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

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

Solo Act?

by Susan Murphy Milano

The intruder used a hammer to smash a first-floor window and enter the Illinois home of a successful, long-time local business owner and his family. The sound of glass shattering at 3 a.m. on March 2, 2010, woke those inside. Moments later, the intruder fired, killing 48-year-old Lori Kramer, her husband Jeffrey, and their 20-year-old son Michael. An overnight guest and another family member sleeping in the basement managed to escape, and a daughter in an upstairs bedroom hid in a closet and dialed 911. The intruder fled as police cars approached, sirens screaming from several blocks away.

To the layperson, this crime looked like a deadly, random home invasion. But as on an episode of "CSI Miami" or A & E’s popular crime show "48 hours," this tragedy would prove otherwise. Detectives worked the case diligently from Illinois to Indiana and on to Florida. They contacted cell-phone carriers. Like a footprint, the cell-tower signals steered police to an IHOP restaurant dumpster in Indiana, where they recovered various items including the gun used by the killer.

By the next morning, Florida police picked up the cell signal and arrested 23-year old Jacob Nodarse. The young man waived extradition and was returned voluntarily to DuPage County, Illinois.

While in a Florida jail, Nodarse spilled his guts out to authorities. Within hours of Nodarse's capture, another man in Illinois, Johnny Borizov, was also taken into police custody.

The Kramers' daughter Angela, 25, found hiding in a bedroom closet when police responded to the shooting, had lived with her parents for about a year. She and her infant child moved in after a messy break-up with -- guess who? -- Johnny Borizov, a man Angela Kramer feared and who was fighting her in family court over visitation rights and child support.

Once police interviewed Angela, the pieces of the crime fit together in a neat package. Her former boyfriend and father of her child was angry at Angela and her parents; he didn't want to pay out 20% of his earnings to support his own child.

Allegedly, a month before the shooting, Johnny Borizov (near right) hired his best friend, Jacob Nodarse (far right), to kill Angela and her parents.

The evening of the shooting, Borizov was at a Joliet casino, captured on casino video which he could conveniently claim as an air-tight alibi. According to sealed DuPage County court documents, Angela and Borizov had been scheduled to appear at a hearing a week after the killings.

I realize investigators have a long way to go as they continue to gather information and process evidence. I understand that a person isn't guilty when accused or charged with a crime, but only after being convicted in a fair trial. That is our legal system.

But as an expert on family-violence issues, I have difficulty holding my tongue and remaining on the sidelines.

In my opinion, 28-year-old Johnny Borizov planned out the execution-style murder of a woman he once loved and with whom he has a 13-month-old son. In the mind of an angry and controlling abuser, death is the ultimate punishment for someone who ends and/or leaves the relationship and for those who aid or assist her.

It made me think of yet another case, 30 miles away. Perhaps the detectives on the Angela Kramer case can cross over to Will County and work on the unsolved December 2009 murder of abuse victim Lacey Gaines, 20. She was found stabbed and strangled, with no signs of forced entry or a struggle in her Justice, Illinois, home.

In March of that year, in a Cook County court, her baby's father, Sanchez Regelio (Sanchez has used several aliases in the past; I'm not sure what legal name he is currently using) filed a petition to establish parentage. Everyone called Sanchez"Daniel," including the late Lacey. Sanchez took the paternity test and was proven to be the baby's father sometime in May of 2009.

But in September of 2009, Sanchez withdrew his petition for custody of the child -- because, in my opinion, he had decided to take matters into his own hands. He either allegedly hired someone to kill his former girlfriend and mother of his son, or he did it himself. This case is yet another example of a "family hit" that will remain a cold case because very few in law enforcement are properly trained in domestic-violence crimes and intimate-partner homicide.

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

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

Getting Away with Murder - Part 1

by Stacy Dittrich

Is it really that easy? Any prudent person would formulate the opinion that committing an act of murder—and getting away with it—is a fairly simple task. A little skill, minimal thought, and a final resting place is all you need these days. Or, so it seems. Now that the elections are over, we are once again barraged with the latest crime stories in the news—those that are new, and those we have been subjected to over the last five years. Every day a new piece of evidence emerges that may, or may not, solve one of the grisly murders that we have been talking about daily in coffee shops and beauty salons everywhere.

Today and Monday, I will cover those cases that refuse to go away, those that have earned their rightful places in the Crime Hall of Fame. Solved, unsolved, body, or no body, guilty, or not guilty, these cases continuously permeate an air of mystery or suspicion at the slightest mention of their names. At the mere hint of the stories taking a back seat, crime bloggers and media worldwide drive these cases to the forefront once again.

