Will Drew Peterson’s murder trial be dismissed because of Harry Smith?

Last Friday, Drew Peterson appeared in court for the first time in almost two years. A new Judge was appointed to his trial for murder and his defense team also filed a number of motions which were then impounded.

One of the motions asked that the murder charges be dropped because of the testimony offered by Wheaton attorney, Harry Smith. Smith testified at the Grand Jury which indicted Peterson, and again later at a pre-trail hearing to test the admissibility of fifteen hearsay statements.

Peterson’s team says that by offering up testimony regarding Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson, that Smith violated attorney-client confidentiality and called it the “worst breach of attorney ethics”. They feel the breach is so grievous that not only should Smith not be allowed to testify at Drew’s trial, but that Peterson’s entire case should be thrown out of court.

Since Smith was Savio’s attorney, we can only presume that she is the client in question here, and there is no doubt that Smith represented Kathleen during her divorce from Drew Peterson, but their relationship ended abruptly with her death in the 2004, and he was officially dropped when the executor of Kathleen’s will (Peterson’s Uncle, James Carroll) informed him that his services were no longer needed.

Seeing as Kathleen had asked Smith to go to police in the event that she died and to tell them that Drew had killed her, it would seem that by talking, he is only fulfilling his obligations to his client, rather than breaching any confidentiality.

Of course it’s easy to see why Peterson’s defense would try to keep Harry Smith from testifying. He has a good deal of compelling testimony to deliver on the stand. He will testify that Stacy Peterson (not a client of his) spoke with him twice in the week before her disappearance. She told him that she wanted to divorce Drew Peterson and asked if she could get more money from the divorce if she threatened to tell the police what she knew about Peterson killing his third wife. She told him that “Drew was pissed because he thinks I told (his son) Tom that he killed Kathy”. Peterson told the media that he was “shocked” to learn that Stacy had had discussions with Attorney Smith.

Smith may also testify that at the time of Kathleen’s death, things were not going well for Drew Peterson in the later stages of his contentious divorce from Savio, and that Peterson was aware of it and angry. Smith testified at the pre-trial hearing that shortly before Savio was found dead, a judge had told him and Peterson’s attorney that she was about to recommend that Savio be allowed to keep the couple’s Bolingbrook home, receive a share of his police pension, child support and some money from the sale of a bar the couple had owned.

In march of 2008, Harry Smith gave a lengthy interview to Roe Conn on WLS-AM 890 in Chicago. At that time he could not mention what Stacy had told him about Drew killing Kathleen, but he gave a full account of his dealings with both Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson. It’s a good listen.

Acandyrose has a complete transcript of the above interview.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Tom Peterson still named in wrongful death suit

Thomas Peterson

After a short appearance in court today, Martin Glink, the attorney representing the Savio family in a wrongful death suit against Drew Peterson, seems confident that the case will go forward.

Glink also told reporters that Thomas Peterson, son of Drew Peterson, is still named in the case, despite a letter that was sent to the Sun-Times stating that he was going to remove himself from the civil suit because he believed “1000%” that his father did not kill Kathleen Savio. He also filed a document to be released from the case.

Glink says that it will take more than a release to remove Thomas Peterson’s name from the civil suit, since the youth may have been influenced by others and pressured into filing the document.

Joel Brodsky did not show up in court today. Peterson was represented by Edmund Peter Boland of Carey Filter White & Boland.

The next status hearing date is scheduled for May 19.

Read more at Shorewood Patch
Letter written by Tom Peterson about his intent to remove his name from the suit
Wrongful Death Suit

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Savio inquest juror, Jim Pretto: If we had known…

Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.

“There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.

“We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”

We’ve all seen the complete inquest transcript now.  Yes, there was no testimony or evidence presented to the jurors to indicate that foul play might be suspected.  In fact, ISP Officer Herbert Hardy said otherwise.  One panel member (Dennis Pratl) made it personal, and said Drew Peterson was a good guy.   Yet, Jim Pretto wishes they had listened more to Kathleen’s family. The jurors did not hear about Savio asking for a restraining order against Peterson, and they were told by the ISP officer that there were no insurance policies involved. They did not hear about the police being called eighteen times to intervene in their disputes.

Several questions arise about these claims made by Pretto.  Who exactly was responsible for making sure these important issues were presented to the jury panel?  Or, in the alternative, who was responsible for making sure they were not presented to the jury panel?   Oversight or out-of-sight.  Which is it?

At the time of this juror’s interview, Anna Doman said:  “I think we’re closer” to justice. “I just wish it was four years ago.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Kathleen Savio’s death inquest – a sister testifies

Susan Doman

If you’ve been following this blog, you know that we’ve been trying to locate the full transcript of the coroner’s jury inquest into the death of Kathleen Savio from May 1, 2004.

To date we’ve been able to share with you the pages containing the testimony of Herbert Hardy (pages 7-15). We’ve now located the first six pages of the transcript, in which Susan Doman (then Savio) testifies, and we’re pleased to be able to share them with you.

