Synopsis
Drew Peterson, from Illinois, was convicted of the murder of Kathleen Savio, his third wife. Savio was discovered dead on 1st March 2004. Her body was found in a bathtub, and her cause of death was said to be drowning due to an accident. Drew Peterson's crime came into the spotlight after he was arrested in the investigation for the missing of his wife, Stacey Peterson. Stacey Peterson, who was last heard from on 28th October 2007, was reported missing on 29th October 2007 by her family (Pechacek, 2009). To date, Stacey Peterson is still missing, and Drew has not been charged for her death due to a lack of evidence. The court found Peterson guilty of murder in the first degree, served him a 38-year sentence, and is currently incarcerated in a state prison out of Illinois.
Introduction
A former Bollingbrook, Illinois Police sergeant, Drew Peterson, who had dutifully served the force for twenty-nine years, turned out to be a disgrace who used his attachments with the police to abuse and murder women. He was arrested, charged, and convicted of the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He is also the prime suspect in the disappearance of Stacey Peterson, his fourth wife. This paper purposes to analyze his life of crime, from his abusive marriages, murder, arrest, and conviction.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Investigative tools and clues used to solve the murder
Reports suggest that the juror was mostly moved by hearsay statements provision from his deceased wife, Savio, and also his then-fourth wife, Stacey Peterson (Miller, 2012). This is backed "under the doctrine of forfeiture of wrongdoing" (Miller's, 2012). The doctrine States that hearsay statements can be used against any party which effectively engages in an activity with the intention of making a witness absent at court. This greatly helped the trial since most of the evidence presented was circumstantial. The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, a common law, was codified, and enacted by the state of Illinois only for the prosecution of the Peterson case, this was called the " Drew's law” (Miller, 2012). However, the law also required the hearsay statements provided to be reliable. Application of this doctrine initially caused serious criticism since the defense argued that by the time of the murder, the defendant, Drew, could not have committed the crime with the intention of keeping Kathleen Savio from a trial of her murder. However, evidence was produced in court, showing that Drew Peterson killed Savio to ensure her unavailability in a scheduled divorce hearing, which would involve the sharing of their property. The court also assumed that Drew might have killed Stacey for the same reasons; hence the "Drew's law" stood (Miller, 2012).
Reason's for the case's high profile and the offender's defense to beat the murder charges
This case received so much attention, mostly because of the accused's former occupation, his many failed marriages, and the police's tendency to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Drew Peterson, their fellow police officer. It received much publicity because of the methods the prosecution used in the conviction of Drew Peterson, that is, "Drew's law." Drew's brutality to women might have also been a cause of the massive publicity to the case since, in the current world, women's rights are highly advocated for.
In defense, Drew stated that Stacey had left him for another man, leaving her vehicle at Bollingbrook International Airport, and he had only come to this knowledge after Stacey contacted him on the Sunday of her disappearance at around 9: 00 pm (Pechacek, 2009). Since then, Stacey Peterson has remained missing, and due to lack of evidence, Drew Peterson was not convicted for her murder. The fact that Drew was a police officer and knew most of the police procedures made the acquisition of evidence and conviction of the accused very difficult. Throughout the case, Drew Peterson maintained his innocence claim in all charges. Drew is further claimed to have defended himself saying, "There is no book written how I'm supposed to act... Would it be better if I hid my head down hunched over and had tears in my eyes?" as cited by Heath and Groneman (2015) and Tarm (2013).
Crime scene evidence, the methodology used, and its impact on the investigation
When Drew was in a marriage with Kathleen, it is reported that the police visited Drew's home 18 times in a two-year time frame. In all incidences, the domestic violence reports were not taken seriously (Pechacek, 2009). Pechacek (2009) further claims that this must have been due to the existing solidarity among police officers hence making them lenient when handling crimes committed by other police officers. Kathleen was later murdered in 2004, on March 1, and her death was pronounced an accident. However, after Stacey Peterson's disappearance in 2007, Kathleen's family requested for a reinvestigation. Kathleen's body was exhumed, and a second autopsy conducted. The autopsy results revealed that Kathleen had drowned after a struggle. This was confirmed by the many abrasions and bruises found on Kathleen's body (Pechacek, 2009).
Impact of crime scene management on the potential admissibility in the criminal proceedings of the case
The fact that the second autopsy revealed evidence of the murder showed the police incompetence. This proves the police either mishandled, overlooked, or covered up evidence of the murder, for their own unknown reasons; hence justice was delayed.
Furthermore, it is reported that of the 18 times the police visited Drew and Kathleen's marital home following reports of domestic violence, Kathleen was arrested twice, charged, but acquitted. She was arrested on both occasions after Drew played the victim, blaming all his troubles on Kathleen, and the police failed to see the evidence because they were protecting their fellow police officer (Pechacek, 2009). Additionally, Drew's second wife, Vickie Connolly claimed that during their marriage, Drew was exceedingly violent and threatened to kill her. It is also reported that Drew had, in the same way, threatened to kill Stacey before her disappearance.
Defense challenges of the evidence made during prosecution
The absence of prime witnesses, that is to say, Kathleen Savio, and Stacey Peterson primarily worked in disfavor of the defendant, Drew Peterson. The absences of the two prime witnesses were blamed on Drew, and hence "Drew's law," that allowed hearsay statements to have effect in court. Drew's four failed marriages, and his rich history of domestic violence against his previous wives made him appear guilty even before trial. There was also no evidence to prove some of Drew's earlier statements. For example, his claim that his wife had called him when leaving for another man was not substantiated.
Conclusion
Drew Peterson managed to evade conviction and repeatedly abused women because the police failed to do its duty. The police should avoid leniency towards their fellow police officers to prevent similar scenarios from happening. Had the police done its job, both women, Kathleen Savio, and Stacey Peterson would not have been harmed by Drew Peterson. Drew was later sentenced to more 48 years in prison for conspiring to murder Jim Glasgow, the prosecutor who was on Drew's case in the Kathleen murder trials (Walberg, 2016). Drew claimed to have had no intention to murder Jim Glasgow, but the evidence against him was catastrophic. However, the prosecution did a great job to ensure that Drew Peterson received justice irrelevant to his connections, and the lack of enough and proper evidence.
References
Walberg, M., (2016). Drew Peterson gets 40 extra years for plot to kill prosecutor. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-drew-peterson-sentencing-met-20160729-story.html
Miller, C., (2012). The purpose-driven rule: Drew Peterson, Giles V. California, and the transfered Intent Doctrine of forfeiture of wrongdoing. Columbia law review. http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/228_miller.pdf
Pechacek, C., (2009). Family Violence in law enforcement. Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas (LEMIT), 2009
Heath, W. P., and Grannemann, B. D., (2015). Expectations for defendant emotion. Applied psychology in criminal justice 11 (2), 126-146, 2015
