The world watched again, as dribble rolled from Drew Peterson's lips. Dan Abrams missed the mark on this one. Abrams should have gone back to the interview with the social worker John Lamantia who had a fender bender with Stacy last year and asked Peterson how a complete , trained, licensed professional would make statement like "The relationship was physical and Stacy said they had a troubled marriage". http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=184823 11/15/2007
What about asking questions regarding statements made by the neighbor on 11/10/2007http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310405,00.htmlBOLINGBROOK, Ill. — A neighbor of an missing Illinois woman filed a police report against the woman's husband and recalled seeing the mother of two sitting at the end of her driveway in tears a week before she disappeared, she told FOX News. If Peterson so disliked the neighbor why have her baby sit the children during the critical time period when Stacy vanished?A week before Stacy vanished, she had Peterson's personal belongings packed up. Where was the question regarding those statements. This was also before Peterson went on the today show begging for a lawyer.
In the dateline interview on 12/21/2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22316689/page/2/
Questions, again were not asked from the responses and statements made during this interview.
Why didn't Abrams talk about the dinner. Or the cell phone exchange with Pam Bosco? How about the fact that Stacy wanted to rent an apartment from Pam?
No mention as well of the lawyer Stacy saw just a few days before she vanished. The same lawyer that Kathleen Savio used in her divorce.
Why didn't someone ask the question when the legal roaster chimed in towards the end of the first part of the interview http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24302957#24302957 and said " she wanted to divorce" . What did he mean by that? Why wasn't Peterson's lawyer asked to explain? Part 2 of the interview -http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...4540/vp/24302957#24302978
Don't misunderstand, I have great respect for Dan Abrams and MSNBC and this was one of the better interviews. It just missed the mark and did not zero in on important issues's in this case, outside the box. The element of surprise would have lead the interview in a different direction.
Stacy Peterson has now been missing for one hundred and seventy-seven days. Friends and family have a web site. Please visit http://www.findstacypeterson.com/
Questions, again were not asked from the responses and statements made during this interview.
Why didn't Abrams talk about the dinner. Or the cell phone exchange with Pam Bosco? How about the fact that Stacy wanted to rent an apartment from Pam?
No mention as well of the lawyer Stacy saw just a few days before she vanished. The same lawyer that Kathleen Savio used in her divorce.
Why didn't someone ask the question when the legal roaster chimed in towards the end of the first part of the interview http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24302957#24302957 and said " she wanted to divorce" . What did he mean by that? Why wasn't Peterson's lawyer asked to explain? Part 2 of the interview -http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...4540/vp/24302957#24302978
Don't misunderstand, I have great respect for Dan Abrams and MSNBC and this was one of the better interviews. It just missed the mark and did not zero in on important issues's in this case, outside the box. The element of surprise would have lead the interview in a different direction.
Stacy Peterson has now been missing for one hundred and seventy-seven days. Friends and family have a web site. Please visit http://www.findstacypeterson.com/
6 comments:
Mr. Abrams appeared to lack the fire burning under the seat style of interviewing with these guests.
Ohio
Dan did an excellent job! You are right, he didn't go beyond what Larry or Greta talked about on their shows.
It was disturbing to hear Drew Peterson him say that his teenage kids are just bored of the whole thing. The kids aren't phased with him being a suspect? My boys are both honor students? And why bring photo's of Morhpey on the show? Grand Rapids,MI
The more interviews they do, the deeper, the hole . Give Dan credit, look what he had to work with as material.
I have finally hit that point where I am no longer craving a minute-by-minute synopsis of Drew Peterson and his interviews. Same old questions, same old answers. And, what was the picture fiasco thing supposed to be all about? Trying to show a man that "couldn't even stand up." Huh? When, where, why? I will pass on all of the arm chair psychoanalysis for now on, and just wait for the real news. That he's been charged with the crimes.
Funny Peterson strains to be nice on nat'l tv. You just sense its all an act. How come the private dicks have never been named? Casue they don't exist/ Prayers to the kids & Stacys families.
Post a Comment