They reconciled

On Sunday, police received a call from a man who said that he had been stabbed and his girlfriend was dead.

Police who responded to the home have said that the cabin home was “trashed” and looked as though there had been a “brawl”. They found the boyfriend sitting in a chair in the living room and the girlfriend lying dead in the hallway with multiple trauma. They say there was no sign of forced entry and weapons were found in the home which they think may have been used in the assault.

Family reports that the girlfriend is Suzanne M. Weiland, and that she and her boyfriend Peter G. Whyte had been together for 20 years. Police have described the relationship as an off and on relationship, but the brother has stated they were together up until July. And that after she left, Whyte began “sweet-talking” her, buying gifts and taking her out to dinner. He has told the media that Weiland went back with Whyte early last week. Right after getting back together the couple left for a three day weekend trip, and returned late last week. By Sunday she was dead.

Whyte was taken to the hospital where he was reported to be in serious condition, and police have not been able to interview him. They are not calling him a suspect, but are calling him a “person of interest”.

Family is talking about domestic violence. Weiland’s mother told media “When she left [Whyte] once and lived in a house in Edina,” “he came and kicked in the front door with his foot and came barreling into the house.” And she has told that she called police once when neighbors told her that Whyte had chased “Sue” out of the house. A local domestic violence agency has confirmed they did receive a report of abuse involving Weiland.

Sue Weiland’s brother has this to tell people: “If you hear somebody fighting in the house next door and you wonder whether you should call the police, just call the police,” “It’s not going to get any better and you’ve got to deal with it now.” He believes that neighbors heard this argument and other arguments the couple had.

Police have stated that the initial evidence indicates that the boyfriends wounds may have been incurred several hours before they were called. And a neighbor has reported hearing the couple arguing around 2 am.

The investigation is continuing.

Amost everyone has neighbors. And politeness leads us to ignore things a neighbor does sometimes. So when should you go past politeness and intervene?

Basically when you hear an argument and start thinking- someone should intervene- it is time to call police.

If see or hear a weapon. If you start hearing unexplained noises during an argument. If you see or hear some type of violence (hitting, slapping, hairpulling, etc). If you hear threats. If it is prolonged or appears to be escalating.

Some will say “I called the cops and they didn’t do anything”. You do what you can do- sometimes just the fact that officers respond is enough to stop it or slow it down. “I called, cops came did nothing, and after they left it started again”. Call again.

My neighbor will get mad. Talk to officers about that. If you receive any retaliation, call police. The victim will deny. Police are often able to tell what is happening by the injuries on the victim.

I’m afraid the victim will get mad at me. He/she has to be alive to be mad.


Peter Whyte has been charged with 1 st degree intentional homicide.

Susan Weiland was found with a black eye, a broken nose, and stab wounds to the back, neck, stomach, and chest. Police are seeking Whyte’s medical records in order to determine how he recieved his wounds. His wounds were to the chest and stomach.


Peter Whyte has also been charged with 1 felony count of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13 and one misdemeanor count of exposing his genitals to a minor child.



  1. Lori said,

    August 24, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    When I heard the name of the victim, a bell went off and I was really bothered that the name was so familiar to me. My sister later called me and said the same thing, so I grabbed my yearbook and found Sue. She was my sisters age and I remember her from school. I knew who she was, we even hung out in the same circle, but I didn’t know her on a real personal level. I consider myself to be a very strong person, and as I recall, so was Sue. I Hate the fact that abuse of any kind occurs, but I also know that it takes two or more people to make it happen, what I mean by that is the fact that the abuser charms his way back into the abused person’s life and therefore allowing the cycle to continue. You can call the police as many times as you want, I encourage it, but the bottom line is that the abused person has the choice to not allow the abuser into their lives. She has the choice to call the police herself any and every time the abuser comes near her and she can choose to go back to him time and time again. My point in this comment is not to blame the victim, far from it, my point is that the abused person needs more of a support network. As an adult, I cannot force someone to break up with an abuser, but I can be the best friend to that person and let them know that I will not abondon them and I will do whatever they need me to do. Each abused person is with an abuser for different reasons and we have to find a way that will work for each person to get them out of it. It goes much further than just calling to police and telling the abused to leave the abuser. An abused person has to have faith in themselves and self esteem in order to be strong enough to decided to leave an abuser and NEVER go back to that situation. I know it’s too late for Sue and even though I haven’t seen her since I graduated from Jefferson. The strangest thing is that I have a sense of elation in knowing that Sue fought very hard, I do remember her as a fighter and that actually makes me feel a little bit better knowing that she didn’t go out quietly and she left her mark on the punk who took her life, other than spending the rest of his life in prison (hopefully being beaten daily) My only other hope is that Sue did enough damage to her attacker that he will be forever reminded of the pain he caused her and her friends and family.

  2. August 24, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    Excellent observations Sue. I am sorry about your friend. It is always unsettling to find out that you have lost even an aquaintance to DV. Sue’s brother mentioned that he thought that Sue got lonely. And that often happens. Even if they are abusive, you get used to having somebody around. A friend who knows another friend has left an abusive partner can often help with that. Meals and nighttime can often be the worst. Get together for dinner and make phone calls about bedtime. Arrange activities together. Little things like that can mean a lot in any newly separated person, but especially someone newly separated. Offer to assist in making a safety plan. Offer to go to court with them. Be the one to make the call to the domestic violence agency to find out what resources might be available, then tell them, but don’t be insistant about what decisions they should make. Talk about the ‘old’ times back when they were strong. Remind them how much they are loved and cared for. There are many things that friends and relatives can do.

  3. Justme said,

    August 25, 2006 at 11:21 am

    There are 2 sides to this story. Heres alittle sample of someone other than me and my opion. We all just have to wait for the final report but were in for
    a surprise.

    A few facts:
    The victims brother is a producer for Dateline NBC, and he is now all over the papers making statements to guilt.
    The victim had physically attacked her boyfriend on numorous occasions while intoxicated, and the rough and abusive relationship was the reverse of what people normally would expect.
    I personnaly talked to the victim on friday night and she had stated to me that she had a drinking problem, and was going to seek treatment and that the majority of there problems were due to her drinking and violence.
    And i know that the boyfriend had been doing everything in his power to make the relationship work, even after other friends had advised him to let her leave.

    Please dont start sensationalising this sad situation by making unfounded claims. let the facts and truth speak for its self.

    There you have it. I know the both and most of feel she attacked
    him and he defended himself. Come on, he is 6’5″ and 280 pds. If he set
    out to do what the papers claim it all would have been over in around 3 minutes. It is a sad,sad story for all involved!

  4. Kathy said,

    August 25, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    Many years ago I was in a very abusive relationship. Apparently people need educated in the abuse department.

    The abuser continually lets the victims know they are the one at fault. Heaven forbid if they have to accept the fact they did wrong! For instance, Sue told you she had a drinking problem….all the problems were her fault, she needed to seek help, she was violent!

    If he was so battered why didn’t he get out??? Why was it he went after her, kicked in the door & numerous other times refused to leave her alone? If she was as bad as you state he must of been nuts to stay with her. As big of a guy as he was you’d think he’d have stab wounds in the back, reports never stated he did. So it apparently wasn’t a surprise attack.

    Of course he is going to plead self defense. What other could he do? No abuser is going to say yep I stabbed her to death.I’m anxious for charges to be filed. I sincerely doubt she killed herself.

    It makes no difference if the brother is a producer of Dateline NBC. The brother is not going to be on trial.

  5. Lori said,

    August 26, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    reply to Justme:
    Let me guess, are you a friend of Peter’s or are you male? You said you knew both, but were you closer to Peter? Here’s the thing….Sound like he was a pretty big guy and I know if Sue was anything like she was in school, she could take care of herself. Like in defending herself. After 20 years some abused people (men and women) learn to fight back and that makes the original abuser more angry. Did you know them both in the beginning of the relationship, all the way to the end? Did you see the progression of the relationship? Like Kathy said above “The abuser continually lets the victims know they are the one at fault” I have a 20 year old daughter that was raised by her dad and his wife in another state, at age 16 she ended up in a foster home and had finally had enough abuse. She contacted me first and the court battle began. The end result is that she is now safe in Minnesota. But the remarkable thing is that even now, 4 years later, she is still apologizing for everything….if she gets stuck in traffic, she’s sorry for not getting here sooner, even though we had no specific time to meet. If her shoe lace is untied, she apologizes, if a strand of hair was blown by the wind, she apologizes. It’s maddening to hear an apology every few minutes come from her mouth. Her stepmom was a cruel person and Dad just thought that if he ignored the problem it would go away…. But the bottom line is that if you spent 20 years being told that YOU are the problem, your brain begins to believe it, why do you think abused women stay so long, they think it’s their fault! it’s a progression, beginning with something small like not having dinner done on time, he punches a wall, or throws the plate, you’re scared so you make sure dinner is done on time from now on, then you burn the toast, so he burns your hand and it’s your fault because you wouldn’t want to eat burnt toast either. The abuser then gets the knowledge that you can be controlled by his anger so he takes full advantage of it. Like I said in my earlier comment, as adults, it takes two or more to be in an abused relationship either one of them could have left, (but it sounds like she left more than once already) Maybe they both inflicted abuse on each other, maybe she fought back, maybe he fought back, but if you ask me he had a very big advantage over her. I’m all for equal rights, but physically men are stronger (in most cases) and I know Sue was not 6’5 and 280 LBS so he had a very big advantage on her. He was the one who wouldn’t let go of her, she tried to leave him and he kept charming her back, or kicking in the door to get to her. The bottom line is that neither one walked away and she’s the one who’s dead because of it. At least your friend can still see his family and loved ones, they can visit him in prison and talk to him, they can keep him updated on family or friends events. The only way someone can talk to Sue again is by visiting her grave! It doesn’t matter who fought who, it matters that he didn’t stop or walk away until she was dead!

  6. Kathy said,

    August 28, 2006 at 2:03 am

    I heard from many people that they ‘never’ figured Pete would get charged for Sue’s murder. Very same scenario as Justme stated.

    Now we know Pete ” was” charged with intentional homicide. Law enforcement must know something the general public doesn’t know. Or else they used common sense. a 6ft 5 guy / beating a much smaller woman. A black eye she could of lived with…. even the broken nose. But stabbing her repeatedly???? If he was innocent why not quit before things got out of hand? Why wasn’t he the bigger person & walk away?

    I also heard several people suggest he stabbed himself to make it look better for him.

    It makes no difference she is gone & will never be forgotten by her loved ones. His family still has him as Lori stated. They can go see him whenever they like. Sue’s family now has to go to a cemetary & talk to a piece of granite rock. How fair is that????

    Yeah he has friends who will uphold him thru thick or thin…….many are his drinking buddies. Many are bartenders whom he has helped support & still want more of his money. Many want to be more important then they actually are.

    The true facts are a lady was murdered & it wasn’t done by just anyone. It was caused by a man who proclaimed to love her. With a love like he had for her, SHE sure never needed any enemies.

  7. Justme said,

    August 30, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Not just the bartenders needing his support and still wanting his money.What about the waitresses, waiters, taxi drivers,hair dressers, oh and also lets not forget the hotel consierges that are backing him because they
    want his money too!! Drinking buddies: Im sorry I left you out. I mean
    if the states lawyers prove that he 100% intentionally set out to take
    her life (extreamly difficult) all you drinking buddies are going to have to stay
    home. According to Kathy you wont have anyone to go out with and that is
    the only reason that you “uphold him thru thick or thin”. LETS JUST ALL HOLD
    ON UNTIL THE TRIAL IS OVER. Innocent until proven guilty. If he is guilty than
    he goes where he belongs. If proven innocent: he walks.

  8. Now_THAT'S_asinine said,

    August 30, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Justme, of course there are two sides to every story, but to suggest that Peter was merely defending himself and didn’t have the intention of taking Sue’s life is asinine. The autopsy reports indicate Sue had multiple (19!) stab wounds to the chest, back and abdomen, including a complete severing of the trachea, left carotid artery and left jugular vein, as well as other injuries. Why did he wait nearly 5 hours after he hacked and brutalized her to call 911? And proving intent is not as “extreamly” (sp) difficult as you think. It will be a heck of a lot easier than his rock solid defense that he was just defending himself. You’re right about one thing though, the facts and truth will speak for itself. Justice will be rendered.

  9. Justme said,

    August 31, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    My sole intentions for all of my comments are, there is 2 sides to every story.
    I grew tired of hearing of how she was such an innocent person and what a
    horrible monster Pete is. People forget that without surgery, Pete would have
    died to. Occasionally I spoke with Sue and Pete and they both were very nice.
    The entire story is tragic. My friends daughter almost drown because another
    little girl lost her floatie and held on to my friends daughter which made her go under the water. Due to human instinct of “survival” that little girl trying to
    stay afloat kept holding the other under the water. What Im trying to say is
    maybe, just maybe Pete defended himself from one of Sues “episodes”. All
    of the facts will come out in court. If people would just stop all the prejudging
    and assuming and wait for the final judgment! How do you know he waited nearly 5 hours to call 911? They got home appx. 2:50am then you need time
    to get into a violent argument, then the “long and drawn out” violent brutality,
    Who knows how long he was “passed out” from blood loss (per the newspaper) then he called 911. There’s just know way it could have been appx. 5 hrs.
    THAT’S the assuming and prejudging that Im tired of.

  10. Now_THAT'S_asinine said,

    August 31, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    First, there are several records that are available to the public through St. Croix county. You can check the facts there. However, this article ( is an accurate synopsis of the records. The reporter did the leg work. But, by all means, verify with the county if you like.

    Autopsy places her death around 2:00AM. A neighbor has reported in a sworn statement to investigators that they heard Pete and Sue screaming around 1:00AM and at some point, the screaming abruptly stopped. The 911 call came shortly after 7:00AM (7:23AM according to court records). Those are facts. Not assumptions. By my calculations (and please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not a mathematician), there are exactly 5 hours between 2:00AM and 7:00AM. Here’s some more facts according to the autopsy. Many of the stab wounds puntured Sue’s heart and aorta arteries near her heart. The wounds to her neck were so severe that it her left carotid artery, her left jugular, and her trachea were completely severed. All facts, no assumptions or prejuding here.

