Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Case of John Darwin Provides Ammunition For Drew Peterson Update: 12-8

Drew Peterson (LINK) might be quick to point out that not all missing persons are murder victims. An arrow in the quiver of that argument may be the case of John Darwin. Darwin disappeared 5 years ago in England. The only trace of John was his wrecked canoe found in northern England. However, on Saturday, John Darwin walked into a London police station and said he had no recollection of the last five years.

John Darwin
AP
Darwin was able to recall his birth date and previous address but no information on his most recent whereabouts. He is now 57-years old. A Cleveland, England Policeman is quoted as saying, "He says he can't recollect where he's been, but that's something we're investigating." Darwin is now staying with family in London. His wife, Anne, reportedly moved abroad this year. The couple's former home is now owned by John Duffield.

So, could Stacy Peterson simply be missing? Could she have run off out of fear or perhaps because she fell in love with someone other than Drew? Might Stacy show up five years from now alive an well? Anything is possible. Until the whereabouts of Stacy are discovered, one way or the other, Drew Peterson is not without ammunition in his quiver. (Drew Peterson Story) Attorney Joel Brodsky's exclusive interview with Legal Pub can be found HERE.

Update 12-7: On the other hand, John Darwin and his wife may be in trouble with the law. Apparently it turns out that there is a photo of John and his wife in Panama taken a year ago. You see, when John disappeared, he apparently owed a lot of money. The wife cashed in on the insurance policies. Problem with this option to bankruptcy is that if you get caught, you might go to jail...
Update 12-8: Darwin has been charged by the police with making an untrue statement to secure a passport and obtaining money transfer with deception.

22 comments:

ralph said...

I think Darwin probably staged his disappearance. I don't buy his 5 year loss of memory.

With Peterson, I call FISH since the beginning.

Ralph

Jill said...

Some experts say Listening is an act of love. If true, what type of a listener was Peterson. We hear relatives talk about what Peterson supposedly said to Stacy or the minister about his third wife etc...

But no one mentions what type of a listener Peterson was during the marriage. If he was a poor listener, then maybe he just didn't hear where Stacy said she was going that day...


Jill

Anonymous said...

Nope. Pretty sure he did it...

Anonymous said...

I smell fraud on the part of big John Darwin...

just something blowing in the wind...

rolo said...

Perhaps the lad had a touch too much of the bottle and lost his way home.

Don't be so harsh, lads will be lads.


Rolo

Ms. Calabaza said...

I could see Steve Fossett showing up . . . wouldn't that be something?

Drew Peterson? Sorry, I think this guy is guilty of more than one murder.

blond bombshell said...

I have to say I am 100% of the mindset of Ms. C. Fossett may reappear. But Stacy, she gone...


Shell

Legal Pub said...

Update 12-7: On the other hand, John Darwin and his wife may be in trouble with the law. Apparently it turns out that there is a photo of John and his wife in Panama taken a year ago. You see, when John disappeared, he apparently owed a lot of money. The wife cashed in on the insurance policies. Problem with this option to bankruptcy is that if you get caught, you might go to jail...

Legal Pub said...

Update 12-8: Darwin has been charged by the police with making an untrue statement to secure a passport and obtaining money transfer with deception

Anonymous said...

Darwin is in big trouble!

Anonymous said...

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. If someone breaks into your house carrying a pillowcase, it's safe to shoot him on the assumption you're being robbed.

I think he is guilty. Then again, I have to admit, I was pretty darned convinced that those Duke Lacross players were guilty. So maybe this innocent until proven guilty is a recipe that should be followed by all.


Jake

Legal Pub said...

Update 12-8: Darwin has been charged by the police with making an untrue statement to secure a passport and obtaining money transfer with deception.

Anonymous said...

John Darwin was so busted!

Anonymous said...

Drew wants his stuff back...

Anonymous said...

Drew is living in a fish bowl.

Anonymous said...

Drew is likely to be sued for wrongful death of his third wife in civil court. If he looses, Drew may financially be done!

Anonymous said...

John Darwin, the new age Lazerus. No such luck is likely with Stacy Peterson...

Legal Pub said...

Things are pretty much still the status quo.

Legal Pub said...

Update 4-30-08 Peterson has apparently had problems with his next door neighbor, Sharon Bychowski. Bychowski apparently was friends with Stacy. Bychowski apparently does not believe Drew's theory that Stacy ran off with another man. About a month or so ago, Bychowski had signs in her windows asking "Where is Stacy?" She also had a 3-by-4-foot sign outside her home. Other neighbors may also allow a sign in their yards. No one knows at this point if Peterson will later be proved guilty. But our law presumes that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It appear that Peterson is being harassed and convicted without a trial. Ridicule and threats are not appropriate. At times when the news media attention is especially intense, Peterson apparently gets gets death threats. This is not something we as a society can tolerate. Drew's attorney, Joel Brodsky said."It's a mob mentality that has run away." Keep in mind folks, Drew is innocent until proven guilty. It is not just an idea, it is a fundamental principal of our system of justice.

Anonymous said...

Stacy could be hiding...

Legal Pub said...

Drew has been indicted for Kathleen Savio's murder.

Anonymous said...

In June the judge ruled that he would allow 5 out of court hearsay statements to come into evidence. If the ruling is allowed to stand, the case against Peterson will be difficult to overcome due to the prejudicial impact of the statements.