I found this statement by Hans Reiser made during his on-going trial quite interesting:
“I am not consistent in my thinking,” the defendant [Hans Reiser] testified.
“That’s the hallmark of lying, isn’t it?” [prosecutor] Hora replied.
“That’s the hallmark of real people,” the defendant [Hans Reiser] responded (source).
I personally think prosecutor Paul Hora said it right on the money. If you want to read my opinion on this case, click here.
Drew Peterson is talking again, but as many people have noted, Drew seems to have changed a bit. He isn’t as cocky or arrogant.
Clearly, we see Drew isn’t smiling all the time, and having fun like he has in the past. Things are a bit more serious for him. A coroner has determined that Kathleen Savio’s cause of death is a homicide now, and not an accident.
But when I look at Drew, I still see a man who is cocky nonetheless, who grins arrogantly and inappropriately throughout this interview, whose emotions are still inconsistent with someone who is wrongly accused, and who is unable to answer important questions.
Read moreThe only thing I think that has changed in this interview versus others is that Drew is slight more subdued. He is trying to be more of a blank slate here, but I don’t believe he is successful.
Please know that I do not analyze or comment on attorney’s behavior out of respect for our justice system. I believe all people deserve to be represented in our system to give everyone a fair chance at justice.
Matt:
[…]Drew Peterson is with us this morning along with his attorney Joel Brodsky. Gentlemen, good morning to both of you… Since you were here three months ago when Stacy was missing for one month, now she hasn’t been seen of or heard from in four months, and this big development Drew was this issue last week where a coroner’s report after an autopsy, now rules that your third wife, Kathleen Savio died not of an accident, but of homicide. Considering you were already under the magnifying glass, how did you greet that news?
DP:
It was kinda shocking….ah…we believe…for the last four years that her death was accidental and that was with a fresh autopsy and now all of the sudden there was new autopsy with an old body let’s say, and it’s been ruled a homicide. I’m kinda suspicious of it.
First off, I find Drew’s answer odd here, very removed, and exceptional impersonal. He says “with an old body, let’s say..” Who thinks like this? Who calls a deceased ex-wife an “old body”?
Second, if Drew is innocent, why wouldn’t he support that perhaps it is a homicide, and we need to find out who did this, if it isn’t him? In his earlier interview with Matt Lauer, he said “if anything happened to her, then it should be found out.” Why doesn’t Drew have interest in this now?
Why is he suddenly suspicious of the new finding? It certainly shouldn’t be a surprise. He and Matt discussed this suspicion months ago.
Another red flag for me here is the wording “kinda”. “Kind of” implicates that one is not completely committed to a belief. You say “kind of” when you are hedging. When people make a truly affirmative statement, they don’t say kinda, kind of, or sort of. It is a big inconsistency.
Matt:
You don’t think the coroner’s report is accurate?
DP:
I’m not sure. I think it needs to be… scrutinized or looked at a little closer.
Here Drew confirms his stance. He isn’t affirmative. Why isn’t he supporting what he said months ago, “…if anything happened to her (Kathleen), then it should be found out”?
Matt:
Basically what the coroner concluded was that Kathleen’s death’s was caused by drowning but it was made to look like an accident, but it was actually homicide. The reason that appears to be such a big problem for you is that Kathleen Savio told her sister, Susan Doman. According to Susan Doman, who testified to the coroner’s jury in this, that she feared you, that she was terrified of you. She thought she would die, and that you would make it look like an accident. That sounds like an incredible coincidence.
DP:
True.
Matt:
So, how do you respond to that?
DP:
How can I respond?
Here Drew works hard at hiding his emotions. He is fighting back a cocky smile. Look at time marker 1:38. Look at Drew’s inappropriate emotions. He grins then gains control of it. If you are being wrongly accused, do you grin? Do you feel these emotions?
It’s a red flag.
JB: Yeah, ah…it’s kind of a loaded question, obviously.
Matt:
Yeah, but if a woman warns someone before her death very close to her that should could die, and it could be made to look like an accident by her husband and then four years later what was thought to be an accident turns out to be a homicide.
