That day was probably the best day Drew's had in years. Back in the spotlight, where he wants to be!

If the physical evidence isn't there beyond a reasonable doubt,the jury must acquit!!

So Drew, you marry these beautiful women, and see them as disposable. You can't simply divorce them, because they will take part of your pension/money, and money is everything right? Is money still everything Drew? If you had to do it over, would you hide/kill/dispose of them again? Look what you have done to your children. They will never have peace. This will overshadow their lives. Come clean, tell us what you did.

Drew come clean? For what? That's for the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt which isn't there!

I don't think the public has any reasonable doubt about Peterson....we have all convicted him of murder more than once... good luck on finding a jury that can do that..If he IS released, he had better hide, because someone will probably not be kind to him YOU NEED TO FIND STACY!

The saddest and most despicable part is these woman married a policeman, and I'm sure they thought he would protect them and their children.

How in the world will they be able to select a jury that doesn't already have an opinion about this case?

If guilty we can only hope he will be convicted.

John you sound like a big fan of Peterson. Like younger women too??

What guy doesn't like younger women?! But that's irrelevant. This is America, how would you feel if you or yours was imprisoned 3 yrs with no evidence? If he did either crime punish him but you can't hold somebody because they 'look' guilty.

Look, I live in the area this happened. The courthouse where Drew Peterson is being kept is only minutes from my home. If Drew Peterson does get acquitted he will be able to live in the same area. He had been under suspicion from the day Kathleen was found dead (murdered?). He got on in his life just fine. He doesn't seem to operate the way a normal person does. He seems to think everything is a joke or funny. However, I just don't believe he will be in danger when or if he is released. I also believe they will be able to find an impartial jury faily easy.

Remember, this is a man that told his young son that he wasn't ale to live at home with him because he was "helping the police".

The little kids have been bounced around. First at home and going to Pioneer. Then moved to Aurora and a new school with Stephen. Now that Stephen is no loner with his wife, the kids are back in Bolingbrook.

If Drew cared about his kids, he would leave stay out of the media and leave Bolingbrook if he gets released. From what he's done in the past, he'll be in the spotlight every chance he gets.

John Moreli is in line to be Drew's fifth wife, apparently.

John, you only seem to care about a guy that has 2 ex-wives dead/missing. What about the women? do you really think Stacey would leave her kids? what mom would? never to be seen? she is one of the most publicized missing person cases ever, but no trace... hmmm. sketchy at best. how do you hide for 3 plus years? oh, and how 'bout his brother-in-law trying to commit suicide? do innocent people do these things? not

Mark I would be the first one to convict Drew or anyone else,but the evidence isn't there other than hearsay. Another thing Stacy's disapperance is by far not the most publicized missing person case ever. Get real! Plus it's Drews step brother not a brother-in -law. Stacy's mother disappeared for about 10 years and resurfaced.

so maybe we should just let the courts decide.... you know they have never been wrong.... its just sad for all involved. and maybe not the most publiczed ever, but not all miising persons get a made for t.v. show etc... the show "drew" very high ratings.

~ snip from article at: http://tinyurl.com/yrvaso

It's been nearly 10 years since Stacy's mother, Christie Cales, has been heard from, as she has seemingly disappeared without a trace. But in the early years of Anthony and Linda Cales' marriage, Christie was still around.

"She always up and vanished and then all of a sudden she would show up wanting to see the kids," she said. "She wasn't exactly the model mother.

"I was taking care of the kids and they looked at me as if I was Mom."

When Linda and Anthony Cales decided to divorce around 2000, it was their stepmother with whom the kids wanted to live, according to Linda Cales.

Disappeared 3/11/ 98 and reappeared around 2006/07?

Remember when Drew said that Stacy took a plane from Clow to go on vacation? It played well with the nation but the people in Bolingbrook know that Clow is not the kind of airport you go to to buy a plane ticket for a vacation.

I just want to point out in regards to Freddie Kissell's comment above that people are brought into court on little-to-no physical evidence all the time. In fact, another highly publicized case, The Hudson Murders in Chicago, is in trial right now with the only physical piece of evidence tying the defendant to the case being ballistics residue on his hands. Balfour's DNA is nowhere on the gun, the vehicle, or anywhere else it couldn't have already been. So yes, cases are brought to court on hearsay and circumstantial evidence.