    It is NOT fact that Peter passed out from blood loss. In his first statements to investigators, he said that he had passed out, but had no idea what happened. The later, he tells a witness (who has sworn the statement to investigators), that Sue “wigged out” on him and he should have walked away. At a later interview by investigators, Pete admitted they’d find his prints on the bloody knives. Again, facts here, no assumptions yet. Here’s some more about him. He had three minor cuts on his left wrist and one significant cut on his abdomen.

    Now, here’s some assumptions. He’s going to please not guilty (and have some reason for it, e.g. self defense, insanity, whatever). That’s a reasonable assumption since he’s already trying to fight extradition to Wisconsin.

    You pointed out another assumption. You said, maybe Pete was defending himself from one of Sue’s episodes. You tell me. Is it reasonable to believe that the only way he could defend himself from Sue was to completely hack her? Lets assume this to the extreme. Let’s say she was drunk and high on drugs (she wasn’t according to the reports). Let’s say Pete was on the dock praying the rosary when rampaging, violent, evil Sue leaped from the shadows and slashed poor Pete right in the gut, just as he was contemplating the third mystery! You’re assuming that Pete’s only recourse, and only form of protecting himself, was the stab her (many times directly in the heart, which is not an easy thing to do since its protected by a ribcage), turn her over onto her belly, stab her in the back, and then hack her neck until a third of her head is not longer attached to it? Not a very christian thing to do, eh?

    But wait! Could that have really happened? Because the wound to his abdomen was severe enough that he couldn’t move around because he would not have been able to keep his body upright. Ah, I see. Maybe she hacked herself up. You know, just to spite him for loving her so much. Keep in mind, she would have to been thoughtful enough to stop and some point and switch to at least one different knife (since it is fact that multiple bloody knives were recovered).

    Or, just maybe, could it have started with an argument. She lips off, slaps him, or makes some other superficial move, so he gives her a punch to the nose to remind her who’s boss. That’s not a stretch to believe is it? He’s hurt her before. That’s fact. There’s documents to prove that. So here she is, with a broken nose and blackened eye (fact according to the autopsy), blood flowing down her face. If she wasn’t in one of her famous “episodes” before then, its reasonable to assume she is now, don’t you think? So maybe now she really is wigging out. Only he’s wigging out out more and decides that today’s her last day on earth. So he proceeds with the previously mentioned brutal hacking. But Sue has that same survival instinct that the little girl you know had. At at some point, Sue gets a shot in and gives him the belly shot. I’d like to believe that. You’re right that I’m fairly biased and think he’s a big (no fat pun intended) weasel, but I don’t believe he’d have the cojonas to stab himself. So, the assumption is that Pete finishes up, tries to contain his bleeding (circumstantial, but they did recover a bloody towel at the scene, and there was blood all over the bathroom). Now his andrenaline wears off and he realizes his wound is serious and he needs help. Maybe he makes a few calls first. Calls Xxxxx (name edited per HSH)  possibly? He’s close by. But I digress… that’s speculation. All we know is that at some point he calls 911 who come out and take him to the hospital and her to the meat locker.

    The truth is, the only person that knows exactly what happened is Pete, and as Kathy pointed out earlier, he’s not going to incriminate himself. His defense attorney probably wouldn’t like it either. So, its comes down to what is the jury and/or judge going to believe? And you know what? They are going to make their own reasonable assumptions based on the facts of the case too. But I’ll be bold enough to make this assumption. He won’t be found “innocent” as you suggested. He won’t walk away from this. Will be end up guilty of 1st degree? Who knows, but the guy is seriously waist deep up shit creek. And that, my dear Justme, is why I sleep soundly at night.

  11. Justme said,

    September 1, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    O.k., but me personally, Im just going wait until the trial is over. If he’s guilty
    he will be put where he belongs. Let’s let the courts do their job. By the way,
    because I knew both and it being such a horrific tragedy, Im not sleeping as
    well as you.

  12. September 15, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    There is another blog on this

  13. just the facts said,

    September 29, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    there is a synopsis of the hearing on this site:
    and since i was there i know its accurate.

    first i want to state i do not think violence is the answer to any situation.

    i do want to state tho that its interesting how everyone got on the abuse band wagon before facts were made known and or evidence even submitted.

    it really irritates me that everyone can stand up and shout that since the man survived he must be guilty with out any checking as to what the actual history was,and only using what the victims family deliberately leaked to the media (her brother is and investigational journalist).

    and then when the facts are submitted is there any responce or comment as to maybe there is more to the incident? no that would be embarassing. especially if it was the opposite of what was being stated. and infact the leaked information may not have been fully accurate or at least “spun” to there advantage.

    yes i am posting this on a few blogs and yes i know its unpopular, but it shocks me how linch mob mentality is still alive and well in 2006.

  14. September 29, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Thank you for the update Just the Facts. I notice the Peter Whyte blog has been mentioned a couple of times. In the interest of fairness, I believe we should also mention there is another website on this at

  15. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 2, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    Just alittle something I found for “Now_THAT’S_asinine”

    The ME (Medical Examiner) did not state Sue was stabbed in the face, there were lacerations but they were undeterminable as to if they were caused by a knife, or other object. The ME stated that he could not determine if the wounds were self induced or not, but assessed that they probably were not.
    The ME could not determine the exact time of death, or which trauma was the direct cause of death. He did state that 1/4 gallon of blood was found in the chest cavity. I would assume since her jugular and carotid artery were severed and the amount of blood described being on the floor that the chest wounds did not incapacitate her. This may be very important when I get to the other findings listed. The ME stated that the toxicology report displayed no signs of any controlled substances, but he did mark that cocaine metabolites were found in her system. That’s a contradiction isn’t it? Testing for cocaine metabolites, is the way they test for cocaine in urine, since the drug itself stays is pretty much untestable in the blood, this is the most common way to test for it. The metabolites can be detected for between 2 to 5 days after use, and can be traced further thru hair samples (which were not mentioned as being tested).Also the ME stated that her blood alcohol level at the time of examination was .310 (legally impaired is .08). The following description is taken from this link:
    Alcohol effects by dose:

    Confusion (BAC = 0.18 to 0.30 %)

    Profound confusion — uncertain where they are or what they are doing. Dizziness and staggering occur.

    Heightened emotional state — aggressive, withdrawn, or overly affectionate. Vision, speech, and awareness are impaired.

    Poor coordination and pain response. Nausea and vomiting often occur.

    Add the use of cocaine to the level of alcohol in her system. She was significantly impaired.

    There was no evidence presented as of yet as to Peter’s toxicology report other than he admitted to be drinking that night to the police.

    Also someone stated in a blog that Peter had hit Sue multiple times, the ME stated that the blunt force trauma was from a single blow, not multiple. He also stated that Sue did not show any signs of defensive wounds, although it was stated that Peter did. He had 3 on his arm and multiple small cuts on his hands.The two private citizen witnesses stated what has been previously posted, what was not stated was that the neighbor could not tell where the noises came from, and could not tell if it was Peter or Sue that was making the noise, and agreed that it was normal to hear noises at night on the river if people were out on it.

  16. just the facts said,

    October 5, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    homesweethome, i want to thank you for allowing additional information to be posted here. this has been a great tragady, and its wonderfull that this hasnt been censored like some other sites.

    “Now_THAT’S_asinine said,
    It is NOT fact that Peter passed out from blood loss. In his first statements to investigators, he said that he had passed out, but had no idea what happened. The later, he tells a witness (who has sworn the statement to investigators), that Sue “wigged out” on him and he should have walked away. At a later interview by investigators, Pete admitted they’d find his prints on the bloody knives. Again, facts here, no assumptions yet. Here’s some more about him. He had three minor cuts on his left wrist and one significant cut on his abdomen.”

    This is an interesting statement, have you seen the medical reports from New Richmond or from Regions Hospital ?
    Did you know that any interviews at the scene or at the hospitals have to be marked as possibly being inaccurate due to shock or trauma or pain medication?
    Did you know that both sherrifs deputies testified that they MISSED the chest wounds on peter because of the severe belly wound he had and that his intestines were sticking out? not to mention the blood on his chest from his wounds? these were statements made at the hearing.

    If he wasnt in such bad shape why was he life flighted to Regions Hospital ?
    And why was he in surgery for over 4 hours?

    and do you have any facts to back up your comments about “phone calls” and howmuch of whose blood was where? as far as i understand non of that is public information.but will be brought up durung trial and i think SPECULATING on it now is improper.

    And lastly: for gods sake leave other innocent peoples names out of this. its bad enough 1 person died, 1 is in jail, but to bring up names of family members that DO NOT have anyone here to support them and are doing the best that they can to handle this at a younger age is just plain BULL -S@#$.

    I would ask that the name be removed to help conceal the identity.

    Remember you can google anything, thats how i found this and other blogs.

  17. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 5, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    Extremely well put “just the facts” !!!

    I think “Now_THAT’S_asinine” flew back home to California.
    I haven’t seen him in any blogs for a long while. No matter what I have
    said, my opinion is completely wrong to him and a few others. I just
    feel you were right when you said

  18. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 5, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    a lynch mob mentality is still alive
    and well in 2006. Oh, and after reading this weeks New Richmond News,
    you sure can tell the journalist on that story was friends of the family.
    Wow. No problem to write the blood/alcohol level being .310 (alcohol being
    socially acceptable) but god forbid don’t mention the cocaine metabolites found in her system!! For those that don’t understand what that could be:
    CRACK,COKE,METH etc…. Yes, she did that too!!!

  19. just passing by: said,

    October 9, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    The facts are a lady was cold blooded murdered. Makes no difference what her blood alcohol level was. Who died & left good old boy Pete God to decide she must die from 19 stab wounds? Blunt trauma to head?

    I’m sure good ole Pete waited several hours to call 911 in hopes of sobering up himself. Don’t think he was as innocent as ya all think.

  20. just the facts said,

    October 9, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    I have gone back over the posts in this blog and i dont think anyone has said that pete is innocent, there were 2 people in that cabin, only one survived. what has been stated over and over again is let the facts speak for them selves. that the incident and history is not as it is being portrayed by the family.

    and “just passing by” you obviously are only reading what you want to read. and im sorry for that. but once this does go to trial and the FACTS are produced i can only hope the jury will decide correctly as to what actually happened that night in that cabin.

    let both sides be heard, we still live in a democrasy and if i remember correctly all are “innocent until proven guilty” not the other way around.

  21. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 9, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Well I do say now “just passing by” maybe, just maybe now good ol’ boy Pete
    was jus’ defenden him self from a heifer with the ol’ mad cow disease from
    how do they say in up over in them there big cities? Oh I know, The word I was looking for must be Crack or Meth (you know that “rage” thing its known to cause)oh and dear me a .301 b.a.c.!!!!!!

    Oh and do need to go over the definition of a “cold blood murder” with you!!
    in cold blood
    Deliberately, coldly, and dispassionately.
    1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, ESPECIALLY with premeditated malice.
    1. Characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning:

    Now jus’dont go hanging him yet, Good ol’boy Pete by law,needs a fair trial first!

  22. just passing by: said,

    October 10, 2006 at 3:21 am

    Pete will get a fair trial……….but you make it sound like she deserved what happened to her. I doubt anyone deserved to be stabbed 19 times.

    If this Pete were any kind of man couldn’t he of walked out the door? Had he done what a normal person would of done you wouldn’t talk about a hangin yet.

  23. just passing by: said,

    October 10, 2006 at 3:24 am

    Passing the Facts,

    With a mentality such as yours calling a deceased person a heifer proves your as ignorant as the person your defending!

  24. October 10, 2006 at 3:55 am

    I realize there is a lot of anger on both sides, and both sides feel their anger is justified. But for both sides, please keep in mind. A woman is dead, a family in mourning. A man is going to trial.
    Once that happens that will be the time for the evidence to be heard, for witnesses to testify and for justice to be meted out. It takes a long time (justice is slow), but if Pete is found guilty by a jury he will be sentenced.
    I have been watching the posts here with interest, but my patience is getting thin.
    I have no problems with talking back and forth, or with civil discussion of the issues of the case, or even with your personal points of view. But any further name calling, attacks on other persons making comments, or attacks on the victim, or attacks on either family and you will find your comments being deleted.

  25. just passing by: said,

    October 10, 2006 at 5:03 am


    I am very sorry………I agree with you 100% This is a very serious, heart wretching, horrid thing that happened. Their will be no winners.

  26. October 10, 2006 at 5:22 am

    I agree. There are no winners. There were two people there that night, one is dead and the other facing a trial. Yet many others have gotten hurt and will continue to hurt, no matter the outcome of the trial.
    Sniping at each other just promotes the violence, and worsens the hurt leaving everyone more upset. Yet it won’t change the outcome- either of the murder or the trial.

    I don’t enjoy deleting people’s comments, and I avoid it if I can. But I won’t allow the blog to promote or worsen things for families (either family) if I can help it.
    No apologies are needed, just please keep it civil.

  27. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 10, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    Homesweethome, you are absolutely right. Once again I do agree with every
    comment which you have made. I did stoop as low as ” just passing by”but feel as if Im being verbally attacked for my opionion. Of course I was not calling her a heifer!! I was only responding in a way that “just passing by” was talking to all that feel that Pete should have a fair trial. I did not appreciate the “good ol’boy” or the “ya all” references. So, I will not lower myself to that bloggers mentality again. I will out of respect to Sues family keep this a clean, civil and respectful blog. Thank you for stopping the b.s.

  28. October 10, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    Ok, everyone has gotten that off their chests. Carry on.

  29. just the facts said,

    October 10, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    home sweet home, may i request that the name in post 10 about the calls be changed or deleted for the privacy of the family. you can delete this post once you have done so.

    And thank you for your post like i said – i want to thank you for allowing additional information to be posted here. this has been a great tragady, and its wonderfull that this hasnt been censored like some other sites.

    I dont condone violence, but there are always 2 sides to every incident and i think both sides should be known before judgement is handed down. there is more to this than i can state due to the up comming trial. but as it does come out i would like to post the information here as un biased as possible.

    Right now it looks like i am biased towards peter but that is only because im trying to report on the actual facts presented and not just what people are speculating on.

