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.

Read More

'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.

Read More

The Journey to Justice: Garvin County, Oklahoma

By Susan Murphy-Milano

On October 14, I arrived in Garvin County, Oklahoma. I was brought in by family members to review and bring attention to their cases involving possible murder, cover up and corruption. I went to Oklahoma, knowing there were threats to harm me, but I felt this trip was important to secure information about each of these cases in front of new eyes.

What I found was beyond what I expected. There is a difference when meeting these families face to face and going to the actual areas where the crimes took place at "ground zero" instead of looking at photos or talking on the phone. It was immediately apparent to me that something, many things, were wrong with the initial "howdy doody" so-called investigations. This included staging the original crime scenes from bogus shell casings to cleaning up a bloody witness, and removing blood-soaked sheets, blankets or rugs, to actually dragging a body from the inside of a home out to the backyard. And at least one additional murder, possibly two, also directly relate to the cases

Meeting with each individual family was an eye-opener. Seeing, for myself, the landscape in which these crimes were committed would now give these cases a chance at justice. After reviewing never-before-seen crime scene photos, documentation and, in my opinion, new evidence added by the sheer determination of these families, I put the cases of Chanda Turner, Sheila Deviney and Tom Horton, now identified as “The Garvin County Three,” into a national spotlight. I had a lot of help, including a former prosecutor with whom I would report my findings. We would strategize my daily methods of gathering solid information and shipping it out by carrier the next day. You need to establish what is known as "a pattern of conduct." If you build the framework around this, you definitely have a case. And indeed, I did.

It was interesting to go into restaurants and businesses and see firsthand the treatment these families received--some good, some not so good. Like being shunned, or having a contagious disease, people were obviously in fear of being seen talking to them. It was gut-wrenching as I witnessed this happening before my eyes. It reminded me of a time when my own hero of a father murdered my mother before taking his own life. Those in my Chicago community, many of whom I had known my entire life, would publicly turn their backs or threaten my life if I continued “disgracing the Chicago Police Department and maligning my father’s good name."

By day three of my investigation at “ground zero,” the hostile climate turned and the curtain of fear in the surrounding towns of Paul’s Valley, Lindsey, Norman and Maysville began to rise. People were talking about the truth, the facts I was releasing nightly on the nationally syndicated program The Roth Show. People were coming forward providing crucial evidence and supplying statements. One by one, townsfolk expressed their embarrassment for how their community has been portrayed in the national spotlight. You saw them taking a stand with the truth, knowing that if things continued as they always had in Garvin County that justice would never be served and that others might be harmed in the process, possibly one of their own children or loved one.

Working within a system with a scandalous medical examiner’s office, a questionable sheriff, and a small town where families with money help keep things in control, the families of “the Garvin County Three”would not give up. My greatest pleasure, and the best part of my trip, was getting to know them better. These are real people who have been handed one of life’s biggest disservices, injustice.

As my time in Garvin County continued, I was surprised to see that other families were contacting either myself or attorney Jaye Mendros of Justice for the Dead site. This included people who had a lot of information surrounding these cases. It almost seemed as if there was a new consciousness, and some were finding that maybe their own consciences were finally getting the best of them after so many years of holding the secrets. Those secrets are now documented.

In the midst of a controversial upcoming election for a new sheriff in Garvin County, I found the tensions mounting all around me. Many people in the county were trying to keep the old guard in office to keep things as they have been for the last 11 years. Also, maybe some were trying to keep their own loved ones from facing the music they were hiding from behind the very ones who were present on each of the crime scenes of Sheila Deviney, Chanda Turner and Tom Horton, The Garvin County Three.

On November 2, the people of Garvin County spoke up loudly and clearly that it was finally time for a change. They elected to give the old sheriff the boot and bring in someone who has promised to do what is necessary to get their cases re-opened and re-examined. The task facing new Sheriff Larry Rhoades is daunting, and we have to believe that he will see this through.

