Drew Peterson says his sons lied under oath. Bye-bye alibi…

At Drew Peterson’s latest hearing Judge Burmila ruled that Kathleen Savio waived her attorney-client privilege when she asked her divorce lawyer, Harry Smith, to speak out in the event that anything happened to her. He is now free to testify that Savio spoke and wrote to him about her fears that her husband would kill her and make it look like an accident–fears that he had dismissed as “paranoia” until she was found dead in the bathtub of the home she had shared with Drew Peterson.

Judge Burmila did cede in part to the defense by deciding that in waiving the privilege, Smith would need to testify as to anything that Kathleen had told him in confidence, including any statements that might be inclulpatory. Specifically, the defense is eager to have Smith testify that Savio may have lied under oath during a battery case involving a 2002 incident wherein Kathleen attempted to grab a camcorder from Stacy Peterson.

Defense attorney, Steve Greenberg is so excited at the prospect of smearing the reputation of the dead woman that he couldn’t help but crow to the press that the State might decide to not have Harry Smith testify at all, but “if they don’t, we might.”

Joel Brodsky excitedly posted about the far-reaching implications of a possible Savio perjury exposure on his Facebook page:

…Indications are that Kathy Savio took the stand and denied her guilt, and if that is the case, then she lied under oath in the battery case. If that is shown to be true then nothing Kathy Savio said can be believed or taken as reliable evidence in a court of law.

That’s a very interesting statement. Interesting because it appears that Kathleen Savio was not the only person who may have lied under oath about the incident of May 26, 2002.

In a recent interview with the Sun-Time’s Michael Sneed, Drew Peterson described how it came about that his ex-wife was acquitted of the battery charge. “She punched Stacy once in the face in front of the kids and was arrested. But she was found not guilty because the kids said she didn’t do it,” he is quoted as saying. So, not only did Kathleen Savio lie under oath about striking Stacy Peterson, but so did Tom and Kris Peterson?

Drew Peterson is saying that his sons Tom and Kris lied under oath to protect their mother. According to Joel Brodsky that means that nothing they said can be believed or taken as reliable evidence in a court of law.

This is bad news for Drew Peterson since those two boys are his only alibi for his whereabouts on the weekend of February 28-29, 2004.

Since his arrest in 2009 Peterson’s attorneys have been trotting out Drew’s kids to vouch for him, calling them his “lock-tight alibi”. Thomas Peterson even appeared on TV with is dad to state his belief that his dad is innocent, claiming “I highly do not believe that my dad had murdered my mom because, first off, he wasn’t there. He was with us during that period of time.”

In no way do I mean to accuse those boys of being bad people, or of being in any way involved in the murder of their mother. But I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that children will go to great lengths to please a parent and to fight to keep what family they have intact.

However, if those kids lied under oath once before to protect a parent, what would keep them from doing it again? If it’s true that Savio lied about striking Stacy Peterson then it must also be true that Tom and Kris lied as well, and wouldn’t that destroy their credibility as witnesses for the defense?

By the way, I believe that the Will County Adult Detention Facility records all inmate conversations with visitors. Is it too late for the State to subpoena the recordings of Peterson’s conversation with Sneed?

~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.~


30 thoughts on “Drew Peterson says his sons lied under oath. Bye-bye alibi…

  1. Interesting. Christopher Vaughn’s defense is trying to get hearsay introduced in his trial.

    Christopher Vaughn’s oldest daughter purportedly told classmates her mother heard “thoughts in her head” and was “psycho,” the Oswego man’s attorney told a judge Monday.

    The alleged comment came from Abigayle Vaughn, who was 12 when she and her siblings — 11-year-old Cassandra and 8-year-old Blake — were gunned down June 14, 2007, along Interstate 55 near Channahon…

    …Prosecutors asked Rozak to hold a hearing to review Healy’s testimony.

    But Defense attorney George Lenard said there’s no need for the hearing. He pointed not only to Abigayle’s alleged comment, reported by a classmate to the Illinois State Police two days after her death, but to emails written by Kimberly Vaughn.


    You’ll remember George Lenard who also represented Drew Peterson before he left over differences with Joel Brodsky.


  3. In my opinion, that is a painful thing to watch. Painful to see what it’s like for idiot’s sons to sit next to him and listen to questions about the death of their mother, and then, moving on, about Peterson’s young girlfriend.