    Example: 19 STAB wounds, is not a factual statement 5 were cuts to her face of undetermined origin, (fingernails are a very good possibility). and there has been no documented reports as to prior abuse, or charges filed against peter for abuse to sue. only hearsay.

    There is also no official statement as to the wounds or amount of blood loss that peter had other than he had his intestines protruding and he had to be life flighted to Regions hospital for emergency surgery. and it was stated in court by both deputies that peter was covered in so much blood that they missed the stab wounds to his chest. it also has not been stated as to whose blood was where in the cabin, or as to whose prints are on the knifes.

    It is also strange that neither the coroner or the medical examiner did a liver temp test to determine an approximate time of death and that the me did not want to answer any questions as to the metabolites found in sues system.

    There is alot more to this incedent than has been posted, and it will come out as it goes to trial i hope i am able to post the reports here so that others can make there own decisions as to what may have happened that night.

  30. October 10, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    So 5 of the wounds are of undetermined origin, but the other 14 were stab wounds? And have they identified who stabbed Pete?

  31. just the facts said,

    October 10, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Thankyou HSH for the name edit, it shows great respect for the privacy of the innocent.

    As for the “stab wounds”, per the hearing 2 were to the back,1 to the hand, 3 were lacerations to the throat and chin. and 4 to the chest and 4 to the belly. the wound to the hand could not be determined as to which direction it came from and could not be determined to be a defensive wound.

    Again i am not saying this wasnt brutal.

    But at the same time the other person had 5 stabs wounds to the chest, was cut from the beltline to the ribs, and had lacerations on both hands and on his arm.
    These have been discribed as defensive wounds.
    This was all part of the hearing.

    They havent released who prints were on what knife. but that and other information will come out during the trial.

    Another item which i will state is this: i knew them both, i liked them both and had seen them during different stages of disagreements. it wasnt as has been protrayed.

    People bring up that pete was 6’4, but do they state he had fallen while working in a tree, scewered himself on a branch and broke his back?
    Or that he was in the hospital for over a month and that part of that was in a coma?
    Or that once he got out he wasnt as fit or strong as a person that size might be considered to be?
    Or that he had to sell his tree buisness because he couldnt do the work any more because of his physical state?

    And then there is sue, a beautiful wonderful lady, worked at a nursing home moving patients.
    She was extremely fit, toned, and very strong, no fat on that body.
    She was a true outdoors person.
    But she was 5′ and female and unfortunately was killed.
    She had a .310 alchohol level and metabolites that indicated drug usage were found in her system.
    Thats very sad to report but it was part of the hearing.
    Could she not have been in a chemically induced state where she could of attacked him?

    Im just stating other possibilities, then ones no one wants to hear.

    My question is this what if the tables were turned and she survived and he didnt?

    What would be the discussion now?
    Would it even be an online blog?
    Or would it be a women defended herself against a man who attacked her?

    Again im not picking sides, im looking for facts and keeping my mind open until the facts are known.

    I just ask the same from others.

  32. Mister Mustard said,

    October 10, 2006 at 8:43 pm

    I think the cocain metabolites and the .310 BAC tell it all. This was no “cold-blooded murder”, or a Farah Fawcett-like case of “wife beating”, it was an example of how drug and alcohol abuse can have tragic outcomes. Those with an ax to grind that are trying to demonize Pete (any more than the other doped-up and violently drunk participant in this debacle) should get a grip, and recognize this for what it is. A tragedy resulting from substance abuse.

  33. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 11, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    I came across an interesting site that had info pertaining to “Approaches to Drug Induced Mental Impairment in Special Cirumstances Cases”. Some
    parts were alittle over my head but overall very informative. The site is

    One statement made was:
    3. Drugs that increase potential for (typically unmotivated) violence include:

    Cocaine, amphetamines and other stimulants that almost invariably result in a paranoid toxic psychosis when used chronically in high doses.
    Crack or freebase cocaine may result in explosive violence (“crack rage”) in occasional or chronic users without the gradual onset of paranoia that precedes violence among users of amphetamines or cocaine ingested in other forms.

    So, Mister Mustard, your right, substance abuse can have tragic outcomes.
    I just find it soooo hard to believe that the nice Pete that I know could ever
    just be an outright cold blooded murder. There is just NO WAY POSSIBLE !!
    Something just went horribly bad that night. I would go on a trip anyday anytime with him if were to get out tomorrow. He just is NOT capable of this under normal circumstance. I simply will never believe untill the courts prove me wrong.

  34. just passing by: said,

    October 13, 2006 at 4:29 am

    Are you saying that since it was a substance abuse tragedy, Pete should be pardoned? I’m not sure what to think, considering it is unknown yet what Pete’s BAC was/ or if he proved positive for drugs. Does anyone know?

  35. Mister Mustard said,

    October 13, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    I didn’t hear any talk of “pardon”. What I object to is this lynch mob mentality towards Pete. I think one thing that’s clear in this whole debacle is that Sue was almost THREE TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT for being drunk, and had been using cocaine. Whether or not Pete was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, who attacked whom, whether or not it was self-defense; all these things will be sorted out in a court of law. What has ALREADY been sorted out is that it was not “cold-blooded murder”, as some have sought to portray the situation.

  36. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 13, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    just passing by:

    A pardon would still open doors for people to hate and ridicule Pete.
    I would like the court system to prove that Pete reacted in self defense
    therefore proving to all that he IS NOT a murderer. Then, the very small
    group with the “lynch mob mentality” will quietly fade away.

  37. October 13, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Just a caution here. To lynch someone, you pick them up and murder someone, without the benefit of a trial. I haven’t seen anyone propose to do that, or threaten any other type of violence.
    Yes, they have stated their opinions, and they are entitled to do so. After all, I have allowed the ones who believe Pete is innocent to state their opinions, even though the police seem to believe they have a case for murder against him.
    Now I know someone is going to throw the “innocent until proven guilty” at me. And I do believe in that. However, that applies in a court of law, not in people’s opinions.

  38. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 13, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    Sorry homesweethome. I know this is a sensitive subject for all involved. I merely used as a sensitive reaction from the few who voiced such anti Pete sediments. That was my impression of what would happen to Pete if we didnt have the court system we have today,thankfully. So, out of respect to
    all I will stop using it.

  39. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 13, 2006 at 6:09 pm


    I meant to write sentiments not sediments. opps.

  40. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 13, 2006 at 6:10 pm


    I meant to write sentiments not sediments. opps. (kindof funny)

  41. just passing by: said,

    October 13, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    Seriously I hold no malice or ridicule against Pete nor anyone else.

    I see you feel it is self defense & possibly thats what his lawyer is going to go for. But self defense in my estimation will be hard to prove. Maybe if he slugged her, broke her nose & the head trauma he could of got self defense. 14 stab wounds besides is going to be stretching it to a jury. At some point a jury is going to think ok this lady was drunk, even if she had cocaine in her system, at what point is she disabled??? At what point does she become a victim?

    Insanity defense would still be the best option. But I doubt a jury would feel insanity comes into play. Unless they can prove he totally flipped out.

  42. Mister Mustard said,

    October 13, 2006 at 8:28 pm

    A court of law does not determine whether or not a defendent is “innocent”; the options are “guilty” or “not guilty”. And if guilty, guilty of what, were there mitigating circumtstances, etc.

    I don’t think anyone here is disputing that Sue died at the hand of Pete. The devil is in the details, though. And those details include who attacked whom, what sort of drugs of abuse were the participants under the influence of, what constitutes appropriate self-defense, etc.

    There are a number of reasons why the police and district attorney may elect to charge a defendent with a particular crime, and many of them are NOT that they believe the defendent committed the particular crime they are charging him with, and that it can be proved in a court of law.

    As far as the court of public opinion, it seems that one thing is clear: the victim was a chronic alcoholic and drug abuser, known to have anger management problems and prone to fly into violent rages, and that she most likely attacked Pete in a alcohol/ cocaine-fueled frenzy, against which he defended himself, perhaps with excessive force, perhaps not.

    That’s why only time will tell, and this will all have to be resolved in a court of law.

  43. October 13, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    Mister Mustard, I was going to edit your comment, but instead I am going to respond to it. I have asked for no attacks on a victim who is unable to defend herself. State the facts, but then drop it. As I have said, I have been watching this thread closely, and comments are going to start disappearing. Too many disappearing comments and you get banned.

    “As far as the court of public opinion, it seems that one thing is clear: the victim was a chronic alcoholic and drug abuser, known to have anger management problems and prone to fly into violent rages, and that she most likely attacked Pete in a alcohol/ cocaine-fueled frenzy, against which he defended himself, perhaps with excessive force, perhaps not”

    This is not a court, this is a blog. And after watching the comments here, it is leading me to one inescapable conclusion. The two most likely partied that night. And most likely an argument developed. And Weiland got stabbed. As some of her wounds were in the back, I do not believe these were self inflicted. At some point a drunken frenzy began, and a person in a frenzy won’t quit. 14-19 stab wounds show that. Now the only question seems to be- were Pete’s wounds made by Weiland in self defense? Or after the frenzy was expended, were they self-inflicted in remorse? The police have taken their stance on what happened that night, by their arrest.
    You and I agree one thing, drugs were most likely the reason for this murder. And while I too strongly disapprove of drug usage, I do not believe that drug usage is a good excuse for murder.

    BTW, a prosecutor who charges a defendant with crimes they don’t believe the person committed or that they don’t believe they can prove in court? They shouldn’t be in that position as they are wasting tax payer money and the court’s time.

  44. Mister Mustard said,

    October 14, 2006 at 12:27 am

    As you wish. Pete is not here to defend himself, either. And when I see comments like:

    “…me feel a little bit better knowing that she didn’t go out quietly and she left her mark on the punk who took her life, other than spending the rest of his life in prison (hopefully being beaten daily)”


    “Let’s say she was drunk and high on drugs (she wasn’t according to the reports).” (which is just not true)


    “The facts are a lady was cold blooded murdered.”

    I feel they need rebuttal. Nothing here (other than reports from official sources, which are sometimes misrepresented) is more than opinion and speculation. The only things we know are the BAC, the blood cocaine metabolites, that one of them is dead, and the other was airlifted to the hospital with “some of his internals coming out”. Anything more is mere speculation, on either side.

    “BTW, a prosecutor who charges a defendant with crimes they don’t believe the person committed or that they don’t believe they can prove in court? ”

    Sure, they do it all the time. Over-charging, knowing that they’re going to plea-bargain it down, for example; for political gain, to get their name in the newspaper, there are many reasons other than truth, justice, and the American way.

  45. October 14, 2006 at 12:40 am

    As far as prosecutors….. it seems to be a matter of intereptation. Are they reducing the charges because they cannot prove them? Or is it being done to expedite the matter, saving time and money? If they are ‘overcharging’ then the public in that area needs to take a look at that and decide if they want to keep that person in office. A prosecutor should be charging what they think they can prove, and then plea bargain down only in the interest of saving time and money. And I don’t know of any defense attorney who will allow a defendant to accept a plea bargain for a client, when they think the prosecutor cannot prove his case. It makes them look better to go to court and get a not guilty finding after all.

  46. Mister Mustard said,

    October 14, 2006 at 1:08 am

    Well, I guess we’ll have to leave that up to the voters, to decide what they think of prosecutors’ antics. However, that sort of grandstanding happens all the time. Look on the front page of the New York Times today ( – free subscription required); former Westchester County DA Jeanine Pirro is campaigning for NY Attorney General on the basis of her “campaign” to nab internet sex perverts (pedophiles, etc.). In six years, she prosecuted 100 such cases, all felonies with jail time. 93% of the criminals did no jail time; many of them plea-bargained the charges down to misdemeanors and received probation. The felony conviction rate is actually much HIGHER in neighboring counties. Of course, their DAs are not running for Attorney General.

    As I said, there are many reasons to charge someone with something, and not all of them have to do with assigning just punishment for a crime.

  47. just passing by: said,

    October 14, 2006 at 1:21 am

    Mr Mustard,

    The source please??? I must of missed where this was stated.
    “known to have anger management problems and prone to fly into violent rages, and that she most likely attacked Pete in a alcohol/ cocaine-fueled frenzy”

    I’ve heard she was a very kind person who took great care of the elderly people & loved her job.

  48. Mister Mustard said,

    October 14, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    Per request, I have ceased to discuss (at least in any negative way) those who are not here to defend themselves. Suffice it to say that it comes from reliable sources.

  49. just passing by: said,

    October 14, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    Thank you, Mr Mustard!
    I thought it might of came from a newspaper or news article.

  50. just the facts please said,

    October 16, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    This has been a very interesting blog to read and think about. but i still dont see anyone answering my question. and keep in mind this another senario and is for discussion purposes. (it can be considered a different opinion)

    jane and jon live together, jane is a big irish women but has a bad back, jon is a smaller body builder and is ripped and toned.
    jon moved out 6 months ago, but kept comming back on the weekends to stay with jane. jon had a drinking and drug problem,but he was a great guy until he got wasted then became violent. jon would get mad at jane by the end of the weekend and then leave again for the week. jane loved jon so much and wanted to do everything possible to save there relationship, even to the point of getting counsuling and depression meds.

    jane and jon take a trip together and reconsile and jon finally admits that he has a problem and tells a friend he is going to get help the next week. jane and jon party it up the next day and jon gets violent again, this he attacks jane with a knife, jane hits jon in the face and gets the knife away and jon gets another and keeps going after her, jane again gets the knife away and after being stabbed repeatedly, attacks jon. she figures she is going to die and she stabs jon multiple times (10?) but this only slows him down. finally jane in 1 last attempt to stop him cuts his throat. they both hit the floor and she passes out….he dies.
    jane comes too 4 hours later, trys to get a towel and take care of her wounds, she relises she is in bad shape and that jon is dead. Shock has now taken over, she sits down in a chair near the phone and calls the police.

    Should she be charged with intensional homicide? did she wait to lonn to contact police? should she be claim she lost it? was she defending herself?
    i am not attacking either person in this question. im just asking what people think in this case?

    This is a blog, it is for open disussion, and i appreciate that it hasnt been censord yet. i aggree that attacks should not be made against other bloggers everyone has an opinion and there right to it.