There is still a lot of work to do in Oklahoma, but the process has begun to get the ball rolling in the right direction. Justice will be served for The Garvin County Three.

There are so many people I would like to thank, and you all know who you are, especially my colleagues here at Women In Crime Ink. Without your support and prayers, this journey would have been much more difficult. Also, a special thanks to Dr. Laurie Roth and Doug Hagmann; I always knew you had my back every step of the way. And to those now at the beginning stages of the preliminary investigation as it relates to the long-awaited truth for Chanda Turner, Sheila Deviney, Tom Horton and each of their families who know justice is now a step closer.

Read More

No Justice in Oklahoma

by Susan Murphy Milano

For more than a decade, the Oklahoma Medical Justice For The Dead is the tip of the iceberg of what families have endured, going back to the year 2000 and the unsolved murder(s) of their family members. Autopsies are stamped "suicide" as if the medical examiner's office is branding justice for victims as if they were cattle.

One by one, the crime scene photos tell each victim's story. The blood-spattered walls, the entry and exist wounds of bullets, an appliance cord around a neck to burn patterns, and body position upon entry. The Examiner's Office has practiced a brand of cover up and corruption without regard for truth and justice.

Chanda Turner, just 23 years old, was shot to death at her home in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, 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.

On January 6, 2004, Sheila Deviney's mobile home (fire photo, right), located about one mile east and one mile south of Maysville, Oklahoma, burned to the ground. Deviney, 30, was murdered. It should be no surprise that Sheila Deviney had been married to an abusive, controlling man. They had a court date about past-due child support scheduled for the next day. According to eye witnesses, her ex-husband was at the home, although, by law, he was not allowed on the premises. He and another friend destroyed evidence and took items from the home. And, as of last week, the medical examiner's office has set a deadline in 2012 regarding the destruction of Sheila's tissue samples. And there is a $50,000 reward being offered by Oklahoma business people in this case.

Tom Horton (left) had been a beloved and respected teacher for twenty five years in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, before he was killed by a shotgun blast in his home on December 10, 2008.

Many family members sounded the alarm of foul play, they pointed out obvious evidence of a homicide to local authorities which fell on deaf ears.

Medical Investigator John Miller, who is not a physician and who also obstructed the performance of an autopsy in Chanda Turner's case, classified the death a suicide. No autopsy was perfomed, despite Tom Horton dying of an unattended, violent death by firearm. The family's repeated requests for an autopsy were denied. Without benefit of an autopsy or other direct scrutiny by any pathologist, Horton’s death remains incorrectly classified as a suicide. The family called attention to physical evidence in other areas of the dwelling corroborating homicide, all of which the ME's Office met with hostility.

Faced with an overwhelming number of inconsistencies and physical evidence, five individuals from Wynnewood, including two of Horton’s sons, two family friends and a former student, began the arduous task of seeking justice in Garvin County, up to and including the petitioning for a grand jury.

Landon Edwards, or "Hopper," (pictured, right) was just 26 years of age when he was found murdered in Guymon on August 30, 2008. The autopsy photos in this case tell a much different story than what the Oklahoma ME's office listed on his death certificate.

At the time, according to family accounts, "[Landons'] girlfriend claimed to have found him upon awaking at 8:38 a.m." Supposedly, Landon hung himself less than 10 feet from where she slept, in a room that had no door between her and the victim. The facts speak for themselves. The victim's position at the scene did not support that of a self-induced death, or suicide.

As you are reading this, I am in Oklahoma, under what many consider a hostile environment. Threats have been implied that I will not leave the state in anything other than a body bag. During my ten days in Oklahoma, I will be visiting crimes scenes with family members, participating in press conferences, legislation and meeting with various officials.

The Roth Show will be taking daily reports live from me as I make appearances in and around Oklahoma. Dr. Laurie Roth and her associates have committed themselves to helping keep me safe while I'm there.