EXCERPT:

Q. Is there anything else you’d like to add, ma’am?

A. Yes. I just — it’s very difficult for my family because of my sister telling us all the time, and I can figure, everyone, everything — one that she has seen that if she would die, it may look like an accident, but it wasn’t. She just told me last week, and she was terrified of him. He always threatened her. He had her in the basement one time. He did, many, many things to her. He only wished for her to go away.
And it’s just very hard for me to accept that, what happened. His reactions after this were a laughing matter. Cleaning everything out, ready to get rid of the house. It’s very hard.

Sue Doman’s testimony is especially interesting at this time, as this Friday is the date of Drew Peterson’s next hearing in which the defense will be arguing against the constitutionality of the “hearsay law”.

View this document on Scribd

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Transcript: Testimony at Kathleen Savio’s Death Inquest from officer who was never at the scene

We’ve long been aware of the existence of a 28-page transcript of Katheens Savio‘s death inquest. However getting a look at it would seem to have been a fleeting privilege granted to the media in early November 2007.

About that time we did see the transcript quoted from and were especially intrigued by the testimony of Illinois State Police Officer Herbert Hardy. Hardy testified on behalf of the ISP investigators, although he was neither present at the scene of Kathleen Savio’s death nor at the autopsy following.

Q. Any indication what the initial call was in reference to maybe when you got your call?
A. Well, I wasn’t called. The Master Sergeant Covey (phonetic) was called, and they related to him that it was – they had an individual deceased in her home in the bathroom, the master bathroom.
Q. And you never went to the death scene, sir?
A. No, I was never present at the death scene.

Recently, we were supplied with a portion of the inquest transcript (pages 7-15) in which Officer Hardy is questioned by Coroner Patrick O’Neil. We share it with you here.

View this document on Scribd

If we get our hands on any more of the transcript document, we’ll make it available here!

Thanks to commenter Cyrhla, who emailed us the PDF!

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Interview: David Murray, Author of Chicago Magazine’s Unanswered Cries; Kathleen Savio Death Investigation

David Murray

David Murray was gracious enough to answer some questions regarding the original Kathleen Savio investigation. We thank him for his time.

[Excerpt From Chicago Magazine, May, 2008]:   Chicago magazine’s unofficial Bolingbrook bureau, David Murray writes this month in the Reporter column Unanswered Cries about the death of Kathleen Savio, Drew Peterson’s third wife. Making appearances are the chief of police, the Will County state’s attorney, and Bolingbrook mayor Roger Claar (whom Murray profiled in Chicago’s October 2007 issue). “I don’t think [the Peterson saga] could have happened in Chicago,” Murray says. “It’s specifically a story about Bolingbrook and Will County.” Explosive population growth and its concomitant problems have come to the new southwestern suburbs in the past few decades, but in many cases, the towns are governed by the same people who governed them when they were smaller. “They are seriously in the big leagues,” Murray says.
****************************************************

When you were writing the Unanswered Cries piece, did you uncover anything or learn anything in particular that gave you a reason to conclude how accident was listed as Kathleen’s cause of death? Cover up, incompetency, complacency? What is your opinion?

I’d say incompetence due to complacency, and then kind of a queasy cover-up. A longtime Will County watcher I spoke with called the politicians and law enforcement people out there “a bunch of chicken farmers.” Meaning, most of them rose through the ranks many years ago when Will County was basically Joliet surrounded by farm country and some villages—long before it became a Chicago-like bustling population center with a high volume of exotic crimes and other problems. The feeling I got as I grilled various Will County officials about why they didn’t take this Savio story more seriously from beginning to end (and after the end) was kind of a self-pitying: How could we have known this was going to become such a big deal? To be honest, I felt for them—and hoped voters would put them out to pasture on the nearest remaining chicken farm. Or maybe they’ve learned their lessons and are getting up to speed. You guys would know that better than I would.

Drew Peterson: Mommy’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.

This morning Drew Peterson and his attorney Joel Brodsky made the local morning show circuit to respond on air to the Savio family filing a wrongful death suit against Peterson.

On Fox’s Good Day Chicago show Drew made an embarrassing blunder. While leading into questions about the wrongful death suit, host Jan Jeffcoat asked a few questions about Peterson’s children, including what Drew tells them regarding his missing wife, Stacy’s, whereabouts. “What do you tell your children when they say, ‘Where’s Mommy?’ What do you say to them?” Jeffcoat asked.

Drew responded, “She’s on vacation and she’s not coming back.”

With some surprise in her voice, Jeffcoat asked, “Why do you say she’s not coming back?” Peterson quickly did a one-eighty, “I don’t say she’s not coming back.”

As the video feed switched to still images of Stacy and her children, Jeffcoat pursued the question, “You just said, “I tell them she’s on vacation. She’s not coming back.” Drew began to backpedal saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean that. She’s on vacation…and we don’t know when she’s coming back. My little girl keeps asking when she’s coming back and I keep telling her I don’t know.”

Jeffcoat then expressed that it must be heartbreaking for Drew. He responded, “It is for me, yes. But it’s become commonplace for the kids”

If it’s so commonplace for the kids, why is it that his little girl keeps asking when Mommy is coming back? If it’s so heartbreaking for Drew, why does he have an ongoing relationship with a young woman who according to Drew “comes and goes” from his home and in and out of the children’s lives? How does he explain that to his children?