    There is alot more to this case then has been stated so far. and i am going to try to bring the facts when they are presented to this blog as the trial progresses.
    I do this because i think both sides need to be listed for people to make there own decisions. and not be scewed by others feeling and opinions.

    Also if i state my opinion i also make it known that it is my opinion and not based on evidence.

  51. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 16, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    By the last few comments left, it appears that all that can be blogged now are
    facts that we have read from the media. You know, Somerset
    being a fairly small town, we know things that have not been in the media.
    I was there the night Sue got her DWI. I saw her going up to people that
    she didnt even know acting like a gorilla picking fights. It was the most bazarre thing I have ever seen! The bandmembers friends and family were there to enjoy the music not fight with some flaked out female. That is why she got in her vehicle and while trying to leave all pissed off she slammed into one of bandmembers girlfriends car. Then the cops got called. That never made it to the media. But, I saw it. There are many,many,many stories
    just like that but because nothing was ever published by the media we cant
    talk about it???? Then people should not make these kind of comment too!


  52. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 16, 2006 at 3:59 pm


  53. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 16, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    I give up!!

    It wont let me publish the rest of my comment.

  54. just the facts please said,

    October 16, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    passing the facts, i think the reason your being censored is do to how your stating your opinion. it does read as an attack. i am totally in aggreement with you on the small town aspect, and that there is other informationabout the incident. but if you want to post what you know then state it as fact or qualify it as opinion. do not not embelish or color the the facts. you could of sjust stated that you were there for the incident at the bar when she recieved her DWI, and that you saw her being intagonistic, and that you witnessed the car accident and that the police were called and handled the situation. but you need to keep emotion out of your posts. thats the hard part and believe me i know.
    i know that there is additional evidence and statements that have been taken about the relationship between the 2. during my own interview with the detective, he shut off the tape and told me that they had plenty of evidence as to previous behavior and that he only wanted the facts about my interaction with them leading up to sat night. he then started the tape again and finished the interview. from other sicussions i have had it appears that this was a common situation for the investigation.

    please try to keep the posts to non combative posts, keep them soft and non emotional. im pretty sure by doing so you will be able to get your views accross.

  55. just passing by: said,

    October 16, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    First of all in your scenario……Just because someone states they’re going to get help the next week is normally a cop out. Never put off til tomorrow what you can do today. Admitting to a friend you have a problem is different then actually taking care of your problem.

    Jane should of done whatever she could to prevent any type of drinking. If Jon got mad oh well…..she knew he could / would get violent.To prove her point she should of walked away right then & there. Because she would know words are cheap after so many years together. That the outcome to 1 night of partying together probably would result in a huge fight or brawl.

    Both are responsible for there actions when it comes to the drinking. If Jon were going to drink & Jane was ok with it…….then she should not of drank, she knew she needed a clear head for what was bound to happen when they got home the weekly brawl……2 wrongs don’t make a right. Having a clear head yourself keeps you from making bad & wrong choices.

    Being in an abusive relationship normally the person who is abused is always leary of doing anything to upset the apple cart. Statistics prove this.

    To get back to your scenario…If Jane can get out of the home she runs for dear life. Her life is in danger & she knows without a doubt it is, she gets out! If she can’t get out, why…. would she waste what strength she had left to keep stabbing him or to cut his throat? In the time that took she could of called 911 for help.

    She passes out / he is dead…….4 hrs later. Tends to self calls 911….She murdered him, medical reports would prove the huge loss of blood she had & yes it is possible she passed out from blood loss. LE decides the murder was intentional…….yes she should be charged with intentional homicide. Yes she could claim she lost it….would a jury buy it???? Self defense……in this case is a long shot / head trauma & the broken nose would be considered self defense & could of knocked someone out cold.

    This is just my opinion & my opinion only…..I sincerely think her being ripped & toned is over rated. The job she did had nothing to do with her conditioning. It is a very tiring job & takes massive energy.

  56. just passing by: said,

    October 16, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    passing the facts,

    Many times the lawyers & judges try to keep any past problems out of the court system. Many things they tend to keep away from the jurors could / would either prove total guilt or total innocence of someone. Its not right just our court system & the way it works.

    Did Sue get her DUI the night she got killed? Just wondering……

  57. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 16, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    just passing by:

    She got the DWI 3 months prior her death, in May. It never made it to court
    because of her passing away. And, if it were the other way around as you
    discribe we wouldnt even be writing in this blog,she would be of a media hero and maybe a movie soon afterwards

  58. just passing by: said,

    October 16, 2006 at 8:54 pm

    passing the facts for Pete,

    Wis for a DUI offense can be different or used to be different depending on the arresting officer. It used to be considered a traffic offense not criminal offense, you would loose your license for 6 months paid a $700.00 fine. Seen a alcohol & drug assessment person & you went to a class. I’m not certain if its still that way. I could be wrong.

    The scenario I answered was for: just the facts please, wanted to know how we’d feel if it was the other way around…….I tried to answer as honestly as I could. I seriously don’t think there was any hero…..its simply horrible. My heart goes out to both families. I’ve stated before there can be no winners everyone lost. It is heart breaking…….

  59. Mister Mustard said,

    October 16, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    According to there were three separate cases pending against her; one brought by St. Croix County, and two by the state of Wisconsin. All cases were filed with 12 days of each other. I wonder what the other two were (they are all listed as “closed”, presumably because she is deceased).

  60. October 17, 2006 at 1:23 am

    Passing the facts for Pete, I wasn’t on the blog when you left your comment, and I don’t know what happened. Sometimes comments will go to moderation due to either language or excessive links, but your comment isn’t there. So I don’t know what happened, evidently the blog ate it. I have never seen that happen before.
    Mister Mustard, the site you linked to doesn’t hold search results. However the info can be accessed if you put in Suzanne Weiland’s name. It looks as though at least two of those cases were traffic. I am not sure what the third one might have been. It also works if you run Pete’s name. Do you know why his license was suspended?

  61. Mister Mustard said,

    October 17, 2006 at 4:02 am

    Hmmm. I guess the search “expires”. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, “license suspended”. The only Peter G. Whyte cases that I find in there are the murder case, a ticket for failing to wear a seat belt, and some kind of child support thing. What’s the case number for license suspension?

    As to the other cases, we know at least one of them was her DUI. I don’t know what CM stands for in the third one; the case numbering scheme is a little bit obscure.

    And note that under the entry for Peter’s murder trial, it says “This case has not been concluded. Unless a judgment of conviction is entered, the defendant is presumed innocent of all charges.”. Huh. What an idea!

  62. October 17, 2006 at 7:14 am

    There appears to be two of them. One in 2004 and one in 2002.

  63. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 17, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up for me homesweethome. I thought I was
    censored. I would finish it but that was yesterday and I was being sensitive
    but I will just let it go. Anyways, Mr.Mustards site didn’t work for me but
    this site works for background research on WI residence also:;jsessionid=

    She also was being charged (same night as DWI) with a disorderly due to
    her behavior to the police officers. So, that might be what one of the other
    two charges were Mr. Mustard. Pete asked her to go home with him that
    night,he had dinner and 2 drinks but…. she didnt want to, so he left her

  64. just the facts please said,

    October 17, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    just passing by, thank you for your responce to my question.

    and i really wish it worked as you state and that jane would of left or not let jon back into the house. but we know that abused people allow the abusers back until something extreme happens. its not correct but it does happen. and we know that the abused person thinks it will get better and usually enables the problems the abuser has. the abused also blame them selves for the situation and think if they change, the problem will go away.

    I hope i have the ability to flea if im put in the same situation. but unfortunately the fight or flea instinct is different for everyone and is also dependant on the level of danger felt by the person.
    keep in mind i am not saying jane was a hero, or that she didnt commit the act. what i am saying is there is more to this than has been portrayed in the media.

    most abused people keep quiet do to fear, do nothing do to fear, cover up the problem due to fear. this is horrible but very true. its even worse for a male that has been abused do to the stigma of being considard weak, and that it couldnt be true because they are male.

    but this is why we are having these discussions.

  65. just the facts please said,

    October 17, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Home sweet home,
    Please be careful, you are mistaking Peter “D” Whyte with Peter “G” Whyte.
    the charges against “G” are:
    Foreign Judgment of Gayle E Stoeber et al vs Peter Gamble Whyte
    for unpaid child support,
    Vehicle Operator Fail/Wear Seat Belt. This is not a criminal offense and results only in a money penalty for this offense.
    State of Wisconsin vs. Peter Gamble Whyte the currant case at hand.

    Her charges are still listed, you need to uncheck the birth date and middle name requirements, then put in only her first and last name.

    All 3 of her charges were dismissed on 9/1/06 which is standard procedure when defendant is deceased. but she had been to court and pled not guilty to all three charges:
    346.63(1)(a) Operating While under Influence (1st) Forf. U
    343.305(9)(a) Refuse/Breathalyzer Test After Arrest Forf. U
    947.01 Disorderly Conduct Misd. B
    which is also standard procedure when wanting a continuance to go to trial.

    Unfortunatly this helps support my opinion that people only read and hear what they want to. And that is another form of enabling.
    we all do it, it is a learned behavior. its hard to look past what is stated in the media because we assume it is always the truth. unfortunately sometimes it only what will make the biggest headline.
    i wish more abused people would come forward, it would help to reduce the amount of abused people out there. but until they decide that it is not going to change, they will keep living the cycle they live in right now.

    i pray for those people.

  66. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 17, 2006 at 4:43 pm

  67. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 17, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    947.01 Disorderly Conduct Misd. B
    which is also standard procedure when wanting a continuance to go to trial.

    Not this time, she went nuts when the friends of the bandmembers etc… tried to take her keys away after she smashed into their car. The cops showed up
    and she was still fighting with them then switched over to the cops. Then proceeded with them! If she would have been here in the cities she would’ve
    been handled completely different. Cops are not as patient here as they are in the suburbs/country.

  68. just the facts please said,

    October 17, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    again please read what is stated not what you want to see.
    the comment “947.01 Disorderly Conduct Misd. B
    which is also standard procedure when wanting a continuance to go to trial.”
    was in regards to the not guilty plea. and had nothing to do with the actual incident.

  69. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 18, 2006 at 11:27 am

    Whatever. I saw what I saw.

  70. Mister Mustard said,

    October 18, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    >>again please read what is stated not what you want to see.
    >>the comment “947.01 Disorderly Conduct Misd. B
    >>which is also standard procedure when wanting a
    >>continuance to go to trial.”

    I don’t know what this means. Are you saying that whenever anyone is arrested for DWI and they want a continuance to go to trial, they are then also charged with disorderly conduct? So, if Grammy has a couple of glasses of champagne at a wedding, gets pulled over for weaving on the road, and her lawyer asks for a continuance to go to trial, she will also be charged with disorderly conduct?

  71. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 18, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Just the facts

  72. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 18, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    again please read what is stated not what you want to see.

  73. Mister Mustard said,

    October 18, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    >>Just the facts
    >>again please read what is stated not what you want to see.

    ?? Is one of those messages an answer to my question about what “standard procedure when wanting a continuance to go to trial” means??

  74. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 18, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    No Mister Mustard, I was only asking ” just the facts please” to do asked he asked of me ie: “read what is stated not what you want to see”. I totally
    agreed with your last response (About granny).

  75. just the facts please said,

    October 18, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    it is standard procedure to plead not guilty to any offence that you want to have a continuance to go to trial. she pled not guilty to all charges.

    in plain speak if you are charged with an offence, and you want to go to trial you plead not guilty. the judge then sets a date for a hearing/trial (continuance).

    i was not making any statement about the incident at the bar or what you saw. what i was stating is that the charges, the plea, and the dismissal of them were standard procedure and nothing more should be read into them.

    my comment to you was that you mis-read what i stated and assumed it had to do with what you saw. i was just stating the facts about the listed charges how these charges are handled in court.

    you and mustard took it as a statement against what you saw or downplaying the incident at the bar. in return i tried and am trying again to show that you mis read my statement, which was there were 3 charges, all of which were pled not guilty, (to go to trial) and that all were dismissed because she is now deceased. nothing more.

  76. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 18, 2006 at 7:11 pm


  77. Mister Mustard said,

    October 19, 2006 at 1:10 am

    What you said, Just The, is listed at the bottom of this message. Somehow, you are drawing the inference that people “misread” what you said, and that what you said refuted something else. I’m not sure that’s the case. Passing The Facts For said he saw her wig out after crashing her (or somebody else’s?) car and they tried to take her keys away from her. You came back with a listing of the charges (which does not, as far as I can tell, mention anything about a continuance, nor do the online court records), saying after the first and last listed charges that they are “standard when wanting a continuance”. It appears that you were saying that the CHARGES were standard WHEN WANTING A CONTINUANCE. To say that requesting a continuance when you want a continuance is standard appears to be so redundant as not to bear saying.

    So, nobody is disputing Passing The Facts For’s eyewitness account of the incident, or the charges that resulted from the incident. I wonder if the prosecution will somehow get mention of this previous behavior excluded from the evidence. It seems quite pertinent to me.

    ————-QUOTED TEXT——————————————
    Her charges are still listed, you need to uncheck the birth date and middle name requirements, then put in only her first and last name.

    All 3 of her charges were dismissed on 9/1/06 which is standard procedure when defendant is deceased. but she had been to court and pled not guilty to all three charges:
    346.63(1)(a) Operating While under Influence (1st) Forf. U
    343.305(9)(a) Refuse/Breathalyzer Test After Arrest Forf. U
    947.01 Disorderly Conduct Misd. B
    which is also standard procedure when wanting a continuance to go to trial.

    Unfortunatly this helps support my opinion that people only read and hear what they want to. And that is another form of enabling.
    we all do it, it is a learned behavior. its hard to look past what is stated in the media because we assume it is always the truth. unfortunately sometimes it only what will make the biggest headline.

  78. just the facts please said,

    October 19, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    the plea of not guilty is standard procedure for a continuance to go to trial.

    i only listed the charges because it was stated that they couldnt be found.

    i was only trying to show two things,

    1) that the reason the charges were dismissed was not because she wasnt found guilty, it was because she had passed away. this could of been miss read by others.