    What a dysfunctional family. I admit, the children were dragged into all of this by their creep of a father, but it doesn’t lessen the fact that this is not your usual, all-American, suburban family.

    By the way, when you do watch this video, Tom Peterson clearly says he does not believe his father killed his mother. He has no idea, he’s only repeating, and hoping, what he wants it to be. I think that comes across clearly. I really don’t think there’s anyone who can listen to his words and just assume that as a young man, he knew his father’s every move that weekend. In fact, forcing this issue makes Peterson look all the worse. That monster uses anyone that can cover his dirty deeds, whether it’s his children or not.

  4. I cringe when I watch that video or even look at that picture. When you first see Tom and he nervously adjusts his hands, it’s just heartbreaking.

    Why couldn’t Peterson have spared his kids this awfullness?

  5. As for the Vaughn situation, It’s started to get a little sickening the amount of murder trials in which the female victims are being painted as “psychos” and “hellcats”. These women are DEAD. They can’t fight back against the accusations, and yet we’re supposed to protect the defendant by barring the victim’s second-hand testimony, and not letting jurors see voluntary public statements by the defendants in which they come off as “cold”.

    Where is the justice?

  6. Good point brought up about the children supposedly lying for their Mother. If they lied for her, why wouldn’t they lie for Drew? It is a natural instinct for parents, and children to protect one another, sometimes at all costs. As we have seen with Steven who went to all lengths to try and help and protect his Father, at the cost of his marriage, career, among other things. Seems Drew had alot of people in his life covering up, hiding, spying, and lying for him.
    I would like to know how he is going to use those children as a lock tight alibi the night Kathleen died? The time they figured Kathleen Savio died the children would have been in bed. I remember somewhere he said the children watch South Park till 10 or something like that then they go to bed? This was within the last three years, so I highly doubt he allowed those children so young at the time to stay up that late at night.

    Then there was the morning when he went to get donuts and the kids were at home with Stacy. So therefore IMO he doesn’t have a solid alibi to begin with. There were gaps were he was alone and can’t be accounted for.

  7. I’m going to look but I could of swore originally when this all first started he said somewhere that the night he is supposedly had an alibi that they were at home playing games with the kids, and then they went to bed, and he went to bed with Stacy to you know..that he was with her all night. If I am right and can find that, his alibi is shot to hell for those kids saying he was home all night. I could of swore he said something like that, I could be wrong though it has been so long.

  8. I hope the video evidence works out better for these prosecutors than for State in the Peterson case:

    While prosecutors rested their case Monday after presenting 21 witnesses, including eight who said they had been assaulted by Sandusky, they have asked NBC to turn over and authenticate full transcripts of a phone interview that Sandusky did with Bob Costas last November. Among the Sandusky comments in the transcripts that were not aired on TV was: “I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped.” How that and other statements are interpreted could play a role in the trial that is expected to wrap up this week.


  9. Here’s Vinnie Politan outside the Peterson home promising you stellar coverage from In Session. He claims that Steve is living there and raising Drew’s four youngest children. guess he forgot that Tom has been living in PA for almost a year.

    Nice view of a couple of vehicles in a driveway though *golf clap*

  10. Trying to see the logic here. If it is granted that the boys lied under oath to protect their Mother and that makes any testimony they may unreliable; then accordingly, if Kathleen also lied about striking Stacy would that not also make any of her testimony made even from the grave unreliable?

    Because she and the boys all lied.

  11. Just thought I’d share what one reader thought about Sneed’s Peterson interview. Amen!!!

    The letter bin . . .

    On Sneed writing about accused wife murderer Drew Peterson:

    I won’t read it and won’t even make my birds sick by having to sit over it all day in their cage.

    John A. Stoffa, FOP Lodge No .14, Kane County Sheriff’s department

  12. John, as an equation that would be correct, but that’s not how it would go down in court.

    The boys’ perjury would only be pertinent if the defense decides first to “open the door” about the battery incident by making Harry Smith testify to what Savio told him in confidence. If they choose to introduce that incident in order to paint Kathleen as a perjurer and possibley cast doubt upon the reliability of the hearsay evidence (obviously she can’t testify, being dead and all) then they give the state the opportunity to throw it back in their faces and introduce that Tom and Kris also lied under oath about the incident (according to Drew) and are therefore not reliable witnesses.

