PDA

View Full Version : Peterson's slain wife struggled with her killer



Paintr
07-23-2009, 09:27 AM
http://www.wbbm780.com/Peterson-s-slain-wife-struggled-with-her-killer/4860022

CHICAGO (WBBM) - There’s new information this morning about the autopsy into the death of one of the wives of former cop Drew Peterson.

The autopsy done months ago reportedly indicates 40-year old Kathleen Savio struggled with her killer before she was drowned in the bathtub of her home in 2004.

Paintr
07-23-2009, 09:28 AM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/23/New-autopsy-for-Petersons-third-wife/UPI-40511248350048/

CHICAGO, July 23 (UPI) -- The third wife of former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson wasn't the victim of an accidental bathtub drowning, the results of a new autopsy indicate.

A re-examination of the body of Kathleen Savio revealed a 1-inch blunt-force laceration on the back of her head and numerous bruises and abrasions all over her body, CNN reported Thursday.

Paintr
07-23-2009, 09:30 AM
Why wasn't this poor woman's death rulled a homicide when she was found? :mad: How could all this evidence have been ignored? Her death was ruled an 'accident'.

Paintr
07-23-2009, 09:32 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/23/illinois.drew.peterson/

A new autopsy in the Savio case reveals bruising consistent with a struggle.

There was a 1-inch blunt-force laceration on the back of her head, five scraping abrasions and six blunt-force, black-and-blue bruises on her extremities, abdomen and buttocks, the autopsy said

TallCoolOne
07-23-2009, 09:59 AM
Why wasn't this poor woman's death rulled a homicide when she was found? :mad: How could all this evidence have been ignored? Her death was ruled an 'accident'.You just took the words right out of my fingertips Paintr. As I was reading your posts, that is exactly what I was going to ask. I think someone needs to pay the piper on this one. IF they had not ignored what seems to be very obvious signs here, Stacy would still be alive. Plain and simple.

This is complete Bullchit. I think the people responsible for looking the other way carry just as much guilt as drEWWWWW himself and they should be brought up for charges accordingly. This makes me beyond pissed, it makes me sick. I can't imagine how it makes her family feel. I hope Kathleens sons are aware of this, as much as it will hurt them to hear it, but maybe that will make tellin' the truth a bit easier when it comes to trial time for the dirtbag.

I want nothing more than to wipe that smug grin offa his chin, and I pray they have what they need in order to do so.

I have to say, I am enjoying the quiet of late from his mouthpiece Brodsky. I can't stand listening to him either. Those two are certainly a match made in he!!...........

Paintr
07-23-2009, 10:07 AM
http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/crime/article/new_autopsy_drew_petersons_third_wife_fought_kille r/47264/

Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky dismissed the allegation, saying it was one of many claims that he would disprove.

Peterson remains in jail, awaiting trial.


Sorry TallCoolOne, but Mr Brodsky wasn't completely silent. lol

I wonder if Mr Brodsky knew these results were about to hit the media and that was one reason he wanted the trial delayed.

I am curious as to who did the very first autopsy and how could any coroner, even semi competent at his job, miss these indications. :waitasec:

Paintr
07-23-2009, 10:58 AM
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/CRIME/07/23/illinois.drew.peterson/art.savio.jpg

Kathleen Savio

21merc7
07-23-2009, 11:07 AM
I am curious as to who did the very first autopsy and how could any coroner, even semi competent at his job, miss these indications. :waitasec:

Respectfully snipped,

Yet another good question that really needs to be addressed!!!

STEADFAST
07-23-2009, 11:38 AM
I knew I was saving these for some reason.

Kathleen Savio's first autopsy report:

(not sure this will work)
http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/Kathleen%20Savio%201st%20Autopsy/

Looks like it was signed by Patrick O'Neil.

athy
07-23-2009, 01:05 PM
some of the bruises were done with enough force that they're still showing all this time later?!?!?! that was one HELLO of a fall in the tub (sarcasm)

lovelabs
07-23-2009, 01:34 PM
Only because I just dont know.....How can they say she had bruises, wouldn't she be just a skelton? Its been how many years now?

