Drew Peterson Case “As a former police officer, Peterson may have a tougher time in prison than other inmates, he has a big ego and is fairly cocky, says Bill Pederson a former drug enforcement administration officer.” Peterson is facing 60 possible years in prison for the murder of his third wife and making her death to look like and accident.

Drew Peterson Case

“As a former police officer, Peterson may have a tougher time in prison than other

inmates, he has a big ego and is fairly cocky, says Bill Pederson a former drug

enforcement administration officer.” Peterson is facing 60 possible years in prison for the

murder of his third wife and making her death to look like and accident. The Drew

Peterson case became national news because Peterson is a former law enforcement

official who may have used his law enforcement knowledge to try and get away with the

murder and disappearance of Kathleen Savio in 2004 and Stacy Peterson in 2007.

Peterson is a former Bolingbrook police sergeant who was charged with Savio’s death but

has not yet been charged for the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.



Defense lawyers can cross examine the witness’ and the jury can evaluate the

witness’ statement in deciding whether or not the defendant is guilty, this is the Sixth

Amendment. “The staements by Petersons third and fourth wives (one murdered and one

that is presumed dead) weighed heavy on the verdict.”

Rev. Neil Schori testified During the trial that Stacy Peterson had given him some

information about Savio’s death. She said that her husband had left the house and when

he can back he had some womens clothing that he had put into the washing machine.

Stacy Peterson also told Schori that her huband had been trying to coach her to lie to the


“I’m uncomfortable with the Illinois law that allowed hearsay,” Supalo told The

Huffington Post. “They made the law just for Drew Peterson, applied it to him

retroactively. If there was no hearsay in his case — Drew Peterson goes free.”


Drew Peterson Case

Judge In Judge Edward Burmila’s courtroom, four weeks has been a long time.

Three mistrial motions were made and Will County judge cannot control his temper with

the lawyers. The Will county judge felt that the Drew Peterson case was moving too

slowly. He also replied in a jokingly manner that he may “might shoot himself in the

head over his frustration with repeated attorney gaffes.” He even rebuked a witness

because he thought the witness was mocking him. The prosecutors were criticized on a

regular basis by him. The courtroom is watching Burmila because of his sarcasm and

temper. “There’s a recognition that anything that a judge does, since he’s sitting way up

on high and the guy in charge of the courtroom … can affect the outcome of the case,”

said Daniel Coyne. “Judges are human,” Coyne said. “If they become frustrated, that

frustration is often going to show through, and then it’s up to the jury to try and interpret

why he’s frustrated.”



Drew and Stacy Peterson’s phone records were taken into consideration from the time of

Savio’s death. Savio also wrote a letter stating that she was in fear that her husband may

kill her. Both pieces of evidence were allowed in court for the jurors to read. The body of

Savio was found at her home in her bathtub. She had a deep gash on the back of her hear

and her hair was covered in blood. Prosecutors argue Peterson murdered Savio because

of the settlement that she would receive when the were officially divorced. The defense

says that Savio slipped and fell, and that is how she died. During closing arguments,

prosecutors plead with the jurors to use common sense in evaluating the evidence.

Drew Peterson Case



Attorneys When Peterson discovered that Brodsky had been lying to him he thought of

finding another counsel until Brodsky threatened to reveal some of the truth about the

case to the public. Attorney Brodsky said that if he was discharged from being Petersons

lawyer, he would publicly reveal a few things that were talked about between him and

Mr. Peterson,” the motion states. In closing, the jury of five women and seven men was

out for almost 14 hours total before they delivered the verdict that convicted Peterson for

killing Kathleen Savio, his third wife. “Finally somebody heard Kathleen’s cry,” said her

mother Marcia Savio. “Twelve people did the right thing, oh thank God.”

Drew Peterson Case


Murder Arrest and Incident Report

No matter what line of work you are in communication skills are important and when in

law enforcement it is even more so when writing up arrest and incident reports. When

writing a police report you are trying to clearly communicate to the reader (s) who, what,

when, where, why, and how events, lead up to the death of Kathleen Savio. The officer

who is writing the police report must ensure that all information in the report is factual,

grammatically correct, and accurate. In case other facts were found after the initial report

was handed in a supplemental report can be filled.

