CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
Steve Dahl is hosting a "Win a Date With Drew Peterson" segment on his show tomorrow morning at 8am.
Dahl has been a talking about Drew Peterson so much we actually thought he was a columnist for the Sun-Times instead of the Tribune, but Peterson and his lawyer Joel Brodsky actually called into the show this morning--after Dahl played his Drew-impression singing "Have You Seen Her". From the show's log:
7:57 Steve has a situation that he needs Buzz's advice on. It's a freaky situation too. On line one is Joel Brodsky, attorney for Drew Peterson. Do we really want to get that close to this?
7:58 Joel is telling us that Drew wants to call in. ...
7:59 OK, Joel Brodsky is on the air and it's really him. Steve recognizes his voice because he's on TV a lot....
8:01 So Drew wants to call in. Steve's not sure if he wants to get that close. Joel was thinking they could have Dueling Petersons or something.
8:02 Drew likes the songs Steve has done. This is really freaking Steve out. Steve thought Drew was charging for interviews.
8:03 Maybe they could license the Drew Peterson songs or something. Joel wants to do this right now.
8:04 Steve feels he needs to go with this. If he waits until after the show he won't pull the trigger on it. ...
8:10 Alright Drew is on the line. His friends call him all the time and tell him about [Dahl's parody] songs.
...[chitchat about Bolingbrook.]..
8:20 Joel suggests Win a Date with Drew. Steve would do that, in for a penny, in for a pound right? How about tomorrow at 8? Drew wants someone who sounds more like him though. Steve thinks he sounds like Drew. It's a caricature he's doing but It's close enough to entertain the masses. Who picks the dates? Steve will line up the bachelorettes and Drew gets to pick. We'll probably have to send a chaperone just to be on the safe side. Drew wants Steve as the chaperone on the date.,,,
8:29 ...Steve doesn't have all the details so he doesn't know. All he knows is it's a comedic goldmine for him.
8:30 So plan on Dating Game with Drew tomorrow at 8 unless they change their mind. If they were smart they would. If there is a date Steve's going to chaperone. He'd love to get the film rights to something like that.
You can also listen to part of the segment but we can't figure out how to permalink it. Eeeesh.
Image from Dahl's website
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
That's disgusting.
Lowest of the fucking low.
If I believed in hell, I'd hope Steve Dahl and Drew Peterson would be chained to it's furnace together and hear the screams from both of the murders over and over and over and over again...
Wow wait till Spav1 hears about this! I don't think she's gonna be too happy! I can see those pots and pans flying!
It was the Lawyer's idea, not Dahl's...
The last stop on the Pathetic Express for criminals like this is usually self-deprecating humor. I've heard OJ play along with similar kind of "jokes" about his situation. I see it as a quasi-admission. You know, admit it in terms of a "joke."
I hope he wins a date with the electric chair.
And his lawyer? I hope you're getting paid well, buddy. Enjoy that money!
That's hilarious.
Also, Joe, stop being so sentimental.
It's called "winning in the court of public opinion". What is he supposed to do? Hunker down, let this be put to trial in the media? Weird strategy. But I get it.
Wow.
Y'know, Steve Dahl is one of the pioneers of "shock radio". Kind of impressive, in a black comic way, that thirty years in he's still managed to shock the hell out of people.
Just...wow...that's brilliantly depraved. You have to stand in a little bit of awe of that kind of weird.
Wait until you all find out that Stacey is setting Drew up and sending anon. letters and making anon. calls herself for sweet revenge. He may be a murderer, but I can't say I've read anything that convinces me he's guilty of murdering his current (or late) wife.
Then he sounds like an incompetent lawyer.
Juror One: “Well, I did hear him making light of his ex-wife’s disappearance and probable murder on the radio. Maybe he’s not that bad a guy after all!”
curmudgeon, please tell me you're joking and i just didn't catch the sarcasm
peterson should have kept quiet and hoped this thing died down like that stebic guy. he got away with murder and everyone seems to have forgotten about him
yep, Stebic should thank Peterson!
Just like Gary Condit should thank al-Qaeda.
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guily" here? Haven't we learned anything about the Riley Fox case? Sure, he may be a jackass, but we still don't know what happened, and obviously the police do not have the evidence enough to arrest him.
Sparky: Great point.
But hey, a superficial mob mentality is easier, ain't it?
I hope no one here ever gets arrested, or attracts suspicion for a crime, or knows someone who must go through this process.
I also remember Richard Jewel as another guy who looked really, really guilty but was not. And that Chicago guy who was sent to prison, even though the real guilty party had confessed to his lawyers.
If you guys are so sure of this guy's guilt, I hope you can produce the needed evidence and hand it over to the cops. You will be doing a great public service.
Yes, I think the guy's a jackass, but I've come across too many innocent people deemed guilty to make any public judgment about whether he killed his wife.
And I suppose the fact that the police were called to his house no less than 15 times on domestic disturbances for his first wife, and that the most famous forensic medical examiner in the world--one instrumental in getting OJ off--says his first wife was drowned after a violent struggle don't make any impression on you?
