It’s hard to believe it has been a year since little Madeleine McCann disappeared. With that, I want to ask:
To read what I think about this case, click on the labels below, or you can click here to read my first post on the case last May.
Today the jury is deliberating on the Hans Reiser case.
What do you think?
To read what I think about Hans Reiser, click here, or click on any of the labels below.
Our poll results are dramatically different than this poll, but the questions are not parallel.
The overall interview by Drew Peterson was quite lackluster compared to his previous interviews. Two words kept coming to mind through the entire interview: stone-faced. Drew was a blank slate emotionally through much of the interview this time. This time he held his grimaces and smirks in check a whole lot better. That’s not to say that we didn’t see some classic arrogance from Drew, or a few odd smirks, but he has dramatically tamed his responses.
Read moreClearly Drew is working hard to change his image, and wants us to believe he is the good guy despite the fact that everyone from Drew’s past who has come forward doesn’t have a nice thing to say about him except his friend Steve. The odds are clearly stacked against him.
Listen to how Drew responds…
KING: Drew, you’re a bright guy. Do you begin to think that the public might say that if it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it might be a duck?
PETERSON: Right, but they’re not getting all the duck’s information. So when they get all the information, then maybe we can re-examine that.
KING: All right, let’s straighten it out. The third wife.
PETERSON: OK.
Do you think Drew will be satisfied this time that he gave us the real story? Hasn’t he had ample opportunity in front of the camera to tell us his side of the story?
The media even gave him a video camera to give us a day in the life of Drew, and that didn’t satisfy him either? I found his answer to this question ridiculous. Drew’s had plenty of opportunity to tell us his version of events.
Furthermore, Drew tells us that media only wants to portray him as sinister because sinister sells. He goes on to say that anything that is said that is positive about him is “washed under blankets”.
With that, I have to ask why he isn’t using the funds he raised, and the website he has, DefendDrew.com (which is now inactive), to tell his side of the story, and to post all the positives about which he speaks? He has all the freedom in the world to post his version of events. Why isn’t he? Instead, he only complains.
I also found it odd when Drew said the following statement to King about Kathleen Savio:
KING: What happened?
PETERSON: I don’t know. I don’t know. She…we got information that she drowned in the bathtub.
Drew talks like he wasn’t there. I found this choice of words odd. Drew often lack affirmative answers when he should feel definitive which is red flag.
Below King asks Drew about his marriage when Stacy disappeared:
PETERSON: We were living together and we talked that morning. And what happened…
KING: Was it — was the marriage going through problems?
PETERSON: The marriage had been going through problems since her sister died. And her sister died maybe several months prior of cancer. And it was a very rough death on the family. And it was very rough on Stacy. Stacy was very close to her sister, Tina. And when Tina died, it was…
(Drew got stuck for words here, and then King saved him! I wish he didn’t do that!)
KING: She changed?
Drew’s answer here is a complete contradiction to his first responses to the media after Stacy disappeared. Drew was quoted by the Chicago Sun-Times as saying within days of Stacy’s disappearance “I believed our marriage was good, but maybe she didn’t.” Then when he went on the Today show with Matt Lauer, Drew gave us the whole new story that Stacy changed after her sister died. That wasn’t his original story.
I found Drew’s volunteer information about being a police officer below really eerie. He was talking to King about Stacy, and King had asked if he was ever physical with her. Drew answers the questions completely stone-faced, but what lead him to the following train of thought below? Often times people’s mind wonders to familiar places…
PETERSON: And I don’t work for the phone company or the power company. And as a police officer, we don’t have the same ability to do things as the common person. If I get involved in a domestic situation where I’m physical with a wife, I’ll lose my job. And I would never even care to even come close to risking that. And I kind of challenge anybody out there to find anybody that has ever even seen me mad. So…
In a situation like this where Drew was about to retire, if he did in fact lose his temper, and lash out at Stacy, and she threatened to go forward with charges, wouldn’t this be a potential motive for why he might do something to Stacy? If Stacy spoke about abuse and could substantiate it, she could have destroyed his retirement, and generous pension!