    2) i made a statement inreguards to HSH statement that had information for the wrong Peter Whyte, i also posted what was listed for sue in fairness.i then add to that post that people usually see what they want to see (the middle initial being an example) and to becareful.

    Then I see a post that states my post and adds eyewitness information as if i was stating it didnt happen.
    im confused.these are 2 different things.
    I never questioned what happened at the bar. i only stated what was on line. and tryed to state why “not guilty” was pled.

    unfortunately this was all read wrong and for that i apologise.

  79. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 20, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Mister Mustard

  80. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 20, 2006 at 11:07 am

    Did you mean defense instead of prosecution? From what I understand, all
    the employees at the establishment where her DWI occurred were interviewed and yes this incident and others incidences were told.

  81. Mister Mustard said,

    October 20, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    No, I meant the prosecution. They are the ones who would seek to strike from the record any evidence of prior alcohol-induced criminal behavior on the part of the deceased, as it would support the self-defense contention that this was just another example of what had already happened in the past (misconduct and attempted violence against others), which in this case, had a tragic and unforseen outcome.

    If I were the prosecutor in this case, I would be seeking to portray the deceased as a well-behaved innocent angel; while the defense would seek to portray her as a violent, drug-addicted, alcoholic, combative perpetrator. Allowing testimony from the employees at the scene of the arrest, establishing that there was a history of this sort, would not be favorable to the prosecution’s case.

  82. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 20, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    I never would have thought about it that way Mister Mustard. Its a shame to hear that they can strike from the record any evidence that may show a strong pattern of alcohol/drug induced destructive, violent behavior. Its not like it would be “hearsay” there are actual witnesses that would stand up in a court of law for Pete. How/why would a judge allow the “backbone” be stricken?

  83. Mister Mustard said,

    October 20, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    Oh, I’m not saying the will be ABLE to strike that sort of thing from the record. I’m only saying that, if I were the prosecutor, I would make every effort to strike it because it pretty much explains the whole tragedy as an instance of self defense, leaving them with nothing to prosecute.

    Whether or not they will be able to pull that off, I couldn’t say. I bet they’ll try.

  84. I'm new here said,

    October 21, 2006 at 12:08 am

    I’m new here to posting, and am trying to read and catch up. I’m still confused on one thing.

    If the victim was stabbed in the back, how can it be considered self defense? I’m probably missing your points from above, so I’ll reword it in how I’m reading into it.

    The defendant could have been in a frenzy because the victim caused that condition based on aggresiveness due to alcohol and/or drugs. During that frenzy, the defendant did the stabbing because they couldn’t control themself.

    Is that right? Because that sounds like it might be more like a temporary insanity type of defense rather than a self protection defense. I’m only thinking that because in my mind (I’m not a lawyer by the way, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), self defense lasts only as long as the person is in danger. Since there’s 14 stab wounds, you’d think that prosecution could have a strong case that it was excessive and went beyond self defense. But I could see temporary insanity/being driven into a fit of rage.

    Your thoughts?

  85. I'm new here said,

    October 21, 2006 at 12:10 am

    By the way, since I can tell that this is a very empassioned group who have strong feelings (for both sides of this issue), I’d like to clarify that I listed Pete as a defendant and Sue as a victim only to distinguish between the two easier. I know that it can be argued that they are both victims.

  86. October 21, 2006 at 1:48 am

    Yes, I have deleted posts. Attacks on others who comment are not allowed. Attacks on the victim, without some basis (court record, news article, eyewitness account) just won’t happen. I have no problem with discussion on the facts in the case. But in reference to a particular word you used, unless you are going to say that you used her ‘services’ just ain’t gonna happen. Keep it civil or move on.
    One thing I have never mentioned, I can close the comments. If that happens, in the event that Pete does get found not guilty or the case gets dismissed, then there will be no opportunity for you to post that.
    Drugs are frequently mentioned in reference to Suzanne. In my experience, people who use drugs frequently do so in the company of other like minded individuals. What was Pete’s toxicology? Were drugs or alcohol in his system?
    Early on, police made mention that the home looked like there had been a “brawl”. I would expect that the participants had bruising in that type of altercation. Who had the brusing and how much? Several weapons were found weren’t they? Whose prints were found on the weapons?

    Law enforcement does not usually release all known info to the public, until a trial. Evidently there were no witnesses. So in the absence of a witness, generally law enforcement is the only ones who actually have any idea on what happened in that house that night. So I guess we wait until the trial.

  87. just passing by: said,

    October 21, 2006 at 4:21 am

    Thank you HSH, That has been the point I’ve stated in the drinking. We’re talking about both people here out drinking & partying together. To date nobody knows how much alcohol or drugs he may of had in his system. He was at the bar drinking too. His alcohol content could of been just as bad.

    Pete told LE they’d find his prints on the knives. Its unknown if Pete may of stabbed himself. No proof has come out yet that Sue stabbed him. There is no proof that he was attacked first. Its Pete’s word thats what happened.

    From reports blood was all over. Outside on the river side of the home & inside the home. It was a brutal murder, Go back & read #10 thats asinine, report of the events. I’m sincerely not against Pete or anyone else. What I don’t understand is if she stabbed Pete first & his injuries were so severe…….how could he of stabbed her 14 times, broke her nose & gave her head trauma. Just don’t sound right to me. Because her stab wounds were such she’d of had to of been moved to stab her in the back / cut her jugular etc etc Even if someone was in excellant shape they could never of survived all that happening to them & continue fighting…..

  88. October 21, 2006 at 4:44 am

    There seems to be two possible theories here. She attacked him and he defended himself, or he attacked her and she either defended herself or he killed her then self inflicted- either out of remorse or to set up a defense.
    But until more of the forensic evidence is known, either is a possibility.
    One thing I do know. Law enforcement do not like to be shown up in court by making an arrest they cannot find the evidence to prove. Many a case, the suspect has been known, but never taken to court because LE didn’t have the evidence to prove it. In this case, they made an arrest and it has met the legal challenges so far, so I would have to guess they have evidence.

  89. just passing by: said,

    October 21, 2006 at 6:01 am

    I totally agree with you HSH!

  90. Mister Mustard said,

    October 22, 2006 at 2:27 am

    Pete didn\’t drink and do drugs like she did. He was very responsible and a good honest hard working man. Lots of people don\’t know this, but he used to volunteer his time with handicapped children. Doesn\’t sound like a murderer huh? Quit vilifying him! HSH said I can\’t call her a crack whore, but I\’ll never call her a saint like you do.

    When is Pete\’s next court date? I think we Pete supporters should show our support and picket outside the courthouse. Who\’s in?

  91. just passing by: said,

    October 22, 2006 at 5:21 am

    Mr Mustard,

    Pete did / does drink…..drugs I don’t know about. Drinking yes, he did!!!!

    Scott Peterson worked & donated his time to handicapped people. He still murdered his wife…….

    Its apparent you don’t / didn’t have any respect for Suzanne. She was also a very responsible , good honest person & very hard working.The job she did says alot about her character. Taking care of elderly people is hard work / then she also volunteered her time taking them to town & doing things with them on her days off.She’d take the poor souls out for a very needed respite from the nursing home. Other times she’d go buy needed things for them that there own family wouldn’t purchase for them. She never did this because she “HAD TO” she did it because she was a very kind loving person.

    Instead of picketing outside the court house Mr Mustard you should go into the court room & tell the judge your feelings on the case. See how far that gets Pete. I have not been vilifying Pete……..what I’ve written is facts / its just not what you want to hear Mr Mustard. You can ask anyone who lives near the scene of the crime / its the truth!

  92. I'm new Here said,

    October 22, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    What I was trying to figure out earlier was if the defendant is planning on saying that the victim provoked him to stab her 14 times. I was looking at the statutes for 1st degree murder and if somebody uses the excuse/defense that they were provoked, the best that will happen for them is that the charge is reduced from 1st degree premeditated murder to 2nd degree premeditated murder. Even if he got 2nd degree, that could be up to 60 years in jail.

    I don’t want to pretend I know all (or even most of) the facts in the case, but I just don’t see any way the defendant can get out of this without doing significant jail time. I understand that people in the defendants corner are putting the blame on the victim, but 14 times stabbed, some in the back, and some across the neck, make me think even if it started as self defense, it became way to excessive.

  93. Mister Mustard said,

    October 22, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    I never claimed that Pete doesn’t drink, Just Passing. And I wasn’t making any comment one way or the other about drugs. My only point in this discussion is to say that to portray this as a cold-blooded murder, perpetrated by a wife-beating monster against a pure-as-the-driven-snow victim (read some of the early posts in this blog, if you don’t think that’s what was going on). is just wrong. Totally and completely wrong. Given the blood alcohol content, the cocaine metabolites in the blood, and the prior history (including criminal charges), that’s just not feasible. I maintain my original viewpoint, that this was a “bar fight gone bad”, a tragedy fueled by alcohol and drugs.

    As to what will happen in court, only time will tell.

  94. just passing by: said,

    October 22, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    Mr Mustard,
    At no point did I say Pete was a wife beating monster / at no point did I say she was as pure as the driven snow either.

    A tragedy for certain, both families will suffer forever.

  95. just passing by: said,

    October 22, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    I’m New Here,
    Glad to see someone new here & welcome.

    That has been my point……when does self defense quit being self defense?
    At what point does it turn to murder?

    I can see someone wanting to defend themselves as they should.
    When is enough considered enough? At what point does it go over the line?

    Yes I also can see the people defending Pete. We can all agree it should not of happened. I feel like you 14 stab wounds is excessive in any stretch of the imagination.

  96. I'm new Here said,

    October 22, 2006 at 10:56 pm

    Hey, come on, what’s with all the anger? Of course there’s family and friends who are going to support the defendant. Of course there’s also family and friends who are going to support the victim and her grieving family and friends. I don’t understand how words could make someone say the hurtful things you two are saying. Like I said, I’m new here, so maybe this is deeper than your words on this blog? Do you guys know each other is real life? I’d really like to have an open discussion, but I’m getting the impression you’d rather not.

  97. Mister Mustard said,

    October 23, 2006 at 12:07 am

    >>Do you guys know each other is real life?

    Who and who?

  98. just passing by: said,

    October 23, 2006 at 4:32 am

    I’m New Here,
    I also fail to see why “some” feel its ok to say whatever they like. I’m not friend or family! I also would like to discuss the case, thats what we’re trying to do.

    Passing the Facts For Pete,
    If Pete gets acquitted I’d welcome him here too. I’d tell him the same as I’ll tell you, nobody deserves to die at the hands of another. Pete will never silence me & my beliefs. I have no fear of him, nor will I.You can take that to the bank. I wonder what you’ll say if he gets convicted? He has a 50 /50 chance.

  99. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 23, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Homesweethome please delete comment #96. I have been out of town all
    weekend. With no access to a computer. Someone used my blog name. Im
    just getting caught up with all the comments this early monday morning!

  100. Passing the facts for Pete said,

    October 23, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    Well, Im caught up with all the comments and have given thought on someone useing my blog name. Ive decided with the fact that someone deceptively used my blog name that I know longer will participate in this blog. It was extreamly low that someone cowardly could not use their own and posted under mine. Mister Mustered and a few others: please know
    that I fully backed you. I, like you, feel that Pete deserves a fair trial and
    that he is not the murderous monster that others seem to think, nor she the
    angel. Anyways, good luck with your blogging here. I think it would be more to Petes advantage for me to show support by appearing at his court dates then to continue here.

  101. Mister Mustard said,

    October 23, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    Whoa! That’s pretty lame that somebody would post a message using your blog name, Passing the Fact for Pete. What a sleaze bag. Jeez. I’ll bet whoever did that would steal change from a blind man’s tin cup. Sleazy. If I were still in the Twin Cities, I would appear at his court dates too.

  102. I'm new Here said,

    October 23, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    Just saw on a website that it appears today (10/23/06) is the defendant’s arraignment. Does anyone have any insight on what goes on at arraignments and what is predicted/expected for the defendant’s case?

  103. just passing by: said,

    October 23, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    I’m New Here, Should be putting in a update soon. They seem to keep the website up to date. I was told he’ll be given a court date…….for when his trial begins.

    Hopefully “just the facts” will let us know here.

  104. Mister Mustard said,

    October 24, 2006 at 12:50 am

    Nothing on, nothing in the New Richmond News. The arraignment was supposed to be today at 1:00pm. I wonder what went on.

  105. friendofpete said,

    October 24, 2006 at 1:25 am

    I’m still praying for you Pete!

  106. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 2:36 am

    I haven’t heard anything Mr Mustard. Will post it ASAP if I do.

  107. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 3:33 am

    Friend of mine just called: Pete Plead Not Guilty / Bond remains the same / Pretrial Conference set for 11:30 am 12/1/06

  108. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 3:34 am

    Friend of mine just called: Pete Plead Not Guilty / Bond remains the same / Pretrial Conference set for 11:30 am 12/1/06

    Just reporting what I was told…..

  109. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 3:41 am

    It is now posted on the web site…..

  110. I'm new Here said,

    October 24, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    I was reading about arraignments online. It looks like that is when the process of discovery happens and the prosecution basically has to present all the evidence they have. Wonder if that happened yesterday at court, of if that happens at a separate time now.

  111. Forever Sad said,

    October 24, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    I have a lot I would like to say, but probably shouldn’t. But I can’t stay totally silent anymore. Pete and Sue were very good friends of ours and our lives will never be the same. I too didn’t want to believe Peter could viciously kill Sue and yes Sue could be a pain in the ass when she was drunk. Peter treated Sue like a slave – until they broke up in June. The man barely made it off the couch to go to work. Ever see him when he was in a meth frenzy? He was very scary. Sue would get drunk, flash her chest to whoever happened to be sitting there and get argumentive. It was often embarrassing to have her around. I told him just a couple weeks before the tragedy that they were both psycho and maybe should go their separate ways. If he had only listened…

    The hardest part to understand is they were so happy the night before she died. They annouced they were back together and we made plans for the future. What happened between hugs goodbye and the police at the door the next morning we may never really know.

    Bad stuff will be told in court about both of them, I’m hoping they don’t make me testify, and wait till you hear what one of Peter’s cellmates has to say. It may change your praying for Peter thoughts.

    I hate it, I miss them both and wish we could turn back time so we could stop the tragedy from happening. Sorry I’m rambling.