There is no set length for a police report it should be the length needed to

communicate all the details of the incident, and strait to the point, at no point in time

should the officer include his opinions, but could include statements made from the facts.

Doing this will help all readers to follow the report and understand what the officer is

communicating, and allow the readers to come to the same conclusions. The incident

report should show a flow of chronologically events and findings that will help the reader

follow what transpired.


The victim in this case is Kathleen Savio. There were no witnesses of her death.

The case is being reopened due to the suspicious disappearance of the suspect’s fourth

wife (Stacy Peterson). The body of Kathleen Savio will be exhumed and autopsied to

determine if the findings of the Coroners’ Jury Inquest were correct.


Drew Peterson Case

Findings of the Coroners’ Jury Inquest stated that the death of Kathleen Savio were an

accidental drowning. One of the State Troops who testified at the Coroners’ Jury never

saw the body of Kathleen Savio (so this witness lacked personal knowledge of the case).

It was also founded that one of the Coroners’ Jury members personally new the defendant

and stated that defendant Peterson would never harm his ex-wife.

The second autopsy that was performed by Dr. Michael Bade (at the request of Ms.

Savio’s family, and Dr. Larry Blum, and the Will County State Attorney’s Office) re-

classified Kathleen Savio’s death as a homicide.



The why is used to try and determine any motives in to why the suspect

committed the crime and why the crime was committed the way it was. Answering the

why will help the police narrow down the suspects.

Kathleen Savio filed for divorce after she found out Drew Peterson was having an

extra material relationship with Stacy Cales (who became the defendant’s fourth wife).

There was a trial date set for April 6, 2005 to handle the issue of distribution of marital

assets between both parties.


On March 1, 2004 at approximately 10:30am Kathleen Savio was found face

down in her residence, in her empty bathtub, there were a number of fresh bruises,

scrapes and contusions on different parts of her body, along with a laceration on the left

side of her head due to blunt force trauma. She was found by her neighbors after Drew

Peterson returned home with their children and she did not answer the door. He went and

Drew Peterson Case

asked the neighbor to come over and check on Ms. Savio.



When writing out police reports the officer needs to make sure that they include

just as much information about when things occurred during the investigation. Starting

from the time and day the received the dispatch to the scene, when they take witness

statements. When and where any and all evidence was found, and when it was processed.

When they wrote up their reports, submitted their reports. All this information helps

communicate a timeline to establish the process of determining who and how a crime was



How needs to be determined, to explain how the crime was committed, with what

weapon was used, how did the suspect gain access to the house. The how also explains

what lead the officers to interview people, how they were lead to the suspect.

When writing a police reports everything need to be as correct as possible. The

main communication during an investigation is done mostly by reading reports be it

police reports, evidence reports, witness statements. So to make sure that there is no miss

understandings the reports need to be fully filled out. If a name, date, or time, is wrong on

a police report it could lead to a miss communication and allow for a criminal to get away

with the crime, or the wrong person to be convicted of a crime. During an investigation

officers also need to make notes in their reports about any non-verbal communication that

Drew Peterson Case

they notice during the investigations. Such as if someone they were talking to seem really

nervous, acting like they were hiding something. Was someone acting aggressive? Is this

case a part of multiple cases, what factors where the same in this case as another case. All

these different points need to be communicated in the report clearly so that way it can be

followed, and understood by everyone who reads the report.



Drew Peterson Case





Case Type:

Case Number:


Investigating Officer:

Detective: Aviles, Jennifer



Case Disposition:



State’s attorney






After the suspicious disappearance of Stacy Peterson (4th wife of the suspect), the

body of Kathleen Savio (3rd wife of the suspect) was exhumed to have an autopsy, to

make sure the findings of the Corner’s Jury Inquest were right. After it was learned

that there was never an autopsy done on Kathleen Savio and that the Corner’s Jury

heard testimony from a trooper that never seen the body and that one of the members

of the Corner’s Jury stated that he personally knew the defendant Peterson and that

he would never do this to his ex-wife. The request of the new autopsy was done by

the victim’s family.

Kathleen Savio

Drew Peterson


Drew Peterson Case


10/28/07 Stacy Peterson Disappeared

11/06/07 the body of Kathleen Savio was exhumed.

