inconsistencies in fact, which I believe there are plenty in this case to warrant further investigation.
When Peterson says “Basically, I am not afraid of law enforcement” you see him smirk which I find as a sign of arrogance, like ha, ha. If he is innocent, why would he feel that?
Instead, Peterson says he is afraid of the media, and he has been hounded by the media. This is his truth. The media is causing him pain. They are his aggravation: Not Stacy nor the police. This is all about the media. Strange, wouldn’t you say?
Lauer points out that both women were known to be asking for a divorce, or in the process of a divorce with Peterson, when these situations arose.
ML: Do you understand why people see a rather alarming coincidence here?
Listen to Peterson’s answer. He talks about how Stacy always said she wanted a divorce after her sister died based on her menstrual cycle.
Yet shortly after Stacy went missing, Peterson was quoted as saying “I believed our marriage was good, but maybe she didn’t.” (source). This is a clear contradiction.
DP: “It was like every…any other moment when she was unhappy with something, she would want a divorce.”
Is that statement even logical?
ML: What are you most frightened about?
DP: Basically, my legal defense.
Shouldn’t he be afraid that Stacy won’t reappear again, and will instead remain in hiding for years like her mother supposedly did???
Here you can see what bothers Peterson the most–the money that will be required to defend himself. He says it may cost a quarter-of-a-million dollars per case. He then asks for legal help. He says to everyone watching, if you want to represent me, call me!
I believe the ONE and ONLY reason Peterson came on TV to do an interview was purely with the hope he will get free legal services. He knows if he gets good legal representation, NO ONE CAN HARM HIM, or take anything away from him. As a police officer, he knows good legal representation means freedom.
If Peterson really believes that Stacy is out there, wouldn’t he be confident someone would spot her, that she would be seen or discovered and that nothing would come of this? Why doesn’t he attempt to find her?? Does he know better?
Instead, he worries about his pocketbook.
ML: Why do you think they (both families) would target you if they think you had nothing to do with either the death or disappearance of their loved one?
DP: I don’t know. Maybe…they are even prompted by the media to say this or do that.
This is absolutely nonsense. I can’t believe he was so arrogant to say this. Then he tries to implicate Geraldo Rivera, too.
ML: If you were me, or if you were the average citizen…would you think you were guilty?
DP: Based on the media coverage, I am as guilty as they come.
Look at the smirking here. If you are wrongly accused, are you going to get joy out of this? Absolutely not. Another example of inappropriate emotions.
ML: There are probably a lot of lawyers and legal experts out there right now saying this guy should not be sitting on this show talking to this guy right now while he is the subject of this investigation….Why did you decided to do this interview?
DP: I’m doing all that I can…My God. Get the media off my back…
Notice how mad Peterson is. Does he realize what Lauer just said is true–that he shouldn’t be on TV telling his side of the story? Does it piss him off?
Why isn’t this anger coming out towards Stacy, if she is the source of his frustration, and he is innocent?
Lauer talks about how Peterson could face life in prison or the potential for the death penalty.
ML: Have you thought about it?
DP: Yes. And it’s… a… frightening thing, but my family is provided for, my kids will be okay, they are with my brother and sister-in-law, and my son, and ah…I can go in peace if that happens.
This stopped me dead in my tracks. If you are innocent, are you going to think that far down the road about the death penalty, and being put to death, if you are innocent?
Hell, no, instead you’d be on a mission to bring that beast of a woman home with your own two bare hands!
ML: And if Stacy is out there as you say, where she wants to be, perhaps with another man, perhaps even watching this interview — what would you stay to Stacy?
DP: Come home.
Tell people where you are (smile) and that’s all I can say.”
Notice how he looks into nowhere when he talks to Stacy, and his lips move up, and sideways? Then he breaks out laughing because he truly thinks it is funny to talk to Stacy. His emotions are flat out inappropriate for an honest man.
He should be furious with Stacy for putting him in this situation. Hell, I’d be begging across the airwaves, apologizing–doing everything I could to get my ex to come forward because the truth is all that could save me.