  112. ForeverSad said,

    October 24, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    Please remove my name and put foreversad.

  113. Justme said,

    October 24, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    Hang in there Pete, your in my familys thoughts and prayers. Keep the faith your going to be o.k. buddy.

  114. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Thank you for being honest & telling both sides of the situatiion. It is very very sad on both sides for sure. Neither of them were saints that is a given.

    Your totally correct “nobody” will ever know what really happened.Your post proves they “both” were saints & sinners! I am sorry for your loss, it is a tragedy that should never happen! You were not rambling, it was written from your heart.

  115. Justme said,

    October 24, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    Completely hearsay/not a fact

  116. Justme said,

    October 24, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    (continued from above)

  117. Justme said,

    October 24, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    100% b.s. about what some cellmate said!! HOGWASH.

  118. ForeverSad said,

    October 24, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    It will come out in court. The guy came to our house to tell us that he had been put in the cell with Peter and wanted us to know what Peter had said.
    I’m not going to repeat it because then it would be hearsay. It will come out in court. For those of us who were trying to keep having some faith in Peter it devasted us. Believe me it was the last thing I wanted to hear, I’m sorry if it upsets you.

  119. Justme said,

    October 24, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    It upsets me that you are only willing to get the gossip train going but not back it up with facts. Someone supposedly and I mean supposedly tells
    you something and you choose to pass that tidbit of b.s. on to us? Tell me
    something, if what you heard from his cellmate ” devastated you” and “was
    the last thing you ever wanted to hear” I am assuming that he must have
    said something along the lines of what a horrible monster he is and he outright plotted to take her life. Right? Then answer this: Why did he plea
    NOT GUILTY yesterday?? Quit passing on the B.S. unless you can pass facts with it.

  120. ForeverSad said,

    October 24, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to rile you up. I didn’t write here to start an argument. Just looking for sanity or answers that can’t be found. Truth vs BS, what can I say, nothing you want to believe. I knew I shouldn’t write in, so I’m going to end this now. Take care and always be safe.

  121. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    You did right to post how you felt…..people don’t like hearing the truth. The truth as you say hurts.
    Don’t feel the need to go away!You see people seem to think they can shut everyone up on this board, don’t let it happen. Gossip & BS isn’t always gossip & bs! We’re adult enough to know that.
    I think many people are going to be shocked to hear the stories told in court, for both sides.

  122. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Don’t go away……your entitled to your opinion the same as everyone else here. If it riles someone up oh well.
    They’ll find out the truth in court…..maybe then you’ll get an apology!

  123. Mister Mustard said,

    October 24, 2006 at 9:20 pm

    >>I’m not going to repeat it because then it would be hearsay.

    As far as I’m concerned, the whole tale is hearsay.

    “Ooooh, wait until you hear what one of Peter’s cell mates had to say, and you’re not going to be praying for that bastard anymore!!”. Then “I’m not going to say what the cell mate told me, because that would be hearsay”. Leaving the reader to imagine the most horrible thing that an ex-con going say about somebody he was in the slammer with.

    So, as far as I’m concerned, the cell mate didn’t say anything at all. If he did say something, how you gonna trust what an ex-con says. This has gotten whispered too far down the lane to give it any credence. And if all your friends are in jail or recently released from jail, you should start hanging with a new crowd!

  124. just passing by: said,

    October 24, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    ForeverSad don’t go away… what you aired your thoughts & what you know. People don’t like hearing the truth…..

  125. I'm new Here said,

    October 24, 2006 at 10:55 pm


    Sorry to hear about your loss of two good friends. Regardless of who was at fault, one thing is certain, the wedge its placed on friends of the couple is very real, and its a shame that friends have been forced to choose a side.

    If you honestly have been informed by the prosecution that you may be a character witness, then you definitely should not be looking around on the web, as things you read (especially on blogs where opinions are given freely) can be construed as having influenced your views and any testimony could at best be devalued by a jury, and at worst, no allowed at all.

    Justme, from what I’ve read, its very usual (almost standard) for a defendant to plead not guilty at an arraignment, as they can change their plea at any time. So, I guess I read into that as even though he has entered in a plea, its more of a formality, or, a declaration that he is fighting the charges.

    Although I’m an outsider on this case and didn’t know the defendant or the victim personally, it has peaked my interest, as I live in the neighborhood so to speak. My gut tells me that everyone here has had some valid points in that Sue was no angel, but Pete probably didn’t wake up that morning and decide that he was going to kill. Its been said that drugs and alcohol may be more to blame than anything else. I don’t know one way or another, but I do think that domestic violence is an issue that is very important and needs to be addressed and confronted. So, even though there’s hurt on both sides here, I’m glad to see that your willing to voice your opinions.

  126. ForeverSad said,

    October 25, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    Mister Mustard,
    I have never called Peter a bastard or a horrible monster? Regardless of what you think, a part of me will always love the Peter I knew, as a friend. As I’ve stated, I don’t know what happened that night after they left the bar and doubt we’ll ever have the REAL story.

    The so called ex-con, was not a friend of mine. He is someone who I had seen at Peter & Sue’s in the past and I had never spoke to him before. What his motivation is I don’t know for sure. All I know is he was concerned and wanted us (4 people were there) to hear what he had to say.

    I’m not your enemy.

  127. Mister Mustard said,

    October 25, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    No, you did not explicitly say “bastard” “or horrible monster”. However, you claimed that his ex-cell mate “told you” something that was so terrible, so demonic, so evil, that it would shock even an ex-con, and would cause Pete’s friends to re-think their wish to pray for him. Sounds dreadful, for those who believe it.

    In any case, I imagine everything, real, imagined, and made up, will come out during the trial. So we might as well sit tight and see what the witnesses have to say about this drug- and alcohol-fueled tragedy.

  128. Justme said,

    October 25, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    homesweethome please do me a favor and delete comment #128 from
    “ex-con”. Im afraid that some others will start garbage like that
    towards Sue and her family. (ie AIDS awareness jokes etc…) not just here but other blogs that are going on. Thankyou.

  129. just passing by: said,

    October 25, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    Can anyone here say they went to visit Pete since his arrest & does he have any recriminations or regrets that this happened?

  130. Mister Mustard said,

    October 26, 2006 at 12:47 am

    I tried to visit him when he was in Regions hospital, but they would not let me in. Now he’s back in Wisconsin, and I no longer live in the Twin Cities, so I can’t do it.

  131. just passing by: said,

    October 26, 2006 at 3:42 am

    Thanks Mr Mustard,
    I just wondered if anyone had visited him…..if he is doing better? ETC ETC

  132. I'm new Here said,

    October 26, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    I think its safe to assume he regrets that this happened. Even if he wanted her dead (and I”m not saying he did), he would at least have to be regretting that he is facing a life in prison.

  133. ForeverSad said,

    October 26, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    When he called me a few weeks ago he wasn’t doing very well. Crying, wishing he was dead, hoping we all didn’t hate him. It broke my heart.
    But then I was reminded by my spouse about how Sue died and he had our phone number changed. No more calls… I did hear he has lost a huge amount of weight and is on a sucide watch.

  134. just passing by: said,

    October 26, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    Thanks ForeverSad,
    Loosing a great deal of weight wouldn’t be unusual under the circumstances. He had massive surgery & probably take a ‘long’ time to heal.Then his diet has changed severely. Having a huge trial looming over his head would also hinder his recovery.
    FS,your posts are truely enlightening & putting a humane side to this case.We have not had that. That call must of ripped you apart. Right v wrong I’d also of got my number changed. You deserve a big hug & a wonderful friend.

  135. Mister Mustard said,

    October 26, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    >>I did hear he has lost a huge amount of weight and is on a sucide watch.

    That kind of speaks against the notion of him being a “cold-blooded killer”, mm?

  136. Justme said,

    October 26, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Exactly Mister Mustard! Gee….I dont think the ex-cellmate said anything
    either. A question to all: If you were in a horrible situation
    and you had a VERY GOOD friend that you would call for advise/comfort
    or just to have a link with the real world even though you got to be a little
    pain in the butt to them by calling them ALL the time, how would that make
    you feel if they changed there phone number on you?? Somehow, I just dont
    understand how such a CLOSE friend can do that? I hope Im never put through that ,but… I cant imagine doing that.

  137. just passing by: said,

    October 26, 2006 at 9:13 pm

    Mr Mustard, He under went a great deal of surgery from the wounds. Loosing weight isn’t unusual. He probably was unable to eat. Being on suicide watch isn’t unusual either after such a ‘bar room brawl’! Neither of these justifies or excuses what he did, sorry!

  138. just passing by: said,

    October 26, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    I sincerely wouldn’t want put in the middle of this case. Especially with Foreversad going to be called as a witness. What a awful thing to be in the middle of….you’d be torn to shreds. Also he’d have to call collect.

    I’ve even told my kids if they got threw in jail don’t call me. I don’t care how long they’d sit there.

  139. Justme said,

    October 26, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    just passing by: Your right, it would be a terrible thing to be in the middle of.
    Im glad that in no way what so ever I am!! Yes,I do know the both. Pete more
    than Sue but even if I got called up as a witness, why would I be torn to shreds?? I dont think I would be even nervouse if I did get called as a witness. I would just state the facts. And, it would help on Petes behalf. I think most of you have me wrong. I know Sue was an extreamly kind hearted beautiful person. Pete was always very nice also. But,I never saw Pete act bizarre or under the influence of illegal substances. I never saw him act anything but respectful to everyone. But… I did with Sue. The only thing Ive been trying to say is I dont feel it was the typical domestic abuse situation. It was a crazy horrible tragic night that was more than likely booze mixed with drugs deadly situation.Yes, Pete did inflict the final blow but….. what the hell happened??? We just have to wait.

  140. just passing by: said,

    October 27, 2006 at 12:58 am

    We’ll never know what really went on. We’ll hear both lawyers tell their tales. Everyone will always wonder what really happened?

    I know someone who will be a witness. They also don’t have a clue what went on. Totally devasted is the word they use, tragedy beyond anything they ever heard.

  141. Mister Mustard said,

    October 27, 2006 at 2:02 am

    >>Neither of these justifies or excuses what he did, sorry!

    Even though we have no idea what he “did” (other than to be engaged in a terrible altercation that ended up with one person dead and the other person almost dead), I agree with you. He made his choices, and now he must be held accountable for them.

    However, I don’t think that gossiping about what a cellmate allegedly said, or calling him a “cold-blooded murderer” gets us anywhere.

  142. just passing by: said,

    October 27, 2006 at 3:00 am

    Its quite possible a cellmate is a key witness…..I heard that from 2 other sources as well. Sometimes LE puts someone intentional in there cells & either put wires on them or whatever, give them a early release. It happened in the Shaun Rudy case last year near Thorp Wi.

    I also looked back over my posts & on #19 I said she was cold blooded murdered……I never called him a cold blooded murderer! He’s not been convicted yet, & your right it gets us no place!

    News is very slow coming out in this case. Leaves room for lots of speculation.
    Which many times is not a good thing.

  143. friendofpete said,

    October 27, 2006 at 11:33 am

    Still praying for you Pete!

  144. Mister Mustard said,

    October 27, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    >>I also looked back over my posts & on #19 I said she was
    >>cold blooded murdered……

    Correct. What you said, exactly (and I quote) was “The facts are a lady was cold blooded murdered. Makes no difference what her blood alcohol level was.”.

    She was “cold blooded murdered”, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that she died by Pete’s hand, no matter WHAT the circumstances surrounding who initially attacked whom, whether or not it was self-defense, etc.. So if she was “cold blooded murdered”, he killed her, by definition that would make him a cold-blooded murderer.

    Except, he’s not.

    Probably a good idea to wait for facts in the case to come out, rather than to try and draw any inferences about whether the ex-cellmate is a Rockford Files-type mole, planted by the deep undercover arm of the county sheriff, or if he’s a crystal meth-head trying to score a few more trays by pretending to be a jailhouse snitch, or if he’s just a lying turd.

    The truth will out.

  145. ForeverSad said,

    October 27, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    You’re right I’m not a good friend anymore – I can’t be for Peter.

    We all have a tendency to need to take sides when we don’t have all the information. At my house, as soon as my spouse heard Sue was stabbed in the back, any belief he had in Peter was gone. So when he found out I accepted the phone call from Peter he felt the need to protect me and had the number changed. Now I think he did the right thing because I am naive at times. I try to believe the best about everybody and it has bit me in the ass many times.

    I don’t care if you think I’m lying about the cell mate. And I believe its true that they put him in there on purpose. He said he asked them many times to move him but they wouldn’t and they told him he would have to testify to what he was told when they finally let him out.

    This all just sucks. I miss my friends. I hate having to look at that house everyday. I wonder everyday if we missed some sign that night that something bad was going to happen. Was there something we could have done?

    You know I’ve never like mustard 🙂

  146. just the facts please said,

    October 27, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    I have been told that all conversations during visitations are monitored and recorded.
    I am trying to check on whether the cells are singular or shared. I dont think they are shared. pete has stated that The only time he has contact with other prisoners is during bathing, eating, and cantine (were they can buy there personal items).
    I know for a fact pete is miserable, rightly so, and still trying to understand what happened that night. he spends his time reading books and letters sent to him by friends and supporters.
    He is concerned about what has been stated in regards to this case. What was initially released by the family was inaccurate and overstated. The investigators even told me he told them to stop putting out information that wasnt factual. that is why i only state facts as i have found in my research, or as i have been interviewed or have seen at court dates.
    There is a big concern that he will not get a fair trial due to the jury pool in the area being tainted by the information given to the media. that is why you will not see to many news articles about this case now.
    i am not defending what happened we all agree it was a stupid tradgedy, but i want to make sure it does not become worse by incorrect facts and innuendo being posted.

    please look at your posts before you hit send, are the “colorful” descriptions needed?
    Those are the items that stay in people minds and can be miscontrued.

    Now this is my opinion and its not based on any information i have been told.
    but i have gotten the feeling that pete knows he will be doing time, but the concern is that he has been portrayed as an evil monster when it was the result of the 2 of them in a terrible situation that he wishes had never happened. but thats MY opinion.

