The Road Through Wonderland: Surviving John Holmes

by Susan Murphy-Milano

The Road Through Wonderland is a real-life story that impacts not only the storyteller, but those affected 365 days a year by human trafficking--the abuse and power and control happening behind closed doors and across the country. Tune into Nancy Grace or Jane Velez-Mitchell and and all you get is 30-second sound bites of human tragedy neatly packaged for commercial viewing. In my opinion, there is the real tragedy.

We don’t bother to listen to victims and their families unless they have made the nightly news. We do not take the time to understand and learn from others who could stop children being taken from our streets and sold for sex. We do not listen to the battered woman’s cries for help until she is listed in an obituary. We wait until a helpless child is murdered by a family member before we show any outrage.

It is time we stop and listen to those who have survived the unimaginable. We need to allow survivors voices to be heard so that lives are no longer condensed into sound bites. The subject of human trafficking in this country still has a long way to go and there is one voice effectively answering the call that is changing lives for those in harms way, Dawn Schiller.

Dawn is the author of The Road Through Wonderland: Surviving John Holmes, which tells the story of a young girl who was caught in the whirlwind of the underworld surrounding John Holmes, an infamous porn star with many questionable ties.

From a broken home, Dawn Schiller was, by society’s definition, a "throwaway teen." For survival in a poor home with a disabled father, she was unwittingly thrown into the arms of John Holmes at the age of 15. Dawn was at this man’s side for years, even as he got her hooked on drugs, just like thousands of today’s trafficked teens. He beat her, and then prostituted her on the street corners of Los Angeles. She was, by all accounts, carefully brainwashed, groomed to bring in money, and trafficked so Holmes could maintain his drug habit and ultimate power over this child. When she didn’t bring enough cash in from the streets, Holmes withheld food and the basic necessities for daily survival.

Survival is what Dawn Schiller’s book is about, not the infamous porn star and self proclaimed public persona, but the abuser which his fans never saw up close and personal. Frankly, that is why abusive men get away with their violent and controlling behavior, the world sees the side they want you to see and nothing more. In the eyes of his fans it is not possible for John Holmes to have treated anyone unkindly. What those adoring fans, who still watch his movies, refuse to acknowledge is that John Holmes was, first and foremost, a human trafficker. He hijacked the life of teenager Dawn Schiller.

Most teens do not survive. Instead, we read about them only after they are abducted and are reported missing by their families. Dawn Schiller is changing all hat. She uses her story with the hope that other young teens won’t fall into the same hell that she did. She has developed a national presentation titled “Our Throwaway Teens: Who Are They and How Can We Help?” to raise awareness of the vulnerabilities of teens growing up in abusive and neglectful environments.

Dawn educates audiences about what a teen might be experiencing internally when targeted and groomed by a predator, how to identify a young victim in trouble, pedophile seduction techniques, and the use of drugs to manipulate and trap a victim. She gives an inside view of what it’s like to be a throwaway teen and how we, as a community, can help. Dawn has founded E.S.T.E.A.M., (Empowering Successful Teens through Education, Awareness & Mentoring), a nonprofit dedicated to assisting teens who are struggling to find a safe and successful path to adulthood.

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world."--Anne Frank.

Tweet

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

by Susan Murphy Milano

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet

'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

Oklahoma: Where Crime Blows Like the Wind

By Susan Murphy Milano

The adopted song for the state of Oklahoma originates from the 1950s Rogers and Hammerstein musical sung by Shirley Jones and Gordon McRae. A line from the song says: “Winds come sweeping down the plain, smells sweet.” I would like to add a verse of my own: "The sweeping murder down the plain, it smells foul, just the same,” new lyrics now sung by the families of Chanda Turner and Shiela Deviney.

In the state of Oklahoma, specifically Garvin County, justice has literally been removed, erased, whatever you would like to call it, for the families of Chanda Turner and Shiela Deviney. Both of these women lost their lives as a direct result of intimate partner homicide. The elected officials, law enforcement and political powers in the State of Oklahoma have decided never to investigate, bring forth charges and arrest the husband and boyfriend in these cases. Instead, they gave each of the suspects their blessings, allowing them to tamper with crime-scene evidence after each murder, right under the noses of Old West-mentality law enforcement.

The sheriff, in my opinion, has used everything in his corrupt and crooked magic bag to harass and personally threaten each of the families. It is likely the Garvin County Sheriff's Office is still operating under 1850s Old West procedures when it comes to the murder of a wife and a girlfriend. The current sheriff might want to change the language on the office's website, which reads: "The office of the sheriff is one of antiquity. It is the oldest law-enforcement known within the common-law system, and it has always been accorded great dignity and trust."

Chandra Turner (left), just 23 years old, was shot to death at her home in Paul's Valley on July 12, 2000. Her boyfriend claimed she shot herself while he slept through the sound of gunfire and later found her outside on the back steps after she was dead. Crime scene photos depict blood throughout the inside of the home, including on the mattress he claimed he was asleep on. The mattress had been stripped of sheets; no one asked where they went. There were more signs of cleanup in the bedroom, including a bottle of cleaning solution on the floor. The boyfriend had fresh scratches on his arms, and Chanda was covered in bruises. There were signs of a struggle in the living room, including broken furniture.