I also found the words “kind of” telling in the paragraph spoken by Drew above. He kind of challenges anybody out there to find anybody that has ever seen him mad. Drew clearly knows there are people speaking out about this now, but he doesn’t want to hear it. Instead he just badmouths them, too.
Furthermore, I found Drew’s statement and word choices odd when he says that the police “don’t have the same ability to do things as the common person.” Is it an ability to strike a spouse? Or is that abuse? Notice Drew’s choice of words here. It’s quite unique. It tells us of his mindset. Most police officers wouldn’t find this a lack of an “ability”.
I got quite annoyed with Drew when he says he didn’t want to badmouth his step-brother*, and yet he does just that. He also goes after his ex-finance* Piry, and his neighbor too, trying to paint everyone black as black, and yet he wants us to continue thinking he is a rose. Does he not see his thorns? I don’t believe a word he says about these people.
I also don’t believe that Drew has no temper, doesn’t get angry or that he was never physical with Stacy. It’s nonsense, pure and simple.
King also asked Drew why he thought Stacy might leave and Drew responded “Stacy loves male attention.”
I’ve learned over the years that people who are less than honest will often project their own feelings, emotions, beliefs and actions onto other people. And ironically, a little while in the interview, Drew says the following about himself:
KING: You said in the past you have cheated on your wives, except for Stacy, right?
PETERSON: Everybody says I cheated, but I went out and sought female attention elsewhere after the marriages were over. But we were still legally married. So technically I cheated.
(…)
KING: Would it shock you that she was involved with someone else?
PETERSON: (long pause, thinking)…Not really. Like I say, Stacy loves male attention.
And anytime we would be anywhere, she would have to be the center of attention for the males on the scene — older, younger, anyone.
Isn’t Drew talking about himself here? I do not believe this definition would fit Stacy’s character.
When King gets into the details about how Stacy left, I find Drew’s answer lacking. Most people when they recall the last time they spoke to a loved one usually give us details and descriptions. They share words exchanged, etc. Notice how Drew doesn’t do this, nor has he ever.
KING: Who called you?
PETERSON: Stacy called me.
KING: And?
PETERSON: She told me she found somebody else and she was leaving.
KING: She left under those circumstances, good-bye, Drew.
PETERSON: Right. Correct.
KING: What about the children?
PETERSON: Didn’t say much about them.
KING: Didn’t say much about them? She was taking them? Not taking them?
PETERSON: Didn’t say. There were at home with me, and she didn’t say anything about them during the phone call.
I find the word choice “much” interesting here. She either did or did not speak about the kids, if she even talked. When people are dishonest they often throw in hedge words like “much”, “sort of”, or “kind of”. I don’t believe they even do it consciously.
I found the following quite interesting as well. It was the only place that Drew Peterson got choked up with his emotions.
KING: We have an e-mail question from Fay in Rocky Mountain, North Carolina: “How do you sleep at night?” Do you sleep well, or are you bothered by at least some aspect of this?
PETERSON: I’m bothered by the fact that she left. And I’m bothered by the fact that my children don’t have a mom. I’m raising a little girl who needs female attention. And, yes, sometimes I have trouble sleeping with it.
This is where Drew grabbed his ear with his hand and tugged it slightly. He grabs it at the end of the statement. Some people would tell you that touching one’s face or ear is a sign of deception. I can’t think of one instance where this has proven true for me.
On the contrary, Drew really believed what he said here. I think he is truly bothered that his children don’t have a mom, and that he is raising a girl who needs a mom. I believe that is his truth. In the pain of it, he became overwhelmed, and that overwhelming feeling I suspect made him self-conscious, and hence that is why I believe he touched his ear at the end. It was a sign of vulnerability from showing his true emotions. He quickly shook it off.
If one were to suspect that Drew killed Stacy, it would not be out of line that now in hindsight that he may regret that his children don’t have a mom, and that he is now left to do her job. It’s completely logical…especially if this was a crime of passion.
I was quite surprised that Drew took the kids and went to Disneyland. Did that surprise anyone else?
As many of you know, I do not critique attorneys because I believe everyone deserves the right to a legal defense, and with that, Drew is no exception.
Do I trust Drew Peterson? I do not, and have not since Drew first said “I believe she’s not missing” within hours of when Stacy disappeared. Those five words were my first big red flag that something wasn’t right.