    The next court date is in December we will have to wait till then to see how this progresses.
    those interested can mail pete at the St Croix County jail, all mail will be monitored. pete is an outdoor person, so pictures of the outdoors are greatly appreciated.

    Yes i am pro pete to this point, i want to see a fair trial, and in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty.

  147. just passing by: said,

    October 27, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    just the facts,

    Pete will get a fair trial in St Croix Co. So many people don’t get the paper & refuse to watch the news all it consists of is news from the cities.It is big news for people who knew them, or who lived around them. It just don’t happen in our small community.But St Croix Co is big & I’m certain they can find 12 people who never even heard about it.

    Also Judge Lundell is the fairest of all the judges & will see to it, there will be no tainted jury in his court room, if he can help it.

  148. just passing by: said,

    October 27, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    I understand the turmoil and frustration you feel. In all honesty I am a firm believer that we’re born with 2 dates attached to us. The date & time we’re born & the date & time we expire. We’ll be where we’re supposed to be at both times. Regardless of how it begins or ends. You could never of known nor changed what happened.

    You’se had a decision to make & made it. It wasn’t easy for you’se to do. What’s right v what’s wrong is a tough call. I think thats where the dividing line is here. We all understand self defense / but the back stabs wasn’t self defense…….or was it???

    I sincerely doubt what the cellmate would lie to you. He made a point to make you aware & I’m sure not proud of what he has to do either. Did he seem like a reliable witness to you or was he a meth head?

  149. Mister Mustard said,

    October 27, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    >>You know I’ve never like mustard 🙂

    Well, mustard can be an acquired taste. On the other hand, the truth can be a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s good for ya.

    As to changing the number, it seems like a more straightforward way to have accomplished the same thing would be to say (or have your spouse say, if he does the talking for the household) “Pete, we don’t feel comfortable talking with you while this prosecution is ongoing, and we would appreciate it if you did not call here anymore.”

  150. ForeverSad said,

    October 27, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    He wasn’t drunk or high when he came over. I think he was in jail for DUI. His girlfriend had to drive him over. I really don’t know anything about him except the car he drives.

    I’m curious about the drug issue? I know for a fact they did not use any drugs from 6:00 pm to around midnight – alcohol yes, but no drugs. Was her drug level high or an old trace from some other day, because I hear coke stays in your system a while? Or did she do it after midnight? I’m confused?

  151. just passing by: said,

    October 27, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    The only place I heard she had used any drugs was here in post #31.
    just the facts posted it:

    She had a .310 alchohol level and metabolites that indicated drug usage were found in her system.

    That doesn’t sound like she did any that night. Possibly a old trace…???

  152. Mister Mustard said,

    October 27, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    The half-life of cocaine in the bloodstream is quite short (60-90 minutes). Someone who had used cocaine earlier in the evening would only have trace amounts by midnight, and the presence of metabolites would be used to determine whether or not the person had take the drug. And post #31 was not “the only place” that evidence of recent drug use was discussed; #31 was merely reporting what had been described in the court hearing. I don’t think drug use, by both parties, is something that’s in dispute.

  153. just passing by: said,

    October 30, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    Thanks Mr Mustard,
    I stand corrected……..I know it was stated in post #31 & MANY others. But post 31 stated it was described in court. I never meant to give wrong information.

  154. Justme said,

    October 31, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    What did Pete talk about?

  155. Mister Mustard said,

    November 16, 2006 at 12:46 am

    Yes, what DID Pete talk about?

  156. ForeverSad said,

    November 16, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    We heard a local tv station is doing a story about Sue/Peter from Sue’s family. Possibly airing on Monday next week. Anyone hear of anyone being interviewed?

  157. ForeverSad said,

    November 16, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Check out for details. I know the story should be told, but I think this is going to be VERY one-sided against Peter.

  158. Mister Mustard said,

    November 16, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    Hoo boy. If Fox news is going to present this as a “textbook case of domestic violence”, it’s going to be a whole lot worse than “VERY one-sided”. It’s going to be misleading and dishonest. A texbook case of why people should not abuse drugs and alcohol, perhaps. The only people who would call this a “textbook case of domestic violence” are those whose only agenda is to send Pete to the Big House for life, facts be damned.

    I’m kind of surprised by Fox 9. I know that with that full hour to fill each night, they’re scraping a lot of barrel bottoms for news, but this sounds outright deceitful.

  159. November 17, 2006 at 12:14 am

    One thing suprises me. Several in here have accused others of jumping the gun before all the facts were heard and making judgements. Now, a TV show is being judged guilty even before it is televised. Personally, I think any shows that talk about DV is a good thing. How fair it will be, is yet to be heard. Could someone let me know what all is discussed?

  160. Justme said,

    November 17, 2006 at 3:52 am

    Of course a tv show is being judged guilty even b/4 it is televised! Even in
    the write up Sue’s brother says “Ive known Trish for 20 years”. It WILL be a
    one sided propaganda campaign on “the familys” behalf. Its too bad that
    Pete doesnt have the “in’s” with the media. Im glad that my ex doesnt have
    a tape recording of a message that I left him many years ago, while I was so
    ticked off. Didnt mean any of it. But, I sure tried my hardest to get
    my point across!! If the Monday night show is any thing of what I imagine
    the circus act will be, I will NEVER watch fox news again! Now, my question
    is: Why air this b/4 his trial? If this was in the best interest of domestic
    violence, why not air it after its all said and done?? Oh… I know why,
    because they wouldnt have a story. At least not in this case! Oh
    and ForeverSad: I have not heard of ANYONE getting interviewed so it’s going
    to be all family.

  161. Mister Mustard said,

    November 17, 2006 at 4:41 am

    >>Now, a TV show is being judged guilty even before it is televised.

    I hardly think that idle gossip on a blog about an upcoming TV show is the same thing as attempting to put a man in prison for the rest of his life without knowing the facts.

    Sure, anything about domestic violence is good. This is not a story “about domestic violence” though, it’s a witch hunt, aided and abetted by a 20-year friend of the family, masquerading as “journalism”.

    A very plausible scenario (a dead horse that I won’t beat again) casts Sue as the initiator of the violence, and drugs and alchohol as the real perpetrators. We don’t know much about what went on that night, beyond the blood alcohol content and cocaine levels of the deceased, and the fact that one of the participants ended up dead, while the other ended up with his guts hanging out of his belly.

    So by all means, let’s have more shows that may serve to reduce the incidence of domestic violence. And a lot FEWER thinly-veiled public relations campaigns to get Peter Whyte locked up for the rest of his natural life. Just like Justme, I’ll bet that anyone who gets “interviewed” for this perversion of justice will be people who are helping to pay for

  162. November 17, 2006 at 5:10 am

    ~If this was in the best interest of domestic
    violence, why not air it after its all said and done?? Oh… I know why,
    because they wouldnt have a story.
    ~DV happens every day. If you have ever read the front page here, you would see 1, 2, and sometimes 3 posts a day. And I don’t post more than half of what I find.
    Since Sue Weiland was found, I have even posted more from your area. So no, when that trial is over there will still be another story, just different characters.
    ~I’ll bet that anyone who gets “interviewed” for this perversion of justice will be people who are helping to pay for
    ~ If so, then they ain’t real bright. Because that kind of coverage will kill interest in their programs quicker than the flu hitting the anchors.
    If they are bright, they will show that DV is messy. Very seldom are the victims angels and the suspects devils. There is always good and bad to everyone, including DV suspects and victims. But the question is- who took it too far?
    Weiland’s contacts may have made them pay more attention to the case, but they will cover all aspects. And yes they will interview family as they should. And family will speak very highly of Sue. If it was your daughter or sister, wouldn’t you?

  163. Mister Mustard said,

    November 17, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    >>~ If so, then they ain’t real bright.

    Well, to quote the great philsopher P.T. Barnum, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

    >>Weiland’s contacts may have made them pay more attention to the case, >>but they will cover all aspects.

    There you go, judging the TV show before it’s aired!! 🙂

    >>And yes they will interview family as they should. And family will speak
    >>very highly of Sue. If it was your daughter or sister, wouldn’t you?

    Sure I would. And if I thought Pete had done to my sister or daughter what the “lynch mob” claims he did to Sue, I’d probably go shoot him through the heart. Whether he had actually done it or not.

    That’s why we have the justice system. To protect the accused from having “justice” served on them by hot-headed family members, misinformed vigilantes, and outright kooks. The accused are innocent until proven guilty, and airing a “news story” [koff, koff] that’s essentially Sue Weiland’s family’s version of what happened and why it happened does nothing to further the causes of truth, justice, and the American way.

  164. Justme said,

    November 17, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    I copy the following from Sues site:

  165. Justme said,

    November 17, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    I copy the following from Sues site:

  166. Justme said,

    November 17, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    I tried 3 times and it wont let me publish my blog!

  167. Justme said,

    November 17, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    Sues brother said,”I have been open with Trish and her crews—at times pushing so they’d have an unprecedented close view of the painful circumstances surrounding Sue’s death”At times pushing????!!!
    And were all suppose to believe that this will be a fair unbiased news
    story. I do understand the familys pain. I hope I never have to experience
    it. But, by useing the media to try to send Pete to prison for life for a booze/drug night of horror, is sooo wrong. Its bad enough that he loved her so much and she’s gone now. He must think of that night every second 24/7! That would be HELL in itself. As I see it both of there lives are gone. Sad.

  168. just passing by: said,

    November 18, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    I sincerely don’t understand how you think the media is going to send Pete to prison for life? DV regardless of how people look at it “with this case” is a horrible thing, its sincerely out of control.

    The thing wrong with this case is Pete killed Sue…….I don’t buy the fact he killed her because he loved her so much! He could of stopped stabbing her at anytime!!!!

    In court the severe brutality of this crime “WILL” be known. The media had nothing to do with what Pete did to Sue, nor did her family. The media never put Pete on trial, LE did, they feel they have the correct person in jail awaiting trial. If he is innocent he’ll walk / if guilty he needs to pay for his crime.

    I sincerely doubt the news coverage of this case would be enough to sway a juror to his guilt or innocence. Its highly unlikely everybody in St Croix County is going to be watching channel 9 news Mon night.

  169. just passing by: said,

    November 18, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    I don’t understand how you think the media is going to send Pete to prison for life? DV regardless of how people look at it “with this case” is a horrible thing, its out of control.

    The thing wrong with this case is Pete killed Sue…….I don’t buy the fact he killed her because he loved her so much! He could of stopped stabbing her at anytime!!!!

    In court the severe brutality of this crime “WILL” be known. The media had nothing to do with what Pete did to Sue, nor did her family. The media never put Pete on trial, LE did, they feel they have the correct person in jail awaiting trial. If he is innocent he’ll walk / if guilty he needs to pay for his crime.

    I sincerely doubt the news coverage on this case would be enough to sway a juror to his guilt or innocence. Its highly unlikely everybody in St Croix County is going to be watching channel 9 news Mon night.

  170. Justme said,

    November 18, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    The press is being irresponsible by fanning the flames of this case.

  171. Mister Mustard said,

    November 19, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    >>I sincerely doubt the news coverage of this case would be enough to
    >>sway a juror to his guilt or innocence.

    I think you vastly over-rate the intelligence of the average viewer. Just like most shoppers think they’re too smart to be swayed by advertising, most potential jurors think they’re too smart to be influenced by unening press coveratve of how Pete “brutally murdered Sue, in cold blood”.

    Tht facts suggest otherwise, however. I don’t see anything on abut sue’s cocaine addiction, alcoholism, extensive history of repeated violent assaults on others, or any of the other violent and non-violent criminal history that should be taken into consideration in evaluating this case.

    It would be one thing if Pete ALSO had a small army of media personalities, talking heads, web designers, vigilantes, blog writers, and hot-headed family members championing HIS cause, as is the case for Sue. Unfortunately, he does not. And just about everything you read portrays him as a violent monster, who beat and stabbed his innocent (common law) bride to death. Wherease NOTHING could be further from he truth.

  172. friendofpete said,

    November 19, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    I agree with Mister Mustard 100%. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words…

  173. just passing by: said,

    November 19, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    On the other hand Mr Mustard the facts are yet to be told of Pete. I sincerely doubt he was / is as innocent as you want folks here to believe. He also suffered from many of the same problems Sue did. The final assault ending in Sue’s murder.

    I’m sure if you were to talk to 99.9% of families who have lost loved ones to ‘ANY TYPE’ of murder they’d portray the perp as a violent monster. Thats just life!

    On justiceforsue it updates the case. Somerset is a tiny town & has a weekly paper. Its not as easy as people think to get news. Anyone from the area knows this is true.

    I’m sure Sue will be missed terribly by her family at Thanksgiving & the upcoming holidays. It makes no difference who her family is…she was very much loved. If they want to pay tribute to her so be it. Pete’s family has the advantage to go see him & he’ll talk to them. All her family has is a web site & a grave stone to remind them of what they lost!

  174. November 20, 2006 at 1:47 am

    I have resisted for months the urge to respond to some of the idiotic and misinformed and outright lies written about the murder of my sister, Sue. People can say and believe what they want. But to post false information, and do so anonymously, is more than cowardice; it’s shameful. And it’s also a crime. (and please, you’re not as anonymous as you think.)

    If you believe justice isn’t being served, isn’t it your duty to identify yourself, and contact authorities with your information? My family would encourage you to do so. We want Peter to have a fair trial. We’re not afraid of any of the facts of this case. And if you won’t identify yourself, then please refrain from posting– your information is worthless and only serves to hurt people already suffering tremendously. Have you no decency?

    And it’s especially galling, indeed abusive, in light of the long history of abuse Sue and my entire family suffered at the hands of this violent, manipulative man.

    The man accused, Peter G. Whyte, has a long history of domestic violence. His first wife, the mother of his only son, divorced him after he was violent with her, threatening her life. (This we find out only after Sue’s death.)

    Peter and Sue always had a difficult and violent relationship. Peter was jailed in Olmstead County, MN more than 15 years ago and held on charges of raping and beating my sister in a campground. His son, then a toddler was along on the camping trip…;and as Peter hovered over my sister with a knife, the boy yelled, ‘Don’t kill her, daddy.” Other campers intervened, called police who arrested Peter. Sue came home bruised and then refused to file the necessary charges and the case was dropped.