Don't get me wrong he is entitled to a fair trial but I think many of the facts of the case are pretty compelling.
Not to metion he is calling in to a local shock jock to joke about his missing wife.
A2: None of that makes him guilty of murder.
If he is proven guilty, that is great.
But he has not been.
Do I think the guy is guilty? Maybe. But that does not matter.
But the only thing that matters is what can be proved. Can you prove this guy is guilty? If so, have you gone to the police?
Why is that so hard to understand?
Wouldn't you want the same benefit of the doubt were you under police and media eyes?
Now, if people want to avoid him, or have a different opinion of this guy because of his actions, that's one thing. But judging him guilty without benefit of trial is crap (and I do acknowledge you support a fair trial, so I am speaking generally on this point, I guess).
I think so much of our civic structure is compromised when we toss away our ideal of innocent until proven guilty.
Well, this isn't a court, it is a blog. We aren't sentencing him, just ridiculing what seems to be his nearly undeniable guilt.
What do you want a video tape?
"Rev. Neil Schori, a pastor at Stacy Peterson's church, reported that she had told him that Drew had killed Kathleen Savio and had made it look like an accident and that she was fearful of her husband [9]. Stacy had provided Drew's alibi for his whereabouts on the evening that Kathleen Savio died.
Drew Peterson's second wife, Vicki Connolly, has alleged a history of abuse during her 10-year marriage to him,[10] as has her daughter who lived in the household during this time, from the age of 8 to 17 years."
ULESS it is a CONSPIRACY.
Uh, A2. Yes, it's a blog, but Matilda makes a good point about the mob mentality. Where is his undeniable guilt? And while there are very compelling facts? Sure, but there were very compelling facts about Kevin Fox (hell, even a confession), Richard Jewell, and I am sure the hundreds of people exonerated through the Innocence Project. I just find it so obtuse that people will convict him on the basis that he is an asshole. If he is a wife-beater, yes, the domestic abuse is horrible and disgusting and he should be charged with that, but domestic abuse doesn't necessarily equate to murder.
And no, I do not want a video tape, I want evidence. And as far as the minister, that is hearsay in the court of law. Finally, while a complicated situation and a moral dilemma, even if the statement is true, the minister breached confidentiality by making his statements public on CNN instead of going to the police immediately. Why is he revealing this to CNN? By doing so, he has damaged his own reputation as a minister. Did he even have consent to reveal those statements? Again, this does not mean that Peterson is not guilty, but a statement made by a minister does not make him guilty. Did you wven consider that? Or did you simply think because a minister said it, it must be true?
People are so quick to judge. Again: if the police had adequate evidence, Peterson would be in jail instead of on a tasteless radio program.
Well, A2, I have an open mind about whether this guy is guilty or not, mainly because many apparently guilty people have later been found innocent. Yes, he seems like a scumbag, but I think it is important for thinking human being not to rush to judgment in a public setting.
In short, I try to avoid the mob mentality. Don't you?
And sparky is right about hearsay. Pretty flimsy point for your argument, I think.
I guess this is why I think the vast majority of people are unthinking drones easy to influence and control. Call me a cynic, but I see evidence of this every day.
I look forward to rush to judgment when you or those close to you are arrested, should that ever happen. I look forward to your friends and co-workers assuming you are guilty (and believe me, they will, even if they will pretend not to, because most people take part in the mob mentality--they just can't help themselves).
It's not a mob mentality when there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his guilt! It's like saying there is a mob mentality that the Patriots are a good football team.
I am not talking about if he's found guilty. Since we are talking about Dr. Michael Baden anyway, I will quote him on the OJ verdict: "Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he was found innocent."
The burden of proof in court is on the state. You talk about people who are falsely accused of a crime--there are also many, many guilty people out there who weren't caught and/or convicted.
Look, is there a chance Drew Peterson is innocent? Yes. If someone put a gun to your head, however, and you had to make a choice, honestly, what would you say, guilty or innocent? (Not that the state can prove it--but in actuality, if someone put a gun to your head and you had to guess correctly, what would you guess?)
Sorry if I'm not completely sympathetic to Drew Peterson.
You know what one of prosecutors and cops main problems these days are? People have watched too much CSI. They expect there to be absolute physical forensic evidence for every crime. It's just not possible, and if I had to guess, I think Drew Peterson is guilty.
If i was falsely arrested, I wouldn't have 100 domestic abuse calls on my record, now would I have a dead wife who the country's top forensic examiner says died after a violent struggle.
I am not saying Drew Peterson should be found guilty in court regardless of the case the prosecutors make--if they don't have enough evidence, then he should be set free. I believe in the legal system. I am saying, in actuality, I think he is guilty! There is a big difference.
A2: Opinions about the best football team are the same as trials and justice?
Uh, OK. That's odd, but if it works for you ...
If someone put a gun to my head, I would say innocent unless there is proof, something more than your circumstantial evidence. Really, I would. Granted, it would not be a real gun, but the weight of public and private opinion, pressure to think the way others do, even at risk of a job or financial reward. I have been in that situation many times and always managed to hold my ground. Have you? Doesn't sound like you have the needed backbone or brain, my friend.
