Dana Pretzer Show - 10-10-08

Dana Pretzer Show - 10 10 08

PRETZER: OK, Good evening everyone. We have lots to cover tonight. There’s a new book out - Kunati is the publisher. I gottabe careful how I say that – called “Drew Peterson Exposed”. Tonight we’re going to have the author, Derek Armstrong, Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky on all at the same time to talk about the book, talk about any issues they may have. This whole polygraph issue has popped up. There’s been lots of news coverage. In fact, this morning on the Mike and Juliet show or the Romeo and Juliet show – whatever it was called – it seemed like more of a love-fest for Geraldo, who hides under his desk every time I ask him to come on the show with Drew and Joel.Regardless, they’re here tonight and Geraldo carried on this morning, calling Drew the Beast of Bolingbrook and all sorts of things, not using the term “allegedly” but there is some interesting information that came out of this book, “Exposed” and we’re going to cover it tonight. Greetings Gentlemen!

BRODSKY: Greetings, how are you Dana?

PRETZER: Good Joel. Drew Peterson, you’re there?

PETERSON: Hi, Dana. How’re you doing?

PRETZER: Good. Derek Armstrong, the author of DREW PETERSON EXPOSED, you’re with us?

ARMSTRONG: Yes. Hi,Dana.

PRETZER: OK, Let’s start with Derek Armstrong. The book obviously is a…(laughs)…is a barn burner – a Canadian term that we use up here – but it’s exciting. It’s wanting to go out and cover something that’s very high-profile and in the news. I watched you on the Mike and Juliet show this morning. This is something, as an author you only get a once in a lifetime chancecovering. Your thoughts about writing the book?

ARMSTRONG: It has been an experience. I don’t know if I would repeat it but it has been a great experience, I suppose.

PRETZER: Now, as far as experience goes, you’re talking about a very high-profile case in the United States. It’s been covered worldwide, nationally, internationally, you have a high-profile media person like Geraldo Rivera who attacks Drew Peterson on a regular basis, making predictions, calling for all sorts of things but none of it has happened, and you come forward with a book – I’m looking at the cover right now and in fact I see a picture of Drew Peterson in the polygraph examiner’s suite I believe and there is some very complicated, very extreme things that you went through in this book and the media just isn’t covering itthe way that you wrote it. Am I wrong?

ARMSTRONG: They’re covering it from different perspectives. The majority of media are picking up on what they feel is important to their story. So, a lot of people are picking up on the polygraph when the polygraphs were not really the story to begin with. We did the polygraphs as a condition of even writing the book.

PRETZER: Let’s go to Joel Brodsky, the attorney for Drew Peterson. Watching the Mike and Juliet Show this morning, their intro line, their catch line to grab the audience’s attention: Drew Peterson failed the polygraph. But not until about a minute and a half later did they talk about the failed a couple of questions and it’s that spin that’s been very negative to your client.

BRODSKY; Yeah, I broke into a big smile when they started talking like that. Drew, for example, there are two cases here. Two polygraphs taken on two separate Sundays. On the polygraph regarding Kathleen Savio Drew is totally exon - if you believe in polygraphs that is – and I personally don’t – but if you believe in polygraphs, Drew is exonerated totally on Kathleen Savio’s case. The press just seems to go, well you know, they either don’t mention that or they say he probably manipulated it or beat that one but it’s only the ones that came up deceptive that he didn’t beat. It’s kind of wishful…like Geraldo even said this morning that the questions that he failed were good questions and the questions that he passed were improperly asked questions. So I thought it was kind of hypocritical.

PRETZER: And I want to make it very clear that Geraldo Rivera has been invited on this program many times to discuss this and he turns down my request each time. Drew, it continues on and on for you. Watching you on the Early Show or the Today Show or one of the early morning shows the other day, you were hoping when the interviewer asked you the question that now that the results have come forward that people would basically leave you alone and see that you had nothing to do with either case. Your thoughts?