11/20/07 the death of Kathleen Savio was re-classified as a homicide, the new

findings of the autopsy done conducted by Dr. Michael Baden.

12/10/2007 Stacy Petersons Pastor Neil Schori made a statement that Stacy came to see 8/

31/2007 to talk to him about her husband Drew Peterson. She told him how she fears her

husband Mr. Peterson and she told Mr. Schori how Mr. Peterson told her how he killed

his ex-wife Ms. Savio to make it look like an accident.

1/21/2008 Drew Peterson’s second wife Victoria Connolly gave a statement about how

Mr. Peterson was abusive and controlling during their marriage. She also stated that he

threatened to kill her and that he could get away with it.



Witness statements are attached.

Neil Schori

Victoria Connolly


Forward this report to the Will County State Attorney for prosecution.

Reviewed by:

Desk Sargent

Drew Peterson Case



Will County Case #


Will County Officer: Jennifer Aviles

Name: Neil Schori

Phone #: 773-555-0505

Address: 82 Main Street

Place of Incident:

Type of Incident:

Other information: Pastor

DOB: 10/16/68

Date of Incident: 8/31/2007

I would like to make the following free and voluntary statement:

Stacy Peterson came to me on 8/31/2007 to talk to me about her husband Drew

Peterson. She told me how she fears him and she told me how Mr. Peterson told her how

he killed his ex-wife Ms. Savio to make it look like an accident.

Stacy stated to me: That during the night of February 28 – March 1, 2004 she

woke up and Drew was gone. She checked the house and could not find him. Then in the

early morning of March 1, 2004 she found him standing in front of the washing machine

wearing all black and he had a bag of clothing in his hand. Then Drew removed his

clothing and put them in the washing machine along with the clothing in the bag, at this

time Stacy said she saw it was female clothing. She then told me Drew told her how he

hit Ms. Savio in the back of the head to make her death look like an accident.


Jennifer Aviles

Date: 12/10/2007

Drew Peterson Case



Neil Schori




Will County Case #

Will County Officer: Sheila Newman

Name: Tom Morphey

Address:123 Plateau street, Bolingbrook, Illinois

Place of Incident:

Type of Incident:

Other information:

I would like to make the following free and voluntary statement:

Phone #: 602-258-9638

DOB: 12-17-1958

Date of Incident:

On October 27, 2007 Drew Peterson shows up at my home, to take me to the Meijer

store to interview for job. Instead he drives me to Remington Lakes park. He begans to

talks about how Stacy is cheating on him and states he has to take care of the problem.

He asks me if I loves him enough to kill for him. I reply that I loves him but that I

couldn’t live with myself if I killed someone. He then asks me if I could live with

knowing about it. I said I could since I always assumed that he had killed Kathleen. He

driv es me to a storage facility where I try to rent a unit, but I did not have my ID. Then

drew drives me home after a few hours later I call drew and says I can’t be involved in

his plan. Drew says he can respect that the next day drew comes over to my house and we

go to get coffee at a Starbucks drive-through and then drew takes me to a park off Weber

Road. He hands me a cell phone, telling me not to answer it. After 45 minutes the phone

rings a few times, displaying “Stacy” as the caller. One of the times that the phone rang

Drew Peterson Case

(9:07 p.m.) it was “pocket answered” and the call lasted a few minutes. Within an hour

of the calls drew comes back to the park and picks me up. He then asks me to help him

move something.

We drove back to his house where the kids’ bedroom doors are closed and drew tells me

to be quiet. Drew pushes a blue container out of his bedroom and I help him carry the

container down the stairs, out of the house and into the his Denal. Then he gave me some

money and took me home and told me that “This never happened.” Shortly before 10:00

I went to visit my friend, Walter Martinek and told him that I thought that I just helped

dispose of Stacy’s body.