With Balfour there are actual alive witnesses that heard him make threats to kill the family, told his girlfriend he had killed, seen with a gun that was found and he had a key to one of the victims vehicle in which another victim was found dead inside of! That's a lot more evidence than they have against Drew! The hearsay in Drews case is second hand hearsay!

Hey Patch Reader: Duh! My point was they must have something besides hearsay. Moreli, if you're so sure Drew's innocent, why do you care what the state throws at him? If he's squeaky clean like you imply, it won't matter. Apparently the hearsay being used in Drew's case was allowed in under existing state law, not the so-called Drew's Law. It's not like this is something that's never been done before.

Fred learn something! If the States Attorney had rock solid and plenty of physical evidence against Drew there would have been a trial two years ago! As far as hearsay why do you think Glasgow had the hearsay ( Drews law ) passed? Because they have no evidence and want only words to try and convict him! As far as hearsay being used in the past,why would they make a law then? Because hearsay sucks! If it were even you in this situation , I would feel the same! No evidence,only hearsay! No conviction!

40,000 pages of evidence , which is 100% hearsay and two different opinions on an autopsy.

He can't even keep his story straight in the same interview.

"Peterson told Lauer he expected that he would be arrested when he was."

"He also said that he hadn’t anticipated he would ever be arrested."

I'm not grasping at straws , but the States Attorney is! If you are a pro, please tell us what if any solid physical evidence they can possibly have? None!

Ken,
You are the expert! You know what's going on! How in the hell do you know what was shared with Drews lawyers? Like they are going to tell you!

Ken,
Like I said if you are the expert tell us what physical evidence that they can possibly have? None! Yes Drew did only own an ultra light! Care too bet? Who is to say you are right!

Ken,
What physical evidence can they have 3 years after Savio was found dead! The crime scene was botched! There are two different opinions on the autopsy! If they had slam dunk physical evidence that would convict Drew beyond a reasonable doubt there would have been a trial already! This case revolves around hearsay evidence! Why do you think Glasgow had Drews law passed?

Isn't there something in the Constitution about a right to a speedy trial??? He may or may not be guilty. Most of public believes that he his. However, if it cannot be proven, and a jury does not convict him it is a grave injustice to imprison someone - anyone - for three plus years without a trial.

The evidence that they had for the death of Savio was a botched severely, but they were able to go through what little evidence that did have and find new evidence that wasn't known at the time. There is a right to fair and speedy trial, look into the case, you'll find out that it's Peterson's attorney that has been postponing the case by 3 months at a time.

What new evidence? It's sure not rock solid physical evidence, only hearsay! The States Attorney also delayed the trial several times!

Please tell us Ken where the physical evidence came from? Sure not the Savio crime scene! That was botched by the State Police! If there was solid physical evidence you would hear Drews talking about it and it would have been leaked to the news as everything does!

Tom,
You are a fool if you believe in hearsay evidence! Take a poll one day and a vast majority of Americans will tell you hearsy is wrong! It sucks and can be unreliable!

You know what's funny too? Morons think Drew is the biggest monster and biggest criminal that's going to go on trial in years! How stupid of people to think that!

There IS more evidence that Barack Obama is NOT a citizen of the US, and that his Birth Certificate and Selective Service records are forged, than there is that Drew Petersen is guilty!!! Just saying.

Tom Koz you are so correct! Watchful eye wants to believe there is a so called hit man, Drew shooed people out of the bathroom and put towels, clothes and other items in the bathroom! If watchful eye followed the news , none of those items were found in the bathroom at all! Drew had no friends on the State Police and no one from Bolingbrook Police had a hand in the investigation in the death or crime scene! Also the corners panel does not hear facts about phone records or anything else. They just make a ruling on the pathologist findings to rule accidental or a homicide based on the autopsy only! Plus what circumstantial evidence ? Hearsay! No physical evidence! And if the State investigator did not process the crime scene , he just possibly ruled out another possible suspect besides Drew Peterson!

Moreli, let me S-P-E-L-L this out for you. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that has come out, and will come out. Maybe it's not enough for you, but you're not the one that is going to make that decision. Seems to me, there were plenty of cronies of Drew's that let that slippery SOB ooze through the cracks. Drew trampled all through the bathroom prior to the investigators arriving so his DNA could be all about, without worry. How nice of the cops to let him sit next to his wife during questioning of her while she gave him an alibi. Where was that? The lunch room of the BB Police Dept?

