'Tell Everyone we want to Bring Stacy Home For Christmas'

by Susan Murphy-Milano

About two months before the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, wife of former Bolingrook, Illinois, Police Sergeant, Drew Peterson, Stacy met with Pastor Neil Schori and had a conversation that likely will play out for the world when Pastor Schori testifies at Kathleen Savio’s murder trial sometime next year. Kathleen Savio, Drew’s third wife, as you remember, was found dead in a dry bathtub and probably would never have been heard from again had Stacy not gone missing. Drew Peterson is now on trial for her murder.

What is interesting is not so much the meeting in August 2007 with Pastor Schori, but when Stacy left to go home, Pastor Schori’s private line rang and on the other end was Drew Peterson. He called just to say hello and said he would call back to meet with the pastor at a later date in the near future. What Drew Peterson was really doing was saying, “Look, buddy, I know you just met with my wife, and I want you to know that I know,” therefore placing the pastor on notice that he, too, was being watched.

It was then, when Stacy Peterson returned home, that she was likely questioned by Drew as to why she met with him and what was said. Stacy likely did not flinch when he interrogated her, and although she sensed an impending danger, a smell change, as I call it, temporarily she disarmed him. She begins formulating a plan to end the marriage, feeling secure enough that her officer husband would not harm one hair on her head as it would sound the alarm connecting him to Kathleen’s murder should anything happen to her.

From the time the call was placed by Peterson to the pastor, he begins to show us his pattern of conduct leading up to, in my opinion, the murder of Stacy Peterson. The only way he would know for certain if Stacy was at the church that day is because he was stalking her. In the circus-like atmosphere the moment Stacy Peterson was reported missing, the focus was on finding her. No one ever remotely considered or looked at Drew Peterson’s pattern of conduct prior to October 28, 2007.

The documented patterns of his behavior go as far back to when he was married to Kathleen Savio, found dead in the former marital home in March 2004, and earlier, as letters and police reports written during their marriage document abuse toward her.

Peterson’s pattern of conduct is then served on a golden platter by the national media. His words during interviews are from a man who believes he has gotten away with murder, a second time. He tells us all, at the early stages of his new found celebrity in the fall of 2007, “she is where she wants to be.” No, what Peterson is telling us is that Stacy knew better and yet defied him anyway. For that he made her pay with her life. He is telling the world this was her choice.

Peterson’s actions reach back to the crime scene in 2004 of Kathleen Savio. He was familiar with his former wife’s schedule and comfortable enough with the layout of his former home to carry out a murder. In my opinion, it was the perfect crime to stage in the upstairs bathroom on a weekend when he had visitation with the kids; they were not in the house. Stacy, and who else was there? Did his oldest son, Steven, on Saturday, February 28, happen to stop by that weekend to enjoy a warm, fuzzy family night of pizza and movie? Did he have an alibi for that night?

Once fellow officers responded to the 911 call to the home of Kathleen Savio, did any of them wonder why Peterson didn’t just radio the station? He was still on duty and in uniform. How many of the officers responding to the call answered to Peterson because he was their supervisor? Drew Peterson’s pattern of conduct is important during the murder investigation. The crime scene is his stage at which he shines in being the master at manipulation and deception among those he works with everyday, fighting crime. Peterson gets away with the crime and moves forward with his life.

We don’t know Peterson’s pattern of conduct in the days leading up to Stacy’s disappearance and alleged murder. We do know that Stacy had confided in a neighbor about Drew moving out of the home. She set up an appointment with Harry Smith for a divorce consultation. She made a statement to her sister, considered hearsay, “if something happens to me it’s no accident;” the words Kathleen would write when she petitioned the court for an order of protection.

Peterson’s pattern of conduct and actions are important as it relates to Stacy Peterson. She can be placed in the marital home the morning she disappeared, so we know she and Peterson were in that house. From Sunday morning until the following day, there is a window of opportunity for Peterson, and when the coast is clear, in my opinion, he takes her out of the house. How far is he really going to drive? Does he go to one of two camp grounds with which he is familiar within an hour’s drive of the house? There are not a lot of traffic lights out that way so the route would likely be an easy drive. What about near his childhood home? Wherever he drove that night it was a safe and familiar area, known only to Peterson, a place he could go and not raise any suspicion, no different than when he murdered Kathleen in a home he once lived in.

Now, with another holiday season, the fourth to be exact, Stacy Peterson is still missing. She is missing from her children’s lives and the family and friends who continue to pray that she will be found and brought home.

Yesterday, I spoke with those whom knew and loved Stacy. In the background of my mind, I could hear The Grinch Who Stole Christmas playing. They proceeded to tell me, “No one man, including the Grinch, can destroy the hope and love that everyone has for those children! What Christmas does, it brings hope to those in need that no man, not even Drew, can put out.”

They went on to say, “The Grinch at least saw the errors of his ways. Even the Grinch has something on Drew and that is sad.”

"Holding on to hope, the light burns ever brighter that leads us to the truth and to Stacy because it is powered by prayer, love and the hope that Christmas brings.”

“Tell everyone we want to Bring Stacy Home for Christmas!”

On Monday, December 20, at 10 p.m. EST, A&E Biography is presenting a show about Drew Peterson. I was interviewed extensively, speaking out from my own point of view on the man I’ve come to know through many sources. My only wish is that I spoke in truth, and for the two wives of Drew Peterson who can no longer speak for themselves.

