'How to get Away With the Ultimate Murder,' Author Unknown

by Susan Murphy Milano

Late last week, a Michigan jury found Doug Stewart guilty of the murder of his wife, Venus Stewart, who was abducted from just outside her parents' home in Michigan April 26, 2010. The relationship had a documented history of violence. Venus Stewart filed for divorce and moved out of the marital home. Doug Stewart, according to police reports, was furious with her sending text messages and emails, demanding she return with the kids or “you know what will happen if you don’t.” Once she was finally able to leave the toxic and dangerous environment, as in all intimate partner violence relationships, the abuser went into action plan mode. 

The victim files numerous police reports and has court orders of protection; she tells friends and family she is in fear for her life. Why? Because he lost ownership, power and control over the person with whom they married. In the inner workings of an abuser’s mind, “till death do us part” is now their goal.

As an angry abuser, not wanting the person with whom I am in a relationship to leave, I am going to boil over like hot liquid on a stove. And, as an abuser, I have a lot of time to think out a plan of action. In the beginning, after the victim leaves, I am going to threaten the person where no one else can hear me. I will make a victim's life unbearable during the divorce process, especially in court mandated mediation meetings with mental health evaluators, while sitting dressed neatly and showing the world what a wonderful person I am. The moment the session is over I will shoot those looks of "now you did it" and "you are going to pay for this if you do not return to me." Next, as custody of the kids is being determined, as an abuser, I am outraged and think about how "she is not getting away with this alive."

I then, as the abuser, figure out where to get that special "handbook" available to members only in an eBook format that the recently formed "secret society of abusers" are all reading, titled How to Get Away With the Ultimate Murder, author unknown.

For some abusers, in my expert opinion, the handbook has worked in cases where the victim has vanished without a trace. There must be a chapter in the "handbook" on how to correctly lawyer up, as you will notice with each person of interest in cases where the wife is reported missing, the last person to see them no longer cooperates with authorities. In the blink of an eye, most persons of interest hire a fairly skilled defense attorney in the early stages. The legal hired armor acts as the shield or the mouth piece for the only person, once again in my expert opinion, behind the vanishing act of their loved one. Perfect example is the upcoming trial for the murder of missing mother Renee Pernice. Her husband, Shon Pernice, who is awaiting trial, secured an attorney immediately.

Isn't it rather strange that the victim is often the mother of their children, estranged wife or girlfriend? And, more often than not, they are going through a divorce or custody battle. And, yes, I need to mention that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

All of these cases have a common theme: The person has been erased from the planet, never to be seen or heard from again. A common theme does not make one guilty of the crime, but it is highly unusual that the person with whom the relationship has ended, in cases of intimate partner violence, does not have a motive. The facts, although circumstantial, do carry a lot of weight but is often not enough for a grand jury indictment, unless you have a body.

The prosecutor, John McDonough, went ahead and tried the Stewart case without a body. Not an easy task. But, he had enough circumstantial evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Douglas Stewart was found guilty by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder. Stewart is scheduled for sentencing sometime next month. The remains of Venus Stewart have yet to be found.

Venus Stewart is still missing. Anyone with information on the case is asked to contact Michigan State Police White Pigeon Post at 269-483-7611 or Rockford Regional Dispatch Center at 616-866-6666.

Read More

Two Cases of Missing Mothers, and One Suspect

by Susan Murphy Milano

It was January 2, 2009 when Shon Pernice was scheduled to attend a training session with the Missouri National Guard. Instead he picks up his kids at a neighbors home and his wife, Renee, is not there. That evening his daughter from another relationship was concerned she had not heard from Renee, her step-mother. Around 9:30 pm the child calls Renee, leaving a voice mail asking her to come home.

Saturday, January 3, at approximately 4:30 a.m., leaving his 11,- 8-, and 6-year-old children alone while they were sleeping, Shon Pernice goes to a fire station. He used his key card to enter Fire Station No. 5’s hazmat storage area. This area stores chemicals used for clean-up of hazardous spills. Shon is an EMT for the Independence, Missouri, fire department assigned to Fire Station No. 7, not station No. 5–a huge red flag.

He does not report to the National Guard that weekend. He goes into a facility likely forgetting or not knowing that his key card will be documented and recorded upon entry. His story is fabricated. He is the last person to see her alive. He does not report Renee missing. He has a lot to lose financially.

On Saturday, January 3, the stepchild calls her mother. According to accounts, the child is scared, so her mother picks up the daughter at the Pernice home, cutting short the normal visit. She then contacts someone from Renee’s family. A few hours later a family member calls the Pernice home to speak to Renee. Shon answered and said that he did not know where Renee was. Family members called 911.