PETERSON: Like I say, everything; the press, this book, everybody,they focus very high on the negative but nobody’s focusing on the positive which I wish they’d do. Like I say, in the Kathleen Savio case, all the questions that were asked came back with truthful responses and the negative responses in the Stacy questions were all benign questions. The factual questions , the meat and potato questions, did I hurt her, did I move her out of the room, I answered “no” and those both came back as truthful responses. So, I think everyone likes, again, to keep me sinister. When the meat and potato questions come down to it, nobody’s really focusing on that and it’s really what’s important.

ARMSTRONG: Well, as a fellow Canadian, Dana, let me jump in there.

PRETZER: Sure.

ARMSTRONG: To be fair, Geraldo did have a point though that language on a polygraph does have a major effect on results and his point really was that the way it was phrased could have been giving him a little bit of wiggle room on his answers. The ones that Drew characterized as unimportant, as an investigator, I disagree, because they related directly to the timeline that Drew provided. Namely, when he last saw Stacy, and when he got his phone call from Stacy in the evening saying she was leaving. They may not sound like important questions but as an investigator I think they are because those are fundamental timeline questions.

PRETZER: Drew, your response.

PETERSON: My response? Well on one question it was like, did she tell you she was running away with another man in a phone call and I said (pause) “yes” and it came back deceptive but in the same questions, did she tell you where the car was on that phone call and I responded “yes” and that came back truthful so it’s just like one question says it didn’t exist and one question says it did. So..

BRODSKY: Which is, if I can jump in here – this is Joel – this iswhy I advised Drew not to take a polygraph. I’ve always said that I really think that they’re at the best, the best you can say about polygraphs is that they’re an investigative tool, and there’s no investigator worth their salt, including Derek, who is going to say that polygraphs are the beginning and the end. It’s a part, even a small part of an investigation. The problem is that people tend to focus too much on the polygraphs and their answers and the minutia of it and ignore the rest of it. Derek wanted to, we agreed to, Drew agreed to anyway, once again, over my objections, that he wanted to get as much information out there as he can in one source, because he feels he’s being misrepresented all over different forms of press and TV and Derek used the polygraph as it should be, as a small part of the story. But other members, like some tabloid, I think more tabloid shows more than anything else are focusing on like Nancy Grace for example are focusing just on the polys and not really looking at all the other voluminous detail that’s in the book, a lot of which we’re not exactly all that happy with, to tell you the truth.

PRETZER: OK

ARMSTRONG: You know they may yet cover those points. I think they’re focusing on the more exciting parts of it which is quote unquote, according to Nancy Grace, and it’s true – three out of the six questions on the Stacy polygraph were deceptive so they’re calling that “half” and that is half.

PRETZER: Let’s go, Derek, if I could just interject for a second. We have Drew Peterson, Joel Brodsky and the author of the new book, DREW PETERSON EXPOSED. Derek Armstrong, when you look at the cable news coverage or mainstream media coverage however you want to say it, and they look at the big picture, they look at the galleys of the book or whatever, talking points you’ve sent them, and there’s a huge story here, I’m not sure how many pages the book has but there’s pictures, there’s stories, there’s background, there’s your thoughts as an author and as an investigator, but you know the old saying Derek, “If it bleeds it leads.” They’re going to grab onto that and they’re going to go for it and I disagree with you somewhat when you say that they may yet cover the other facts of the book. Drew Peterson may or may not be tried for something. We don’t know. He may have allegedly done something wrong. We don’t know. The evidence will show what it will show but the way that the media has covered this, has camped out on his lawn, has done everything, I think is a much bigger picture here in this story because of its high profile nature and I want to get your comment as the author of this. Do you think that if this does ever happen that Drew Peterson could get a fair trial?

ARMSTRONG: I would doubt he would get a fair trial in Illinois – not a jury trial, that’s for sure. But I don’t know about nationally. I think nationally, in another jurisdiction he might get a fair trial.

PRETZER: But you see Drew or Joel, either one of you can answer this, Geraldo Rivera, you can’t get much more of a national type of reporter, broadcaster. He’s got a long history in television reporting calling you, not alleged, but a double murderer, the Beast of Bolingbrook, all sorts of things. People like Geraldo. They’re gonna listen to that. They’re gonna see and they’re gonna focus on that and Geraldo won’t come on to defend his actions but he’ll continue doing that and that’s got to be tough, Joel or Drew, if this ever does go to trial.