Tweet

Drew Peterson: From Cathouse to the Big House?

by Pat Brown

I can't think of more than a handful of people (seriously deluded ones) who wouldn't like to see the smirk wiped off of Drew Peterson's face. Surely some folks cheered in front of their television sets when they learned "I'm So Sexy" Peterson lost his opportunity to be a star of "Cathouse," the HBO reality brothel show filmed at the Nevada brothel known as the "Moonlight Bunny Ranch." Cops showed up at near Peterson's home today, stopped his vehicle, and carted Drew off to the much less entertaining venue known as jail.

"Nobody Actually Thinks You're Sexy" Peterson will be cavorting with lifers instead of hookers if the prosecution succeeds in convicting him of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, the wife who was found dead in the bathtub (not the wife who went missing in 2007 . . . or the one who had her car brakes tampered with . . . or the one who says he wasn't really that bad a character when she was married to him).

I hope Drew Peterson gets what's coming to him. I think he is guilty as heck of making Stacy Peterson, Wife Number Four disappear. I think he is likely guilty as heck of the bathtub death of Wife Number Three. But, I also hope he does not get convicted without solid evidence even if I think he deserves a bum deal.

Why am I so concerned about what happens to a creep like Drew Peterson? I will tell you. The law is supposed to be impartial, the jury is supposed to be impartial, and if we allow the courts to convict people simply because the jury (and the community) doesn't like the defendant, then we are allowing our justice system to become a mockery.

Most "wrongful conviction" news in recent years has involved the Innocence Project, a group that is more interested in getting rid of the Death Penalty than getting innocent folk out of jail. This is why they don't bother with lifers. They also focus strictly on DNA evidence and, regardless of an often overwhelming pile of evidence proving guilt of the convicted felon, they work to get the killer freed on some DNA screw-up, technicality or irrelevant point (like the semen belonged to the victim's last date before the killer broke in and murdered her, or the semen belonged his partner-in-crime who was never identified). I don't see them taking up cases where the convicted man got life for being unlikeable.

Michael Skakel was one of those unlucky schmucks. Sure, he did masturbate in trees as a teenager and he was an arrogant member of the Kennedy clan and he had a big mouth he should have kept closed. Maybe he should have shut up, but he shouldn't have been convicted of killing Greenwich, Connecticut teenager Martha Moxley decades ago (1975) on less evidence than connected original suspect Ken Littleton to the crime. Littleton, a pretty creepy character who failed the polygraph test more than once, continued living with the Skakel brothers even though he had to "know" one of them committed the crime. But, no matter—Skakel was a Kennedy and Mark Fuhrman made him the villain, and the jury decided Skakel was creepier than Littleton. Guilty.

And what about Paul Dubois who supposedly gunned down Linda Silva in Cape Cod in 1996? He got convicted because his ex-girlfriend said she once saw a gun of Paul's that could have been the gun used in the murder and she wrote down the serial number on some toilet paper. Dubois may be a shady character that the community won't miss but if he didn't kill Silva, someone else did.

In Tennessee in 2003, James David Johnson got convicted of killing 73-year-old Florence Jean Hall in her garage purely on his confession. It didn't seem to matter to the jury (or maybe the prosecution withheld the information) that not one bit of physical evidence existed in the case. Although Johnson supposedly killed Mrs. Hall late in the afternoon, the woman had gone missing early in the morning, never showed up for any of her appointments and she never came home for lunch as she routinely did. The family apparently didn't feel the need to call and see if Mom was dead in a ditch (or dying on the floor of the garage since morning). Sure, Johnson is no stranger to crime, but if he didn't commit this one, someone else should be sitting in his place.

Which brings me back to Drew Peterson, no nominee for Boy Scout of the Month. In the case of Kathleen Savio, I tend to believe if a jury does convict Peterson without anything more than innuendo and some curious circumstantial evidence, they have the right man. But setting a trend of convicting people for being unlikeable rather than convicting them on sufficient evidence is not a good thing; an innocent (at least of that crime) guy goes to prison and the guilty party remains on the street to kill again.

I am waiting to find out what the probable cause was to arrest Drew Peterson. Something has to link Peterson to the Savio's home that night and to a violent assault on her. I doubt physical evidence exists so we can eliminate that. This leaves witnesses and/or confession.

Just in time to benefit the Will County prosecutors, Illinois amended the hearsay law, which will now allow the "testimony" of a dead person into court. This means the letter Savio left stating Drew might kill her could be allowed into court. I don't have a problem with a statement of any deceased person being brought into court if it is written in her handwriting, tape recorded, or authenticated by enough credible witnesses.

But, I do have a problem with such a statement being proof that Peterson killed her. Just because someone says another person is out to get them doesn't mean that this was the person who showed up and did the deed. It could be a new boyfriend (maybe Savio has bad taste in men), it could be a serial killer, or maybe a burglary gone bad. It could even be possible that Peterson entered Savio's home that evening with a machete in his hand, ready to lop off her head but found, Happy Day, that someone had beat him to the punch.

So, now I am only left with confession. A pastor said that Wife Number Four, Stacy Peterson, confided that Drew admitted killing Kathleen. Is this the telephone game? Is this good enough to convict Peterson without solid supporting evidence? Not in my opinion. To me, the only evidence that should convict Peterson and the only evidence I think would be good enough for probable cause to even arrest this sorry-excuse-for-a-man would be Drew's own words. I hope someone, sometime, somewhere, was wearing a wire and Drew bragged that he killed Kathleen and got away with it. I hope.