JB:
Well that’s assuming the second coroner’s report is correct. We have two conflicting coroner’s reports. Only one of which has been released. And the only one that has been released is the one that says it an accident. So when you have conflicting reports, the idea is your release both of them and you get other peer reviews from other pathologists and see why they are conflicting, and we can’t do that yet.
Matt:
I want to make sure I understand because you have called into question this coroner’s report, this autopsy. Are you curious, are you wondering whether this coroner made a simple human mistake, or are you suggesting that perhaps this coroner released an erroneous report on purpose to help police bait you into doing or saying something dumb?
DP:
Anything’s possible….so…ah…I don’t even know. I really don’t even know how to respond to that. So…
If you are innocent, two things would come into play: a concern that perhaps someone murdered her, or that you are being falsely accused. Why doesn’t Drew address this? He doesn’t know how to respond? It’s illogical and inconsistent.
Matt:
The last time you were here, Drew, you told me that on the night Kathleen Savio’s body was discovered, you were working the night shift.
DP:
Correct.
Matt:
And that you were on of the first people in that room, that discovered her body and helped pronounced her dead. Correct?
DP:
Oh, I never pronounced her dead, but ah…
Matt:
Well, that you saw that she was dead.
DP:
Correct. Correct.
Matt:
So the report says though that Kathleen Savio was had been dead for at least a day prior to her body being discovered. So we know where you were when her body was discovered, where were you in the day before that when she is alleged to have actually died?
JB:
Here…I got a step in here. Ah…I obviously can’t let Drew loose even though he is not a declared suspect… is obviously being looked at in the Savio investigation, ah… talk about time lines.
Matt:
Can you tell me Mr. Brodsky, has your client told you if he was in any contact with Kathleen Savio between 24 and 48, or 36 hours prior to her being discovered dead?
JB:
No…a…he was a… not in contact. We know he had the children for visitation that weekend. So, he had the children with him all weekend when he wasn’t at work, but um… I can’t let him go beyond that.
Matt:
People watching Drew are thinking one or two things, either you are experiencing the worst string of luck in the history of the world [Watch Drew try to hold back a smirk here, time marker 3:53], or that you’re involved in this deeper than you are letting on. Let me carefully go through a couple of things alright?
Your second wife, Vicky Conley, told the Chicago Tribune when asked about your 4th wife Stacy’s disappearance, she, referring to you, said, “he has the experience the knowledge, the means and the mind to do that.” [Drew’s smirks again here 4:11 but tries to hold it back]
Your third wife, Kathleen Savio dies in what looks like an accident. It turns out the coroner says, “No, it was homicide.” And as I said, she told her sister [Drew again is attempting to hold back a smirk here at 4:19…and it continues on through this paragraph], “This guy could kill me and make me look like an accident.” And now your fourth wife, Stacy, disappears without a trace. She wrote an e-mail to a friend before her disappearance saying, “I am finding that the relationship I am in is controlling, manipulative, and somewhat abusive. If you could keep me in your prayers, I could use some wisdom, protection and strength. And you’re a cop, a former cop… If you were interrogating someone, and had those pieces of evidence, would you think coincidence or this guys guilty of at least one murder?
DP:
What would I think…?
If you watch Drew Peterson’s body language here, the way he moves his head is a sign of arrogance. Drew gives me the sense he loves the attention here.
Matt:
Yeah…your gut. Common sense.
DP:
I’d have to evaluate the whole thing…and I really can’t even respond to that.
Yet when Drew thinks about the actual question, he doesn’t have an answer. Drew seems to be a master at clearing his mind of all thoughts, listening to what is said, and just talking off the top of his head. He seemed interested to share with us what he thinks, but then when he realizes he can’t say anything, the arrogance and cockiness dissipate. Its odd behavior. Most people don’t get excited when asked for an opinion, and then not have one.
JB (Joel Brodsky):
And uh… I got…there’s certainly suspicion. Nobody’s going to say it’s not suspicious. Suspicious isn’t guilt. Suspicion is just it, something to look at.