BRODSKY: I’ll talk about that a little bit. There used to be a journalistic code of ethics that was almost enforced where if somebody was accused they would say “allegedly” and if they didn’t they were criticized by their peers. I’m not ancient but I’m old enough to remember that. A code of conduct. They actually used to advertise, journalists twenty years ago would advertise that they abided by this code of ethics and they took pride in it. Forget it. It’s gone. It doesn’t exist anymore. The only thing that matters is ratings. If we had this code of ethics and people took pride in it guys like Geraldo would be hounded out of the business. There’sothers just as bad. It’s going to make this case…If the eyeball…I still believe there’ll never be a charge…but even the gun case that we’re going to trial on in December, it’s going to make picking a jury in that case very problematic. We’re going to spend as much time picking a jury, or even more time picking a jury than we may actually be trying the case. And that’s just unfortunate and wrong.

ARMSTRONG: That happens with all high-profile trials, I’m sure. But the thing I have to jump in on, as an author and journalist, is you have to protect the absolute freedom of the press.

PRETZER: Yup.

ARMSTRONG: It’s absolutely critical.

PRETZER: Yes, I agree..

ARMSTRONG: Allegedly, I agree. People should use that word but absolutely they have the right to report on this and they should.

PRETZER: And you’re right, and they do have a right but it’show you do it and let’s go to Drew Peterson. I’m assuming that your lawyer when he told you not to do this, you decided to do it because you wanted to get your side out and I’m going to use the word ‘vindicate’ yourself. Maybe I’m wrong but we all have to agree, all three of us here that there’s still answers that need to be obtained both in the Savio and Stacy’s case. Correct Drew?

PETERSON: I believe so. I’ve been helpful as I could be with anybody who’s asked me questions. I’ve answered them the best that I could and people have been screaming, “Take a polygraph! Take a polygraph!” and basically I wasn’t afraid to take a polygraph so I did it. I did it above the objections of my attorney but I did it because I felt that it needed to be done and show that I didn’t hurt anybody, I didn’t do anything to anybody.

PRETZER :You know, Derek, I have to credit you as far as the polygraph aspect of the book. You wouldn’t do the book unless he took the polygraph. I’m just curious – if the results came back absolutely truthful for all questions or on the other side deceptive on all questions would that have changed your mind on how or if you would have done the book?

ARMSTRONG: No. it wouldn’t have changed my mind on if I would have done the book. It would just have to some extent dictated the direction of the investigation. I had to know…I do to a large extent believe in the value of polygraphs as an investigative tool, certainly not as evidence as Joel will say, but it is an investigative tool and those three deceptive answers – they don’t make up my mind one way or the other but they do point me in the direction of what I have to ask Drew in my many many many hours of talking to him.

BRODSKY: I’d like to make just one point clear here, this is Joel Brodsky again. Derek had the polygraphs as a requirement of doing the book and the reason he did that is this is his book and his investigation. Drew neither, Drew Peterson nor any of his family, agents, attorneys, nobody, we don’t have any financial interest in this book. All the royalties of this book – 100% - go to the author. Drew was not paid any money to give his life story. I wasn’t paid any money because Drew gave his interviews. We have no financial interest in it at all. Drew’s sole motivation was to get – he felt that he didn’t want to live the rest of his life under a cloud and he wanted to tell everything. Like I said, there’s a lot here in this book that we don’t agree with, we don’t particularly like. When Derek said to Drew that he was going to report the good and bad he certainly was true to his word. Nobody could ever say this is any type of exoneration of Drew. There’s a lot in there I wish that wasn’t. There’s a tremendous amount of information in this book that doesn’t appear anywhere else.

ARMSTRONG: Yeah. The good the bad and the ugly as Geraldo said. He was careful to add ‘the ugly’ in the talk show this morning.

PRETZER: Derek, I want to ask you this, regarding that television appearance today, I felt that your comment, and I wrote it down, where you called Drew cold and unemotional that they were, Mike and… Romeo and Juliet or whatever their names and whatshisname, Geraldo, were baiting you and trying to get you to say something negative through the whole interview about Drew Peterson. Am I wrong?