Over the next several days, we ought to have a little light shed on what probable cause the police had to bring Peterson in. I am keeping my fingers crossed they have something more than a good theory. A good theory alone may result in a conviction, but if juries keep convicting without evidence (and sometimes oddly refusing to convict in spite of overwhelming evidence), our court system will become nothing more than a popularity contest. This scares me more than Drew Peterson getting away with murder.

While I have never been fond of this saying: "It is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted" (doesn't that mean the ten guilty men go on to kill fifty more people and therefore we murdered fifty to save one?), I do object to the concept of allowing the guilty man the freedom to kill yet more people because we put the wrong guy away.

Worse yet, I would hate to see Drew Peterson laughing at us as he walks back out of jail a free man.

Tweet

Drew Peterson's Body Language During Verdict, and Sociopathic Seduction of Women

by Dr. Lillian Glass

When we look back at the trial of serial killer  who received the death sentence, Ted Bundy, it was reported that he showed no emotion.

When we look back at the reaction of Scott Peterson who was convicted to death for killing his wife and unborn baby, we all witness that he had a mask like facial expression and showed no emotion. Now we have seen the same thing with Drew Peterson. As soon as the "guilty" verdict of was read for killing his third wife Kathleen Savio, Drew Peterson showed no emotion.

That lack of emotion is typical of a sociopath’s reaction when found guilty. They detach and tune out as though the situation had nothing to do with them. They may even joke and make light of their situation. Peterson was overheard saying, after hearing the verdict,  “I guess that ruins my Christmas.”

His joke clearly reflects that he feels no remorse for what he did.

Peterson  will be spending the rest of his natural life behind bars where like most sociopaths will insist he did nothing wrong and how it was everyone else’s fault he is in prison. This sociopath will be where he deserves to be so he can no longer seduce, marry,  and harm women who fall prey to him.

He fancies himself  as being irresistible to women. Like many sociopaths, his seductive personality  lured them in. The fact that he was a policeman and considered to be on the right side of the law, initially  made many women feel safe and secure. But once he got  them into his clutches, it was a different story.He became controlling and  abusive.

Thank goodness 24-year-old Christina Raines' father put an end to her engagement with Peterson a few years ago. Her father told the media that Peterson tried to control his daughter and use her to watch his kids.

The young woman’s father was her savior; he went to Peterson’s home with police in tow to collect his daughter, escorting them to and from he home with police units. Peterson, who was  more than twice the young woman’s age, blamed her father and the press for the breakup. In typical sociopath form, Peterson said, "This is what the media always does to me. As soon as the story got out on Chrissy, I knew it would be a problem for us.“

If you listen close enough to what a sociopath says, they often reveal themselves as  Peterson did in his "Nightline" interview years back when  Peterson said, after he was asked about Christina Raines’ family, “I’d be wary of me too.” He also  admitted  when the romance is gone in his relationships he tends to have flings and move on.

Thankfully, his comments sparked a fight between the couple, and Christina Raines returned the engagement ring and a cell phone.

Christina Raines, 24, is still alive. It's unlucky that Stacey Peterson, who is still missing,  was just 17 when the affair began while he was still married to Kathleen Savio. Kathleen was 10 years his junior when he married her. Most of the women he married or went after were  young and petite. These were women  Peterson  felt he had some control over.

I had the opportunity to  briefly see Peterson when I was at CNN. Peterson was there to do the Larry King show and was in the makeup room, where,  according to the makeup artist, he  hit on her. She told me that he stared directly into her eyes and didn't break the gaze as she applied his makeup.

Perhaps Peterson  wanted to see if he could control this curly haired, glasses-wearing,  pierced, short-statured woman with colorful and strange tattoos all over her arms, chest and neck. The eye stare was no doubt  his test to see if he could assert control over  this different-looking woman. Most likely, Peterson has played this staring game with many other women. Those who blinked, turned away, or women he sensed were intimidated  by his stare were the ones, if circumstances allowed, he probably took to the next level of seduction.

Even though Peterson will live out his years behind bars, don’t be surprised if you hear that he has landed another relationship. Unfortunately, there are emotionally disturbed women out there who are attracted to men behind bars and who feel empowered by defending them.  They have the illusion  the criminal  would never do any harm to them because they are special and they have control over the situation, which is only true  when the perpetrator is behind bars.

Little do they realize that sociopaths like Peterson will still be in control as he plays mind games with them in an engaging way with manipulation and emotional abuse, which is  typical of a sociopath like Drew Peterson.

Tweet

Drew Peterson: "Practicing Perfection"

by Susan Murphy Milano

Since May 2009, former Bolingbrook, Illinois, police Sgt. Drew Peterson has been locked up behind bars. His trial for the alleged murder of Kathleen Savio, wife number three, begins on July 8. Savio was found drowned in a dry bathtub on March 1, 2004.

In my opinion, the preparation and planning for Kathleen’s murder began long before her lifeless body was discovered. Her spirit and soul had been assaulted and her life threatened almost daily by a man hell-bent on power and control. Although there were numerous incidents of violence and calls for help to the house before July 2002, those documents have all but vanished. There is a hospital record that dates back to May 1993, but not much else exists.

