***Exclusive***Bolingbrook, IL--Within a few days of the disappearance of Stacy Peterson police located a male subject who claimed that Stacy Peterson told him on October 27, 2007 that she planned to hide From her husband Drew Peterson.The search warrant was turned over just today to Peterson’s lawyer Joel Brodsky in discovery material. The name was redacted by Joel Brodsky until such time as he can interview this witness. This excerpt was found on page 10 of the 12 page affidavit.
The big question I have is why was this kept secret for nearly a year? This seems to suggest that Stacy Peterson may well be alive somewhere.
There are two ways to look at this statement that was made long before this became a high profile story. The story must be true and Stacy wanted to disappear. Or the witness made this up and then we have to determine a motive for telling such a lie to police. Is this witness a new suspect? There are many more questions than answers here.
The excerpt of the search warrant is right here:
Read this document on Scribd: Exerpt Search Warrant[1]
It's impossible to read through the first redaction, but the second two are easy. The guy's first name is Mike.
ReplyDeleteThere are alot of omissions and evidence tampering in this case.
ReplyDeleteI will believe this snippet is significant, when I can read the entire interview involving this person.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the rest of the interview blocked out?
It seems to me that the statement is taken out of context.
That is all the ISP put in the warrant affidavit about that interview. I guess like me you’ll have to direct your inquiry to the ISP or like I did Mr. Kurdenok.
ReplyDeleteUnlike so many of the folks wanting to lynch Drew Peterson are saying there was no mention of Stacy Peterson being afraid of her husband or concern for the children.
Because this was so early in this investigation and those things were NOT mentioned I see the dire need to follow up of Mr. Kurdenok right now.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI will believe this snippet is significant, when I can read the entire interview involving this person.
Why is the rest of the interview blocked out?
It seems to me that the statement is taken out of context.
--
But yet I bet you believe anything that the media says that cast Drew in a negative light without any proof to back it up.
I see this over and over in this case and tunnel vision is the only explaination I can come up with.
That paragraph is all the state police provided about that interview for the search warrant. Again they would not leave anything out that would show Drew Peterson involved in any suspicious activity.
ReplyDeleteAs for the entire warrant that’s not for public consumption right now. It may interfere with fair trial issues on the gun case.
I don’t think you will ever see Drew Peterson charged in connection with crimes against any of his wives.
At some point that affidavit will become a public record and when that happens I will publish it.