(*Corrections made 4-16-2008)
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!
Penny Boudreau pleads for her 12-year-old daughter’s safe return in this video clip. Just sadly, her plea didn’t help. Karissa Boudreau was found dead within days of this plea along a nearby riverbank, and her death was determined to be a homicide. Police aren’t releasing any details at this time pending the investigation.
When I first watched the video, Penny’s behavior didn’t sit well with me. Penny also said something that was a big red flag for me. She said, “Nothing can be done to make things better, but it’s comforting to have support.”
Read more Clearly, this is a very odd statement. Why can’t things be done to make things better? Why wouldn’t finding her daughter make things better?
Parents of missing children hang on to every shred of hope, because facing the loss of a child is too painful to face until they absolutely are forced to do so. Penny’s statement is in complete contradiction to this. She basically says without saying it, she has no hope, which doesn’t make sense…unless, of course, she knows more than she is telling us.
Most parents, while heartbroken and devastated at this point, would force themselves to forge forward with courage, because there is no other alternative. They wouldn’t dream of giving up. But it appears Penny has here. It’s very unusual behavior.
Penny also shows she is distancing herself away from Karissa, which is a concern. I suspect these clues come from deep within her subconscious. I’ll bet she wasn’t even aware she said these things. She says in her plea to Karissa, “Your Aunt April is here. Your mom is here“. She doesn’t say “It’s me, mom.” She doesn’t refer to herself as I. She doesn’t say “I” miss you, “I” love you. Instead, she she says “we”. These word choices are unusual.
Penny also acts like Karissa won’t be able to see the TV, but will only be able to hear it, which is another oddity. If you don’t know where your daughter is, how can you make this assumption?
Why would you make such assumption?
And later, she says another statement that shows distance when she says, “It is hard not to know where your kids is.” To refer to her daughter as “your kid” is strange and removed. Most people would say “It is so hard not knowing where my daughter is.”
Furthermore, I find it odd how Penny talks to Karissa as if she merely ran away. She says “Please just reach out to someone, at least call us and just let us know you’re okay.” Penny seems to be acting like Karissa is an adult here who left on her own free will. What if Karissa can’t reach out because she has be abducted? Most parents would fear that their child could have been abducted in a circumstance like this, but Penny doesn’t seem to even think about that, which I find unusual. It’s another red flag.
I am not one to use lack of eye contact as a clue to deception, but here it is so outstanding, and usual, it is a red flag. Penny pleads to her daughter to make contact, yet she doesn’t look at the camera. She looks down or away. Then later, after she finishes talking to Karissa, she looks back up normally as she talks. It is this distinction in her behavior that is a big red flag. It’s the change of behavior that is notable. When you compare the behaviors side-by-side, it’s astounding. She makes no eye contact, then suddenly she starts to again. She also stops crying after talking to Karissa. The timing is a bit odd.
Yes, Penny is reading something previously written when she talks to Karissa, but she should still want to “connect” with her daughter in some visual form, but she doesn’t even attempt it. I would think she would want to speak from her heart to tell her daughter she is sorry and no matter what the differences of opinion are, it can all be worked out. But Penny doesn’t get personal in any way, which alarms me.
When people talk to others on camera, who are not present in the studio, especially when they are missing and they are pleading for their safe return, they usually make direct eye contact with the camera. But Penny isn’t here. Why?
Penny also doesn’t seem to shed a tear, which I find odd. She does seem distraught to me, and in distress, but how come there are no tears? I have seen people cry themselves dry. Was Penny crying all day before this? Her eyes don’t hit me as extra puffy, but only people who know her could judge that. I’d be curious to know.
I do see fear in Penny’s eyes. Is that fear that her daughter may never return, or is there another reason for the fear? Penny’s hand on her face is an indication she is trying to calm herself down, to self-soothe herself.
I find Penny’s behavior odd here, to say the least. I suspect she knows more than she is telling us…as painful as that is to write. I hope I am wrong.
*******************************
Update June 16, 2008:
Penny Boudreau Has Been Arrested
*******************************
Update January 30, 2009:
Penny Boudreau Pleads Guilty
*******************************