It is no surprise. Peterson was the supervisor in charge of the guys patrolling the streets, answering only to him. So when Kathleen called Bolingbrook police for help, officers responded by arresting her -- on May 3, 2002, for domestic battery and disorderly conduct, and again on May 26, 2002, alleging Kathleen punched Stacy (later to become wife number four and then disappear).

During the months leading up to the discovery of Kathleen's corpse, officers routinely sat in their squad cars in front of her house, drinking coffee -- the ultimate 'screw you' for thousands of police officers' wives whose cries for help fall on deaf ears.

In March 2002, Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio (right) filed for divorce. On March 11, 2002, Kathleen secured a temporary emergency order of protection. In an unusual move before the divorce was finalized, Kathleen also signed a power of attorney so Drew could buy a home just down the street with his then-underage new love interest. Victims of violence always wish their aggressive, abusive partners would move on to someone else. Kathleen’s strategy was brilliant. She got out of her own way; however humiliating at the time, she disarmed Peterson by waiving her rights to the property as a marital asset. Kathleen knew firsthand the danger she faced from Drew, a police officer and abusive husband, if she refused to sign the document. She signed it only out of pure fear.

When all her attempts failed to get help from the police -- those whose place is to serve and protect -- Kathleen Savio wrote letters to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale documenting Peterson’s alleged abuse. They included claims that in July 2002, Peterson held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her. But Savio was only further victimized when the state attorney’s office dropped the ball. The Illinois stalking law, which I was instrumental in seeing enacted, was already in full force and should have been used in Kathleen's case. Prosecutors should have filed separate felony stalking charges for threatening phone calls from Peterson and for each time he stalked her. They didn't -- not even when the court issued the emergency order of protection against him.

Sending the letters was a courageous move not only by a victim but by a police officer's wife. These letters, written and signed by Kathleen, would not see the light of day until a parade of media swarmed down on the home at Pheasant Chase Drive after news broke that Stacy Peterson, his fourth wife, had vanished.

There was Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman, in the chaos of a potential crime scene, across the street behind the yellow crime tape, tightly holding a briefcase of letters and important documents, trying to hand them over to someone who would finally listen. Kathleen’s family knew that her death was no accident. They believed Drew Peterson murdered her.

Steph Watts, the then-Fox news producer for Greta Van Susteren, met with Doman, and she handed him the briefcase.

The contents in the briefcase documented the abuse from the grave. Stacy Peterson was now missing. This would be enough for State’s Attorney James Glasgow to obtain a judge’s order and exhume Kathleen Savio’s body four years after the coroner ruled her death an accident.

In my opinion, this was Peterson’s first mistake, believing that there was no need to have Kathleen’s remains cremated. His practice run at murder was successful. Believing in a false sense of his own invincibility, Peterson perfected his techniques on his next victim, wife number four, Stacy Peterson.

Tweet

Silenced

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Two years ago today, 23-year-old Stacy Ann Peterson vanished from the house in the Illinois suburb of Bolingbrook that she shared with her police-officer husband Drew Peterson, her two children and his two sons, whom she'd adopted.

After several months of being stalked and living under her husband's tight, controlling reins, Stacy Peterson told her husband the marriage was over. In October 2007, Stacy met and consulted with divorce attorney Harry Smith -- ironically, the same lawyer Kathleen Savio hired to represent her when she decided to divorce Peterson.

When Stacy failed to show up at her brother's house that late-October day, family members were concerned, especially her sister Cassandra Cales. Just two days earlier, after a cozy family night of movie and pizza, Stacy warned Cassandra that she planned to leave Peterson and said: "If something happens to me, I just want you to know it was Drew." When Cassandra couldn't reach her missing sister, she went to Stacy's house and found the four children home alone, with no sign of Peterson's car. At the Bolingbrook Police Department, Cassandra filed a missing-person report.

Within 48 hours, camera crews and journalists besieged the once quiet suburban cul-de-sac. Peterson, then a police sergeant, gave them a show -- a bizarre public display including personal attacks on his wife and her family in the wake of her disappearance. The national media covered Peterson's act like a low-life reality TV show. Each day as Peterson left his house, journalists shoved microphones in his face, hungry for a sound bite for evening crime or news broadcasts. If you were a resident of Illinois during the first three weeks after Stacy vanished, you saw Peterson served up on local, cable and radio programs like a charred chicken flapping its wings almost around the clock.

To me, it seemed Peterson treated Stacy's life like a dirty rag. In his attempts to discredit her, Peterson made comments such as "You know she came from a broken home," or, "Her mother went missing too, so this is not a surprise." Then I heard Peterson say, "Stacy is where she wants to be." My heart sank as I thought of the boys who'd now lost a mother twice.

Seventeen days after Cassandra reported Stacy's disappearance, the Will County State Attorney's Office obtained a court order and exhumed the body of Kathleen Savio. Savio, Peterson's previous wife, was discovered dead in a bathtub in the marital house in 2004. Suddenly, the media and police focus swung from Stacy's disappearance to a new autopsy into the cause of Kathleen's death. The effort to find Stacy lost its momentum. The ground began to freeze, making the search more difficult for family and teams of volunteers. And the media remained hooked on Drew's public displays and his love life, leaving no time to find answers or enlist the public's help in finding Stacy.

In the months that followed, I met with people who knew Stacy personally. From the moment she married Drew, Stacy worked to knit a loving family environment, integrating Drew's then-estranged family into the couple's new life. From all accounts, she had a kind, warm and giving heart. People's eyes sparkled when they spoke of her. She made friends and family feel welcome. When a guest didn't show up for a gathering, Stacy called urged, "Come on," one relative recalled. "We're holding dinner, where are you? We're not starting until you get here."

