 |
| Drew Peterso Photo by Paul Huebl |
Joliet, IL—The murder trial of Drew Peterson is not about
physical evidence but a relationship gone bad, through the subjective mouths of
people that hate the accused.
Was Kathleen Savio a victim of an accident or murder? That is the first question that needs to be
answered and we can only take a wild guess as to the answer. We really don’t know because nobody saw what
happened and there is no reliable way to reconstruct whatever happened in that
bathtub. Grandstanding experts are not
clairvoyant and neither is prosecutor James Glasgow.
If we want to insist it was in fact a murder than we have to
determine who was responsible. There are
really two potential suspects we know about.
Drew Peterson who conveniently was in a divorce/property contest with
Savio seems logical. What about Savio’s
new boy toy? We know Savio and her new
lover had an argument at the time of her death. We also know she did not want
to let him sleep over that fateful night.
As much as anyone that hates Drew Peterson must admit is that
the cause of death is pure speculation.
If indeed it was a murder speculation comes into play once again. This is compounded by the undisputed fact
that Peterson did not have the key to the house involved in this inquiry.
As for the morbid statements of fear, despair and horror
some people attribute to Savio I’ve heard them well over a thousand times. You see as a private investigator I served
perhaps three or four thousand court Orders of Protection. I’ve heard the petitioners first hand making
allegations of every kind.
Most are not old enough to remember what it was like for
divorce litigants before the “no fault” days of matrimonial law. Up until the 1970’s every divorce petition
contained wild accusations of assault with deadly weapons. These had to be verified under oath! Without such a statement no divorce was
granted. Any divorce lawyer from that
sad time can verify this.
To get an Order of Protection today the petitioner must
swear under oath that they were threatened, assaulted or had their property
damaged by their former spouse or live in companion. The allegations fly like huge flocks or
migratory birds escaping the cold.
Many allegations connected with the petitions are made only
to curry favor with property, child custody and financial support issues. Often the allegations were designed to insure
that the petitioner obtains or maintains exclusive use of the residence
involved. The sad truth is a
substantial percentage of these petitions are based on simple perjury.
Revenge by jilted spouses and lovers is also a serious
factor in those kinds of legal proceedings.
Again the accusations fly.
Many divorce litigants want to involve their close friends
and relatives as witnesses to reinforce their tales or woe in court. They dramatize everything that can to that
end.
I don’t want to suggest that the petitioners are always
lying. Over the years I have had one
client murdered by her husband and another shot while working in a Scottsdale
dental office as an assistant. Many
times there are valid claims made.
That statistic comes out to two in several thousand
cases. Allegations made during divorce
cases are just not very compelling or credible.
I’m glad to report that thousands of women who personally told me they
would be killed are still alive today.
I don’t want to not suggest that spouses don’t make threats
of violence because they do. The good
news here is that only a tiny percentage of these threats ever amount to more
than hurtful words.
The hearsay testimony being offered the Drew Peterson case
has no real value to determine what may have happened to Kathleen Savio. Remember Savio has never been placed under
oath before her alleged statements were made.
Unfortunately taking an oath does little to prevent people from telling
tales.
The guilt or innocence of Drew Peterson should be based on
reliable physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. In the State of Illinois vs. Drew Peterson
there is neither.
Comments
ARE US COPPERS. MAKING IT LOOK LIKE AN ACCIDENT WAS A JOKE, GET IT? POLD COPPER HERE.
I personally feel Drew is responsible for Kathleen' murder and Stacy's disappearance but I do NOT agree with hearsay testimony being allowed and I do not feel there was sufficient evidence to convict. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It should scare the crap out of everyone. Think of the potential consequences of such absurdity.
In Paris, Illinois, back in the late 80's, Dyke and Karen Rhodes were murdered. Witnesses came forward (dumb and dumber/drunk and drunker/druggie and druggier) and pointed fingers at Herb Whitlock and Randy Steidl. They were tried and convicted based solely on "witness testimony". It was an ISP case. Later, it came out that the witnesses WERE PAID by the prosecution to lie on the stand. Witnesses later recanted their statements. Then recanted the recanted statements, and then some more.
Herb Whitlock and Randy Steidl each were SENTENCED to DEATH when they were completely INNOCENT. They both sat in jail for more than 20 years, much of it on death row, before they were exonerated. They LOST THEIR LIVES. ISP top brass covered it up, told the Lieutenant, Michael Callahan, who discovered the two convicted of the crime were innocent and brought the matter up to top brass in ISP, that it was "too politically sensitive" since there was a connection to Governor George Ryan. Callahan wrote a book about it, "Too Politically Sensitive".
If you're not already familiar with the case, google the lawsuit filed by Randy Steidle against ISP officers and check out the names on the lawsuit from ISP. You'll see a familiar one connected to Drew Peterson.
Enjoy your search.
Laura Burke
PS. By-the-way, I am clairvoyant.
http://whereabouts67.wordpress.com