Watch Drew raise his eyebrows here after JB says “something to look at”. When he does this, he is thinking about what JB just said, and as it sinks in, he likes it, and the raising of his eyebrows is a signal that he likes what JB said. It’s like you can see the conscious mind go through the thought process, and say, “Hmmm, yeah, I like that answer.”
When someone is being wrongly accused or look at unfairly in suspicion, they are usually chomping at the bit to be heard. Their mind is usually working overtime with everything they want to say. We aren’t seeing any of that with Drew. In fact, we are seeing a blank-slate mind, a man who has little to say and who holds few opinions. This is odd and unusual given Drew’s situation.
Matt:
You’ve said that you think you’re a suspect because you’re the husband.
DP:
Correct.
Matt:
So is that the only reason? [Drew smirks here and it continues on through this statement] Can you not think of anything you’ve done or said? Anything in the relationship between you and either Kathleen Savio, or Stacy Peterson that might cause investigators, and the police to think we’ve got to watch out for that guy?
DP:
Well, all those things you just mentioned, sure.
Matt:
What about the nature of the relationships? The controlling element of it? The fact that Kathleen Savio said she was terrified of you? [Drew grins again though this section. It’s plain eerie]. Stacy said she was worried about you? [Drew grins again] Worry, worry, was there cause for worry?
DP:
No, not at all. I just…uh…I controlled my family. I think more people in America should control their family.
Do you see the arrogance again? It’s the way Drew moves his head.
Matt:
You still think that Stacy, your wife, ran off with another man?
DP:
That’s all the information I ever had, and that’s all I can believe.
Watch Drew’s left shoulder. See it shrug? It’s a sign of hesitation.
Isn’t this a strange answer? Again, Drew is blank-slated mentally. He acts like he isn’t even involved here. He doesn’t talk about anything personal. He is exceptionally detached. It’s like we aren’t even talking about him. Most people would recollect the last time they saw their wife and why they believe she ran off. Why doesn’t Drew?
Matt:
You told you kids…last time you were here you told me that you had been telling your two children that mom was on vacation. Now it’s been four months.
DP:
Right. The older two boys, they know exactly what’s going on.
Look at Drew when he is truly serious. Look at how differently his face looks.
Matt:
I’m talking about the younger two.
DP:
The younger two I’ve consulted with a psychologist and they said, ah…that for children of that age, that’s age appropriate to say that to them.
I am not so sure I believe Drew here. Would a psychologist advocate lying to children? The older children are witnesses to this lie. I suspect this could be psychologically harmful for the older children.
This answer makes me uncomfortable, and in looking at it a second time, I see Drew shake his head no when he says he consulted with “a psychologist”. I didn’t see that the first time I looked at it. Is his unconscious mind leaking out a clue here? You have to wonder.
Also when Drew says “it’s age appropriate to…(hesitation) …say that to them. Was Drew thinking of using another word here, but decided not to? I see the start of an “L” word. Do you?
Was Drew going to say “it’s age appropriate to ‘lie’ “? Of course, we’ll never know, but clearly there is a hesitation here. Does he not want to say the word “lie” perhaps? This is speculation, of course.
Matt:
In your own heart, you still think she’s run off with another man. Have you allowed yourself to consider…even if you have nothing to do with it…that she could also be the victim of foul play?
DP:
…might very well be possible, yes.
One thing manipulative people do is answer questions amazingly honestly at times. They don’t want to deny everything because it raises red flags. By interspersing honesty in between deception, frankness throws people for a loop and makes them second guess themselves, instead of him. It’s scary behavior.
I find this answer to be very removed, and not personal in any way. If you didn’t know anything about this case and only heard that a woman was missing and DP answered this question, you would never get any sense this was his wife, would you? Why is DP so removed, so unemotional, so detached?
Matt:
Because she disappeared.
DP:
(interrupting) Right. But I simply don’t know.
Matt:
But, you’ve said, I think Mr. Brodsky, it’s easy for someone to disappear.
