Daniel Wade Moore: Mistrial

/in /by

I wrote about Daniel Wade Moore back in back in November of 2005. Daniel Wade Moore’s original conviction was thrown out, and his new trial began in February.

Today after six days of deliberation, the jury was hung, and the new trial was declared a mistrial nine years to the day Karen Tipton was found dead.

How ironic is that?

After the trial, the jury’s vote was 4-4-4, with 4 being undecided (source). After deliberations, 8 people were for acquitting Daniel Moore, but 4 people were hold outs so it looks like this will go to trial for a third time.

I was happy to hear that 8 people were for acquittal. I can’t believe they will try this for a 3rd time.

Mechele Linehan

/in , /by

Mechele Linehan was profiled on 48 Hours this past weekend. The segment was titled Love and Death in the Wild.

Mechele was a beautiful girl who knew the power of attraction, and she learned at a very young age how to use it. She had no problem attracting men so when she took a job as an exotic dancer at the age of 18 in Alaska, it would come as no surprise that the men encircled her off the stage as well.

48 Hours found several men with whom she dated, and who wanted to marry her. And supposedly she was engaged to three men at one time (or at least they thought they were). Each of the guys being much older than her. Two of the three talked to 48 Hours.

Read more The story is long and involved, but Linehan never married any of them men, and one of them, Kent Leppink, turned up dead during the time Linehan was seeing him. At the time of Leppink’s murder, however, Linehan was out of town.

With that, Linehan was never charged, and eventually moved on to Washington state, married a doctor, got a master’s degree and had a child.

Eight years would pass before a cold case unit picked up the case and followed up on it, and when they did, they narrowed in on Mechele.

Leppink left behind a letter from the grave professing his love for Linehan, but also said that if anything happened to him that looked suspicious to look at Michele or the other people in her life.

I am not going to detail all the events of the story as you can read all about it on 48 Hours website yourself, but I will tell you that Linehan was finally arrested, charged and convicted of the first degree murder of Kent Leppink yet she still swears to this day she had nothing to do with his murder.

Linehan’s husband and a friend appeared on 48 Hours to stand beside her in their belief she is innocent as did a handful of people who swore Mechele was a manipulative, deceitful liar.

With that, I wanted to share with you what I saw. Is Mechele a decent person whose life story is being twisted and used against her, or is she a mastermind deceiver?

First off, I think the facts don’t bode well for Mechele at all. I think most people will see logically her behavior and actions don’t add up to “love” as she led these men to think it was. The life insurance policy for Kent is exceptionally unusual. Most young 20-year-olds don’t think of taking out a life insurance policy on someone — let alone someone they now profess was likely gay (which I don’t believe for a minute). It defies logic. I find the timing of Mechele’s calls about Kent’s life insurance policy before his death is exceptionally odd, too. I see a whole host of red flags, and I could probably post an entire post about those, but putting all of this aside, what do I see?

Mechele plays the part of a sweet, innocent, demure women in the interview with 48 Hours. She is soft-spoken, and gentle (she reminds me a bit of Melanie McGuire in that sense). She softly weeps as she wipes the tears from her eyes begging for you to sympathize with her.

I find this classic deceptive behavior. When I see people talking really soft and demure, when they are a grown adult, no matter happy or sad, it is almost always a red flag for me. It’s unusual behavior for adults unless they are especially shy and reserved which clearly Mechele wasn’t, or she wouldn’t have stripped in a club for a living. Any time I see this mousy behavior, I go into high alert. It’s a big red flag.

Furthermore, Mechele’s emotions don’t jive for me. They are off, not on target, or as they should be. You can see her assessing the situation, and playing the interviewer. She even gets so brash as to say that if she cried in front of the jury, the jury would hold it against her, or if she didn’t, they would hold it against her. It was the manner, and way she said it that raised a red flag for me. Clearly, she was thinking how she could manipulate the jury. Unfortunately, 48 Hours didn’t load any video of Mechele for me to critique for you.

This case is about circumstances that are a too unusual, about a suspect whose stories don’t add up, and about a woman who was an incredible manipulator who I suspect learned to harness the power of sex in men who were lonely and longing to get what she craved: money.

I also don’t trust her other boyfriend or friend Carlin either. He makes my hair stand on edge.

I feel sad for Mechele’s husband, her daughter and her friend. They can’t see the real Mechele. She’s a cold, calculating woman who obviously had no problem using people and disposing of them to suit her needs–no matter how ruthless it was.

Matt and Kari Baker

/in /by

Matt Baker was featured on ABC’s 20/20 this weekend. Matt was a Baptist preacher, and his wife, Kari, an elementary school teacher.

On April 7, 2006, Kari turned up dead in their home. Matt says she asked him to go rent a movie after the 11 p.m. news, and to gas up the car. When he returned, she was naked on the bed, dead, and had left a suicide note: an unsigned, typewritten note that consisted of one small paragraph (only a few sentences).

Investigators ruled her death a suicide (by overdose). No autopsy was performed on Kari.

A lone detective took photographs of the scene and the justice of the peace — who didn’t come to the house — made a ruling of suicide over the phone and without an autopsy (ABC 20/20).

But Kari’s family didn’t believe it, and after several months, they managed to dig up enough questions that the justice of the peace changed his ruling. In September, when Texas Rangers went to arrest Matt at a school where he was a substitute teacher, Matt fled the scene, but shortly thereafter turned himself in (source). Matt was arrested and charged in the murder of his wife and is now awaiting trial.