    It has not yet been established that anyone lied under oath. It’s Peterson's defense who claims that Kathleen did, and Peterson himself who claims that his boys did (during an interview with Michael Sneed, reported in the Sun-Times and most likely recorded by the detention facility).

    If the defense decides not to make Smith testify about what Savio told him about the battery incident, then the door stays shut and there's no opening for the state to challenge the boys' credibility.

    It's a hypothetical situation in which the defense could shoot themselves in the foot by calling into question Kathleen's credibility over that particular incident. It's up to them if they want to take that risk…

    (Keep in mind that the “logic” being followed here is that of Joel Brodsky. He’s the one who wants us to believe that if Kathleen lied under oath “…then nothing Kathy Savio said can be believed or taken as reliable evidence in a court of law.” If you believe that to be the case then you would also need to believe the same is true of Drew’s boys. Personally, I wouldn’t make the simplistic mental jump that since Kathy lied about hitting Stacy on one occasion that she also lied every time she told someone about being threatened, stalked and frightened by Drew. Especially since she did actually end up dead. On the other hand I’d be more likely to believe that if two sons lied to protect a parent once, that they might do the exact same thing again. It makes more sense…logically.)

  13. BTW, looks like Brodsky lost another court case for a client.

    “Last month the 43-year-old Jef Whitehead was found guilty of aggravated domestic battery, and earlier today Cook County Judge James Linn sentenced Whitehead to two years probation.”

  14. I posted an update at the top of the page, but in case you missed it, lawyers will meet with Judge Burmila on Monday morning to work out some aspects of jury selection.

  15. Well what about what this Sons testimony? This was at the time Kathleen’s step child and he seemed to see some of what happened to her before her death……


    Drew Peterson’s Son Testifies Against His Dad

    A son from Drew Peterson’s first marriage testified against his own father today. Eric Peterson described witnessing a 1993 incident in which his father dragged his third wife, Kathleen Savio, into the house, according to reports from the courthouse.

    Peterson, a former Illinois police officer has been charged with killing Savio, whose body was found in a bathtub in 2004.

    “She was screaming for help,” Eric Peterson, said according to The Associated Press. Peterson also said Savio had been drunk at the time. “He was pulling her down the stairs.”

    I wonder hmmm so now this Son is a liar also? All these witnesses are just making up what happened to Kathleen, and presumed liars? So Joel and Drew are going to say this son too is a liar?

  16. Unfortunately, Eric’s testimony about that incident won’t be heard at Drew’s trial.

    It was part of the “prior bad acts” testimony that Judge White decided was inadmissible because the incident Eric described was too remote in time from Kathleen’s death (along with testimony from Anna Doman and Vicky Connolly)

    The state appealed Judge White’s decision but the appellate court upheld it.

    …This evidence included the testimony of Eric Peterson, the defendant’s son from his first marriage, and Anna Doman, Kathleen’s sister. Eric and Anna testified regarding an incident of domestic abuse that the defendant allegedly committed upon Kathleen during their marriage in 1993….

    …In excluding this testimony, the circuit court focused on the fact that the alleged other crimes occurred several years before the charged offense. In finding that the alleged prior offenses were too remote in time, the court implicitly found that the prejudicial effect of the State’s other-crimes evidence outweighed its probative value

  17. Activity on the case Friday

    06/22/2012 Notice of Motion
    06/22/2012 Impounded Document-MOTION IN LIMINE
    06/22/2012 Notice of Motion
    06/22/2012 Impounded Document-MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
    06/22/2012 Notice of Filing
    06/22/2012 Impounded Document-RESPONSE TO MOTION IN LIMINE
    06/22/2012 Notice of Filing
    06/22/2012 Impounded Document-RESPONSE TO MOTION
    06/22/2012 Notice of Filing
    06/22/2012 Impounded Document-RESPONSE TO MOTION

    Activity on the case this morning.