JB:
Yes…
Matt:
But two people would have had to disappear, if indeed, she ran off with another man. Two people would have had to disappear for four months, not tap into their bank accounts, not used their credit cards, not buy an airline ticket, not be seen on surveillance camera, and not, as you’ve told me, Stacy was a great mother…not even contact her kids?
It seems highly unlikely, doesn’t it?
DP:
Yes. Very much so.
Again, DP is fabulous at giving you tidbits to question yourself. Isn’t he?
“He is being honest here…so maybe I am wrong in my suspicions of him?”
Matt:
But, you still think she’s with another man?
DP:
ah…that’s the only information I have.
Is this how you would answer if you were being wrongly accused, or wrongly looked at?
Matt:
You’ve been very public…
[Omitted discussion of radio show . Only noted here that Drew is holding back a smile again].
Matt:
What do you regret over the last four months, Drew?
DP:
Let’n Geraldo Rivera in my house (laughter). That’s the only regret I have.
How about that I argued with Stacy, that I let her go out that door, that we didn’t work things out, that we’ve lost contact? Anything that supports honesty!
I suspect this was Drew’s sense of humor coming out again. He is happy and jovial, not upset, despondent, or concerned about his wife in anyway. Most people in his situation wouldn’t have it in them to be humorous in any way.
But if you feel you pulled off the perfect crime and were superior to others, might you feel like laughing?
Matt:
Anything other than that?
DP:
Nothing other than that. Truly.
JB:
[Text omitted here to shorten post]. “…We’ve developed a perverse sense of humor that is not really appreciated…It’s just not appreciated or understood.”
Matt:
You’ve both maintained all along that you will not be arrested. You’ve said that to him and me both on several occasions. Do you still feel that you will not be arrested?
DP: I just…I just don’t know.
Here Drew is being honest with us. We can see his baseline, normal response. It doesn’t involve that smirk! Use this reaction to judge his other reactions.
Matt:
How ‘bout you?
JB:
I still uh…do not see any credible evidence…ah…
Matt:
Are you still as confident he won’t be arrested?
JB:
Yes, I am.
Matt:
Are you prepared to be arrested?
DP:
Yes.
Notice the affirmative head shake. An honest response, but an unusual for response for someone who claims to be innocent, isn’t it?
Matt:
Are you prepared that there’s a chance you could spend the rest of your life in jail?
DP:
I’m prepared for anything that should come up. Once I found out that…my main concern about anything is my children. And once all my ducks are in line, for their well being, I’m o.k.
Drew is being dead honest with us here. Look how serious he is. Notice there is no smirking.
Does it make his other responses all the more suspicious? Where is his humor?
Matt:
I think people might find that strange, Drew…that an innocent man would say as long as my kids are ok, it’s ok if I spend the rest of my life in jail. [Bingo, Matt!]
DP:
It’s not ok but, psychologically and ah… physically as long as my children are all okay. I’m okay.
Matt:
In the court of public opinion, the jurors in that court are watching this morning. So, if you want to look into the camera, what would you want to the jurors in the court of public opinion who are not so sure you had nothing to do with the disappearance of Stacy or the death of Kathleen?
DP:
What would I say to them?
Um, there’s really nothing to say to them. Basically they’re going to have make their decision based on evidence presented or not presented.
Drew’s tone of voice here is interesting. It is not genuine in the beginning. Then Drew focuses on the evidence. This is his best defense, and he knows it. There is no evidence directly linking him to these crimes right now, and that is where he is getting his arrogance and confidence. Did he commit two perfect crimes, or at least a second one, and got lucky on the first?
Again, if you were wrongly accused, wouldn’t you be passionate and full of all kinds of thoughts and responses. Wouldn’t you have a lot to say to the jurors of public opinion? Wouldn’t you want to be heard?!!! Why doesn’t Drew?
JB:
Text omitted […] There is no evidence that Drew did anything wrong.
Matt:
Real quickly, the Illinois State Police revoked your gun permit. […] Now you’ve had the permit revoked so you can no longer use a firearm. Were you upset about that?