Read moreThere is a pile of circumstantial evidence in this case that doesn’t bode well for Matt. Kari’s suicide note, typed and unsigned, is very unusual. Women usually have a lot more to say than one small paragraph if they are going to write a suicide note. I would really like to see what the note said, but I haven’t been able to find it anywhere.

Matt also has admitted to searching for overdosing on sleeping pills on the Internet, but said it was only because he was concerned about his wife.

“I did research to see can you overdose, is that even a possibility that I need to worry about, my wife overdosing on sleeping pills,” Matt said (source).

I find Matt’s words here interesting. When I watch Matt talk, he gives the classic thinking-on-your feet speech behaviors. He doesn’t seem to be recollecting things, but rather thinking as he speaks. This is not conducive to honesty.

Kari confided in a counselor before her death that she found crushed pills in Matt’s briefcase, and she told the counselor she feared Matt might kill her, because she believed he was having an affair. And cell phone records and records from Matt’s work phone reveal several times a day for weeks she was calling the daughter of the music director at the church where Matt was preaching.

“She was kind of panicked about the whole situation when she found those crushed pills. No. Really, she was a lot panicked,” Shae Dickey, who taught with Kari Baker at Spring Valley Elementary School in Hewitt, told the Tribune-Herald. “She suspected that he was having an affair, and she told me she thought he was trying to kill her (source).”

And within days of Kari’s death, Matt was seen with the music director’s daughter shopping for jewelry, apparently an engagement ring. Matt says he was just looking to buy his daughter earrings.

I also find Matt emotionless. Listen to Matt’s 911 call here when he finds his wife’s dead body.

Doesn’t he sound like this is a routine call to say, perhaps, the cleaners? Does he sound like a husband who is upset or distraught that his wife is dead?

Worse for Matt is that he couldn’t even keep his facts straight on 20/20. He changed his story about finding and reading the suicide note. When he talks to the 911 operator, he says he found the suicide note. Yet when he talks to 20/20, he says that the police officers found it, and when John Quinones questions him, you can clearly see that he gets nervous.

John Quinones also asked Matt if he was capable of killing his wife, and the way Matt answered this question really raised the hairs on my head. He stopped, thought about it, and then answered. He said, “Absolutely!…” I think he meant to say absolutely not, but he forgot the word “not” in his scheming brain. I wish there was a clip of that segment online, but I have been unable to find it.

You can read the affidavit in this case here:

Baker Affidavit Page 1
Baker Affidavit Page 2
Baker Affidavit Page 3

I don’t believe Matt for a variety of reasons, and I don’t believe you need “Eyes for Lies” to see why.

There are too many witnesses coming forward to say they saw Matt do something for which Matt has a totally different version of events, or denies. Second are Matt’s lack of emotions when he talks about a wife he supposedly loved. Third, Matt’s speech shows signs of thinking-on-his-feet behavior. And last, Matt can’t keep his facts straight, and he tells different people different things, which strongly supports someone who is less than honest.

This will be interesting to watch go to trial.

Source 1, 2, 3

Click on the labels below to see the latest posts on this story.

A Day In the Life of Drew

/in /by

Greta Van Susteren aired a segment yesterday titled A Day In the Life of Drew Peterson. I just caught the tail end of it. It’s a three part series online of Drew showing you around his home, talking about life as a dad, and what it has been like to be Drew right now.

Thanks to those of you who told me it was online this morning.

I found the video footage fascinating, but probably not why most of you would think. It wasn’t because of what Drew was saying, or what raised my eyebrows, but instead, it was thinking of how other people would perceive this video. That is what interested me.

Read moreFor those who have doubts, I suspect they will have more doubts now than ever after watching just how human Drew is here, and for those who have branded him guilty, they will likely watch this video with discerning eyes, anger and disgust that Stacy is no longer in her children’s lives.

Regardless of where you stand on the pendulum, sit back and try to watch this video with fresh, unbiased eyes. Give yourself a clean slate. Think as if you never heard of Drew before today. What do you see?

I suspect most people will be taken back at how normal of a life Drew Peterson actually lives. He is the neighbor next door. He is a man tending to the needs of his children. Most people would say without knowing Drew’s circumstance that he is a really nice guy!

You see is a man who is human, who is actually quite likable (if I dare be honest) in this video. He opens up his home to show you he lives like the rest of us. He trying to get people to connect with him, and I think this will be powerful. It won’t be as easy to convict him as guilty, to see him as a monster after you see how lives–much like the rest of us.

Drew shows you his best side here, of course, and we can’t forget that, but you can see how he managed to charm so many people for so long and how he got away with it. You can see why Drew had friends and believers early on. Not everyone saw the controlling side of Drew, I can promise you that.

If Drew wronged you, let’s say, and you told people who knew this Drew, guess who they would doubt? It isn’t him. You can be sure of that. I’ve seen this happen one too many times. People who take things at face value would likely come to Drew’s defense, sadly, and it’s not surprising. Who can fault them?

That is what is so chilling and fascinating all the same…seeing the other side of Drew Peterson that the media hasn’t revealed until now. Life is taking it’s toll on Drew. Being a house dad wasn’t what he bargained for. That’s for sure, and it shows.

DP and ML Interview II Review

/in /by

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.