I’ll begin with the most recent:

1. Caylee Anthony—Missing since June, 2008, No Body Found.

Perhaps one of the most high-profile cases in recent history, the case of missing 2-year-old Caylee Anthony continues to draw our attention. The circus-like atmosphere that has attached itself to the missing Orlando toddler’s mother, Casey Anthony (pictured right with Caylee), has undoubtedly clouded the true focus of the case—finding Caylee and bringing her killer to justice.

Her daughter last seen sometime in mid-June, Casey Anthony waited almost a month before reporting Caylee missing. In fact, she didn’t report it all; it was her mother Cindy Anthony that called 911 to report her granddaughter missing after they found Casey’s car, a white Pontiac that, in Cindy’s own words “smell[ed] like a dead body was in the damn car!” Cindy Anthony, a former nurse, and her husband, George, a former police officer, quickly dismissed the obvious when they realized the horror of what most likely had transpired: their own daughter murdered their granddaughter. Both familiar to the stomach-churning odor of a decomposing body, they later brushed off the smell as "rotting pizza."

Regardless, Casey Anthony wouldn’t talk. She insisted her daughter had been taken by a nanny whose existence the police quickly disproved. After finding chloroform in Casey’s trunk—coupled with computer searches on obtaining the deadly chemical—police were convinced that little Caylee was deceased. Add to that the physical evidence of decomposition in the trunk and one would think it is a clear-cut case of murder. Unfortunately, there is no body, and the prosecutors are dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s to make sure they can put forth the best case possible against Casey Anthony.

Her attorney, Jose Baez, continues to maintain “we’ll all be sorry” when the real truth comes out. Of course, neither he nor his client has bothered to expose that truth during the investigation. It seems that they would rather wait until Casey is facing the death penalty to say, “I told ya so!” Public displays of affection shown between Baez and Casey has reared its ugly head as well.

Then comes along the colorful, gun-totin’, cowboy-hat-wearing, bounty hunter, Leonard Padilla. Padilla, at first, believed in Casey’s innocence, enough to post her bond before realizing what a fool he looked like. Apparently, he didn’t mind because he subsequently launched a search frenzy, which included divers from the controversial Blackwater USA and thousands of people walking through the dense woods in search of little Caylee. Undaunted by the fact he and his people could potentially taint or alter much-needed evidence, Padilla (proudly posing left) has become a thorn in the side of law enforcement. He even pushed out the well-respected Tim Miller of Texas EquuSearch by telling Tim, “Imagine the money we could make if we’re photographed holding little Caylee’s skull?” Ugh.

Yes, he’s searching, but he's doing more harm than good, and it is past time for him to go home and bury his cowboy hat in the desert sand while squatting over a cactus.

Merge all of this with the numerous protesters in front of the Anthony home—with George and Cindy parading around town with their “Find Caylee” t-shirts—and the stone-cold monster, Casey Anthony, sitting in jail painting her nails, along with the book and movie deals, and it would appear this melee isn’t going away any time soon.

In the meantime, the remains of a beautiful, innocent, 2-year-old little girl are out there somewhere, and her mother stays silent as she sits in jail.

2. Stacy Peterson—Missing, October 28, 2007, No Body Found.

Women in Crime Ink’s Susan Murphy-Milano refuses to mention his name, and as much as I hate to give Drew Peterson any attention at all, his missing wife certainly deserves it. Former Bolingbrook, Illinois police sergeant Drew Peterson is not only a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy (pictured right with Drew), but he is also suspected in the recently determined homicide of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He has yet to be charged with either.

Stacy Peterson was last seen October, 28, 2007, and was reported missing by her sister when she failed to show up to a scheduled meeting. Drew reportedly told the family that Stacy had left him for another man and he found her car at the airport—claims Stacy’s family deems utterly preposterous. She left behind two small children that she completely adored.

Nonetheless, new evidence surfaced that Drew’s third wife, Kathleen, had not died accidentally and the focus intensified on the arrogant, publicity-seeking, former police officer. Not that he was worried. Hiring a publicist and accompanied by his shady lawyer, Joel Brodsky—a man with his own history of domestic problems—Drew hit the media circuit, hamming it up and posing for the cameras, insisting that his wife was still alive.

With a significant lack of evidence in Stacy’s disappearance, authorities focused on the homicide of Kathleen Savio. At this time, the grand jury is still hearing testimony and deciding if there is enough evidence to indict Drew for murder. However, while they wait for the grand jury, the authorities are holding a gun charge over his head that most likely won’t amount to much. A new book out on Drew claims he failed a polygraph test that related to his missing wife. Like everything else, Drew dismisses the test as inaccurate.

Drew continues to push the envelope and mock law enforcement. Just recently, he met with a divorce attorney to file against his wife for “abandonment,” in an attempt to sell off their assets and move from the neighborhood.

3. Madeleine McCann—Missing, May 3, 2007, No Body Found

Three-year-old Madeleine McCann (pictured below) disappeared from her family’s apartment at the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal. The British family was vacationing there when Kate and Gerry McCann went to dinner with another couple, leaving Madeleine and her 2-year-old twin siblings alone in the apartment. The restaurant was only 130 yards away from the apartment.