DP:
[Watch DP body language here. He looks like he is about to say something, and then looks down. This is showing Drew is clearly holding back his true feelings. He regains his composure and tries again. Then at the end, he confirms it with the words “litigation and controversy”. I’ll speculate that this topic really infuriates DP, but he doesn’t want you to know that.]
Well, I really don’t have a need for firearms. I’m not a policeman any longer so it like, yeah, its my property, my stuff, but uh…I just have to go with what they do, and that, of course, is open to some sort of litigation and controversy, so.
DP shrugs his shoulders at the end of this statement. It doesn’t show that he is confident in taking any legal action, that’s for sure. Is he just making a threat?
Matt:
And I guess I just need to feel the need to ask you at the end here. You didn’t have anything to do with either of these situations, the disappearance of Stacy Peterson or the death of Kathleen Savio?
DP:
Nothing.
*Many thanks to Jolynna from badgirlscrimeblog.com for typing up portions of this interview.
Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky are talking to Matt Lauer again. I love when Lauer does interviews. He asks great questions, but as we know from experience, that doesn’t mean that Peterson always answers them.
If you are interested in an in depth review of this interview, let me know. If I get enough interest, I will consider writing up a review.
I do have one request though. Would anyone be interested in writing up the text from the interview? It would save me a considerable amount of time. Just post a comment below if you are interested and when you can do it by. Thanks!
Many people have asked me over the past week to comment on Joran’s confession. While I have many thoughts on it, I must say that since Joran spoke in Dutch, it isn’t as easy for me to make concrete comments about Joran’s words or behavior because it is essential for me to hear and understand the words Joran speaks verbatim which I am unable to do here.
Furthermore, seeing Joran’s facial expressions when each word is spoken assists me in understanding him as well, and while I can correlate the main gist of things, I don’t get the deep understanding I normally do by watching words and expressions together like I do when English is the spoken language.
But I do believe the overall message of Joran’s words are still telling. Do know that I am depending on the translated meaning, and if that translation is in any way inaccurate, I retract my thought processes below.
Read more A translation of Joran’s confession is online here. I do not know anything about its source, or the validity of it, but from what I saw on ABC’s television special about Joran’s confession, it appears to be remarkably similar so I will work from it. If you find anything more reliable, please let me know.
People who are wrongly accused of a crime or made a suspect only want the truth to surface. That is their main goal. They do not have the time, energy, or any remote desire to implicate themselves for the fun of it. It’s pure rubbish. It defies logic.
There are aspects of his story that I believe he may “take to the grave” with him.
Joran wants us to believe here that Natalee out-of the-blue convulsed on the beach, and he panicked, and disposed of her. This raises a serious red flag because we are missing the reason as to why.
If it were only a fear-based reaction as Joran wants us to believe, we would expect Joran to run for help, or at worst, flee the situation and leave Natalee on the beach to her own fate. Fear wouldn’t cause him to go this extra mile for no reason. The disposal of her body is very suggestive that something happened that was illegal. People don’t just dispose of someone without a reason. It’s illogical.
One can only speculate about what illegal activity may have happened, but one potential could be the use of a date rape drug. If Natalee had an illegal drug in her system such as this, the implications to Joran could be devastating, and fleeing wouldn’t do him any good. This speculative situation could cause someone to dispose of a body.
Add into the mix what Joran says…
Joran: So they know if they bring the case to court now, it’s done. Even if they find that girl dead with my sperm in her…
Joran doesn’t says he had sex with her, so why is he talking about “sperm”? It shows Joran is still contradicting himself which is a red flag. With that, we are left to add up the pieces of the puzzle to see what is plausible and what makes sense. People behave in predictable patterns. If there was a date rape drug used here, sperm, again would make sense.
Furthermore, I find it strange that Joran says he will take his friend’s name to the “grave with him”, and then he volunteers a name at another time. It’s another oddity. Joran makes such a strong statement, that is believable, and then he retracts it and gives us a name. Sometimes, when people aren’t telling the truth, they waffle like this, and tell us lies in an attempt to cover themselves.