Shiela Deviney (right), 30, died on January 6, 2004, when her mobile home, located about one mile east and one mile south of Maysville, Oklahoma, burned to the ground. She was murdered. It should be no surprise that Sheila had been married to an abusive, controlling man. They had a court date over past-due child support scheduled the next day. According to eye witnesses, her ex-husband was at the home, although by law not allowed on the premises. He and another friend destroyed evidence and took items from the home.

Where are my manners? I forgot to mention that the "participation" (more like hawking into a spitoon) of the district attorney's office, both past and current administrations, has been non-existent. The office refuses to open the cases. They will not take calls from the families, who have important documents and information. They refuse to give a damn!

Perhaps it has something to do with the person who now heads up the investigations for the district attorney's office? Oh, wait, I remember now. He was an investigator on both the Chanda Turner and the Shiela Deviney cases.

Last month, Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation Radio, a new show about victims likely killed by a husband or a boyfriend, presented these two cases. The Blogtalk Radio show is hosted by "Cold Case" investigative research director Sheryl McCollum, former Atlanta prosecutor turned defense attorney Holly Hughes, and myself. Our broadcasts alone were, in our opinion, more than enough to actually have both the Turner and Deviney case re-opened. Calls burned up the show’s switchboard with folks calling in with information from witnesses of "who done it," and with locations of important evidence. Each caller stated they had never been contacted by law enforcement or the prosecutors office.

According to Sheryl McCollum, "Although we will never know what forensic evidence was present because the crime scene was not secured properly in either of the cases, other evidence provided is more than enough to investigate and demand each case be re-opened."

McCollum goes on to say, about Chanda Turner’s case: "We know from photographs that there was blood spatter evidence that was not considered, we know from forensic reports that there was primer residue evidence that was ignored."

Defense attorney Holly Hughes, the former Atlanta prosecutor, believes that the Gavin County prosecutor, by refusing to open both the Turner and Deviney cases, is covering up for those who did not properly do their jobs. It is clear from the photos of the fire in the Deviney case.

Within three weeks of the airing of Shiela Deviney’s case, a group of Oklahoma businessmen who heard the show and wish to remain anonymous posted a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the people responsible for Sheila’s murder.

Perhaps the prosecutor has a memory lapse, practicing his own version of "blue light special" justice, forgetting that he was elected by the people, taking an oath, placing his hand on the Bible, swearing to do a job and ensure justice.

To the elected officials in Oklahoma, as your song goes “it ain’t too early and it ain’t too late" to do your jobs and re-open the cases!

Many times we don't realize the impact of writing and posting blogs, or doing what some call silly radio shows for broadcast over the Internet; they do have an impact and people are listening and taking action. In addition, in Oklahoma, because of our show, a newly formed alliance of concerned and committed citizens was created and named the Eleventh Commandment. It was created to counter a growing plague of police corruption, political apathy and administrative malfeasance, all of which have played a part in the untimely and unsolved murders of a number of local citizens. The Eleventh Commandment reads, "Thou shall not get away with it!"

The Internet, in my opinion, can be an important tool if used correctly, specifically for cold cases, taking the lives of those buried and forgotten long ago and holding them under the light for justice!

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

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

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

Ten Years Later, Crime Scene Says Murder!

by Susan Murphy- Milano

"The crime scene was staged, rearranged to look like a suicide," according to forensic pathologist Dr. Jeffrey Reynolds.

Ronda Reynolds (pictured left) fulfilled her childhood dream by becoming a Washington State trooper and firearms instructor. She left the patrol a few months after she married to work in private security.

In early 1998, Ronda married Ron Reynolds, an elementary school principal in the small Lewis County town of Toledo, Washington. During their brief marriage, Ronda discovered her husband was having an affair. She confronted him. She told him the marriage was over and that she expected the $15,000 she put into the new marital home to be returned. That night, Ronda booked a flight to her mom's home in Spokane. She made arrangements just after midnight with a friend and veteran police officer to drive her early that morning to the airport. Crime Scene photos show she'd packed her bags and left a message to her husband on the bathroom mirror: "I love you, call me."

Within hours of leaving, Ronda was found dead on the floor of her master bedroom, in the closet,with the door open, just 15 feet away, where her husband claims to have been sound asleep. When Ron Reynolds was questioned, he told police Ronda was distraught and talked about killing herself.

The gruesome crime scene photo's tell a different story. (if you go to the link, please be advised the photo's are on this site are graphic).

Jerry Berry was Lewis County's lead detective on the case and said "this appeared to have the earmarks of a staged homicide."But Berry faced serious evidence problems because he wasn't called to the scene until two hours after Ronda's body was found, and the crime scene had already been disturbed.

But, seven months after Ronda's death, Ron Reynolds' attorney wrote the department insisting they remove the cloud of suspicion and close the case. And "if you do not then we will." Berry says the sheriff's office caved, closing the case as a suicide over his objections. "They just basically wanted me to let it go, leave it as a suicide, and move on and take on other cases and be done with it," Berry said.

Nearly 10 years after Ronda was found shot to death, a television station in Seattle took an interest in the case, launching their own investigation. The ABC affiliate uncovered evidence and found experts who are convinced Ronda's murder was made to look like a suicide.

Her mother, Barb Thompson has fought to have her daughter's case re-opened. With more twists and turns than a tornado, a Washington court finally granted her motion for a judicial review. All she is asking is for the death certificate be changed to state the truth--homicide.

Detective Jerry Berry and Barb Thompson will also be guests on Justice Interrupted radio, Tuesday, January 20, 2009.

Tweet