Another told me: "Stacy was the glue, and that's why her disappearance is so painful to those of us who knew her."

Stacy Peterson's dream was to be a loving wife and mother, an all-around nurturer. She enrolled in nursing classes at a local college. When Stacy could no longer live under Peterson's heavy-handed control and constant watch, she made plans to leave. But like many women in her position, she made a mistake. She told her husband what she planned before she moved to a place where she'd be safe from him.

Stacy was silenced in the prime of her life. But there can be no silencing of family and friends who will continue to search for her until she is found. A grand jury met for 18 months before handing down an indictment against Drew Peterson for the death of Kathleen Savio.

I believe when that trial begins, the long silence about how Kathleen Savio lost her life will be lifted and the truth about how Stacy died will also be revealed. During the trial, thanks to Illinois' new hearsay law, Stacy Peterson's words will finally be heard.

Tweet

Octomom Donor Reveals Paternity Results Exclusively to Women in Crime Ink!

by Stacy Dittrich

Women in Crime Ink has breaking news. And when I say breaking—I mean earth-shattering. In all of my years in law enforcement, I have reached a point in life where there is very little that will shock me. I strongly urge you to not eat, put down your drink, and sit down before reading this post for fear of vomiting or loss of consciousness.

From a letter written exclusively to Women in Crime Ink, we have learned the paternity of “Octomom’s” (pictured above) babies. Of course, it took several days of numerous phone calls, faxes, and interviews to verify the information, but here it is, folks.

In what seems to be the epitome of the strange and unexplained, disgraced former police sergeant Drew Peterson has come forward to claim paternity of famed “Octomom” Nadya Suleman’s newborns. What’s even more startling is Suleman is backing this claim. The latest merger of the two high-profile, yet sub-par, celebrities will have even the likes of Geraldo Rivera shaking his head in disbelief.

Suleman, 33, through her now third publicist, Lilly Ramira-Bambatista, has issued the following statement, exclusively, to Women in Crime Ink:

"Although I forever promised the biological father of my eight miracles that I would never release his identity, we have come to a mutual agreement—given the mayhem that has surrounded my babies, that maybe its (sic) best if he were known. As hard as this is going to be to believe, Drew Peterson was the sperm donor, and is the father, of my angels. He simply felt that the press was becoming entirely too negative about myself and the children, and felt his known identity would provide some relief."

Clearly the claim was not to be believed via the mainstream press until Suleman’s own doctor produced the results of a secret paternity test that was taken last Wednesday, March 22nd in San Diego, CA. The results of the test are clear: Drew Peterson (pictured right) is 99.9% the biological father of all eight children. In an era where one thought that news couldn’t possibly get any more bizarre, the story of how Suleman and Peterson allegedly met rises to the top of the ladder.

According to Suleman, the disgraced duo first met in February 2008, through an on-line dating site. By her own admission, she sought out Peterson after his search for a fifth wife was made public—including his e-mail address.

Following various exchanges (numerous messages in which Peterson claimed that actress and serial mom Angelina Jolie was the most beautiful woman on earth), the two agreed to meet for dinner. It was several weeks later that Peterson flew to California, obviously under the scope of the media radar, and the two began a short-term affair. With constant pressure from Suleman, it was Peterson who funded the several plastic surgeries performed in an attempt to forge a resemblance to Angelina Jolie (after she’d gone through a garbage disposal).

According to Peterson, via his attorney, Joel Brodsky, Suleman exhibited extreme signs of mental instability during their brief time together and that it was actually Peterson who broke it off. Hold on. . . .

. . . I’m sorry, I had to pick myself off of the floor after falling over.

The version of how Peterson decided to donate the sperm to Suleman is up for interpretation. According to Brodsky, at the beginning of the creepy couple’s relationship, Suleman frequently spoke of having more children through in vitro fertilization and Peterson simply felt bad for her. At the end, as she was clearly unraveling, he felt that if he donated his sperm she would leave him alone. However, Suleman’s camp is telling a very different story. Her publicist claims that it was Peterson (pictured left leaving an adult video store with Suleman in May 2008), not Suleman, who propositioned the young mother to get pregnant.

Suleman was very knowledgeable about the procedure which in turn produced dollar signs in Peterson’s eyes. It was his idea to be the donor, and keep fingers crossed in the hopes the fertilization would produce, at least, six babies. Peterson, a self-proclaimed fan of the reality show “Jon and Kate plus 8,” and in dire straits financially, felt that Hollywood producers would pay millions for a reality show following a single mother of 12 to 14 kids. Suleman agreed, and the deal was that Peterson would remain anonymous and obtain a percentage of proceeds from promotions, television, and book deals. It was only after the recent media frenzy that Peterson decided to come forward.

My guess is the million-dollar porn deal was just too tempting. Perfect timing as the grand jury is wrapping up their session to determine whether Peterson is responsible for the deaths of two wives. Only a mind like Peterson’s would believe that his having 12 children would sway a judge or jury to spare him. (Go ahead and vomit here.)

When I contacted Joel Brodsky for a statement from Peterson regarding this post, he replied almost immediately:

"I have always been, and always will be, family oriented. I have never been one to shy away from my responsibilities as a father and a husband. . . .” cough-cough "Contrary to some of the rumors going around about my reasons for becoming the donor for Nadya, I simply did it to help a young woman bring new life into the world. For those that are printing and believing those nasty rumors, all of you are as much a fool as the ones who believe this post written by Stacy Dittrich."