Signature: Tom Morphey

Witness: Officer Sheila Newman



Drew Peterson Case



Will County Case #

Will County Officer: Sheila Newman

Name: Drew Peterson

Address: 6 Pheasant Chase Court, Bolingbrook,
Place of Incident:

Type of Incident:

Other information:

Phone #: 920-205-9938

DOB: January 5, 1954

Date of Incident:

I would like to make the following free and voluntary statement:

I came home from work between 5:30 and 6:00 am, Stacy tells me that she is going to

visit her grandfather later in morning. Then I went to bed, I wake up between 10 am

and 11 am and realize that Stacy is not home. I am home with my kids until 1300, then

I ran a few errands and returned at 1330, she still was not home. I receive a phone call

at about 2100 from wife saying that she is leaving more for another man, and that it is

over between us. I leave a few minutes later to go look for her and try to fix our marriage,

I came back around 2300 when Stacy’s sister Cassandra calls me looking for Stacy, I

tell her I do not know where she is. I also tell her that Stacy called me and told she was

leaving more for another man. The after getting off the phone with Cassandra I walked to

the airport and retrieved Stacy’s car, came home and went to bed around midnight. Then

I receive a phone call police station informing me that my sister in law filed a missing

person report on my wife.

Signature: Drew Peterson

Date: 10-29-2007

Drew Peterson Case


Witness: Officer Sheila Newman



Drew Peterson Case

University of Phoenix Material


Acquiring Admissible Statements Worksheet

Conduct an Internet search by visiting the state websites for Arizona, Illinois, New York, and
California. Locate the legal requirements to obtain admissible statements in these states. Include
your research findings in the following table.


Legal requirements

Miranda Rights
must be issue

Rescue Doctrine

State v. Brooks,
127 Ariz. 130, 138,
618 P.2d 624, 632
(App. Div. 1 1980)

Amended Order
amending Rules of
Evidence and Rule
17.4(f), Rules of
Criminal Procedure

Rule 804(b),
Arizona Rules of

Rule 502. Attorney-
Client Privilege
and Work Product;
Limitations on

Rule 705.
Disclosure of Facts
or Data Underlying
Expert Opinion

Rule 408.
and Offers to

Rule 42.
Arizona Rules


Arizona v. Londo

Miranda v. Arizona

Kaupp v. Texas

State v. Morse


A judge will
determine, without
the presence of a
jury, if the statement
was given voluntary
or if there were
any circumstances
that nullify the
The judge will
check the validity
of the statement by
finding out the time
elapsed from arrest
to arraignment, if the
person understands
the charges that
he is being held
accountable for, if
he understands that
he did not have to
make a statement
and he was advised
of his rights by the
Miranda Law, and
if he was assisted
by council or was
advise he was
entitled to one.
The state also
used the Rescue
Law, which
means that they
can use whatever
information that they
have obtained to
substain a suspect’s
life without advising

Drew Peterson Case


of Professional

Justice Court Rules
of Civil Procedure


Rule 106. Remainder
of or Related
Writings or Recorded

Rule 408.
and Offers to

Rule 801(d).
Statements Which Are
Not Hearsay.

Illinois Rules of

Rule 102. purpose
and construction

Rule 410.
of pleas, pleas
discussions and
related statements

Wong Sun

Miranda warnings


Miranda v. Arizona

Kansas v. Ventris

Escobedo v. Illinois,
378 U.S. 478

Schneckloth v.

Illinois v. Rodriguez,

them of their
Miranda Rights
because of a life or
death situation.
State vs. Morse
basically states that
any statement given
prior to Miranda
Rights being issued,
or at all, will have
the instructions
given to a
jury that these
statements were not
voluntarily given.

Miranda Warnings do
not always have to
be understood by the
person recieving them.

This state has two
forms of the basic
concept of the
Miranda Rights: one
form concentrates on
the person knowing
that they have a
right to remain silent
and not speak; the
second is if the person
understands the
consquences and
what could happen if
they give up that right.

New York

New York Criminal
Procedure – Article
60 – § 60.45 Rules
of Evidence;
Admissibility of

Miranda v. Arizona

New York v.

Sectionv 824 states
that admissable
statements can not
be used as evidence
during a fact finding

Drew Peterson Case


Statements of

Rescue Doctrine

Sec. 824.
Admissibility of
statements made
during preliminary

Miranda Rights

Brown v. Illinois

hearing or criminal
trial until the time of

statements need to
have supporting
documentation to
support validation,
whether formal or


Code of evidence

Code of Civil

Constitutional Limits

Evidence Code
section 1240

Miranda Rights

Miranda v. Arizona

People v. Poggi

People v. Pearch

People v. Washington

People v. Farmer

Admissible statements
along with the means
obtained by.
they were taken also
applies in this state.