Paintr
07-23-2009, 02:03 PM
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/genevasun/news/1681906,Peterson-Savio-autopsy-struggle-JO072309.article

At the time, an autopsy determined Savio had drowned and a coroner's jury ruled the death accidental. State police Special Agent Herbert Hardy had informed the jury that an investigation turned up no indications of foul play in Savio's death.

State police renewed their interest in Savio's death when the next wife - the now 24-year-old Stacy - vanished in October. State police have labeled their investigation of the young woman's whereabouts a potential homicide.

STEADFAST
07-23-2009, 02:04 PM
Only because I just dont know.....How can they say she had bruises, wouldn't she be just a skelton? Its been how many years now?

I heard on the news that much of the new autopsy was based on the notations made on the first autopsy (where bruises, etc., were apparently ignored for purposes of finding cause of death but were still noted in the report.)

ETA -- I must have misheard this. The newest autopsy report was not based partially on the first autopsy, but on the second, more recent one.

Baden's report cited Blum's findings of a 1-inch blunt-force laceration on the back of her head, five scraping abrasions and six blunt-force black-and-blue bruises on her extremities, abdomen and buttock.
Baden also noted that even though the body was partially decomposed, "bruises and contusions caused by blunt force injuries shortly before death" were still visible on the right breast, the upper right thigh and the abdomen.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/23/illinois.drew.peterson/

Paintr
07-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Only because I just dont know.....How can they say she had bruises, wouldn't she be just a skelton? Its been how many years now?

Kathleen's body was embalmed and placed in a sealed casket so tissue would be much better preserved than a body left lying in the open.

Paintr
07-23-2009, 03:30 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/23/crimesider/entry5182728.shtml



Savio's family has long voiced suspicions about the circumstances surrounding her death. In a lawsuit filed by the family, it is alleged that Peterson went to Savio's house on Feb. 28, 2004, to "brutally ... stalk, attack, repeatedly beat, then drown,” his third wife. Savio survived the attack for an unknown period of time before drowning, the lawsuit says.


http://cbs2chicago.com/local/kathleen.savio.drew.2.1098258.html

Soon after, Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow announced he was reopening Savio's case and said the scene of her death appeared to have been staged to conceal a homicide.

Savio's remains were exhumed in November of 2007. Forensic pathologist Larry Blum examined her body and prepared the autopsy report released Thursday by Glasgow's office. A third autopsy was conducted by celebrity forensic pathologist Michael Baden at the behest of Savio's relatives. After his examination, Baden announced live on cable television his belief that the death was a homicide.

Paintr
07-23-2009, 04:27 PM
I knew I was saving these for some reason.

Kathleen Savio's first autopsy report:

(not sure this will work)
http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/Kathleen%20Savio%201st%20Autopsy/

Looks like it was signed by Patrick O'Neil.

http://www.patoneil.com/

http://www.patoneil.com/patoneil2.jpg

Pat O'Neil sounds very qualified.

Paintr
07-23-2009, 04:30 PM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56046

We do have a thread on the Will County Coroner's office here.

lonetraveler
07-23-2009, 05:16 PM
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/genevasun/news/1681906,Peterson-Savio-autopsy-struggle-JO072309.article

At the time, an autopsy determined Savio had drowned and a coroner's jury ruled the death accidental. State police Special Agent Herbert Hardy had informed the jury that an investigation turned up no indications of foul play in Savio's death.

State police renewed their interest in Savio's death when the next wife - the now 24-year-old Stacy - vanished in October. State police have labeled their investigation of the young woman's whereabouts a potential homicide.
------------
So where is this State Police Special Agent Herbert Hardy? And why can't he be charge with conspiracy and for covering up a murder for his pal, Drew Peterson?

SuziQ
07-23-2009, 07:58 PM
------------
So where is this State Police Special Agent Herbert Hardy? And why can't he be charge with conspiracy and for covering up a murder for his pal, Drew Peterson?