Read More

Banking on Murder

By Susan Murphy Milano

On May 10, 2010, Tim Lowrey begged the Mobile, Alabama, city and district attorneys to help his girlfriend, Wendy Stevens, and for them to arrest her estranged husband, Michael Berry. Lowrey asked, “Why hasn’t the judge signed the order on the felony charge so your guys can arrest Berry?” The district attorney responded, “Not to worry. They have it under control, and he will be taken into custody on Wednesday when he shows up for his court date regarding visitation for the kids.”

Lowrey persisted. “He is going to kill her, he is obsessed with Wendy," he pleaded with the D.A. "You have to do something now. If you don’t, she will die.” He continued with the city and state for another three hours, going through the lengthy documentation of almost daily police reports, stalking, prior documented and sustained injuries, hospital reports, hundreds of threatening text messages, e-mails, and the permanent order of protection. But it was useless. The state felt that Michael Berry, a part-time postal worker, "didn’t pose that much of a danger.” Lowrey was relentless and would not back down -- until he was finally asked to leave.

Tim was preparing to leave early the next morning for a job assignment out of state and wouldn’t be back until the weekend. He did not want to leave Wendy and her children, now under his roof, knowing that Michael Berry was a ticking time bomb. He asked Wendy to be careful, thinking that the daily calls for help and police reports were only flaming Michael Berry’s violent temper.

The next day Tim left and Wendy Stevens cautiously went about her day. After work, she picked up her kids and at 6:45 p.m. was at a drive-thru ATM, with her four children in the car, when five rounds of gunfire blasted into the SUV, killing the 36-year-old mother from Mobile. Immediately after the shooting, an all-points bulletin was issued for the now-armed and dangerous Berry. He was apprehended and charged the following day with Wendy's murder and held on $500,000 bond.

Tim Lowrey was in Michigan when Wendy’s stepfather called with the news that she was dead, immediately followed with, “Why the hell didn’t you protect her?” Her immediate family was angry with Tim for not doing more to keep her alive. I have a news flash for Wendy’s family; the system failed her, not Tim Lowrey. The children have all been separated and are living with relatives in various parts of the county. They will be forever scarred by this single, life-altering event. Four children witnessed the cold-blooded murder of their mother, and that vision is literally tattooed inside of them for the remainder of their days on earth. The repeated memory of these children will be of being helpless and watching as Mommy is shot, bullets entering her body with lightning speed, while buckled-up in her seat, slumped over the steering wheel. It is the last picture and memory they will have of their Mother.

In my opinion, no amount of therapy will prepare them for their life's journey. The months ahead will be cruel as they attempt to get through a single day without reliving this nightmare. The news coverage of this case will go on for months and perhaps years.

We don’t often hear, after the fact, when someone is killed as a result of intimate partner homicide, about those who did everything in their power, almost getting themselves arrested, to help save a life. After personally reviewing copies of the original case file, I am outraged! The blood of Wendy Stevens is literally dripping from the chairs onto the floors of both the city and state attorney’s desk. They killed her as sure as Michael Berry emptied his illegal firearm into her that day.

This is not the last you will hear of this case, nor of Tim Lowery. Tune in at 9 p.m. EST, Monday, September 27, 2010 to Intimate Partner Homicide for the rest of the facts about this case.

Case Overview: Wendy Stevens filed for divorce in January 2010 and had gotten a court order of protection against her estranged husband who was, according to the judge's order, violent and stalking her. On Tuesday, May 11, 2010, after he allegedly killed Wendy, Berry fled the crime scene. On Wednesday, he was arrested and charged with her murder. That same morning, he had been scheduled to appear in court for violating the protective order.

Read More

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.

Read More

"Claiming Bloody Innocence"

by Susan Murphy Milano

On June 14, 2007, exactly three years ago this past Monday, Kimberly Ellen Vaughn, 34; Abigayle Elizabeth Vaughn, 12; Cassandra Ellen Vaughn, 11; and Blake Phillip Vaughn, 9, were found shot to death in a red SUV parked among a grove of trees in Will County, Illinois.