Don't be fooled on this April 1st 2009.

Tweet

Drew Peterson: A View From Two Perspectives

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Part 2: "The Violence Expert's Perspective" (Read Part 1: "The Prosecutor's Perspective," here.)

Twenty years as a violence expert was never an intended career choice. It did not evolve from sitting behind a desk, researching the subject, blogging or reading journals from a crime periodical. It was harvested like a crop in the fields. Like adding another candle on a birthday cake every year, the violence escalated in my home and the screams for help turned into an important lesson in survival.

My own Mother died on my watch, so to speak. After years of violence by my father, a Chicago police detective, they finally divorced. Within 6 months of my mother’s false belief she was safe, I discovered her dead body in the kitchen of the former marital home she and my father once shared.

Similar to Drew Peterson and other perpetrators of violence in the home, my father was not going to allow my mother to benefit in any way from the divorce. This included her own personal freedom which he owned like the title to a car, until the day she died.

We have not heard much about Kathleen Savio other than she died of an accidental drowning in a bathtub. Her body exhumed 4 years later only because Stacy Peterson had vanished after a botched investigation.

In 1992, Kathleen Savio was an accountant in her late twenties when a mutual acquaintance who happened to be a police officer’s wife set up a blind date for her to meet Drew Peterson. Friends and family members recall how happy Kathleen was with Drew. A few short months after the couple began dating Drew popped the question. Kathleen felt safe and secure knowing she was marrying a man who made her feel safe and secure. Shortly after the couple’s second child was born, the marriage began to crumble. Drew was beginning to shout the national anthem, a theme used among most abusers maintaining power and control. “Bitch,”, you “whore.” "You look like a dog." You f..king slob.” When that did not have the affect Drew was looking for, with his open hand he punched and slapped her as evidenced by medical reports and photo’s taken after a violent outburst.

Similar to other abusers Peterson began setting the stage with his fellow officers in his department, and later on, under his command. Carefully strategizing how “crazy” Kathleen had become in an effort to minimize police response just in case she called and tried to report him for threatening and physically harming her. Obviously his plan worked because when officers from the Bolingbrook police department responded to the 19 documented calls and another 78 calls magically removed from the police log as responding officers did nothing more than as if someone was trying to "band aid a boo boo.” This case is just one example of the clear reluctance on the part of responding officers to use their police powers in the homes of fellow officers. The hesitation to deal professionally with this crime in my opinion increased the danger to Kathleen’s life. Looking the other way enabled Drew Peterson to increase his threats and violence to his then wife.

Once the couple filed for divorce, Drew continued his threats of violence and terrorism. Kathleen took out an order protection and was pressured into dropping it. And she did write in her own words on more than one occasion that Drew had “threatened to kill her.” He was furious at the thought of splitting his hard earned assets with Kathleen. This included the bar jointly owned in Montgomery, IL, sold for $325,000 and the martial residence sold at $287,000, half of his pension and shelling out monthly child support payments for his children.

Peterson had a history of abuse from undocumented allegations from Vicki Connely, wife #2 to a serious relationship with a girlfriend who claimed Peterson was stalking her. It is a fact, many officer related cases where violence erupts during the marriage dies with the victim similar to Kathleeen Savio.

Drew Peterson’s motive in 2004 for murder fell on deaf ears after the coroner’s inquest ruled “accidental death,” silencing, Savio’s family members from providing information or ever speaking out. Or the facts of the bogus hand written Will emerging after this healthy mother of 2 “accidently” drowned in a tub she never used when she was alive.

Silence behind the blue wall is also a common theme across the country. Back in 1989, had I not been spared by fate or divine intervention, I too, would have been killed that night. In working to solve cases where a woman has been murdered by an ex-lover or husband each case has characteristics specific to the relationship and the alleged crime. In creating a detailed work- up on a case, often I am able to pin point a direction not considered by police or a Prosecuting attorney to determine motive. And not every case has intent or motive. Each time a woman is murdered I do not assume anything about anyone until information and documents are provided to me. Sometimes relatives or police ask me to review a file on a missing person or murder case and I do not always have the answers.

I take what I do very seriously and it has saved many lives. My training and expertise began with a teacher with whom I studied under and feared for many years. As a seasoned veteran Chicago police detective, my father had two professional career’s one as Police detective, the other as a serial abuser.

Over the years of studying and working these types of cases, I have been able to develop specific procedures that work well to take a woman safely from a violent situation and to help get her abuser behind bars. My success rate has been phenomenal.

Tweet

Drew Peterson: A View From Two Perspectives

by Robin Sax

Part 1: "The Prosecutor's Perspective"
(Tomorrow, The Violence Expert, Susan Murphy Milano, in Part 2)

What a great relief it was to all justice seekers to see that the grand jury finally handed down an indictment against Drew Peterson. You heard it here first; there is no way that this case will settle. Drew Peterson is probably one of the most narcissistic (self loving persons) out there. He will never take responsibility for the years of domestic abuse against all of his wives, the abuse of power by using his police knowledge and power to murder at least one and probably two of his wives, and the child abuse; for not only killing his children’s mother but also for subjecting his children to the lies and cover-up that have become the symbol of this case since the onset. Drew Peterson is incapable of accepting responsibility and a trial will give him the opportunity to do what he loves best—to be in front of a camera and to talk, talk, talk.