    06/25/2012 Motion TO OPEN
    06/25/2012 Motion IN LIMINE
    06/25/2012 Impounded Document-REPLY TO MOTION

  18. A few more “events” from today:

    06/25/2012 Appearance FILED FOR DREW PETERSON
    06/25/2012 CF – Minute Entry
    06/25/2012 Impounded Document-Court Order dated 06/25/12

  19. June 25, 2012 (WLS) — Drew Peterson’s defense attorneys have won the right to introduce access evidence of his ex-wife Kathleen Savio’s past into his murder trial next month.

    Peterson is charged with Savio’s 2004 murder.

    Monday a judge ruled both the defense and prosecutors can have access to two previous expunged court files.

    Sources tell ABC7 that the two court filings are of misdemeanor battery cases filed against Savio in 2002.

    According to published reports, the charges with filed by Peterson and Savio was acquitted in both cases.
    Peterson and Savio were married at the time.


  20. I imagine the expunged records regarding the 2002 battery charges are related to the testimony of Harry Smith.

    Wondering how the jury will react to hearing how Savio was wrestled to the ground, screaming for help while Peterson held her in submission.

    Kind of wonder what sort of images that might conjure up in the minds of the jurors.

  21. So their angle will be to paint Kaithleen as a liar, she lied to the court so she would lie to her attorney and make up stuff. I see 2 problems with this. 1.) She apparently has told her attorney the truth about the battery charges (if thats what it is even about) and 2.) She died in a dry bathtub and it was made to look like an accident. It is my take that she used the upmost honesty with her attorney.

    Sounds to me like they are going to allow prior bad acts of Kathleen who is no longer here to defend herself. Maybe Stacey will step in an explain what really went down……….oh wait SHES MISSING!

    I also do wonder why they didn’t believe the words of our most upstanding police officer. If he was there and physically had to restrain Kathleen, then why did they take the word of the children over that of Officer Peterson?

  22. Oh, the defense has its own spin on what they think is a golden egg. They’re darn right giddy with excitement it seems to have the jury think that Kathleen was the aggressor and Peterson the victim in all of this.

    For one thing, Kathleen was at her own home when trouble came looking for her, not the other way around. How convenient, too, that Stacy, who was young and nothing more than Drew’s latest token, had a camera in which to record the ugly details of yet another Peterson confrontation.

    What a shame it is that Stacy can’t be here to set the record straight. Maybe she’d admit that she and Drew meant to antagonize Kathleen and show her up as a “hellcat” so Drew would look like the calm and patient one while in the midst of a contentious divorce. I mean, she was all set to kick Drew to the curb herself, so I can’t imagine her getting on the stand and wanting to lie to protect her husband now. Especially after telling others that she knew about him killing Kathleen. It’s sure helpful to Drew that she’s not here to speak one way or another.

    Oh, but I thought that the defense doesn’t want Stacy mentioned in this trial. Will the Peterson sons have to admit their mother was a liar, as were they? How sad, but that is the way it seems it must be. Those in Drew’s life are misfits and liars, only he is honorable and believable. I think we can all see that now.

  23. I’m still not sure how they can keep from mentioning Stacy. Afterall it is her disappearance that got this case reopened to begin with.

  24. I guess it would be too prejudicial for a jury to hear that for Drew Peterson losing soon-to-be ex-wives is more the norm than the exception. 🙄

    I think the state won’t be allowed to introduce the fact that Stacy is missing. However, if during questioning a witness mentions it, then the door is opened and it can be discussed.

    I think it could go this way:

    CROSS: Pastor Schori, why didn’t you immediately go to the police with the shocking thing that Stacy told you she saw that night?

    SCHORI: She didn’t ask me to and besides that I wanted to respect her confidences, but then when she went missing I felt that I had a duty to go to police with what she had told me.

    …and at that point the fact that Stacy is missing is open for mentioning.

    I’ll bet there is much the defense would rather not have a jury hear about Drew’s past actions, or Stacy going missing, etc. that might all end up coming into trial due to the defense’s over-eagerness in attacking witnesses.

  25. BTW, the ABC story (linked upthread) has been revised.

    It no longer says that the defense has won the right to “introduce” evidence from the battery incident.

    It now says that they’ve won the right to “access” evidence.

    This is quite a difference.

  26. Yes, there is huge difference. Maybe after they review the evidence they might realize they don’t really want it brought up, as they are trying to keep Drew’s past actions underwraps and it is likely that it could be damaging to Drew, as well.

Comments are closed.