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

'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

Last Minute Christmas Gifts? You've Found Them

by Stacy Dittrich

It’s that time of year again. Only three days until Christmas and — if you’re like me -- you’re scrambling to pick up the last minute gift you forgot to buy for your Aunt Sally. You know Aunt Sally; the at-home super-sleuth who takes her phone off the hook and locks her doors to ensure she never misses an episode of Nancy Grace or the FBI Files. She’s the one who insists that everyone she passes in the mall is on a wanted poster, or every child she sees has been recently abducted. “It’s the birthmark above the eye — I’m telling you, it’s her!”

She's the neighborhood Sherlock Holmes, complete with binoculars handily stationed at each window so she can quickly and efficiently determine who in her neighborhood is a pedophile, or who is having an affair. Everyone knows someone like Aunt Sally. She's tricky to shop for. There's always the highly regarded Spy Gear — located in the toy department and aimed at 5- to 12-year old boys, but it’s doubtful she could maneuver her way around the night vision goggles or laser alarms. Or, you can browse through the Women in Crime Ink bookstore (an excellent Facebook catalog) and overload her with a slew of true-crime books and thrillers. Most people are feeling the crunch of the economy this year and are cutting back on spending, so books make a great gift!

Caylee Anthony and Michael Jackson books dominated the year's crime shows. Get an up close and personal view; look deep into the facts of these cases with true-crime books like “Mommy’s Little Girl,” by WCI’s Diane Fanning and “Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case,” by Diane Dimond. Kathryn Casey’s, “A Descent Into Hell,” and Lisa Cohen’s “After Etan,” are favorites.

Have a self-proclaimed criminal profiler in the family? Pat Brown’s “Killing for Sport” would make the perfect gift. Books make their way to even those family members that rarely keep up with crime. If your teen is a die-hard rap-music fan, Cathy Scott’s “The Killing of Tupac Shakur” would be a different twist to an ear-busting CD. If the perpetual macho-man in your household scoffs at girly crimes, my book, “Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill,” would make a great stocking stuffer. A history buff in the family? Laura James' theory that Jesse James' son was a cold blooded killer in "The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son," will keep them occupied for hours.

Between $8-$25 each, books are within this year's budgets and, contrary to popular belief, this print medium is not going away anytime soon. Prefer fictional mysteries to true crime? Many of WCI's versatile authors WCI have delved into the world of fiction. Kathryn Casey’s “Singularity” and “Bloodlines” are both-award winning novels. Diane Fanning and I both have created our own fiction series as well.

Aspiring law students could probably use Andrea Campbell’s “Legal Ease,” and Robin Sax’s “It Happens Every Day: Inside the Life of a Sex Crime DA” and keep them on a shelf close to the computer. Trying to figure out how to help a friend or relative who's suffering her domestic life with a dangerous boyfriend or spouse, or is enduring an abusive relationship? Susan Murphy-Milano’s “Defending Our Lives” or “Moving Out, Moving On” can help. Just make sure you give this gift discretely, where the abuser can't see!

Yep, our authors have it all. Your last-minute shopping is over. Click over to the Women In Crime Ink book store, find the books you want, and scoot on over to your nearest bookstore. Your friends and relatives will thank you for it—and so will we! Happy Holidays to all of you from all of us here at Women In Crime Ink!

Tweet

Fuhrman's Persuasive Polemic

By Laura James

There is much wrong with the portrayal of criminal justice in the media today. Even those who work for the crime media will tell you that the way it's done today, it's cheap, profitable, and wrong. In a scathing new book, FOX analyst Mark Fuhrman details his criticisms of "The Murder Business." "All the claims they make on these shows about justice and crime-stopping," he writes, "are a mockery of the English language." The book is The Murder Business: How the Media Turns Crime Into Entertainment and Subverts Justice.

He backs up his sturm und drang with compelling examples. Once I overcame the tinnitus caused by reading incendiary analysis by an insider who admits he played a "notorious role in the OJ Simpson trial," I found myself agreeing with many of his points.

Per Fuhrman, crime TV commits these sins. Do any of his criticisms ring true (or false) to you?