How did a cop get on the inquest panel? Do you know him? He knew Drew. Wasn't that special? Good thing he could tell the folks Drew was a good guy.

For an experienced cop, he sure was stupid to call a locksmith and round up the neighbors, rather than call his own station for assistance in doing a well being check. He sure was ignorant to send in people, possibly into a dangerous situation in which an intruder may have been lurking, to see if his ex-wife was okay. What a loser to allow lay people into a house and death scene area when evidence may have been needed to collect in the event she was murdered by an intruder. Scary to think that that moron was a supervisor in the BBPD.

So, Moreli, the lack of physical evidence is due to the incompetence of the investigators. No physical evidence was collected. Drew made sure his DNA was all over the place anyway.

I'm getting tired of hearing of hearsay as circumstantial evidence! It sucks and is not 100% reliable! Show me the dam physical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and I would convict too!

Whatever happened to rick mims? I remember when Stacy first disappeared he wad staying at drews watching the kids. He had said something on Greta vansustrens show about a spot he saw on the bed. Drew said she wad on her period. Does anyone remember that?

Moreli, did you attend any of the hearsay hearings or read any of the testimony? Mr. Pontarelli, the next-door neighbor, is the one of the individuals who, along with his wife, went into the house to discover Kathleen. "Thomas Pontarelli, a neighbor of Kathleen Savio's, said he was struck by what wasn't in Savio's bathroom when he looked down at her body.

"I said 'Look around, where's her clothes? Where's her towel?'" Pontarelli testified he said to Peterson and others who were there. He said he noticed there was no soap scum in the bathtub." (BTW, Moreli, those items are, in fact, in later pictures.)

As I said, circumstantial evidence is allowed into trials, and barring little or no physical evidence, solid testimony and credible circumstantial evidence can convict someone.

I have not mentioned one word about hearsay here. You seem to be the one that can't get past that, and refuse to acknowledge many of the pieces of the puzzle that point to Drew. If any hearsay is let in, the jury can throw it out. Come on already, Moreli, I think we all get it. You're against hearsay.

So, you do acknowledge you wouldn't even consider anything else? Seems to me that's very pro-defense without the benefit of a trial.

The constant babble by the defense that there is no evidence is just them practicing their opening argument. Those remarks will not be valid until there's a trial and testimony.

Moreli, you need to go back and gain some facts about what testimony has been heard so far, because you are making comments that are not proper and/or correct.

As to Pontarelli, the defense ACKNOWLEDGED items in pictures that you claim weren't there. In fact, this is what you say: "If watchful eye followed the news , none of those items were found in the bathroom at all!" Here's are the facts:
02/01/2010: Mary Pontarelli and Kathleen Savio were close since Christmas 1999 when Mary brought her new neighbor a poinsettia.
02/01/2010: Their families went on vacation and spent holidays together. (www.chicagotribune.com)
02/01/2010: Mary Pontarelli said she checked Savio's wrist for a pulse. (www.chicagotribune.com)
02/01/2010: She ran her hand through Savio's wet hair and noticed it wasn't pinned up like normal.
02/01/2010: She saw no towels, bathrobe or clothes. A rug Pontarelli remembered sitting next to the tub was gone.
02/01/2010: Mary, said she also thought it odd that Savio's long raven hair was down rather than up in her usual clip.
02/01/2010: The defense team noted, a towel and a robe are visible in police photos of the bathroom.
02/01/2010: Defense attorney Andrew Abood shrugged off the prosecution's theory that Peterson later added the items.
02/01/2010: "There would have been no time to set up a staged scene," said Abood.

Moreli, apologize please for posting lies. Thank you.