ARMSTRONG: There’s no doubt I took a balanced view of the entire project and that’s not a very, this may be a stereotype,it’s not a very appealing thing for American journalistic style. They usually, in American journalism, you pick your direction you investigate it that way. Canadian journalism we tend to look at both sides and report it that way and that’s what I’ve done. When they asked that question I tried to evade the question of “Do I believe Drew is guilty or not” simply because I feel that’s my personal opinion now and there’s not enough evidence. They continued to push on that point but I made it clear what I really believe, which is that he should be a suspect. There’s enough there for him to be a suspect. There’s no doubt. I don’t think anyone can argue with that - even probably Joel.

BRODSKY: Well, I might try.

ARMSTRONG : Frankly, the circumstances, everything, it adds up to he has to be a suspect and probably the main suspect. But there’s no evidence that I could find that would convince me either way and that’s how I more or less answered that question.

PRETZER: Drew, you’ve got problems with the book or pieces of it, or I’m assuming you do. I know we’ve had some discussion with the fact that some audio clips were released. There was this whole embargo issue the media and again the media was really pushing to try and get something more or less throw another dagger at you but I’m going to give you this opportunity now Drew, to tell us and tell the author what you have, what problems that you do have with the book or what you like about it.

PETERSON: Well I…how can I say this...I allowed Derek to audio tape this (sounds of typing) our conversations and the interview with me.It was my understanding through Derek that that the audio tapes were simply for his notes – now the audio bits are being made available for national TV and national radio. I think that was a bit out of line. I was told one thing and now another thing is happening so I’m a little bit unhappy with that. As far as the book is concerned I think there’s a lot of good points in it about others, their timelines and things that they were saying that were brought up and don’t make any sense and that was finally brought to light. So…on one particular incident RicMims is saying how my thirteen year old son was saying “mommy and daddy were fighting” and my thirteen year old son is actually pissed off. That was put in the book because he never said that, so I’m telling him here let’s kind of clear it up. If you read the book it clears up that you weren’t saying that so I think the book has, again, good points and bad points. I didn’t think that picture of me in drag was gonna, my Halloween costume was gonna show up in the book but there it is and I think I’m quite attractive as a woman but…(laughter)

PRETZER: Well, the Drew Peterson that I know, that has been on my program is not the Drew Peterson…let me rephrase this. The Drew Peterson that I’ve talked to off air, that I’m not interviewing but just about to interview is different from the Drew Peterson I interview. I would say that it’s fair that Drew Peterson has been told by his lawyer to “behave yourself” for lack of a better term. Joel Brodsky, are we hearing the Drew Peterson tonight and on other programs (laughter) I love the comment - got to get in this – the comment and I laughed out loud about how Greta was doing an interview and Drew was beeping the horns to screw that up and I just was laughing out loud when I heard that one because that’s the Drew that I talk to before we go on the air.

BRODSKY: I think even Drew will admit that I’ve been a restraining force on him (laughs)

PETERSON: That’s why I call you Mom.

PRETZER: (laughs)

BRODSKY: What you’re not hearing to some extent, and what you’re missing I guess, if that’s the right word, to some extent is some of his practical joking goofiness which some people tend to misinterpret cause this is a serious situation, a very serious situation and a very serious subject.

PRETZER: Absolutley.

BRODSKY: And when they hear him being kind of goofy it’s misinterpreted. I think that was a big problem that we had early on in this case and…try to restrain him from doing that but other than that, other than the goofiness or the kind of practical joking thing, you’re hearing the real Drew Peterson. You’re hearing the guy who was a sergeant and a police department and was managing many cops on the street and running the whole law enforcement of a fairly large village or town for an eight hour period, and it was a commander, and you’re hearing that person just minus the kind of goofy practical joking stuff.

ARMSTRONG: There’s another layer though to Drew that comes out in the book, if I can say, and that is relating to women…

BRODSKY: Oh, well yeah that…

ARMSTRONG: and I think that’s an important one because of the case…

BRODSKY: Oh, there’s no question about it.

ARMSTRONG: and that is certainly that he’s a bit proud of his infidelities, you could say. I think that came across. I’m not sure if readers are upset when they read that but there’s the practical joke side which, that’s gallows humor – fine – but the infidelities and all those sorts of things are important to this kind of a case.