1. "They don't actually investigate... Facts have mostly been replaced with opinion, conversation, debate, and argument... Investigative journalists don't do much investigating. They stand in a pack outside Drew Peterson's house shouting, 'Did you kill Kathleen Savio?' I mean honestly, what did they expect him to say?"

2. They deliberately drag out stories, misrepresenting the facts if it helps to do so. It was obvious immediately that Caylee Anthony was dead, Fuhrman writes; but she was "missing" according to the press. "They want a big, loose time-line filled with "leads" and "possible suspects" and "persons of interest"... They didn't want a grim and depressing Search for Caylee Anthony's Body, but a suspenseful, heart-rending Search for Caylee Anthony. A story they could drag out for months, long after it was clear to me, the police, and every realistic observer or participant, that the child was dead."

3. They shell out huge sums for interviews and/or photos.

4. "They manufacture questions, but never try to answer them."

5. They relentlessly focus on attractive, middle class females as either culprit or victim. Haleigh Cummings' case fell from the TV screen because of the class of her family, which turned the story into "a white-trash nightmare, too much of a freak show."

Fuhrman goes on to analyze several recent cases of prominence.

Fuhrman on Drew Peterson: "He's got personality disorders they don't have a name for yet."

Fuhrman on Scott Peterson: "The media played along [with him]. They made his relationship with Amber Frey the centerpiece of the story, rather than the overwhelming evidence against him, mounting each day."

Fuhrman on his experiences as a true crime reporter in the Martha Moxley case: "I have never in my life been treated more shabbily than I was in Greenwich, CT. And that includes the Simpson trial."

Fuhrman on Nancy Grace: "She all but convicted the Duke University lacrosse players... and didn't apologize later when the accusations proved bogus... Grace flat-out declared suspect Richard Ricci guilty [of the abduction of Elizabeth Smart] several times on air... Grace didn't apologize for that one either... [Her interview of Melinda Duckett would] establish a new low, even by the standards of crime TV... Nancy Grace fired blindly. All she did was work herself into a lather and make Duckett clam up. The next day, Duckett was dead, and the investigation effectively died with her."

Fuhrman on the future of crime reporting: "Crime as entertainment has become so intoxicating, it's very difficult to go back. But all it takes is one person -- one journalist willing to step outside the circle and investigate the facts. One Woodward or one Bernstein could change the entire industry, remind reporters of their responsibility tot he public, and balance out the soap opera on the air."

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

Dittrich's Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill Makes its Debut

by Women in Crime Ink

Most men and women who aspire to be police officers begin their careers with a noble dream of community service, upholding the law, and helping those in need. Yet over time the rigors and emotional strain of dealing with society’s worst element wear on even the most idealistic officers like a sheet of sandpaper, until their compassion is slowly rubbed away.

A few become corrupted and slip into criminal behavior, directly contradicting their oath to guard the public. Even worse, there are some who hide behind their badges to commit the most heinous crimes imaginable.

In a shocking true-crime narrative that reads like a thriller, former police officer, former detective, and mystery writer Stacy Dittrich tells 18 stories about cops who kill. From the brutal to the bizarre, the senseless to the extreme, these men and women abused their power, took human lives, and are now paying the consequences. Line-of-duty shootings aren't featured within the pages of "Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill." Society typically sees these crimes from serial killers, rapists, and other violent criminals.

Some of the officers killed for love, others for money, and still others because of seemingly trivial personality conflicts. Dittrich profiles, among others:

• New Orleans cop Antoinette Frank, who brutally murdered four innocent people: her own partner, two restaurant owners, and her own father, whom she buried underneath her home.
• 
  Canton, Ohio, police officer Bobby Cutts Jr., who murdered his former girlfriend when she was nine-months pregnant.
• 
  Bollingbrook, Ill., police sergeant Drew Peterson, currently indicted in the death of his second wife, and being investigated for the disappearance of his third.

• California Highway Patrolman Craig Peyer, who pulled over San Diego State college student Cara Knott over a frivolous traffic violation, then murdered her.

• Prince George County, Md., officer Keith Washington, who brutally gunned down two furniture delivery men in his own home for simply being late with the delivery.

• Columbia, Mo., officer Steven Rios, who slit the throat of his gay lover after the man threatened to tell everyone, including Rios’ wife and police chief, of their relationship.