In one to three paragraphs, answer the following questions regarding the regulatory information
you found while conducting your research.

1. When reviewing the legal requirements to acquire an admissible statement, what similarities

did you find among the four states?

My research showed that all four states required that there be some form of Miranda

given to people at the the time of arrest prior to questions being asked. All four states

require that a waiver of some sort been given or attorney be present before aquiring a

statement. Also at the time of hearing there has to be some sort of validation process

that a court observes to make sure evidence was obtained according to state and federal


Drew Peterson Case

2. What differences did you find among the four states?


I found that all four states require Miranda be given and have validation received,

but there are different procedures and protcols that need to be observed in each of the

different states. For instance, California has strict statues as to what they will accept as

admissible statements as well as the mental status of the person. There are also strict

guidelines that dictate that some statements could be precieved as evidence, but these

statements may not have merit because of the content or the emotional state at the time

that they were collected at. New York does not use statements as evidence during a fact

finding hearing or criminal trial until the time of conviction.

3. What is the most interesting concept regarding your comparison of admissible statements for

these states?

The most interesting concept that I found was the State of California’s statues

of how some evidence could not be used based on their strict legislation. There was a

case, “People v. Gutierrez,” where evidence of statement that young boy gave about

the murder of his mother could not be used. The court system cited a few different case

studies as reasoning for the decision which was “Spotaneous statement which could

prove to be untrustworthy.”(Wallin, 2009)

Drew Peterson Case

Reference list:


Rozek, D. (2012, July 20). Murder or accident? Jury finally to hear the evidence in death
of Peterson’s third wife . Post-Tribune. Retrieved from http://obstetrics-418/the-case-

CURRY and WEAVER, C. a. J. (2012, September 6). Drew Peterson Found Guilty
of Killing Wife, Making It Look Like Accident. ABC News. Retrieved from http://

Curry, C. (2012, July 29). Drew Peterson Murder Trial Could Hang on Words of Two
Absent Women. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-

CURRY and SMART, C. a. B. (2012, August 1). Drew Peterson Trial Continues Despite
Calls for Mistrial. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-

TARM, M. Drew Peterson Trial Updates: Former Cop’s Son Testifies That His
Father Is Innocent . Huff post Chicago. Retrieved from http://WWW-peterson-trial-

Author: By the CNN Wire Staff



2011 Sun-Times Media- Janet Lundquist



Peterson, v. o. (n.d.). Savio v. Peterson Complaint. Scribd. Retrieved January 28, 2013,
from http://www.scribd.com/doc/14542696/Savio-v-Peterson-Complaint

Wallace, H. J.D., Robertson, C. L.L.M. Chapter 7: Basic Reports. Retrieved on January 27,
2010 from Written and interpersonal communication. Methods for Law Enforcement,
Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall. pp. 91-98p

The Drew Peterson case: A Timeline – Chicago Sun-Times. (n.d.). News articles and
headlines from the Chicago Sun-Times . Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://


B, J. B. (2010). Seven steps to effective report writing. Law & Order, 58(11), 66-
69. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1034978399?


Drew Peterson Case

LawServer Online, Inc. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/

Batterton, B. S. (2006). Public Agency Training Council. Retrieved from http://

Robinson, D. (2004, Spring). SUPREME COURT REVIEW:
AMENDMENT. Northwestern School of Law Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
(), . Retrieved from https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?

from http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/20/R100035Amended.pdf

Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (2012) retreived from http://www.azcourts.gov/

Illinois Rules of Evidence. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.state.il.us/court/

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA (1966) Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/

Illinois Courts and the Law of Miranda Waivers: A Policy Worth Preserving (2011)
retreived from http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/30_2/

Onecle. (2012). Retrieved from http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/

WomensLaw.org. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.womenslaw.org/

Jones, J. (1999-2013). Ehow. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.co.uk/

SECTION 1100-1109 (N,D.) Retreived from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/

Wallin, P. (2009, March). California Murder Defense & The Admissibility
of Spontaneous Statements: People v. Gutierrez. American Chronicle, (), .
Retrieved from http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93164


Drew Peterson Case


Justice Cafe. (N.D,). Retrieved from http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/timeline/

Leave a Reply