Tag Archive for: Missing Person

A Letter to Drew: Reading between the lines

/in /by

If you spotted someone that you thought was in the national spotlight as a missing person where foul play was suspected, what would you do?

Would you:

A) Write an old-fashioned letter saying where you spotted the person and put it in the postal mail?

B) Send it to the man suspected of foul play in her disappearance?

C) And would you not sign it?

D). All of the above.

Of course not.

I am describing a letter that Drew Peterson claims to have received yesterday, but didn’t open until today. This letter wreaks of absurdity yet if we look closely at the only three words that are quoted from the letter and released by the media, it is suggestive of something.

Read moreThe writer of the letter states that he/she saw Stacy Peterson in a Peoria supermarket, and said that Stacy had “a little pudge.”

“A little pudge” …is a red flag for me.

It immediately hit me as abnormal.

These are the only three words we can surmise that are verbatim from the letter.

I just knew it was odd but I didn’t know why at first. It just stopped me dead in my tracks. It gave me pause. Then I wondered if perhaps the wording was something a man might say, but that wasn’t it. A woman could technically say this as well, though much less likely — so I knew that wasn’t it.

Then I thought about how a witness who spotted another stranger might report what he or she saw. A witness wouldn’t give a personal opinion such as this — at least not in this manner. If the witness thought Stacy was pregnant — he would simply state the facts — as facts: “It appeared that Stacy Peterson was pregnant.”

But the more I thought about it for a few minutes, it finally hit me! If I don’t know someone and I have never met them before — I would NEVER know if they had a paunch, or “a little pudge”.

How could I?

I would have no idea what was baseline for someone I didn’t know. I would have no prior notion of a stranger’s body-type, build, etc. to know what was unusual for them. What I witness the first time would be my impression of “normal” for the person. I would be no wiser to any pudge, or change.

The choice of words in the letter (if they are accurately being reported) is indicative that the person who wrote the letter knew Stacy to make this assertion because a witness who didn’t know Stacy would not think like this.

Or, we are flat out dealing with a crazy person (which, of course, is possible). Mental disease and disorders are a part of life — but boy would I want to investigate this further. My curiosity is peaked and peaked big time.

I am sure the police are doing DNA testing on the letter. May it lead us to the truth. If a crazy person wrote it – so be it. But if someone else wrote this on false pretenses — let’s find them!!

Joran Van der Sloot Re-Arrested

/in /by

News has just come out that Joran Van der Sloot and the two Kalpoe brothers have been re-arrested.

According to the NBC report, prosecutors plan to submit new evidence to a judge.

I wrote about Joran Van der Sloot back on February 24, 2006. Click on the link below to see what I thought and to see the video I reviewed.

Joran Van der Sloot: Honest or not?

More Drew Peterson: “I was the victim”

/in /by

Many you of you have asked me to review the latest interviews given by Drew Peterson in the last few days since his first interview with Matt Lauer last week.

I think most people are clearly seeing the contradiction between what Peterson says (the spoken word) compared to his actions and expressed emotions.

The two don’t match up and are in complete contradiction. You don’t need lie-detector-eyes to see this. Many of you have also pointed out some excellent red flags in odd word choices as well. When people are honest, we just don’t see these oddities and inconsistencies. The red flags are stacking up at an alarming rate. I would be working full-time to keep track of them all.

Read moreFurthermore, Drew’s lack of concern for his wife is show-stopping. In every interview, Stacy is the last thing on his mind — and clearly this is abnormal. At a minimum, I would expect pleas to Stacy to come in anger to save his own butt! But that would only happen if he believed she was truly alive…

Peterson has told us he is afraid of the media and that he wants them off his back less than a week ago, yet ironically he has been happily, jovial, and even flirtatious with the media since — and it appears he is quite open to take on more and more interviews. He has even sat down with People Magazine. Obviously, he is not afraid of distracting from Stacy’s search anymore, either.

We all keep hoping to see a concerned father and husband, but it’s a little too late for that now. Peterson keeps digging himself deeper and deeper with an arrogant, cocky attitude to boot.

I was going through the interviews, deciding which one I would discuss when I found this one (above) from Dan Abrams. I think this is a great interview (way to go Abrams!) because this segment of the show points out the craziness of Peterson’s behavior on the bullseye. Excellent journalism, Mr. Abrams (and Mr. Lauer)!

In this interview , I found it amazing how Peterson turned around a question by one of the reporters. She asked if Peterson had any physical altercations with his wives. Watch Peterson think about it! And then listen to what he has to say. It’s almost unbelievable.

Peterson says, “In a defensive manner, yes.” The reporter say, “What does that mean?” and Peterson say, “I was the victim“. Peterson is having a ball with this. Is he referring to the “steak incident” he told to Matt Lauer? Look at how he laughs. It’s totally bone-chilling. What victim of abuse ever finds it funny?? Peterson doesn’t seem to know what is normal and reasonable anymore — which makes me concerned for his children: very concerned.

The topic with the reporter then switches over to Thanksgiving and Peterson says he is thankful for the fact his kids are “happy and healthy”. This is not even reality-based. I am getting more and more concerned for the well-being of Peterson’s children by the minute.

When the reporter talked about Peterson’s home being searched and searching for Stacy, he says …”they’ve been through my house and its not here”. “Its” being Stacy’s body? This is very chilling and several readers spotted this and already commented about it as does Abram’s panel of experts. If you believed your wife was alive, would never use the word “it” in this manner? Of course not. It speaks volumes.

Peterson says he “always makes light of a bad situation.” My question to him would be how are you making light of Stacy’s disappearance? We all just see you having fun, hamming it up for the camera — which isn’t fun for any of us — or any of the reporters. The only one laughing is you, Mr. Peterson.

Later in the interview when Peterson talks to Hota Kotbe of NBC, he talks about how “we did all these repairs on her” (Stacy). The word “repairs” really disturbs me because he is talking about plastic surgery for Stacy. His choice of words indicates how he felt — that she needed to be “repaired”. Was he giving her everything she ever wanted and pampering her, or was he making her everything he wanted her to be?

And, of course, the use of past tense as discussed by Abrams expert is right on the money. It is absolutely a HUGE RED FLAG…among the pile.

The more Peterson talks, the more red flags that pile up. He is becoming a poster child of what-not-to-do when your wife disappears. May justice prevail. That’s all I can wish for. May the truth become clear and known.

Friend of McCanns speaks

/in /by

Jane Tanner, one of the Tapas Nine, came forward to talk to BBC about what she saw the night of Madeleine’s disappearance this week. She says, “I believe Madeleine was abducted.” Thanks to one of my readers for the news tip!

You can watch the video of her speaking here.

It’s nice to see one of the Tapas Nine speak out as we’ve only had the McCann’s word up to this point.

Do I believe Jane Tanner? I do.

Drew Peterson’s Interview with Matt Lauer

/in /by

To read the latest posts on Drew Peterson, click on the label of Drew Peterson below to display all posts on the topic, ordered from newest to oldest.

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:

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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?