02/01/2010: Louis Oleszkiewicz (Bolingbrook Paramedic) (Media Excerpts)
02/01/2010: Paramedic Louis Oleszkiewicz testified a towel shown in crime scene photos side the tub was not there when he arrived.
02/01/2010: Oleszkiewicz did not see a bathrobe, two towels shown in a photo, hung on inside of bathroom door. (Chicago Tribune)

01/22/2010: Retired Sgt. Patrick Collins admitted there were numerous shortcomings in his investigation
01/22/2010: Patrick Collins: "I'm not going to beat myself up right now, you can second-guess anything."
01/22/2010: Patrick Collins: "Looking back now, everything could have been important."
01/22/2010: Patrick Collins: "But at that particular moment, I was looking for things that were more obvious."
01/22/2010: Crime scene technicia assessment colored his view of what happened because he had never investigated a murder before.
01/22/2010: Collins also admitted he broke with normal protocol and allowed Peterson to sit in on an interview with Stacy Peterson
01/22/2010: Drew asked for "professional courtesy" and sat about a foot away from Stacy while she was interviewed, Collins said.
01/22/2010: Collins said Drew answered one question to his then-wife about what he and Stacy had eaten for breakfast that day.
01/22/2010: Stacy Peterson gave Drew Peterson his principal alibi for his whereabouts in the days before Savio was discovered.
01/22/2010: Police interviewed Stacy Peterson for one hour on March 3, 2004.
01/22/2010: Stacy said she and her husband had spent the weekend with the children. (www.chicagobreakingnews.com)
01/22/2010: Stacy said they had spent Saturday hanging around the house and had gone to the Shedd Aquarium Sunday.
01/22/2010: Stacy said the only time Peterson left was Sunday morning to get doughnuts. Savio was found the next day, a Monday.

I think I've shown enough testimony to show that Moreli's interview comments and comments about items(not) found in the bathroom are blatant lies on his part. I believe Moreli is just trying to antagonize others and stir the pot with incorrect statements. If that is not the case, then I apologize. Then, it would seem, that Moreli is not up on his facts, but continues to blog as though he is.

I read your post! No proof Drew put the towel on the tub or removed anything! There were at least four other people in the house prior to the paramedics arrival and anyone of them could have done something ! It wouldnt be the first time a crime scene was contaminated by lay people! It's only speculation that Drew put a towel on the tub or removed things ! Also Mary had no business touching the body! Can we say contamination of a crime scene! Why in the heck was it even necessary for the paramedics to arrive to check the body for signs of life when it's obvious someone is dead, i.e.Cool to the touch, lividity and rigor mortise. A police officer on the scene can declare someone deceased! Plus someones recall of certain events and observations can change when someone is asked 6 years down the road! Things could have been there or couldn't have been there and someone can't be sure after 6 years!

Moreli, I tend to find you not credible. You ignore points, you resort back to the hearsay argument you have, and then you say things that make no sense? What does this mean? "Plus someones recall of certain events and observations can change when someone is asked 6 years down the road!"? The people that were sent into the house, including a BB paramedic, said there were no clothes or towels in the bathroom, yet they showed up in pictures after it was announced what an oddity that was. There is testimony that Drew shooed everyone out of the bathroom to await the people that would be coming to investigate her sudden death.

Stop pussyfooting around, Moreli. Stay on point. If you're going to blog on this case as though you have your facts, then don't resort to basic defense tactics of now saying the witness's recollections are six years old, and things could or couldn't have been there. There's testimony. Were you there? You are familiar with Drew, so I can assume you were there.

"The police reports confirm speculation that Stacy Peterson gave him his principal alibi for his whereabouts in the days before Savio was discovered. The reports also show he was walking around the scene before state police arrived. At one point, he was alone in the bathroom with Savio's body and told emergency responders, "This is my ex-wife. Treat the scene with respect."

According to a report from that night, Deputy Coroner Mike VanOver asked Robert Deel, a crime scene technician for the state police, and "detectives if there was any reason to believe that this was a traumatic death and they stated NO, therefore the homicide/suspicious death protocol was not followed."

Watchful eye even if a body is decomposed or obviously dead no paramedics are necessary or doesn't even need to be taken to the hospital to be declared dead! If its a hospice case a funeral home can pick up the body, if it's a questionable death due to the age or circumstances the body is taken to the morgue for an aotopsy! Plus it's not a law or even protocol on some Police Dept.'s for paramedics to respond to an obvious dead body to examine it! Its like having a decapitated body, do the paramedics arrive to check for signs of life? I sure hope not! Most of all watchful it happens every day where people go inside of a house for a well being check and find dead body's that are a result of natural causes ,accidental or murder . So no it's not unusual or against any law Drew had the friends enter the house to check for Savio! For a lay person like you too watchful eye, Mary couldn't assume if it was accidental or murder and still should have not touched the body! Any idiot can use the tip of the finger to touch the skin to feel for cool to a touch or just by obvious skin discoloration or levity ! Please tell me what Drew supposedly contaminated? One more thing Drew was reported to be downstairs when the neighbors went upstairs and found Savio!

