Dana Pretzer Show - 10 10 08PRETZER: OK, Good evening everyone. We have lots to cover tonight. There’s a new book out - Kunatiis the publisher. I gottabe careful how I say that – called “Drew Peterson Exposed”. Tonight we’re goingto have the author, Derek Armstrong, Drew Peterson and Joel Brodsky on all at the same time to talkabout the book, talk about any issues they may have. This whole polygraph issue has popped up. There’sbeen lots of news coverage. In fact, this morning on the Mike and Juliet show or the Romeo and Julietshow – whatever it was called – it seemed like more of a love-fest for Geraldo, who hides under his deskevery time I ask him to come on the show with Drew and Joel.Regardless, they’re here tonight andGeraldo carried on this morning, calling Drew the Beast of Bolingbrook and all sorts of things, not usingthe term “allegedly” but there is some interesting information that came out of this book, “Exposed” andwe’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’svery high-profile and in the news. I watched you on the Mike and Juliet show this morning. This issomething, as an author you only get a once in a lifetime chancecovering. Your thoughts about writingthe book?ARMSTRONG: It has been an experience. I don’t know if I would repeat it but it has been a greatexperience, I suppose.PRETZER: Now, as far as experience goes, you’re talking about a very high-profile case in the UnitedStates. It’s been covered worldwide, nationally, internationally, you have a high-profile media person likeGeraldo 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 rightnow and in fact I see a picture of Drew Peterson in the polygraph examiner’s suite I believe and there issome very complicated, very extreme things that you went through in this book and the media just isn’tcovering itthe way that you wrote it. Am I wrong?

ARMSTRONG: They’re covering it from different perspectives. The majority of media are picking up onwhat they feel is important to their story. So, a lot of people are picking up on the polygraph when thepolygraphs were not really the story to begin with. We did the polygraphs as a condition of even writingthe book.PRETZER: Let’s go to Joel Brodsky, the attorney for Drew Peterson. Watching the Mike and Juliet Showthis morning, their intro line, their catch line to grab the audience’s attention: Drew Peterson failed thepolygraph. But not until about a minute and a half later did they talk about the failed a couple of questionsand 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 aretwo cases here. Two polygraphs taken on two separate Sundays. On the polygraph regarding KathleenSavio Drew is totally exon - if you believe in polygraphs that is – and I personally don’t – but if you believein polygraphs, Drew is exonerated totally on Kathleen Savio’s case. The press just seems to go, well youknow, they either don’t mention that or they say he probably manipulated it or beat that one but it’s onlythe ones that came up deceptive that he didn’t beat. It’s kind of wishful…like Geraldo even said thismorning that the questions that he failed were good questions and the questions that he passed wereimproperly 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 manytimes 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, youwere hoping when the interviewer asked you the question that now that the results have come forwardthat 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 negativebut nobody’s focusing on the positive which I wish they’d do. Like I say, in the Kathleen Savio case, allthe questions that were asked came back with truthful responses and the negative responses in the Stacyquestions 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, Ithink 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 amajor effect on results and his point really was that the way it was phrased could have been giving him alittle bit of wiggle room on his answers. The ones that Drew characterized as unimportant, as aninvestigator, I disagree, because they related directly to the timeline that Drew provided. Namely, when helast saw Stacy, and when he got his phone call from Stacy in the evening saying she was leaving. Theymay not sound like important questions but as an investigator I think they are because those arefundamental timeline questions.

PRETZER: Drew, your response.PETERSON: My response? Well on one question it was like, did she tell you she was running away withanother man in a phone call and I said (pause) “yes” and it came back deceptive but in the samequestions, did she tell you where the car was on that phone call and I responded “yes” and that cameback 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 apolygraph. I’ve always said that I really think that they’re at the best, the best you can say aboutpolygraphs is that they’re an investigative tool, and there’s no investigator worth their salt, includingDerek, 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 answersand 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 onesource, because he feels he’s being misrepresented all over different forms of press and TV and Derekused the polygraph as it should be, as a small part of the story. But other members, like some tabloid, Ithink more tabloid shows more than anything else are focusing on like Nancy Grace for example arefocusing just on the polys and not really looking at all the other voluminous detail that’s in the book, a lotof which we’re not exactly all that happy with, to tell you the truth.PRETZER: OKARMSTRONG: You know they may yet cover those points. I think they’re focusing on the more excitingparts of it which is quote unquote, according to Nancy Grace, and it’s true – three out of the six questionson 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 Brodskyand the author of the new book, DREW PETERSON EXPOSED. Derek Armstrong, when you look at thecable news coverage or mainstream media coverage however you want to say it, and they look at the bigpicture, they look at the galleys of the book or whatever, talking points you’ve sent them, and there’s ahuge story here, I’m not sure how many pages the book has but there’s pictures, there’s stories, there’sbackground, there’s your thoughts as an author and as an investigator, but you know the old sayingDerek, “If it bleeds it leads.” They’re going to grab onto that and they’re going to go for it and I disagreewith you somewhat when you say that they may yet cover the other facts of the book. Drew Petersonmay 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, hascamped out on his lawn, has done everything, I think is a much bigger picture here in this story becauseof its high profile nature and I want to get your comment as the author of this. Do you think that if thisdoes 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’tknow about nationally. I think nationally, in another jurisdiction he might get a fair trial.