• Gerard Schaefer, one of Florida’s most notorious serial killers, who found it easiest to commit his crimes while working as a police officer and deputy sheriff.

• New York City cop Charles Becker, the first police officer ever executed for the crime of murder in 1915.

With a foreword written by WCI’s own Pat Brown, "Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill" is already receiving praise:

“As a crime victim myself who went on to become a felony prosecutor, police have been a constant in my life for many, many years. They are some of the most honorable people I have ever known. Dittrich exposes the dichotomy between police who fight crime every day vs. those who have become criminals themselves…a real mind twister!” -- Nancy Grace, host of HLN’s The Nancy Grace Show

"Murder Behind the Badge" reveals the dark underbelly of the cop-shop, the evil that can lurk within. Some of these cases you may have heard about, many you have not. Now, learn the inside details of how a murderer gets a badge and is sometimes protected by fellow officers. Only another cop could walk the public through how a psycho gets on a police force in the first place. Only another cop could explain how the mindset of the thin blue line is sometimes so similar to the mindset of the truly disturbed. Author Stacy Dittrich is that cop. This is the book. In the realm of true crime this is a must-have!” -- Diane Dimond, Investigative Journalist/Author of "Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case"

"Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill" is now available for pre-order on line and will be in book stores everywhere Nov. 16, 2009 (Prometheus, Hardcover).

Tweet

Passion Pulls the Trigger

by Susan Murphy-Milano

On July 4, 1995, Pam Munson welcomed her second child into the world. Her 2 year-old son, Zak, was with Grandma Linda Fitze waiting for his mommy and daddy to bring his new baby sister home from the hospital. However, instead of celebrating the birth of the new baby, Pam was greeted by a horrifying crime scene 2 days later. Her mother's body lay lifeless in a pool of blood near the dining room table. She was shot once in the shoulder, and again in the head, at close range with a 38-caliber revolver. Pam's little boy, Zak, was hiding in the closet after discovering Grandma with half her head blown off.

Within a few months of the murder, Pam Munson contacted me by phone looking for support and answers to questions that haunted her from the day she found her mother's body. "Does it ever stop? You know the pictures in my head and the nightmares." We spoke for an hour, but I doubt I was much comfort other than we were members of the same "Private Murder Club."

As with so many of these cases we watch or read about, during the trial of the Linda Fitze murder, the defense called the crime one of passion. But, Pam remembers how her father threatened her mother throughout their marriage, and especially six months prior to her murder--while they were separated. "It was not a crime of passion, it was premeditated, cold-blooded, murder. He killed her because he did not want my mother to get any of his money," recalled Pam.

In 1997, Russell Marvin Munson stood trial for his wife's murder. The defense played the "crime of passion" card. A key part of the prosecuting attorney's case for life without parole was the detailed journal the Texas mother kept that chronicled the abuse during her marriage to Munson; but it was not admissable in court. The judge allowed the graphic crime scene photos-- a victory for the prosecution in which to build their case.

The eight day trial led to the jury's decision to find the 59-year old guilty of murder. Munson was sentenced to 20 years in prison. At the time, the trial brought some closure, but the scope of any murder is difficult for anyone to comprehend. Especially when "your own father pulls the trigger and shows no remorse."

In 1999, Munson filed with the appellate court asking for a new trial citing four issues to consider that were either not allowed, or improperly carried out, by the trial judge. The most revolting issue cited in the filing--and common among abusers, is to shift the blame. In this document Munson accused the decendent of "prior sexual abuse."

A few weeks ago, on my facebook page, Pam re-connected with me. "You probably don't remember me, but I contacted you in 1995, a few months after my mom was killed. The following week we spoke on the phone. "It doesn't go away, even after all these years, the depression, anger, and the feeling that we are incomplete as if we are the owners of our fathers actions. It is felt every day of my life."

The topic of children forced to continue with a "normal" productive life after living with years of abuse, resulting in murder, is not a subject covered by the media. We often forget about the kids left behind. On June 10, 2009 at 3:00PM Central time, on The Susan Murphy Milano show, Pam Munson and I will discuss the topic of children whose fathers have killed their mothers. It is an important subject: as the lives of the children witnessing violence and terror in their homes, if they survive, live the remainder of their days on earth often in darkness and without hope.

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

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