Moreli, you make no sense here. You said at least four other people were in the house before the paramedics arrived.

So, that means one of the four did it to help Drew, right? Well, two of those people pointed out there were no clothes or towels. That leaves two people who could have done it, and that would have helped Drew. So, either way, there were no clothes or towels at first sight, but someone thought to alter that situation. If it wasn't Drew, then it leaves only two other people who could have done it. Why? Obviously, that was helpful to Drew. If Drew needed help to take the heat off of him, and he had help, that sure looks bad for him....

"John Moreli

10:16 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012

By the way watchful eye it's none of your business who I am and keep your brain rattling trying to figure that out!"

By the way, Moreli, I don't care who you are, but you sure don't know a whole lot about police protocol, judging by the odd comments you've been making on how the Peterson/Savio investigation was handled.

I am familiar with police protocol. Now, you keep your brain rattling and try to figure that out.

Like I said before, six years after being in the bathroom and interviewed can the people be mistaken what they had seen or not had seen! Six years is a long time,recall can not be accurate at times! That's why when an Officer does a report he puts in his facts and observations and if and when he needs to refresh his memory years down the road he has the report to read over to recall facts! So unless these people that were at Savios wrote their observations down , which I doubt , it's possible they can be wrong with what they had seen or not in 2004!

Moreli, I am surprised at you. The witnesses will also have prior testimony, interviews, and reports to go over to refresh their memories when they meet with the prosecutors prior to trial. As will the defense. Why would you say that? Of course, their observations were written down. They were interviewed by the police. There's testimony already. Your comment makes no sense. How can you say its possible they can be wrong about what they observed. Why? What has changed or who has been shown to be inconsistent?

Oh, and just cuz an officer puts his "facts and observations" in a report, doesn't mean he or she is the only one to put forth reliable observations. Come on, Moreli, cut it out already.

The people were not interviewed in depth until 6 years after Savios death!

Moreli, this is silly. Talk to the hand. You are somethin' else.

Ha! Moreli, Tom wasn't interviewed at the time of his mother's death either. Now, he's the defense's alibi witness for his father. He was propped up on a sofa on national tv and said he highly doubted his father killed his mother, and he was with them the whole time.

Damn, I wish he would have written that down, because he may not be correct in his observations. Ya think?

So all of that will put doubt in the juries mind! Who can you believe and can't believe!

Watchful Eye, why do you waste time on this guy? And after reading what he has to say, I really do believe he was a Bolingbrook cop. I wonder if he used his super "investigative skills" on the Rachel Mellon case. Ha ha ha.

The Rachel Mellon case was thoroughly investigated by B.P.D. Investigators , but lack of physical evidence prevented any arrest! Murder never goes away!

JH - Done wasting my time. He just wants to argue. I believe he is or was a cop too. One that is sympathetic to Peterson. Not all cops are!

Tom keep thinking that and toking up will do that to one's mind!

Yeah, Tom, I think so too.

You boys need to get some air and take a break from your silly bickering.

I agree, Mother Hen. WTF is with the nutty, manic postings by Moreli? Toking up? Nevermind the liberal use of exclamation points. Jeez, take it easy, copper.

Blue barrel.

Freddie you talk so tough behind a keyboard ! Myob!!!

Moreli, you're like the playground big mouth and bully. It's your way or no way. If you can't win an argument, you repeat yourself over and over until we're all sick of you.

You can have the floor. You earned it with your mindless preaching, cop knowledge and just plain b.s.

Where's the barrel?

Don't like it watchful eye move on little boy!

By the way watchful eye are your comments gospel and am i supposed to go with your way of thinking . Like I said a few times show me your expertise in law enforcement or related field.

Yes sir! Thank you, sir.

Ha. The War's over, Moreli. You can get parts for your head now.

Look, he isn't going to come clean until there is certain evidence that he did kill his ex-wives. I can't believe that it took that long to get him in jail. He's guilty. By his actions, that we did get on camera, his behavior is odd for someone who found out his third and fourth ex-wives were dead.

R u 2 done?