On top of that, when Joran makes this comment, it raises my eyebrows:
J: They’ve always been good to me, and I’ve always been good to them. So yes, I know who it is, but I’m not going to tell you his name. But it isn’t my parents or anything, but someone who’s a really good friend of mine.
If it was a friend who did this for you, would your parents even enter into your mind? You wouldn’t even think to say it wasn’t them, would you? This raises my eyebrows. To my knowledge, no on has even accused the parents of any wrong doing for Joran to defend them. Why is he defending them? It makes me strongly question, if perhaps his dad was involved. Was his subconscious mind affecting his speech here? It sure makes you wonder.
Another oddity is that his friend was such an incredible person. His friend was willing to step in and be a super hero to Joran. He was willing to take the body, live or dead, and dispose of it even though he supposedly had nothing to do with the situation. His friend was willing to risk his freedom, his reputation, his life just for Joran. This is exceptionally bizarre. Most people will help a friend, but not at the expense of their own life unless there is a payoff of sorts. But at Joran’s young age, I am not sure he could provide a payoff big enough. It’s highly questionable behavior.
Joran’s friend was even concerned for Joran more than himself–telling Joran to go home.
Most friends don’t want any involvement in illegal activities forget about disposing of a body. And then for this “friend” to be willing to dispose of the body without Joran is beyond strange. Normal human behavior, if you do find a friend to help you dispose of a body, is the expectation that you, too, will assist in the disposal. But this friend seems to be abnormal again. It’s another red flag.
P: But where the fuck is she, Joran?J: She’ll never be found. Where exactly, I don’t even know myself.
I believe Joran here. I believe he doesn’t know exactly where Natalee ended up, or how it happened in the end. Someone shielded him–we can be certain about that, but who would be motivated to do that? A friend? Family?
Add this into the mix:
J: So I went and called the guy, not with my mobile, I walked over to the pay phone. I called him, and I told him, “Well… this is what happened. Please come help me. Please don’t call the police.” He says, “No, I won’t call the police, I’m coming to you now.” And then he arrived.
But she did not look normal, you know. He said. “This is not possible. You have to go home. I say “No, I can’t ask you to take responsibility for this.” He said, “You’re going home. I’ll arrange the rest.” I went home then.
Several things about this statement are interesting. First, Joran’s details are really sketchy. He doesn’t really give any indication about what he said to the “friend” on the phone. Second, I have to wonder did Joran’s friend tell him to go home as we see in the translation? Was it that direct, like a parent telling a child what to do? I’d need a translation expert here, but this raises my eyebrows again. Friends don’t usually tell other friends what to do like this. This person was taking charge, telling him what to do. If it accurately translates, who would talk like that to Joran?
Also, was Joran’s friend thinking in legal terms? Did he believe Joran needed to go home to have an alibi, to create an implausible time line for the disposal of the body? Who would think like this?
Joran then says that he had no problems sleeping that night. This is another huge red flag for me, and I think suggestive of who may be involved.
If you shared such a serious life-altering secret with someone, and you and him are the only two people to know this secret in the world, wouldn’t you be paranoid for a while about the fact that someone might have heard something, your friend could talk, people could be on to you? Wouldn’t it keep you up at night?
But strangely, Joran wasn’t nervous. Who could give Joran such confidence in the situation that he could sleep at night?
I think the general gist of Joran’s words are painting a picture here. Do you see what I see?
News reports are saying the McCanns may be cleared from their status of suspects.
Yes, you read that right.
Furthermore, the Portuguese police are saying that they don’t have a shred of evidence against the McCanns.
What do you think about the news?
I’d say it was about time! Let’s hope they actually do it, and not just feed the rumor mill. Until I see it, I won’t believe it.
***
I have believed the McCanns from day one. To read more about what I think, you can either click on the labels below to see all posts I have made on the McCanns, or you can read my first post written on Saturday, May 26, 2007 here.