At approximately 10 p.m., Kate McCann allegedly checked on the children and found Madeleine gone, and a window to the apartment open. What followed was an international frenzy of theories, finger-pointing, and searches in hopes of finding the little girl alive.

Kate and Gerry McCann immediately fell under an umbrella of suspicion. Both doctors, the theory they had given Madeleine too much medicine to make her sleep causing an accidental death began to circulate. The McCanns, who vowed to not leave the country until their daughter was found, fled months later after an intense focus on them by investigators.

The Portuguese police compiled an impressive list of suspects and theories relating to Madeleine’s disappearance, all of which were disproved and unfounded. In July 2008, the McCanns were officially cleared as suspects in their daughter’s disappearance, raising eyebrows of other law enforcement investigators worldwide.

If there were ever a case where I believed there was a minuscule (and I mean microscopic!) chance that the missing were actually alive—this would be the one. An international investigation such as this can bring forth many possibilities. It’s doubtful, but it wouldn’t be surprising.

Why haven’t these bodies been found? And, why haven’t some of the suspects been charged? It’s a touchy subject. A lack of evidence in some of the cases prohibits the prosecutors from launching a tirade of charges against the most likely suspect. Or, as in the case of Natalee Holloway, the evidence is there but politics play a far bigger role than an American teenager’s death. That said, it appears that most of the suspects in these high-profile cases will undoubtedly get away with murder.

On Monday, November 24th, in Part 2 of this story, I will touch on the cases of Natalee Holloway, Rilya Wilson, O.J. Simpson, and JonBenét Ramsey. Please leave your thoughts and comments on each of these stories. I’m curious to see who believes in innocence, guilt, and whether any of these bodies will be found.

Tweet

No More Sweet Dreams

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Two young boys, ages nine and eleven, lost their loving mother in the winter of 2004. Her death was an accident, they were told.

Never again will their mother greet the boys in the morning when they wake. In the afternoon when they return home from school, Mom will not be waiting for her boys. She will never again ask either of her sons "How was your day at school?" She will not be in the kitchen preparing dinner while they do their homework.

And Mom will no longer kiss them on the cheek, wishing each of her boys sweet dreams, as she had done thousands of nights.

The boys miss their mother, deeply. They are not "allowed" much time to grieve. You see, their father has already made other plans.

The boys I am talking about are the children of Drew Peterson and Kathleen Savio, Peterson's third wife. Their older son, Thomas Peterson, now fifteen, was eleven at the time of his mother's death. Younger son Kristopher, now thirteen, was nine.

Immediately, the boys were whisked into Dad's new home with his teenage pregnant new wife. And Dad's wife is the direct cause of Mommy and Daddy's divorce.

Over time the boys have adjusted. They are excellent students and active in sports. Stacy gave birth to a son. Two years later a daughter was added to the less-than-happy family.

According to sources, the year prior to Stacy Peterson's vanishing, Drew Peterson began to track his child bride's activities. He monitored her cell phone activity via the Web site of the phone company provider. While she was at Dominick's Food Store, her step-sons received calls in fifteen minute intervals as Drew requested an accounting from his boys on "What is Stacy doing? or "Who is she talking to?” This went on until they reached the driveway of their happy home.

Once news of Stacy's untimely disappearance hits the airwaves, the lives of Thomas and Kristopher Peterson were, again, abruptly altered. This time, the pain and humiliation associated with their father's behavior will affect them for the rest of their young lives.

Whatever dark secrets they know, will remain buried deep within the souls of these young men.

Fear of the unknown . . . What will happen if they tell the truth . . . These are not chances they are likely to take any time in the near future.

Any child whose mother is suspected of being murdered by their father is forced to cope with the trauma of violence. The sheer grief associated with the loss of a parent is devastating.

What goes wrong in this type of dysfunctional family?

Parents hurt their children more by omission than by commission. Children often take on adult responsibilities, such as watching and caring for their younger siblings. As an example in this case, both boys have been thrust into the adult world, made to testify before a grand jury. These children have been robbed of their childhood. Not once, but twice in their lives. No doubt their mixed feelings and roller-coaster emotions will continue into adulthood.

Consider for a moment what it must be like for them to attend school. What are other kids saying to the Peterson boys? Whether allegations against Drew Peterson are true or not, his sons must endure and defend the circus-like activity displayed by and surrounding their father on a regular basis.

Please tell me what parent in his or her right mind is going to allow a teenage daughter to go on a friendly date with either of these teenage boys?

These two boys are not at fault. Neither is to blame. But, if they are to have any chance at normal lives, it will be when they each turn eighteen years of age. Hopefully, before going off to college, they will petition the courts for a legal name change.

Tweet