    Thus began a long, painful back and forth that is typical in relationships with the abused and the abuser. There were numerous times Sue would leave Peter– come home with black eyes, broken ribs, bruises. She would at times try to cover it up. There’s no question she loved Peter. But he was a violent, manipulative man. When he was good, he was very very good. But when he was bad…

    And Sue was the perfect victim, one who always tried to make things better. People who study abusive violent relationships say that abusers often seek out these types of women– women who will tolerate or accept the blame for the abuse, women who are caretakers, like Sue. Sue always thought maybe if she tried harder she could change him. When money was tight, Pete would tell Sue to go out and get him some “panty steaks’– she’d shoplift to feed him. Pathetic, yes. Tragic, yes.

    But tell me, what do you think happens to a woman mesmerized and stuck in a relationship with someone so manipulative and cunning? And violent? Do you think 20 years with an abusive man would change the woman? Is it conceivable that someone’s in such a situation would develop an alcohol problem:? Or at times even fight back?

    Peter could be sweet, but his favorite word for my sister was calling her a ‘cunt’….not just in private, but in front of other people. He even carved it in the back of a piece of furniture I recently discovered. Nive guy, yeah.

    Three years ago Sue’s neighbors went to my mother to tell her the abuse was spiraling out of control. That Pete had beaten Sue on several occasions, once so serious she suffered bruised kidney’s. No one would file police reports at the time. Sue, herself, at first denied, then acknowledged the ongoing abuse. We tried, her entire family, mightily, to get her to leave him. She tried.

    But he would not relent…showering her with sacharrine affection and gifts each time she’d leave him. Peter would leave obsessive messages on her answering machine (as many as 45 a day). A restraining order wouldn’t stop his abusive pursuit of my sister– he once broke down the front door of my mother’s house to get to Sue– Edina Police intervened that time. The ultimate message he was sending her was that he was the best she could ever achieve…no one would lover her like he did…no one else could have her….and she fell for it. Why? We will never know… Sue isn’t the first woman who has fallen for a violent predator like Pete.

    And his abuse didn’t end with my sister. He extended his violent threats and name calling to my mother– a woman who took him in after an injury, nursed him back to health and supported him for a year after an on the job accident. There were times he terrorized my mother, calling her a ‘cunt’, threatening several times to slit her throat. All because she took Sue in when she tried to leave him. Believe it or not, there’s evidence that will prove it in court.

    You ask, if he was such a monster why didn’t you cut him out of your lives. We tried. again and again. And it was wrong for my mother and my family to have accepted Pete’s apologies, and believed him when he said he was sorry and would never behave badly again. My family believed him at his word when he begged forgiveness, begged for another chance, said he’d be a better man. And now for trying to believe the best in someone– for believing just as Pete’s supporters have in this blog– rather than face the reality of their deeds, my family pays the ultimate price.

    Peter preyed on my family’s denial and their naive belief that he was a man of his word. Just as I suspect he has on those writing such misinformed (and anonymous) entries.

    Peter never held a job for long. Was recently fired from a job for failing a drug test. Pete hadn’t filed a tax return in 13 years– and was proud of the fact, he’d say. When Sue had a broken leg pined together after a motocycle accident, Peter stole her pain medication and Sue went without and suffered even more. Pete was a low-life criminal, mysoginist who thought it was okay to beat the woman he claimed he loved. Peter Whyte is a very sick man, and needs to be in prison.

    For those of you who doubt that Pete is capable of violence, or that Sue somehow brought it upon herself, pay close attention–and if you doubt me, call the 1-800 number of any domestic violence center and run your views by them; You are a part of the sickness and rot that domestic violence has in our communities. It is you– your attitudes– that allow the abusers to continue their hold on women too frightened to escape from their violent clutches.

    Oh, You can say I am biased, as a way to somehow dismiss what I have to say. Or to somehow say that these facts are somehow tainted by my bias. But they’re not. On my website,, you will find nothing personal against Peter, no rants like you find on these blogs. Me and my family want Peter to have a fair trial…we are convinced that he will be convicted based on the simple facts. There is no defense given the circumstances. If he goes to trial, he’ll be convicted most assuredly, and it carries a mandatory life sentence.

    Sue suffered two decades of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of that wretched man, Peter Whyte. Abuse that changed her, caused her to abuse alcohol. Broke her phisical being and her spirit.

    And now. somehow he has the ability to sit and defend himself, claiming innocence for a crime that he knows, and all evidence shows he commited. With no sense of shame or guilt or apology. With no regard for my mother, and father who supported him over the years, who believed him when he apologized for beating my sister bloody and bruised and believed him when he told them he would never hit Sue again. But he did. Again and again.

    Peter Whyte abused my entire family. And when my sister had finally decided to leave him for good, she had separated their finances, paid off her creidit cards, amicably settled all the separating of their possessions, he killed her.

    There are no defensive wounds. He slit her throat and cut her aorta from her heart. There was no fight. Sue had no defensive wounds. There was no time for her to have even attacked him. It was cold blooded murder.

    Textbook case of an abuser… finally killing the woman when he believes that she really is, finally, going to leave him for good. That’s what happened to Sue. To any woman out there in a similar situation, or if you know someone in such a situation, domestic violence is most lethal when the abuser believes the abused is finally serious about ending the relationship. Don’t be lulled– it’s the most dangerous time.

    And to those of you who still have doubts about my sister’s murder and Pete, please keep it to yourself. Or talk to your clergy about your views. You only look like an idiot to everyone else. Of course you know that, because why else would you be afraid to attach your name to your views, COWARD!

    And leave me, my family, and the memories of my murdered sister Sue out of it. We’ve all suffered enough.

    (p.s. anonymous posts aren’t– they leave a trail. Consider adding to your list of misinformed views your belief that the internet is secure.)

  175. November 20, 2006 at 2:08 am

    Patrick, I am very sorry about the loss of your sister and the trouble your family has had. Your depiction of domestic violence is very accurate. Abused persons do often take the blame. Years of abuse can erode the self esteem to the point where they truly do feel that whatever they suffer, they deserved. And yes, sometimes they feel they cannot escape physically, so they try to escape through drugs or alcohol. And sometimes they do that at the urging of the abuser (they are easier to control that way).
    Pete will be going to trial. And at that time all the evidence will be seen and heard. What is known at this point, would not be all that is known by police. That will come out at trial. Unfortunately, until then….some won’t believe no matter what they are told.

  176. Patrick said,

    November 20, 2006 at 2:52 am

    Thank you homesweethome. I know there are some of you on here, like foreversad, who were friends of both of them and are also suffering from this tragedy. And are in a lot of pain,like me and my family. I hope you can find peace. Sadly, in these circumstances, no one escapes…I constantly blame myself for not doing enough to get Sue away from Peter. For not being able to protect her. It was painful enough to see her bruises, black eyes…to hear her describe some of the beatings she endured.

    It’s torture, really. And to have the morons on here try to excuse or rationalize the violence is sickening. To do it anonymously only shows what patheic cowards they are. If you’re truly the friend to Peter you say you are, doesn’t he deserve living, breathing people to defend his honor?

    (by the way, Mr. Mustard, I never saw bruises on Peter. Heard him complain of broken ribs. How many emergency room visits did Peter make at the hands of my sister? How many times had he been raped by her? Was his anus ever torn due to a violent rape, as was hers on more than one occasion? Was rape part of the violence she bore upon Mr. Whyte– as he had upon her time and time again?

    Tell me Mr. Mustard, did you know that he would beat Sue during and after sex, that he would rape her anally so serverly she would bleed for days and require medical attention? Your a sick bastard Mr. Mustard, and part of the problem.)

    And it’s pathetic for me to even try and respond… to those of you who truly understand and know how Sue became the person she was, I grieve with you. To the Mr. Mustards of the world, keep talking…. your idiocy only serves to educate others.

    And for the record: there were no metabolites for cocaine in my sisters body. None. Check the autopsy report. Peter’s lawyers asked over and over about it at the hearing…probably because Peter claimed Sue was in some drug induced rage..which led some people to believe there was some finding of drugs in her system. There were none. Sue was drunk, not high.

  177. November 20, 2006 at 4:27 am

    Peter I hate to do this, knowing the circumstances you are under. But please, don’t attack other persons who may have commented. I know you are trying to protect your sister, and I know that you are trying to get them to listen. But making them angry, won’t make them listen.

  178. just passing by: said,

    November 20, 2006 at 5:22 am


    Thank you very much for all of your insight into this horrible, needless, tragedy. My heart goes out to you & all your family! I know the holidays is especially a hard time for families missing loved ones in any type of death.

    I agree100% with everything you said. I applaud you for posting & defending Sue. Your web site is extremely helpful in keeping everyone up to date on what is happening. Thank you very much for keeping us informed. I stated before people in St Croix Co are kept in the twilight zone for news.

    I’ll introduce myself to you & your family at the trial. Here my identity needs hidden. Home Sweet Home can give you my information. I feel I am in the minority here & thank you so much forjumping in. I have to play nice here & it is difficult at times!

    Sue was very lucky to have a brother & family who loved her so much. Keep up the good work, she had to of been VERY PROUD OF YOU!! The trial will be very difficult you & the family will be Sue’s voice & her story definately needs told.

  179. Justme said,

    November 20, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    When I was interviewed, the detective told me that you also were blogging under a at least one “blogname”. How hypocritical for you to berate all of us to choose not to use our real names. Yep Patrick,I don’t want to use my name. Only because some do not believe that I can have an opinion other than yours, and yours alike. I do not need people to come up to me and harass me of my opinions. Somerset is still a pretty small town. This entire case will one day be swept under the rug and the fanaticals will not forget that I spoke out on Petes behalf not Sues. I do not want the headache. Please stop being verbally abusive/insultive towards all of us who state our opinions which are other than yours. If it is difficult for you at this time to accept that there are many opinions other than yours please stop reading this blog. Im thankful that homesweethome is letting have a place to communicate. And Patrick, most that you wrote in #174 & #176 I will ignore and consider “hearsay”. For I also could concoct (im NOT saying that it all was)all sorts of info how “Sue was so horrible” on Petes behalf . But I wont choose that route. As Ive said b/4 I just want to wait for the trial and when I a hear the admissible facts come out I will make my decision. IF it is found that
    he is guilty of all he is charged with, then he should go to prison.

  180. just the facts please said,

    November 20, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Thank you Patrick for reinforcing my opinion that the media is being tainted and biased to insure a fair trial is not given to peter.

    Keep in mind i have tried only to state the facts from what legal documents i can find or information i hear in person such as the the preliminary hearing. which i happen to have on audio tape.

    Also keep in mind that my annonymity is only to keep from being harrased by others directly to my email, this has happened in the past on different blogs. i have never posted on your site out of respect. and when i have posted on other sites i have requested that opinions be kept out of them and that just the facts be stated. as for the criminality of annonimity thats a new one to me, i dont think you can state i am slandering anyone, i have just stated facts. unlike your statements which could be contituted as slander ecause they are hearsay unless you have evidence to back them.

    You are an excellent news producer, you have lots of contacts in your industry, and you do know how to manipulate the media and strategically pick the time when information is released. You also are very good at deciding what will get the most ratings or viewer attention.
    These posts being a perfect example due to the fact that a news segment is being advertised and shown about you sisters incident tonight on local television.
    Just a question will this get on national tv also? I will watch to see just how factual this report is.

    So lets go over some facts,and let others decide for themselves.
    1) News of the incident was “leaked” to all the major news stations within an hour of you being notified of the incident.
    2) You were finally requested to quit talking to the press by the investigating officer out of concern that the case and evidence would be damaged. This i was told directly by this officer during my own interview about the incident. and from talking to others that were interviewed, they had they same comments made to them.
    3) As stated in the prelinary hearing, there is an “x” marked in the yes box next to the statement about testing positive for metabolites. It was stated there was no cocaine found in her system but the report did state metabolites for substances simular to, or the same as cocaine were found. This was discussed by the lawyer with the examiner. Please feel free to check the stenographers transcript.
    4) It could not be determined what the fatal wound to susan was, and that no defensive wounds were found on susan from a knife. it has been stated in the media that she was “stabbed” for the total of the number of wounds she incured which is not true, as stated by the examiner. some of the wounds could not be determined as to how they were caused.
    5) No evidence was presented about peters injurys or the severity of them. Both officers stated that he was sitting in the chair with his intestines protruding out, and that they did not notice the chest injuries do to the amount of blood all over him.

    Patrick, I also knew both of them only for a short time before the incident, but I saw a very different side of them than what has been portrayed. I did not have the the years of interaction with them that some have had. But I have seen both the good and the bad of them interacting, and so have some others.

    I have tried to be unbiased in this but it is getting very tough to be such when facts are twisted or the media manipulated as it appears to have been.
    I do not dispute that peter killed susan, never have, never will. I only ask that the facts are reviewed and that the media is kept out of this. Everytime i see the media pulled into this i will step up again and try to keep it to the facts.

    I know this is not what people want to hear, but please let the justice system do its job fairly and unbiased. that would be the only true justice for sue.

  181. Mister Mustard said,

    November 20, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    >>Your a sick bastard Mr. Mustard

    I guess we have somewhat of a double standard here. Had I called YOU a sick bastard, I doubt that my post would have ever seen the light of day.

    And as to how “anonymous” we “think [we] are”, is that some sort of threat? Hmmm?

    Regarding the cocaine metabolites (and the .310 blood alcohol content), I’m simply repeating what was reported as having been stated in court testimony. I was not in court, so I only have the publishe information to go on. I imagine that all of this information will be made public during the trial, during direct and cross-examination.

    My only point during this entire debacle as been that we should wait to see what comes out in court, under oath, as to who did what to whom, when. Unsubstantiated bog postings aren’t worth the keyboard strokes they’re written with, when it comes to finding out the truth.

  182. Justme said,

    November 20, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    On behalf of all the people I know that back Pete but do not make
    comments here at homesweethome for whatever reasons: Thankyou “Just the facts please” & “Mister Mustard” . Your comments are extremely well put!

  183. Mister Mustard said,

    March 20, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    Well, it looks like it was all for naught. Vengeance and retribution had their way. Happy Easter.

%d bloggers like this: