CRIMINAL RESEARCH ON DREW PETERSON
Synopsis
Drew Peterson, a former police officer from Illinois, was convicted of the murder of Kathleen Savio, his third wife. Kathleen Savio was found dead in a bathtub on 1st March 2004, and the death was considered an accidental drowning. Drew Peterson’s crime came into the spotlight after he was arrested in the investigation for the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacey Peterson. Stacey Person, who was last heard from on 28th October 2007, was reported missing on 29th October 2007 by her family (Pechachek, 2009). To date, Stacey Peterson is still missing, and Drew has not been charged for her death due to a lack of evidence. Drew Peterson was found guilty of murder in the first degree, served a 38-year sentence, and is currently incarcerated in a state prison out of Illinois.
Introduction
Many crimes are committed by the police every day, and because of their status, nothing is done against them. This is further fueled by the comradeship among police officers. This was seen in the case of Drew Peterson, a former Bollingbrook, Illinois Police sergeant, who had dutifully served the force for twenty-nine years. He turned out to be a disgrace who used his attachments with the police to abuse and murder women.
The investigation, collection of evidence, and conviction
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 activity with intention of making a witness absent at court. This greatly helped the trial since most of the evidence presented was circumstancial. The common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing was codified and enacted by the state of Illinois only for the prosecution of the Peterson case (Miller, 2012), this was called the ” Drew’s law.” 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 of Kathleen Savio from her own murder trial. However, evidence was produced in court showing that Drew Peterson killed Savio to ensure her unvailability 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, and hence the the “Drew’s law” stood (Miller, 2012).
When Drew was in marriage with Kathleen, It is reported that the police visited Drew’s home 18 times in a two-year time frame, and in all incidences, the domestic violence reports were not taken seriously (Pechachek, 2009). Pechachek, 2009 further claims that this must have been due to the existing solidarity among police officers hence making them very lenient when handling crimes committed by other police officers. Kathleen was later murdered in 2004, on March 1, and her deadth 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 was 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 (Pechachek, 2009). The fact that the second autopsy revealed the evidence of the murder showed an incompetence of the police. This proves hat the police mishandled, overlooked, or covered up evidence of the murder, 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 (Pechachek, 2009). Additionally, Drew’s second wife, Vickie Connolly claimed that during their time of 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.
Defendant’s defence and reason for case’s high profile
In defense Drew stated that Stacey had left him for another man, leaving her vehicle at Bollingbrook International Airport, and she had contacted him on Sunday at around 9: 00pm (Pechachek, 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 acquisition of evidence and conviction of the accused very difficult. Throughout the case,Drew Peterson continuously claimed his innocence 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?” ( Tarm, 2013 as cited by Heath and Grannemann, 2015). This case received so much attention, mostly because of the accussed’s former occupation, his many failed marriages, and also the police’s tendency to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Drew Peterson, their fellow police officer. It also received much publicity because of the methods the prosecution used in the conviction of Drew Peterson, that is to say, ” Drew’s law.” Drew’s brutality to women might have also been cause of the massive publicity to the case, since in the current world, women’s rights are highly advocated for.
Conclusion
Drew Peterson managed to evade conviction and continued to abused women repeatedly because the police failed to do it’s duty. The police ought to avoid leniency towards their fellow police officers to avoid similar secenarios from happening. Had the police done it’s 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, 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 of 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 defendent emotion. Applied psychology in criminal justice 11 (2), 126-146, 2015