Savio Family to Bring Wrongful Death Suit against Drew Peterson

NBC reports that the suit will be filed tomorrow – April 21st.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kathleen Savio

Exclusive: Drew Sued For Wife’s Death
Family of Kathleen Savio files wrongful death suit

By ROB STAFFORD and BJ LUTZ

BOLINGBROOK, ILL — No one has been criminally charged in the death of Kathleen Savio, but her family’s attorney on Monday night said they will file a wrongful death civil suit against the man many believe committed the crime: Savio’s former husband, Drew Peterson.

The 15-page lawsuit, to be filed in Will County Circuit Court, carefully lays out a case the family says shows that Peterson was responsible for the death of his third wife.

The suit claims:

•  that during the couple’s “contentious divorce” in 2002, “there were a number of confrontations” that resulted in police reports that detailed Peterson’s physical assaults and threats of physical violence,
• that upon finalization of the divorce, Peterson gained entry to the home of which Savio had become the sole owner by using a garage door opener and, on one occasion, by cutting through a wall and crawling through it,
• that Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, met with a pastor and said that she had “personal, detailed knowledge” that Peterson had killed Savio.

Five months after their divorce was finalized, Savio was found dead, face down in a dry bathtub. Her death was initially ruled an accident but follow-up autopsies determined it was by homicide.

Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, said the allegations in the lawsuit are “absolutely untrue” and said he looks forward to questioning witnesses in the case.

Fatal Vows – Update on Susan Murphy Milano’s New Show

Fatal Vows by Joe Hosey

Yesterday, Susan Murphy Milano debuted her new blogttalk radio show. Rescueapet and I were invited to ask some questions about the Drew Peterson cases of her guest, Joe Hosey as was Delilah from Peace4theMissing.  We tried to ask the questions that people posted here, so I hope you heard yours answered.

Not everyone was able to hear the show or to download the MP3, and have asked us for a synopsis, and I started to write one but I just sort of ended up transcribing the Q & A portion of the show plus a little more.

Here you go:

Intro by Susan MM: Lies women tell themselves as they endure daily abuse, the secrets they hold close to their hearts for fear their true identity as battered women will be revealed and the life they lead until one day we all read about them with our morning coffee, suddenly vanished without a trace, their lifeless bodies discovered.

Q: What is the status of the Grand Jury?

JOE: After the eighteen-month term is over they’re going to have to have to let them go, by law. They’d have to empanel a whole new Grand Jury and bring them up to speed and I think that would take an awful lot of time after eighteen months of testimony to bring an entirely new Grand Jury up to speed. I would hope that, you know you hear from State’s Attorney’s office that there’s going to be an imminent resolution. He didn’t say ‘imminent’, he said pending resolution. I would hope that’s coming soon but I hope it’s before this Grand Jury term expires.

Q: So it’s still going on?

JOE: Yes, I believe until the first week of May. If my memory serves me, I believe Drew was at the first session of the Grand Jury and that was the first Wednesday after Stacy was reported missing or the second Wednesday. That would have been the first week in November and that would make eighteen weeks the first week in May.

Q: When Joe was last on your radio show he mentioned that he was surprised that Drew hasn’t been arrested yet and it seems like Joe does know some things that we don’t. Why is Joe wondering why Drew has not been arrested?

SUSAN: What happens is you can’t dilute the importance of a case. Sometimes you can allude to things, you want to say things. You want to keep the integrity of the case. You want to keep the integrity of you as a journalist. Am I wrong Joe?

JOE: No, you’re absolutely right. I’m doing the best I can to get the things that I know in the paper. Maybe if I did a better job they’d be in there by now, but I’m doing the best I can. Also, things that I hear and I don’t know if they’re true I’m still working on trying to find out if some of the things that I’m told, if I can prove them. I can’t just repeat things that I hear.

SUSAN: Joe is part of a list of very credible reporters who will only report the facts because if he doesn’t it’s really going to hurt because he’ll be brought in for questioning himself. He could be subpoenaed to the Grand Jury for articles he’s written or things that he has said, and that’s why everybody has been so careful.

Drew Peterson and the Slayer Statute. Can a Killer Inherit?

On last night’s Justice Interrupted show Robin Sax and Susan Murphy-Milano invited UCLA Law School professor and partner in the Personal Planning Department of Proskauer Rose, Andy Katzenstein, to talk about the estate and will of Kathleen  as well as the status of Stacy Peterson’s estate.

On looking over Drew and Kathleen’s will which was written up on March 2nd, 1997, Katzenstein had three observations about it:

1. The will is odd. Usually a husband draws up his own will and a wife draws up her own. You shouldn’t write up a joint will, but that’s what this one is.
2. It’s obvious that no lawyer had a hand in writing up the will. It’s hand-written on a a legal pad. There’s probably nothing fraudulent about it but it was obviously drawn up by people who had no idea what they were doing.
3. The will only says what happens if they both die. It doesn’t say what happens if he dies or she dies individually.