The only survivor of this gruesome tragedy is Kimberly's husband, Christopher Vaughn, who had minor gunshot wounds to his thigh and wrist. A former private investigator, Vaughn claims the family was headed to a water park when he pulled the SUV over because his wife “suddenly became ill.” What happened next is the crux of this case. Vaughn admits that he'd brought along a 9mm handgun on the family outing. Yet he claims that he didn't pull the trigger. In Vaughn's version, his dead wife suffered from severe depression and abused prescription drugs. She was suicidal, and he was simply another victim. The shooter that day, according to Vaughn, was Kimberly, who shot him and murdered the children before turning the gun on herself.

On this, the Vaughns' 13th wedding anniversary, Kimberly died of a single bullet to the chin, while each of her children suffered two gunshot wounds to their bodies. At least one piece of forensic evidence calls Vaughn's account into question; Kimberly had no gun reside on her hands.

It appears that authorities believe what I do, that the gunshot wounds Vaughn suffered were self inflicted, and that Kimberly wasn't the one pulling the trigger. Just hours before she and the children were to be buried, nine days after the murders, investigators arrived at the funeral home to take this low-life piece of human garbage into custody, charging him with eight counts of first-degree murder.

We'll never know if Vaughn had GSR, gunshot residue, on his hands; he wasn't tested at the scene. Since the day of the murders, he has claimed that he has no memory of the events, suffering from some bizarre form of amnesia. It seems absurd in the face of his actions that day, especially flagging down a vehicle for help and then conversing normally with the driver who called 911.

The trial date isn't set yet, but in the courtroom, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Vaughn planned and carried out the murders. For motive, they'll point to a $1 million dollar insurance policy Vaughn took out on Kimberly’s life. For the time being, the accused murderer hasn't been able to collect. Under the “Illinois slayer statue” unless Vaughan is acquitted he won’t see a dime. However, there are more problems with the way the case was handled than that Vaughn's hands weren't tested for gunshot residue at the scene. Another crucial piece of evidence, a towel, was rendered useless when it was mistakenly washed at the Will County morgue.

The defense will no doubt use investigators' mistakes to their advantage, along with pointing at prescription drugs Kimberly took for migraines as evidence of her "depression." Sprinkle in a parade of neighbors the defense will undoubtedly call to show what a loving, wonderful father their client is, and you can predict the prosecutions' problems. I expect the defense team to play a full symphony complete with violins casting doubt before the case finally goes before a jury.

Why hasn't this case received more publicity? Soon after the murders the case was sealed by a judge. In that way, the Vaughn case is different than that of former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, who will be tried next month in the same county for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The result is that in the Vaughn murders, the prosecution and the defense have the opportunity to try their case in a court of law minus the Peterson case's media circus.

Although I try to be mindful that a person is always innocent until proven guilty, I have a difficult time believing any other result than that Christopher Vaughn should receive the death penalty.

Read More

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.

Read More

The Common Fear Factor

by Susan Murphy-Milano

One of the major reasons women stay in abusive relationships is fear. They are afraid of what will happen to them and their children if they leave. Sadly, their fears are often justified; statistics show that a woman is at the greatest risk for injury when she announces her plans or leaves an abusive relationship.

To illustrate the danger, let's consider the case of Utah's Susan Powell, a wife and mother who has not been seen or heard from since December 6th. Hers is a familiar scenario, one that occurs in the majority of abused women cases across the country. If one takes a close look at the evidence, in my opinion, the most logical conclusion is that Susan Powell was murdered. 

Susan Powell was a stockbroker with two young sons, a devoted mother and likely the person in the marriage with a larger paycheck than her husband, Josh. Over time, the marriage reportedly turned controlling, with Josh insisting on knowing what Susan was doing when not under his radar. We've all seen the news reports, including that he demanded she tell him how much she spent on herself and for household goods and services. In this type of case, the fights build up from yelling to shoving. A bedroom door is slammed with greater frequency, and the couple drifts apart. 

