Derek Armstrong

[Lorie Taylor]

Drew Peterson Discloses His Timeline for the Day Stacy Peterson Disappeared - Exclusively in the Investigative Book, Drew Peterson Exposed



Nearly a year after Stacy Peterson disappeared, Drew Peterson reveals for
the first time his timeline of events and his whereabouts for October 28,
2007 to Derek Armstrong, author of Drew Peterson Exposed (Kunati, Oct 1,
2008).

CHICAGO, Sept. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- In a book to be released Oct 1, Drew
Peterson reveals his timeline of events for October 28, 2007 - the day his
fourth wife Stacy Peterson disappeared. He disclosed his actions and
whereabouts in full, exclusively to investigative writer Derek Armstrong,
author of Drew Peterson Exposed (Kunati, Oct 1, 2008). The accounting is
just one of five major revelations in the new book, embargoed until October
1, 2008.

"Mr. Peterson gave me many hours of exclusive interviews," author
Armstrong reported, "including a timeline of the day Stacy Peterson
disappeared - something he's refused to give in full to any other
journalist."

In an excerpt from Armstrong's foreword to the book, he wrote:

In this first meeting I told Drew Peterson, "Understand that I'm going
to report everything. The good and the bad. I won't hype or bash you, but
I'm not going to hide the ugly. Can you live with that?"

Drew Peterson, always composed, nodded his head. "I have nothing to
hide. I just want people to hear my side for a change."

A few times during the interviews, I would sit up, alarmed and
surprised by a revelation ... I explore all of these elements as they
currently stand, and reveal new evidence and information: life and history
(the many infidelities and pranks that shaped the personality of our
suspect), his motivations (the barely believable events that led up to
October 28, 2007 when Stacy Peterson disappeared), the circumstances (a
conflicted mess of timelines that I reverse-engineer) and finally, most
telling of all, the ... (the remaining excerpt is EMBARGOED INFORMATION).

Drew Peterson Exposed, even as an embargoed title, is a McNaughton
Selection for libraries, and is already in its third print run to meet
demand for advance orders.

Drew Peterson Exposed goes to wide release October 1 and is distributed
by Independent Publishers Group (Chicago)

-- Hardcover: 320 pages

-- 140 photographs and documents reproduced

-- Publisher: Kunati Inc. (October 1, 2008) Embargoed Title

-- Exclusively distributed by Independent Publishers Group and
available October 1, 2008 in major retailers everywhere.


-- ISBN-13: 9781601641878

About Kunati Inc c/o IPG
Author Derek Armstrong

Best known for mystery thrillers, Derek Armstrong is also a freelance
journalist, screenwriter, publisher and well known marketing guru. He is
the author of the Alban Bane thrillers, including The Game and MADicine.
Armstrong is a member of the Canadian Association of Journalists. He was
also a Canadian licensed private investigator. Armstrong was described in
an American Library Association's Booklist starred review as "mesmerizing
... the best of the lot ..."

This press release was issued through 24-7PressRelease.com. For further
information, visit www.24-7pressrelease.com.

[Lorie Taylor]

www.wthitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9065872

Author says Drew Peterson took polygraphs for him

Associated Press - September 24, 2008 1:54 PM ET

CHICAGO (AP) - The author of an upcoming book about a former Bolingbrook police officer suspected in the disappearance of his wife says the former officer took two lie detector tests.

Derek Armstrong won't say anything about the results of Drew Peterson's polygraph examinations until "Drew Peterson Exposed" is released next month. But Armstrong says he insisted that Peterson take the examinations.

Peterson is a suspect in last October's disappearance of his wife, Stacy. He denies any wrongdoing.

Armstrong says Peterson's lawyer, Joel Brodsky, advised Peterson not to take the polygraph. He only agreed because Peterson wanted his whole story told in a book.

Brodsky wouldn't talk about the results but says he isn't concerned because polygraphs aren't admissible in court.

[Lorie Taylor]

www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/09/25/news/doc48da7f723a9bd833110520.txt

Author won't divulge results of Drew Peterson polygraphs

By Associated Press

CHICAGO -- The author of an upcoming book about a former Bolingbrook police officer suspected in the disappearance of his wife says the former officer took two lie detector tests.

Derek Armstrong won’t say anything about the results of Drew Peterson’s polygraph examinations until “Drew Peterson Exposed” is released next month. But Armstrong says he insisted that Peterson take the examinations.

Peterson is a suspect in last October’s disappearance of his wife, Stacy. He denies any wrongdoing.

Armstrong says Peterson’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, advised Peterson not to take the polygraph. He only agreed because Peterson wanted his whole story told in a book.

Brodsky wouldn’t talk about the results but says he isn’t concerned because polygraphs aren’t admissible in court.

[Lorie Taylor]

www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1202...erpts05.article

Excerpt: 'Drew Peterson Exposed'

October 5, 2008

In his new book, Drew Peterson Exposed, author Derek Armstrong writes at one point about two separate polygraph tests that the former Bolingbrook cop agreed to take amid questions about the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. The tests were administered by polygrapher Lee McCord. In an excerpt from the new book, Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky hear about the results of that polygraph test:

Lee McCord refers to the chart and his notes as he gives them the results. A patient Drew Peterson and a less-patient Joel Brodsky sit opposite him, waiting for the results.

"To the question 'On Sunday October 28, 2007, did you last see your wife Stacy in your home before going to bed after coming home from work?' you answered Yes. This is a deceptive answer."

He waits for a reaction. He sees none.

"To the question 'Did you have any involvement in the physical removal of your wife Stacy from your home on Sunday October 28, 2007?' you answered No. There is no deception."

Still no reaction.

"To the question 'Did you in any way physically harm your wife Stacy during the time she disappeared?' you answered No. There is no deception."

Peterson stares at the chart.

"To the question 'Do you know the whereabouts of your wife Stacy?' you answered No. This was a deceptive answer."

"To the question 'Did you receive a phone call from your wife Stacy on the evening of October 28th, 2007, telling you that she was leaving you?' You answered Yes. This was a deceptive answer."

"To the question 'Did your wife Stacy call you on Sunday, October 28th, 2007, and tell you that if you wanted the car it was parked at the Clow Airport?' you answered Yes. There was no deception."

Peterson nods. "Thank you."

In another excerpt, the author examines the results of the polygraph tests:

On the key questions of whether he harmed either wife, the answers seems to be conclusively no, he did not harm them. Assuming we accept the researched statistics on polygraph reliability, there is between an 86 percent and 98 percent likelihood Drew Peterson is not guilty.

His ordeal of "trial by media" was perhaps unnecessary.

Of course two questions remain. He may not have harmed either wife, but why is he being deceptive regarding the less important questions regarding seeing Stacy after he went to bed the morning of Oct. 28, 2007 and whether she called to tell him she was leaving? My theory is a personal one. There is some ego involved here. He has given his timeline and explanations of events as he remembers them. The polygraph might point to errors or deliberate oversights on two key points, but his pride or ego won't allow him to clarify.

I propose this theory after having spent a lot of time with this enigmatic man. He strikes me as a misunderstood man, a good father, a moral enigma, but not a killer. Is he a liar? Perhaps in areas that might affect the opinion of his children.

In Peterson's world, his children are everything.

Did Peterson distort the truth on these two key points of seeing Stacy and her calling to say she was leaving him because this truthful answer would be less appetizing to his children? I think this might be the case, but it's only my opinion. A plausible one, but not definitive.