CHRISTIE BRINKLEY’S horny hubby had a secret career – which he practiced long before he learned to live off rich and trusting women.
Peter Cook, then a male model, dealt cocaine in the 1980s.
And he didn’t just once unwittingly deliver “a package” with coke, as he’d told her, Christie testified crisply on Day Four of their uproarious divorce trial.
It was another day of stink bombs hurled at Cook’s thinning hair. Even the court-appointed shrink gave him the faintest praise.
“There is no evidence he is a pedophile,” testified Dr. Stephen Herman. It was the nicest thing anyone said about him all day.
I’m starting to wonder if Peter Cook – who makes Bill Clinton look like a well-grounded human – secretly enjoys his public spankings.
There is just no logical way to explain the case of voluntary whoop-ass that has overtaken the case.
Yesterday was supposed to be Cook’s turn to show that Christie is a rage-aholic who turned the kids against him.
Instead, here’s what Christie’s lawyer Howard Roy read from the shrink’s report: “Mr. Cook is characterologically a narcissist. He needs constant reassurance that he is a terrific guy, handsome, accomplished, etc. Where most people need some feeding with their egos, Mr. Cook has an insatiable appetite.”
Roy asked, “No matter how much feeding it gets, it needs more?”
“Yes,” Dr. Herman replied.
The lawyer asked if Cook might masturbate again one day for strangers on the Internet, “There is that chance,” warned the doc.
He did recommend that Christie get therapy for her addiction to pathologically awful men. Even so, “Christie Brinkley has the capacity to place the needs of the children before her own.”
But not Peter. And that’s when I remembered – this case is not about the prissy and perverted Cook, nor is it about Christie.
It’s about two kids. The shrink said she should have them, and Peter should visit, as he does now. So why are we here?
Cook wants a fat share of the properties Christie purchased.
He doesn’t deserve his kids.
He doesn’t deserve a dime.