Shon Pernice has given conflicting information on when he last saw Renee. He told a family member it was on January 1. He told police it was on the morning of January 2 between 9 and 10 a.m. At approximately 3 p.m., family members met officers at Renee’s home. Family members, along with officers, entered the residence and discovered that no one was home. They also discovered that Renee’s purse, vehicle, personal hygiene items and coat were at the residence. They noticed that Renee’s wallet, credit cards and cell phone were missing. Renee’s car was parked in the garage.

At the Pernice residence a call came in to a family member from Renee’s cell phone at approximately 4 pm. A homeless man had found the phone at about 1 a.m. on the morning of January 3, 2009, on the ground in the northeast part of town, approximately 12 miles from Renee’s home. Police sent a patrolman to pick up Renee’s phone from the homeless person.

The family members, not Shon Pernice, filed a missing person report while at the residence with police.

Another red flag, and important pattern of conduct by the last person to see his wife alive, Shon Pernice and  two attorneys arrived at the home and ordered the family and police to leave. The attorneys stated Pernice would not be speaking to family members or the police except through them.

On Sunday, January 4, Renee’s family immediately printed up posters and began posting flyers. They also searched portions of Kessler Park close to where Renee’s cell phone was found. In addition, the family contacted the local news stations asking if they would broadcast the news of Renee’s disappearance.

Monday, January 5, Detectives found divorce documents at Renee’s place of employment. They also found a photo of Shon with one of the children and an unknown woman in the file.

Tuesday, January 6, in the evening, Shon drove to Line Creek Park, approximately 1.5 miles from Renee’s house and let the family dog out of the van and left. Detectives who were observing Shon retrieved the dog. On January 7, police to obtain a warrant to search Renee’s house and they obtained another warrant on January 9 for the car.

A little over two years since Renee Pernice vanished, her remains have yet to be recovered. Had the stepchild not been alarmed and contacted her mother, a lot more evidence would have likely vanished.

In May of 2010, without a body, Shon Pernice was charged with murder and is being held on a million dollar bond. He is scheduled for trial in June of 2011. What is disturbing is that Renee may never be located because of the chemicals, in my opinion, used when he killed her. The timeline of when the children went to bed and when Pernice left the residence is important because that is when he may have disposed of her body. Where he had it hidden is anyone's guess, but it had to be a safe enough place for him to return, a place only he knew, where no one would suspect.

The details a week prior are also important to the case, including cell phone records, purchases at hardware stores, his timecards at work, the strange woman in a photo with him and the kids. His fire work boots and, frankly, any shoes in his truck, locker at work, the house and on the property are important evidence along with credit card activity six months prior. If they can identify the woman from the photo, her cell phone records and credit card activity should also be considered, as this is someone who might unknowingly make purchases for him, or secure a cell phone and have packages delivered to her.

The pattern of conduct of Renee Pernice leading up to the day she vanished could be like so many other women trying to leave a marriage. Renee held a good job with a salary large enough to support herself and her children. In fact, Renee alone cared for her children while her husband was stationed overseas. During the investigation, divorce papers were discovered in Renee's home office, leading us to believe she was serious this time about leaving her marriage.

Renee Pernice was close to her family, was in constant contact, and as is often heard in cases of missing mothers, "She would never leave her children." Most of the statements from Shon Pernice are in direct contrast with the woman and mother her family knew her to be. Perhaps Renée confided in her family or close friends about the upcoming divorce, or about the problems in her marriage leading her to make the decision to finalize the divorce.

Tragically, this case is one of thousands, when a person begins a divorce action, separates or ends a relationship, that having the Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit (as provided in the book Time's Up) and video prepared, with copies given to trusted friends and relatives, removes the burden by surviving families members to have cases of intimate partner homicide investigated and those responsible arrested.

A $25,000 reward has been offered for information that leads to where her remains. The family is trying to appeal to the people that know, or have heard things on the fringes and could give them a tip. That's all they're asking for, according to Renee's father, Rick Pretz.

Anyone with information on Renee Pernice's disappearance is asked to call the TIPS Hotline at 816-474-TIPS.

Shon Pernice is also linked to another missing mother, Star Boomer. In my opinion, he can be placed at her crime scene according to eye witnesses years earlier. Star Boomer has been missing since 1999, and she left behind a son and a family who deserve some real, truthful answers. Shon Pernice was the last person known to see both women.