So, what are we likely to see as his defense? In the words of Joel Brodsky on the Today Show, “This is a weak, circumstantial case at best.” All I have to say is SO WHAT? Most cases are proved by circumstantial evidence.

In order to understand what a big nothing relying on circumstantial evidence is, you must attend my short class on evidence. So, welcome, here we go. Basically everything presented to a jury is considered evidence, except for the statements and questions from the lawyers. The testimony of fact witnesses and the opinions of expert witnesses are evidence. Documents are evidence. Physical objects, like murder weapons, are evidence. Tape recordings, police reports, and photos are all evidence. Just about everything submitted to the jury that proves or disproves the charges against the defendant is evidence. Before we take a look at the rule of evidence, for a good review of the state of the evidence in this case, I highly recommend taking a peak at the Justice Café Blog which has followed the key pieces of evidence, history, and key people in this of Drew Peterson.

Now back to our lesson. In law evidence that is not drawn from direct observation of a fact can be drawn from events or circumstances that surround it. If a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.

Circumstantial evidence is the bread and butter of criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about the defendant’s guilt in a criminal case, including the defendant’ statements to police, statements made publicly (i.e. statements made in a television interviews, press conferences, newspaper articles, etc.) inconsistencies of any above statements, the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the defendant’s presence at the time and place of the crime or at the discovery of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused, other prior bad acts including history of domestic violence, character evidence, etc. In addition, much scientific evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

There will be circumstantial evidence against him and Drew Peterson will try VERY hard to get jurors to buy into the theory (which books, movies, and television perpetuate) that somehow circumstantial evidence is not as good or may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is FLAT OUT WRONG. In most cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence” (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). In other words, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

And if you don’t believe me that circumstantial evidence is used all the time and brings about convictions, I direct you to some of the more newsworthy cases where convictions were based largely on circumstantial evidence: Scott Peterson, Timothy McVeigh, Phil Spector, Michael Skakel, David Westerfield – the list goes on.

Perhaps no one says it better than Norman Garland, professor of Law and author of several books including Criminal Law for the Law Enforcement Professional, “...Circumstantial evidence is nothing more than what we live by on a daily basis as a matter of common sense.” And my common sense says Drew Peterson is guilty as hell.

Tweet

Getting Away With Murder, Not Once, But Twice?

by Susan Murphy-Milano

The house located at 392 Pheasant Court, Bolingbrook, Illinois, became a cold case crime scene four years after a botched local "good old boys" police investigation.

The major screw-up also resulted in an incorrect autopsy report on a 2004 closed-case file.

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow asked the court for permission to exhume the body of its former resident, Kathleen Savio. On February 21, 2008, her death was reclassified as a homicide.

My God, if those walls could speak, what would they reveal? A wife, devoted mother of two boys, and nursing student, isolated from anyone who would answer her pleas for help—including the police department employing her husband, Sgt. Drew Peterson. And the Will County State’s Attorney to whom she repeatedly sought out assistance as evidenced by one of several letters sent to the Will County State’s Attorney’s office.

Kathleen’s life and fight for survival makes the game show contestants' battles on Survivor look like child’s play.

Consider for a moment the life of any woman married to a person trained to kill, a man who upon graduation from the police academy is issued a firearm and a badge to protect our streets from criminals. Imagine being the wife of a man who comes home after his shift and terrorizes his own family members. When the person harming her is himself in law enforcement . . . where is a woman in this position, enduring a daily battleground, going to go for help?

In my professional opinion, the answer to this question does not exist.

A police officer's wife must take extraordinary measures just to get the police to respond, and, if she’s lucky, to write a report. In Kathleen’s case, the Bolingbrook police documented going to the home 19 times out of a possible 90 or more undocumented calls where police did not write a report or arrest their watch commander Sgt. Drew Peterson.

If Stacy Peterson had not vanished off the face of the planet, the truth about Kathleen Savio’s death would have remained in the Closed Case file cabinet collecting dust. Speaking of case files, if Illinois State Police investigators reviewed one by one each of Drew Peterson's arrest and case files over his twenty-nine year law enforcement career, I am confident that they would no doubt uncover important information and clues in solving one or both of these cases.

The grand jury has been convening for more than a year on Wife #3, Kathleen Savio, and Wife #4, Stacy Peterson. This past week brought a victory of sorts, as the appellate court allowed the family of Kathleen Savio to re-open and gain control of the estate Drew Peterson was trying block.

While we continue to watch Drew Peterson draw attention to himself like a circus act in the media, remember, it cost two women their lives. Do I believe the body of Stacy Peterson will be recovered? In my opinion, no.

In the case of Kathleen Savio, I am holding my breath, hoping the State’s Attorney, James Glasgow is able to bring justice in a court of law for these women, their children, and their families.

Tweet

The State's Burden of Proof: 2 Cases 25 Years Apart

by Susan Murphy Milano

Robert Dianovsky maintained that his wife Peggy left their home voluntarily and took a bag of clothing with her when she vanished in September of 1982. Peggy Dianovsky left her yellow Chevrolet Nova behind and never picked up her last paycheck from her employer, Dominick's. Blood was found spattered at the top of the stairway in the Dianovsky home, but none of it was ever collected for analysis.