I never said I liked the guy, or that the facts haven't tilted against him. Only that thinking human beings, those with critical thinking skills and courage, are wise to rush to judgement until ALL facts come out and are reviewed.
It has nothing to do with tv shows, and everything do with the history of innocent people being convicted in the media, the court of public opinion, and having their lives ruined and found innocent. Ever heard of Richard Jewel? Or Mr. Fox from Will County? Everyone--and I mean nearly everyone--assumed they were guilty, and Jewel never got his reputation fully back before he died. Just because Jewel was odd and creepy did not mean his was guilty, and anyone who rushed to judgment--and I had some friends in the media and in law enforcement who did--are pathetic pieces of shit.
Again, the domestic calls are interesting, but do not offer proof the guy killed his wife. And the fact that many guilty people get off--CPD clears less than 40% of its murder cases, for instance--has no bearing on the argument that people and the media should withhold public judgment in these matters.
God, you have such a low standard for proof. I hope it comes back to bite you in the arse someday--people like you deserve it.
What about Dr. Baden's testimony? You just brush that under the rug. Keep in mind this is the man the country turned to to conduct JFK's autopsy at the Warren Commission.
And please stop with the intelligence insults. It seems to be a recurring theme in your posts. It's rather pathetic.
What about his testimony?
It does not matter.
Here is what matters: The guy has not been found guilty. The guy has not been charged. Obviously, there is not enough evidence at this point. You may have a very strong gut feeling--and, in fact, I might share that feeling--but I am not arrogant enough to think I know all the facts in this case, nor know more than the cops and state's attorney. I'd rather not make a fool of myself in proclaiming someone's guilt, and I'd rather not join in with the other members of the virtual lynch mob.
As per intelligence, I simply question the smarts of people who deem people guilty even before the state's attorney brings charges, and who rely on circumstantial evidence to all but libel and/or slander people. As well, I question the smarts of someone who equates an opinion about a football team with whether a man is a murderer.
Is that clear enough for you?
You think he is guilty. That's fine. Everyone has private views about suspects. But people convicting this guy in public forums, or through the media, is bullshit, especially giving the history of people thought guilty but later found innocent or, at the least, "not guilty." Don't you agree? Ganging up on this guy in public is a mob mentality.
Wouldn't you want someone to defend you were you suspected of a crime? Wouldn't you demand the benefit of the doubt? That is an ideal at the core of the society we want, right? Then why not live by that ideal?
What has or has not happened to people in the past has nothing to do with this case, Einstein! We are talking about one person and one specific set of circumstances, all of which are very damning.
Do you know it is very hard to try a murder without a body?
The way you think, as long as the criminal is smart enough to get rid of the body and has left no forensic evidence, we should all withhold judgement--only stupid criminals, I suppose, get judged.
This man was a police officer and would clearly be pretty astute at getting rid of any physical evidence...dontchathink?
The Patriots are 18-0. My point was, you can call it groupthink or dumb zombie thought or whatever you want, they are clearly a good football team in most people's eyes.
HERE IS THE ANALOGY:
Drew Peterson has been damned by the second autopsy performed by the country's top forensic examiner; he has been damned by multiple witness sighting him carrying blue barrels; he has been damend by a Priest who broke his vow of confidentiality to spill the beans; he has been damned by his neighbor's testimony; he has been damned by dozens of domestic abuse calls.
It's pretty damning! But you can reserve judgement if you want; meanwhile in all liklihood the body is sitting at the bottom of a river or dump somewhere, and, you are right, without it, they will probably never be able to try him.
What do I care, invite him over for dinner.
Matilda, you really don't seem in a position to sit in judgement of everyone else's intelligence. If you are such a paragon of intelligence, why don't you let your brilliant posts speak for themselves and stop beating your chest. No doubt, like Diablo Cody, you will be contacted by a high-level entertainment executive begging you to put your rhapsodic prose into a script and/or book format.
A2: You are a tool. You basically say I should fuck off, yet you engage me. Make up your mind.
As for the past, it does matter, Lamarck: Many, many people have been convicted in the press and public and then found innocent. Could this be another such case? Who knows? But the evidence of Mr Fox's guilt was pretty "overwhelming," wasn't it?
I beat my chest because I can, and it is fun around drones such as you. I guess I have the weakness of pride. But I guess that's better than the weakness of defending mob mentality and comments that border on libel and/or slander.
Actually, smarty pants, libel is print, slander is spoken, so I could have only libeled him, unless, like you probably are, I'm mouthing my words as I type in order to help me read them.
a2: Thanks for telling what I know.
I included slander because I assume people willing to declare people guilty on a blog also do so verbally in other public settings. Or is your mob mentality confined to the Internet?
You should read the recent Trib op column by David Greising (20 Jan: "Burden of Proof") about this mentality. It says what I am trying to say much better.
Fuck all you assholes who have cheerfully discarded the presumption of innocence. Such a mentality is dangerous.
Does he have a starchy collar?
If he does then off with his head I say!!!
Does he have a starchy collar?
If he does then off with his head I say!!!