I'm having to pull info from waaay back in my brain. So forgive me if I'm recalling any of this incorrectly. I believe the initial agent handling the case was on vacation or something and Hardy was only handed the case days before the hearing and was going off of what LE at the scene reported, who were Drew's friends.

Just bouncing off of your post to add more. I believe the the original ME said his hands were tied by the Jury's ruling, but has aknowledged he could have overidden their decision. I don't think he's ever offered up a reason why he didn't.

Now what I find really interesting is that somehow or another a LE friend of Drew's did end up sitting on that jury. He painted Drew in a very positive light to the other jurors. A few of the other juror's aknowledged that those statements influenced their decision. So I wanna know exactly how this cop ended up sitting on this jury. If it was purposeful, I would love to see this guy charged with OJ or Accessory after the fact.

SuziQ
07-23-2009, 07:59 PM
Has anyone come across a copy of this autopsy? I would love to read it.

lonetraveler
07-23-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm having to pull info from waaay back in my brain. So forgive me if I'm recalling any of this incorrectly. I believe the initial agent handling the case was on vacation or something and Hardy was only handed the case days before the hearing and was going off of what LE at the scene reported, who were Drew's friends.

Just bouncing off of your post to add more. I believe the the original ME said his hands were tied by the Jury's ruling, but has aknowledged he could have overidden their decision. I don't think he's ever offered up a reason why he didn't.

Now what I find really interesting is that somehow or another a LE friend of Drew's did end up sitting on that jury. He painted Drew in a very positive light to the other jurors. A few of the other juror's aknowledged that those statements influenced their decision. So I wanna know exactly how this cop ended up sitting on this jury. If it was purposeful, I would love to see this guy charged with OJ or Accessory after the fact.
-------------
IIRC, this special agent was the one who testified to the coroner's jury that foul play had been completely ruled out by LE on the scene of Savio's murder. He also made comments about how there was no way that Drew could have committed a crime againt Savio. IIRC, this agent never even saw the scene and was not involved in any way with the Savio death. That in my opinion is conspiracy and accessory after the fact. Are the LE officers names, who were on the scene, listed on any documents? I have been away from this crime for a while and I'm trying to refresh my memory. I want to see Drew put away forever.

mysteriew
07-24-2009, 02:19 AM
IIRC the system in Ill. is a pretty convoluted set up. The county coroner signs off on the death certificate, but doesn't actually do the autopsy. The coroner also takes the case to the coroner's jury and decides what to tell them. The medical examiner actually does the autopsy and submits his findings to the coroner. Much of what was in the second autopsy was actually mentioned in the first autopsy.

So it is my understanding that after Kathleen's death, her remains were sent to the medical examiner for an autopsy. The medical examiners report was sent to the coroner, the coroner took the report to the coroner's jury. It has been said that the coroner's jury may not have been given correct instructions, something about they should have been able to say the cause was undetermined. But since they weren't given that option, their only choices were natural, accidental or homicide. They also may not have been given all the info in the autopsy, or it may have been downplayed- things like the bruises and abrasions. The person who presented the crime scene info was as SuziQ outlined, the investigator who had been on the scene was on vacation and another investigator used his notes and talked to the coroner's jury. And on the coroner's jury was a police officer who told the juror's that he knew DrewP and he was a good guy.

These things all came out very soon after Kathleen's name came up. There are so many "coincidences" here that were favorable to DrewP that I don't see how they could be "coincidence." If I were a citizen in that county I would be questioning if there was any official assistance given to help cover up this crime. I don't know who investigates things like this, maybe the state attorney general, but it really should be referred for investigation.

Peculiar Petunia
07-24-2009, 09:42 AM
ITA about the system in Illinois being stuck (in the 1700s). In the county where I grew up, first we had an undertaker as the coroner. Then he was defeated by a dentist. The state really needs to do something about the death investigation system.

Will & Cook are probably the most corrupt counties in the state. (Some residents would say "Sangamon"--where the capital is. :-) ) I hate to think there was a police coverup here, but I can't believe otherwise.