PRETZER: Let me interject for a second, and I know I’m going to get in trouble for this because, but the infidelities or the discussion about women and all that and right or wrong or how you say it - and I’m going to get Drew to comment on this in a second. It’s a cop thing. OK? And, police officers, it takes a special kind of woman to stay married to a police officer. It takes a special kind of police officer to stay married. I know and have been around police officers for a long longtime and many of them, my parents included, I’m amazed to see that they’ve been married thirty-forty years. A lot of them are two, three, four, five years. There’s the stress, there’s everything that’s involved in it and I’m wondering Drew, if that’s not part of this. You can’t be proud of some things,I’m sure, that you’ve maybe done in the past with relationships but is there a cop angle to this? And I’m not trying to justify it by any means I’m just speaking.

PETERSON: Well, like I say, cops go away to schools and events and so on and realistically there’s… cops all have the attitude, “There’s no such thing as a married man a hundred miles from home”. Being in the business, you know, it’s just like when cops get together and they’re out, and they’re out of town, cops are playing. I was a cop and I played.

BRODSKY: I think Derek, this is Joel, I think Derek focused…there’s a lot in there about Drew’s past associations. I won’t call it an expose, but I think there was an over-focus on that and that’s one thing that I thought was…we don’t like, I mean I don’t particularly like. The over-focus on the way that he dealt with women throughout his entire life from being a young man of almost eighteen years old all the way through to last year.

ARMSTRONG: Well, I don’t see that as irrelevant - this is Derek again. I see that as very relevant. The other thing I see as relevant is, and you’ll forgive me for this if it sounds prudish, but the quote unquote cradle robbing-type thing. It isn’t that it happened because that does happen sometimes but it’s the pride. Drew’s proud of it and that came across in the interviews.

BRODSKY: Like I said, so much is in the book that nobody’s ever heard before and that’s why, if you ask me from my point of view, as a lawyer, I wish it never came out.

PRETZER: Derek I want to ask you this question. You touched on it briefly before. The Canadian versus American style of ethics as far as investigation into a story or reporting on a story or even writing a book.Do you think that – and I do because I’m in Canada although my show goes out worldwide and the majority of my audience is in the United States - but the Canadians do listen to me and my program and follow this and we’re on cable in Canada also, television. They’re all so fascinated with these high-profile American cases. We hear about them a little bit in Canada but they’re not reported on as much as in the states. They happen up here but we just don’t hear about it enough. Is that a difference when you look at a style of writing – an American story versus a Canadian story?

ARMSTRONG: I think it absolutely is. A friend of mine who is a reporter on a radio station like yourself, he had a talk show this morning. He was mentioning how he felt the American style of journalism was, they pick their point of view and then set out to prove it and the Canadian style of journalism is to investigate and report it and now that’s totally a Canadian point of view and it’s not entirely true. It’s definitely not true, but once the public has got a perception of something that becomes the story and it gets pursued to the very last drop of blood, so to speak.

PRETZER: The book is called DREW PETERSON EXPOSED and of course we have the author, Derek Armstrong and Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky on tonight. We’re just about out of time with the three of them too by the way but I’m going to ask you this question Drew. Was Drew Peterson exposed in this book for the type of person Drew Peterson really is?

ARMSTRONG: You’re asking me, Dana?

PRETZER: No, I’m asking Drew.

PETERSON: Was I exposed as the Drew Peterson I really am?

PRETZER: Yeah. The book is called DREW PETERSON EXPOSED. Was Drew Peterson exposed in this book or was it a way for you to look for…

PETERSON: Well, the way the book reads it was like I’m standing in front of a group of people in an overcoat exposing myself, (laughter) when I think of the name of the book. But there’s a lot of things and everything that I read in there happened so it’s like…

PRETZER: I never thought of that.

PETERSON: It’s like, I don’t know. I don’t know. Like you say there’s a lot of layers…everybody has a lot of layers.

PRETZER: But your goal…

PETERSON: I’m concentrating now on raising my kids.

PRETZER: Your goal when you did the interview was to – maybe OK I’m finally going to get this out of the way. Maybe people will leave me alone now. Do you think that will happen or do you think because of that style of American journalism they’re going to be after you as much as ever?