Many abused women hope that having children will change the behavior of an abusive mate. They hope the abuser will turn his/her life around for the sake of the children and that the result will finally be a happy home life. In the Powell case, that didn't happen. Pregnant with her second child, perhaps under circumstances beyond her control (she could have been forced as some are in the marriage), Susan brings another life into a world three years later where anger and violent outbursts become commonplace. During this time Susan likely announces, the marriage is over. Perhaps making statements such as, "we need to divorce" or "this is not fair to the children and I can no longer go on living this way." 

There is a point for many abused women when they verbally announce the steps to end the abuse that lays the foundation for an abuser to begin thinking about a course of action. Around this time an abused woman begins confiding in co-workers or close friends. As we later learned from authorities, that is exactly what Susan did. 

For the alleged offender, I will use Josh Powell as an example. Now he is formulating a plan no different from the plans of other violent persons: one born of anger and desperation. Anger because the person is leaving and ending the relationship. Desperation over what he (the abuser) will be forced to carry out if the person with whom he is in a relationship cannot be persuaded to stay. 

This plan remains in the abuser's mind, of course, until he see signs of movement. In this case, perhaps Susan was whispering on the phone to someone, and when Josh walked into the room she quickly changed her tone or ended the phone call. Or he learned that Susan set up a bank account and believed she was hiding money so she and the kids could leave. 

The signs of movement spark Josh or any potential abuser to think of the next level. They think to themselves, Okay, she is going to leave me. I will not let that happen. He acts as though nothing is wrong but, when she goes to sleep, Josh rummages through her car looking for evidence of her plan, a bank receipt or an unusual transaction or charge. Maybe in her purse he checks the cell phone for any unusual numbers he does not recognize. Or goes through the computer and checks the browser to see her activity. 

He finds something and his anger is elevated, his heart is racing, but he remains calm and says nothing to Susan. A smile comes to his face because he "caught her," and he figures she will pay one way or the other at a later date. 

Around this time Susan begins sending e-mails about the abuse and threats she has endured by Josh to a trusted circle of friends. Maybe she keeps a detailed log with dates and times of the incidents. 

Now Josh does what I label the "smell change." Susan is acting strange and, like cologne,
Josh can literally (as with most abusers) sense when their environment has shifted. Perhaps Susan is verbalizing her unhappiness with greater frequency. Maybe she stands up for herself during a fight where months before Susan would have backed down and gone to her room without incident. 

It is very difficult for any abused women to hide that spark of empowerment from a clever abuser. They (the abuser) smell it as sure as a fox entering a coop filled with chickens.


It's now that most abusers decide to implement their plans. He has thought about it from the moment it entered his mind. The children are sleeping and the couple gets into a heated argument. At this point possible scenarios vary. Here is one example: Josh in his rage could have knocked her unconscious and carried her out to the car. Then, one at a time, he lifts his sleeping boys into the back seat. The family drives to the desert. Susan wakes up and gets out of the car. Josh and she are arguing and he hits or pushes her off an embankment and into a ravine. Josh drives back with the boys to the house where he is questioned by authorities. 

In many ways, the case of Susan Powell appears no different from the millions of cases of violence we never hear about, until women go missing and their bodies are found. Abuse victims often have no official documentation of the abuse because they were too afraid to contact police or obtain a court order of protection. Why? Because better than anyone they (the victims) know it would do them no good. It would only escalate the level of danger. 

The one thing an abuse victim knows for certain is the fear that has been planted in them over time by an abuser and the likelihood of imminent danger if it is discovered they plan to leave. I believe this is what happened in Susan Powell’s case;  she had only one opportunity to leave and somehow Josh Powell found out. 

On December 7, 2009, I, like a number of you, saw this case on the Internet or on a news broadcast. And, sadly, I bowed my head in prayer, knowing she would never again be seen alive.

Read More