Robert took the boys and moved to Arizona sometime after 1982. He also filed for divorce, claiming Peggy abondoned him and the children. He was charged in 2003 with Peggy's murder. Their three sons went to the police in 2002 after tape recording a conversation with Robert where he made suspicious statement about Peggy's disappearance. One of the Dianovsky children says he witnessed his mother's murder, and all three of them say they saw Robert abuse and threaten Peggy. They claim they repressed the memories of the events but recovered them in therapy sessions as adults. One of Robert's friends also testified that Robert asked him for a gun in 1982 to "get rid of" Peggy. Robert also claimed his wife was having an affair.

In all, six hours of audio were taped when Dianovsky's three sons confronted and accused him of their mother's murder. The sons contend their father killed Peggy Dianovsky on September 12, 1982, in their Schaumburg, Ill., home during a brutal beating.

On the tapes, the accused man says, "I hit her pretty good." He also admits to previously saying his wife would never get out of the marriage alive. Dianovsky also said that he cut off his wife's tennis clothes in a jealous rage, and that his grown sons can tell their kids, "Your dad did something to her."

The trial took place in Cook County, Illinois, before a judge rather than a jury. Judge Robert Porter acquitted Robert after an eight-day trial in November 2004. He stated that Peggy probably had in fact been murdered after her disappearance, but there was insufficient evidence to prove that Robert did it.

The relevance of the Robert Dianovsky case, in my opinion, is important in the upcoming Drew Peterson trial as it pertains to evidence, as well as the State's burden to prove that Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio. Drew Peterson is awaiting trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio, his third wife. The State in this case is working on the admittance of hearsay testimony. Below is my explanation of hearsay as it would apply to the Peterson case.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement "offered for the truth of the matter asserted" and is not subject to cross-examination, typically because the declarant or speaker is unavailable. This applies to Stacy Peterson because she is not "available." Such statements are deemed unreliable because of the obvious fact that they can easily be fabricated and can not be tested through cross examination.

One basic way to get around hearsay is to seek admission, not for the truth of the statement itself, but for another highly relevant purpose. For example, let's say I am charged with intentionally shooting my daughter's boyfriend (which is not beyond the realm of reason) while the two of them are harmlessly playing tie-up. Prior to bursting into the room and firing, I was told by her ex-boyfriend that the new guy was in the process of raping her. My defense is not intentional murder, but, rather, manslaughter because I believed the ex, who has since fled to Costa Rica and is unavailable at trial. Here I would offer his statement of rape, not because it was true, but because of the effect it had on my mental state, a very relevant fact in the case. Again, I am not offering it for its truth and therefore whether it was fabricated is not in issue. Whether the statement was made and whether my response was reasonable (based upon my credibility) can all be determined by the trier of fact at trial because I, not the ex, would be subject to cross-examination. In any event, statements can be admissible solely for their impact upon the listener (if relevant in a case) and not for the truth of the statement.

This approach should be very relevant to the statement Anna Domain (Kathleen Savio's sister) could testify to, "that Kathleen asked her to care for her kids." This is dynamite. Not offering it for the truth that Peterson said he wanted to kill her, but for the independent impact it had on her and her mental state to seek care for her children. Anna Domain could testify to her observations regarding Kathleen's credible belief that she needed to secure care for her kids because she was going to die soon. This really should have tremendous impact on the State's case, assuming Anna Domain is well prepared on the stand. And fear is hearsay with no subsequent act reflecting impact on her mental state.

Now for the exceptions, which have literally swallowed up the general rule. Since the beginning of time, Courts have recognized certain fact patterns that contain such inherent elements of reliability that they overcome the need for cross-examination. All of this is based on a notion of getting all relevant information to the jury that is subject to a prejudice in the analysis of the defendant. For the State this stuff is worth fighting over because it usually means game over for the defendant. Certain fact patterns below have crystallized into exceptions.

• Dying Declaration - declarant unavailable says just before dying to witness "Mr. X shot me." This is admissible based upon the notion that people who are dying do not typically have a motive to lie. Witness will testify as to demeanor of declarant.

• Excited Utterance - declarant screams "the plane is going to crash into the house" and witnesses doesn't see the plane. Here admission is based on the fact that when people are experiencing a startling event under stress they don't have time to fabricate.

• Present Sense Impression - this is the same as above, except the witness also experiences the same event as the declarant, and therefor the declarant's statement is relevant.

The exception used the most by prosecutors, and the one that is highly relevant for Peterson purposes, is a Statement Against Interest. For example, if I told you that I "did dope and shit," the statement would be admissable based on the theory that people do not make up highly negative evidence against themselves, especially facts that would subject them to criminal prosecution.

This is highly relevant for Stacy's statements to Pastor Neil Schori and Mike Rossetto that she provided an alibi, because it shows that she was willing to obstruct justice at Peterson's direction regarding Kathleen. Now maybe during the admissibility hearing the witnesses were weak on the statement, or just did not provide enough detail regarding the circumstances of the meeting with Stacy to overcome the highly prejudicial impact of the statement.

The state's case has more twists and turns than a tornado. Will Drew Peterson be acquitted? Is the State's case strong enough? No one really knows what the outcome will be. What we do know is what Peterson said in interviews when Stacy vanished. Just as Robert Dianovsky said 25 years earlier, "It's where she wants to be." Drew Peterson echoed those same words in media interviews shortly after Stacy Peterson disappeared October, 28, 2007.

Tweet