PETERSON: I don’t know. I just don’t know. It’s just like American journalism is ratings driven and if it pays better to keep me sinister, they really take none of that into effect, what’s happening to me or my family. So it’s just basically keep me sinister sells better and that’s the whole attitude. Guys like Geraldo who obviously go out for sensationalism and that’s how he’s going to report the story.

ARMSTRONG: Can I ask a tough question though, Drew, quickly?

BRODSKY: Uh oh.

PETERSON: Sure.

ARMSTRONG: And I don’t know how tough it is but to some extent I actually think you enjoy this. The celebrity. You talked about people asking for autographs in public sometimes. You attack Geraldo a bit and he attacks you back but I think you both kind of thrive on it in a way.

PETERSON: Well, do I enjoy it? At first it was a scary thing. Now it’s like what it is now. It is what it is and it’s my world. I yesterday had two carloads of ladies, a total of about six women pull up out to the house and banging on the door wanting pictures with me.

PRETZER: Oh, Jesus.

PETERSON: And that happened at two o’clock in the afternoon yesterday and I’m “OK” and I went out and took the pictures and I thought it was cute and took pictures with these women and they left happy and gave me a hug and went on their way so the public, the publicity and the public notoriety, its…I don’t know if I like it or I don’t like it. I’m not running from it but again it is what it is.

ARMSTRONG: Are you dating again?

PETERSON: I’m seeing people, sure.

PRETZER: Joel, just before we let you go. I’m gonna take some flak for this interview tonight, and that’s OK because actually I take flak every time I have you guys on but I think there should be a forum in the mainstream media and cable that you could and you should be able to come on and say your side and if you have a problem with a commentator or with an author speak it, say it, because that’s what freedom of the press is all about. The book again, DREW PETERSON EXPOSED. As Drew Peterson’s attorney do you see this as a problem in the future or as a non-issue or was Drew Peterson exposed in this?

BRODSKY: Well like I said, certainly the book has a lot of information in it that I wish, from my point of view, never saw the light of day and that Drew never told anybody. Certainly not that the public or the prosecutors or the police or whatever get to read, but I mean, as Drew said, there’s nothing in the re that isn’t true and he wasn’t lying – he wasn’t making anything up when he talked to Derek. It’s going to be problematic. At some point it is going to be problematic. I told Drew that before he did itand he decided… the lawyer…I can only advise. The client makes the decision. I can give my advice and Drew’s followed a lot of advice I’ve given him but sometimes he, he makes his own decisions. He made the decision to go with this because he felt he wanted to get this stuff out there and I believe it is going to be somewhat problematic. It is one more thing we’re going to have to deal with – one extra thing we’re going to have to deal with as we go into the future. That’s about all I can say.

PRETZER: Derek, last question for you and again I appreciate you all three coming on. As an author you write a book. You want people to obviously buy the book and read the book. I’m not surprised when Drew says a carload of women come and knock on his door and want to take pictures with him. I’m shocked that people actually do that kind of stuff. There’s the celebrity of these high-profile cases that one will never figure but it’s those people, those women in the van, or whoever that come to see Drew are going to buy your book. What is it about when the people pick up that book, what catch phrase or what line or what picture…what are they gonna see in that book that’s gonna to attract them and make them say, yeah let’s buy this and let’s read it?

ARMSTRONG: I think it’s just when you follow the case in the press, in the newspapers, on TV, you’re getting a snippet here, a snippet there and a lot of it’ssensational. What I’ve tried to do is present the whole story although I’ll say I really started the story from where the press left off. There was no point in repeating everything so I summarized some of the earlier incidents and I investigated new things. I explored Drew’s background. I think the background of a person who is suspected of something is probably the most important thing of all. What are they like? What motivates them? Can they be convincing, can they…at one point in oneinterview he said, “I spent my days working cons on people.”

Well, that’s an innocent statement. He was a police officer under cover. Thatcapability is there. That’s background that people need to know.

PRETZER: Yeah, and it’s something that story is going to continue. It’s not over. I do appreciate all three of you coming on and hopefully we can do this again. Thank you gentelemen.