|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.