Instead, Peterson laughs because it is weird, and odd for him to talk to someone, I suspect, he knows is not there.
Does Peterson know the truth won’t save him?
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2007-11-14 15:30:002007-11-14 15:30:00Drew Peterson’s Interview with Matt Lauer
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2007-11-14 10:42:002007-11-14 10:42:00Drew Peterson Interview on Today Show
For those of you who know me, and have read through my blog, you are probably familiar with what I call paralleling. It’s something I do, that is innate, that helps me spot deception and relate to others at lightening speed.
Essentially, when I hear the voice of a stranger, see the face of a stranger or watch a stranger interact with their surroundings, many times a trigger is fired in my brain that instantly recollects someone I’ve known in the past who shares a similarity to this stranger.
A person that I’ve known in the past appears in my minds-eye without thought, and I instantly know there is a similarity between the two. Sometimes the similarities are striking and elaborate, other times the two only share a flicker of commonality in one or two areas — but there is no doubt a commonality in personalities.
It is paralleling that allows me to accurately assess a stranger based on a person I’ve known in my past.
Right now on the radio in my town, there is a woman who has Rachel Ray’s voice. Every time I hear this radio announcer, I see Rachel Ray talking in my mind. This parallel connection either hints at the fact that they may have grown up within the same area of New York — hence I notice the similar voice inflections — or they share similar personality traits.
From what I know about Rachel and this radio announcer, I can definitely say they share the similarities of being outgoing, independent strong women who know what they want and what they like. Neither are shy or afraid to speak their mind. Both both have an interest in the media! If I were to sit down and write up the traits of Rachel Ray and present them to this radio announcer, I bet there would be more than a few coincidental similarities.
The Unknown Science
What paralleling tells me is that facial features, voice and behaviors all must somehow relate to personalities, and behaviors — or this unknown science of mine wouldn’t work.
Could a jaw line that is shared by my husband’s grandma and Warren Buffet indicate that one doesn’t hold grudges and is accepting of life? Warren Buffets jawline triggered a parallel connection to my husband’s grandma’s jawline, and instantly, when it did, I knew the two were similar in their approach to life. Yes, it is weird. I know. It’s wacky science, but who knows, maybe in 100 years it it won’t be. Facial features and their ratios may signify way more than we realize now. Then again, it could be something entirely different that makes paralleling effective. I don’t have answers, only questions.
Paralleling in Medicine?
One reader to my blog last Spring suggested that paralleling personalities could lead to a new paradigm in medicine. What if doctors paralleled people and used this information to treat their patients?
In essence, what if people who shared similar looks, or behaved similarily turned out to share a the same predisposition for certain diseases? What if the alignment ratio of your eyes to your nose meant you were predisposed to getting Alzheimers, heart disease and cancer of the lungs?
How we look, and sound – and hence behave — may very well be connected to more than just surface elements. Isn’t that a weird thought?
Applying that to my paralleling, could the alignment and ratio of facial features such as eyes and nose indicate one is arrogant, self-serving, insecure and predisposed to lying? Could the pitch of your voice tells us how outgoing and social you are? Could the shape and size of one’s lips tell us about how generous you are?
These are certainly interesting questions for which I have no answers. I just know paralleling has something behind it and it needs to be studied.
Photo link from the Chicago-SunTimes
The Stebic-Peterson Connection
When news broke yesterday that Craig Stebic said he could relate to Drew Peterson and the Chicago Sun-Times displayed a photo of the two men side-by-side (above), it was almost eerie. It stopped me dead in my tracks.
It was a parallel experience, set off not by my brain, but by the photos of the two men side-by-side.
Look at these two men. From the photo shared by the Sun-Times, you might mistake these two for the same person. While I know they don’t look exactly alike due to their age difference — the two share strikingly similar features. It’s as if they are brothers, isn’t it?
Look at how these men have behaved in the cases of their missing wives. Look at the stories told by their family members. The similarities are more than just coincidence.
I don’t know either of them well enough for my ability of paralleling to kick in, but I can apply the theory. What one does, the other might likely do as well simply based on the similarity of their looks combined with the similarity of what little we know of their actions.