There is a $5,000 reward for information in Star Boomer's case. Call the TIPS Hotline or link to the family's private investigator's website for the case. Those with information about the disappearance of Star Boomer are asked to contact the KBI at (800)-KS-CRIME

Read More

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

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

Oklahoma: Where Crime Blows Like the Wind

By Susan Murphy Milano

The adopted song for the state of Oklahoma originates from the 1950s Rogers and Hammerstein musical sung by Shirley Jones and Gordon McRae. A line from the song says: “Winds come sweeping down the plain, smells sweet.” I would like to add a verse of my own: "The sweeping murder down the plain, it smells foul, just the same,” new lyrics now sung by the families of Chanda Turner and Shiela Deviney.

In the state of Oklahoma, specifically Garvin County, justice has literally been removed, erased, whatever you would like to call it, for the families of Chanda Turner and Shiela Deviney. Both of these women lost their lives as a direct result of intimate partner homicide. The elected officials, law enforcement and political powers in the State of Oklahoma have decided never to investigate, bring forth charges and arrest the husband and boyfriend in these cases. Instead, they gave each of the suspects their blessings, allowing them to tamper with crime-scene evidence after each murder, right under the noses of Old West-mentality law enforcement.

The sheriff, in my opinion, has used everything in his corrupt and crooked magic bag to harass and personally threaten each of the families. It is likely the Garvin County Sheriff's Office is still operating under 1850s Old West procedures when it comes to the murder of a wife and a girlfriend. The current sheriff might want to change the language on the office's website, which reads: "The office of the sheriff is one of antiquity. It is the oldest law-enforcement known within the common-law system, and it has always been accorded great dignity and trust."

Chandra Turner (left), just 23 years old, was shot to death at her home in Paul's Valley 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.

Shiela Deviney (right), 30, died on January 6, 2004, when her mobile home, located about one mile east and one mile south of Maysville, Oklahoma, burned to the ground. She was murdered. It should be no surprise that Sheila had been married to an abusive, controlling man. They had a court date over past-due child support scheduled the next day. According to eye witnesses, her ex-husband was at the home, although by law not allowed on the premises. He and another friend destroyed evidence and took items from the home.

Where are my manners? I forgot to mention that the "participation" (more like hawking into a spitoon) of the district attorney's office, both past and current administrations, has been non-existent. The office refuses to open the cases. They will not take calls from the families, who have important documents and information. They refuse to give a damn!

Perhaps it has something to do with the person who now heads up the investigations for the district attorney's office? Oh, wait, I remember now. He was an investigator on both the Chanda Turner and the Shiela Deviney cases.

Last month, Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation Radio, a new show about victims likely killed by a husband or a boyfriend, presented these two cases. The Blogtalk Radio show is hosted by "Cold Case" investigative research director Sheryl McCollum, former Atlanta prosecutor turned defense attorney Holly Hughes, and myself. Our broadcasts alone were, in our opinion, more than enough to actually have both the Turner and Deviney case re-opened. Calls burned up the show’s switchboard with folks calling in with information from witnesses of "who done it," and with locations of important evidence. Each caller stated they had never been contacted by law enforcement or the prosecutors office.

According to Sheryl McCollum, "Although we will never know what forensic evidence was present because the crime scene was not secured properly in either of the cases, other evidence provided is more than enough to investigate and demand each case be re-opened."

McCollum goes on to say, about Chanda Turner’s case: "We know from photographs that there was blood spatter evidence that was not considered, we know from forensic reports that there was primer residue evidence that was ignored."

Defense attorney Holly Hughes, the former Atlanta prosecutor, believes that the Gavin County prosecutor, by refusing to open both the Turner and Deviney cases, is covering up for those who did not properly do their jobs. It is clear from the photos of the fire in the Deviney case.

Within three weeks of the airing of Shiela Deviney’s case, a group of Oklahoma businessmen who heard the show and wish to remain anonymous posted a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the people responsible for Sheila’s murder.

Perhaps the prosecutor has a memory lapse, practicing his own version of "blue light special" justice, forgetting that he was elected by the people, taking an oath, placing his hand on the Bible, swearing to do a job and ensure justice.

To the elected officials in Oklahoma, as your song goes “it ain’t too early and it ain’t too late" to do your jobs and re-open the cases!

Many times we don't realize the impact of writing and posting blogs, or doing what some call silly radio shows for broadcast over the Internet; they do have an impact and people are listening and taking action. In addition, in Oklahoma, because of our show, a newly formed alliance of concerned and committed citizens was created and named the Eleventh Commandment. It was created to counter a growing plague of police corruption, political apathy and administrative malfeasance, all of which have played a part in the untimely and unsolved murders of a number of local citizens. The Eleventh Commandment reads, "Thou shall not get away with it!"

The Internet, in my opinion, can be an important tool if used correctly, specifically for cold cases, taking the lives of those buried and forgotten long ago and holding them under the light for justice!

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