So? looks like some of his family doesn't want to be involved with him. They might think he is guilty as sin.

I am surprised that his boys in blue are not on the list, I thought all cops stick together no matter what, or are they afraid to be connected to him??

Christina Raines visited Peterson as late as July 1. What's there to add to that? His own family stays away and doesn't visit him, but the idiot that claims the engagement was all a media stunt comes around. Why is that?

This is probably the most irrelevant piece of information I've seen.

None of this is anybody's business, and to post this information in the midst of the trial, or for that matter, at any other time, is reprehensible, at the least. I would think that all visitors deserve the right of privacy, and probably believe they had it, and the presumed innocent visitee also deserves that right. I thought better of you, Joe.

Just another case of Joe Hosey trying to keep his name in the spotlight...

Why isn't Stacy Peterson's name on that list? He claims that he would ask her for a divorce if he saw her again, wouldn't he want to make it easy to get what he wants and allow her to visit?

Drew knows Stacy is in a blue barrel, no need to put her on the list.

Cathy where would that blue barrel be, even if there is one out there?

Tom why do you need a ticket counter at Clow? Planes can come and go as they please. Anything short of a lear jet or a small gulf stream could land there.

Unfortunately Tom that has no bearing in Drews trial.

Why would an "innocent" man need 8 attorneys?

Why do they need four SAO prosecutors?

Drew didn't choose or hire the SAO prosecutors.

My point is if a SA is supposed to be so qualified they should only need two the most.

Amy Jacobson the reporter??? HMMM!

Maybe the other 6 attorney's are "learning the ropes"

Dennis I thought that too when I saw Amy's name. hmmmm for sure

Maybe a book deal in the works?

This guy has a lot of arrows pointing in the direction that he is guilty. I do realize that some of those "arrows" may be circumstantial evidence and does not mean he is guilty.

FRANCES REAGAN-Are you even considering this guy is guilty? You keep making all these points and you certainly sound like you believe he is innocent!

Its awfully strange that Stacy Petersons name is on the defense's list as a potential witness but yet she's not on the list of people who can visit him in jail? You would think she would have been at the top of his list, that way in the unlikely event that she were alive Drew would have an opportunity to "refresh her memory" as to what she's to testify to in court concerning his whereabouts and the events of his activities with the children the weekend Kathleen died!

Fake Francis how about if I put a .38 on your driveway?

From everything we have ALL HEARD in the media, whoever the bozos were doing the investigation, didn't do much "investigating" or collecting of evidence! Wonder why. And Frances.............. sounds like you have a screw loose!

Drew's personality is overly jocular so lawyers would prudently advise few visits from persons who knew of his wives Remember how damning the Casey Anthony tapes of her visits were as well as the earliest phone calls when Caylee was supposed to be missing. Prison days drag so the incarcerated has a much greater distance from events than others do seeming an irreverent psychopath. He may have many more phone calls or letters that are limited in no body language regarding damage to image.If Drew chose to be rid of his wives he'd have orchestrated such by far more silent surrepticious means, nothing like the ridiculous distorted heresay case that has been used by the prosecution. That case is a travesty of any legal process, especially since the wives were unstable enough to readily fall into danger with either a little help or a lot of from Drew. A restless Stacey could be easy pickings for a sadistic fetish type if informed of her gulible availability. She may have ended in someones private snuff movie or still be someones pet shackled in their basement. If Savio looked like a possible accident or had a rough one night stand to save her children from embarresment the cops could settle for leaving it as an accident. Drew would not leave as messy a scence for a bath drowning to be the party that dealt with Savio that night. It's not out of the question that Drew could have links to a person who did anything to Savio if parts of the second autopsy have creditability in parts

Drew may be guilty as hell but look what happened to Casey Anthony. Same thing -no physical evidence.

The Casey Anthony jurors were backwoods hicks who had never had any other meal than a cheeseburger happy meal from McDonald's. They were more interested in "lunch" than a dead child..Let alone, who murdered the child. Food was more important. To them, apparently a child can be replaced, but a filet mignon with a side of horseradish sounds just YUMMY!!! to care about anything else. Sickening

+It may be circumstantial evidence but there is so much of it and it all fits together like a puzzle,with so much of it,all that needs to be done is to,use common sense........guilty as hell!