We could speculate that they are both manipulative, controlling men who were stubborn, arrogant and yet at the heart, very insecure. We could speculate both men in their marriage attempted to wear the pants, be the disciplinarian in the family and that both had one heck of an ego. Both men berated their wives, were likely abusive, and didn’t respect anyone else (deep down inside) yet both demanded respect from everyone to the point they likely alienated people.
We could also speculate that these two men were likely suspicious of people and weren’t able to trust others.
If you introduced these two, I suspect they would either love or hate each other — because they would be so similar. And in a way, Craig Stebic has reached out to Drew Peterson because I suspect he sees it, too. I think he sees himself in Peterson much more deeply than the fact both have missing wives and have been hounded by the media.
The police would be wise to keep close tabs on both of these men. These two might really want to meet each other, or at minimum talk though they both might be afraid of the other because they each know what the other is capable of.
I suspect both men thought the same way about a lot more than just their wives. The Stebic and Peterson families could benefit from getting to know each other — because what one family knows about one might apply to the other.
I just hope these men both didn’t do the exact same thing to their wives. I hope they didn’t both find the ultimate hiding place for a corpse.
While I don’t understand the intricacies of paralleling, and how I do it let alone how it works, I am very curious to look more closely at it. There is more to paralleling than meets the eye. I know that for sure.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2007-11-06 12:06:002023-01-11 21:01:57Parallel Faces: Stebic and Peterson
Stacy Peterson, 23, has disappeared from her home in Illinois on Sunday and has not been heard from since and even though she is married with two children, her husband, a police officer, doesn’t suspect foul play.
“I believe she’s not missing. She’s where she wants to be,” he said. “I have no reason to suspect foul play.” (source)
“Drew Peterson, 53, a 29-year police veteran, said he believes his wife left voluntarily, even taking clothes with her. He said she’s been suffering from “mood issues” since her sister Tina Ryan death’s last year from colon cancer.” (source)
He also didn’t report his wife missing. It was Stacy’s family who reported her missing at 4:00 a.m. on Monday morning. But the story takes a few more strange, if not outright, eerie twists.
Read more Stacy was Drew’s fourth wife. His third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40, was found dead in her bathtub though her death was ruled an accidental death by drowning. When Drew’s third wife died, they were separated, and in the final stages of divorce. That is certainly hair-raising as was how her body was discovered but I am not going to get into that here. Since Stacy has disappeared, it appears the investigation into the Savio’s death is now being looked at again as it clearly needs to be.
But if you look closely at the facts being reported on this case, there are things being said by Stacy’s family that need to be considered as well. While they are very suspicious of Drew as I believe they should be, they do mention that Stacy was depressed, in the care of psychiatrist, and that furthermore, she had a mother who would disappear for years at a time.
Stacy’s family, however, is adamant that Stacy is not like her mother, and did not show the same tendencies. Her aunt talks about how Stacy wanted out of the marriage, was unhappy and didn’t like how she was being treated.
Naturally, the odds are stacked against Peterson here. To have four wives, one missing and one dead. And the one who is missing isn’t using her cell phone. What are the odds?
At this point, Peterson is not talking to anyone on camera, though he is talking off-camera just sadly the conversations aren’t being reported. News outlets are only reporting brief sentences — unconnected and unrelated.
I don’t like the way Peterson said, “I believe she’s not missing.” When people are dishonest, they often add the qualifier and descriptive text to the end as an after thought. Most people would normally say, “I don’t believe she is missing”. They don’t start out with “I believe she’s….and then tack on “not missing”. This is odd, but this is not enough for me to say much. I want to see more and while I see other snippets of conversations Peterson has had with other reporters, until I can see it all in context in a complete conversation, I won’t draw any conclusions.
If anyone sees any transcripts of conversations with Peterson or him speaking on video, please let me know. Either way, it’s not looking good for Peterson at this point. I am sure most people agree.
https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2007-11-01 10:58:002007-11-01 10:58:00Stacy and Drew Peterson
