i think that his smirk is due to his thinking that he is getting away with it. the only reason he is so open with the tour of his home in my sense is that the deed did not happen there. this was also confirmed for me by the big deal he made about the juice the forensics tested for blood. it was like an extra point in a competition for him. innocent people don't do that , its near overcompensation. another thing, he is going to make a mistake and get caught. why? because he isn't real smart as he thinks, see , he pointed out the clothes in the closet. his mistake is that he doesn't know how to think like a woman. when a woman leaves a man, she isn't going to leave all her clothes and shoes etc, behind. ok, lots of folks would say that it would not be normal to leave the children. well, probably not. but it does happen. women don't leave all their stuff behind. i also believe that the place where her body is , also is the place where she was killed. he would not put her body in a vehicle that can be traced to him. to catch this man, for one thing, he would not be a good polka player, he broadcasts his mind emotions that is, in his face. he will stop smirking when you are in the areas of items close to the truth. go outside of the box, whatever is s.o.p. for investigation of this type of case, he most likely has covered his tracks, catch him with the unexpected. right now he thinks confidentally that he is running this show. i can see it on his face and in his manner.oh, about the house, i forgot to mention, that there is usually a strong smell when there is a body around anyhow. all the things that drew knows, the investigation techniques, like the steps , all that he will have covered or gone another direction. he is performing for the camera right now. the mention of that his house is bugged. well if it is or isn't the point is that it shows his thinking is along the lines that the investigators will behave a certain way, he is anticipating this and expects this. he has prepared and in the overconfidence, he will also be careful not to slip up. what i suggest is that whoever is doing this take this tactic. of course, it is only my theory, you all are the pros. distract his focus and attention elsewhere to occupy his mind, while you do something else, he is unexpectant of. what that specifically is, i don 't know, but in the light that the deed was done elsewhere, for example, while he is watching the back yard be looked at by the det,. maybe there can be soil samples from the underside of the vehicle, are taken, that is only an example, as this may not be helpful. but, a gps hidden in the car, a way to find out what mileage may have been unusual, i don't know exactly how to deal with him, because i was too put off by feeling that he was lying, it was thick, and sickening, to listen carefully, i know you can't go to court with a feeling that someone did something. what about reopening the third wife who was said to have committed suicide,
case? or at least have drew think that this is the situation.you know what his weak spot is? he does not know how to think like a woman. he is trying to convince all of us that she did act in differently than women usually do. and like i said, leaving the clothes, as they were exactly, was a big big mistake, if a woman was the one who did the deed, she would have thought of that, but he is so out of touch with a woman mentality that he brought it up himself! that was as dumb as his pointing out the red juice. and when he said that he left the clothes like he couldn't bring himself to touch them. translation is that he knew it would look incriminating for him to toss them in the trash, and the truth that he did say was that he couldn't bring himself to touch them. but i had a sense that a part of that reason was a dislike, intense dislike for his missing mate. did you see that on his face, i did, and i also sense that he has an undercurrent of a sense of justification for his deed. oh, this man is going to get caught. it is just a matter of time.it would be nice if a female det. takes him down. there is something wrong with a man that marries so many times, don't you think
More than a year has passed since Drew Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, mysteriously vanished. Although the former police sergeant maintains that he had nothing to do with her disappearance, many suspect foul play. The Dr. Phil show covered the story when it first broke, and a year later, it’s still making headlines. Now, Dr. Phil asks the hard questions that are on the minds of millions: How did a young mother with no resources vanish without a trace? Why would Stacy leave her four children behind? Next, Drew takes Dr. Phil cameras on a tour of the home he once shared with Stacy. Find out why he says he still holds on to her belongings. Then, the death of Drew’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, was initially considered an accidental drowning but has now been ruled a homicide. Drew took a polygraph exam in connection with both cases, and the results may shock you. And, author Derek Armstrong recently interviewed Drew Peterson for more than 200 hours for his new book, Drew Peterson Exposed. The author doesn’t mince words about his subject. Plus, Drew says the media has portrayed him as a monster, but his kids, Thomas and Kris, view him as a family man. Is Drew Peterson guilty of murder, or is he simply the product of bad publicity? Tell us what you think!