Paintr
07-24-2009, 04:50 PM
http://illinoishomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=97831

Drew Peterson's Third Wife Was Murdered

The autopsy says there was a blunt-force laceration on the back of her head, five scrapes and six large bruises across her body.
At the time of death, Savio was finalizing her divorce from Peterson, a now-former Bollingbrook, Illinois cop

SeriouslySearching
07-24-2009, 05:44 PM
Hmmm...I never really doubted she struggled with her killer. Glad to see Dr. Baden found the proof.

Paintr
07-25-2009, 07:10 PM
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/1684352,4_1_JO25_PETERSON_S1-090725.article

Peterson's lawyer allgedly claims company has an obligation to pay up

Drew Peterson's attorney tried to get his legal fees paid through the disgraced former cop's home owner's insurance.

The attorney, Joel Brodsky, claimed Country Mutual Insurance Company is responsible for covering Peterson's defense against a wrongful-death suit filed by the family of his slain third wife, Kathleen Savio, said Keith G. Carlson, a lawyer representing the insurance outfit.

Paintr
07-25-2009, 07:14 PM
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1684341,072509peterson.article

Brodsky initially demanded that Peterson's trial begin within 120 days of his May 7 arrest, as dictated by law, but backed off when confronted by the mountain of evidence the state produced against his client. A new trial date may be scheduled next month.

Illinois State Police also have named Peterson as the sole suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who has been missing since October 2007. He has not been charged in that case.

Paintr
07-26-2009, 11:17 AM
I really can't wrap my head around the arrogance of wanting your insurance to pay for your defense when you are accused of killing your wife. Scheeech!

The date for his trial better come soon before Mr Peterson and his lawyer alienate everyone.

lonetraveler
07-26-2009, 09:31 PM
IMO, I strongly, strongly suspect that the numerous bruises all over her body could have been made by a Policeman's blackjack.

lonetraveler
07-26-2009, 09:34 PM
IMO, I strongly, strongly suspect that the numerous bruises all over her body could have been made by a Policeman's blackjack.

--------
I meant billyjack. I've been reading the Casey Anthony thread too much. I got it mixed up with her cell phone......

lonetraveler
07-26-2009, 09:36 PM
What happened to the $250,000 that Drew supposedly gave to his son when he became the suspect in Stacey's disappearance? Or was it a rumor?

impatientredhead
08-04-2009, 05:15 AM
Kathleen's body was embalmed and placed in a sealed casket so tissue would be much better preserved than a body left lying in the open.


The embalming practices used today slow decomp for the burial/funeral process but it is extremely unlikely that there is tissue left after five years. An embalmed body buried in a coffin will be skeletal within a year except in the most extreme temp conditions. The contusions were most likely photographed and documented in the original autopsy. They should have been even if the conclusion drawn was incorrect.

TallCoolOne
08-04-2009, 08:37 AM
The embalming practices used today slow decomp for the burial/funeral process but it is extremely unlikely that there is tissue left after five years. An embalmed body buried in a coffin will be skeletal within a year except in the most extreme temp conditions. The contusions were most likely photographed and documented in the original autopsy. They should have been even if the conclusion drawn was incorrect.Are you certain your information here is correct? I think there are many factors that contribute to the decomposition process and I really don't think what you say about the embalmed body being skeletal within a years time is correct.

Oh, where are our experts when we need them?

thesleuther
08-04-2009, 09:01 AM
The embalming practices used today slow decomp for the burial/funeral process but it is extremely unlikely that there is tissue left after five years. An embalmed body buried in a coffin will be skeletal within a year except in the most extreme temp conditions. The contusions were most likely photographed and documented in the original autopsy. They should have been even if the conclusion drawn was incorrect.

I simply don't think that is correct. Otherwise, there wouldn't be exhumations for second autopsies. When I had to plan a funeral, I was told that the embalming guaranteed the integrity of the body for 50 years. I don't think there are many people who put the embalmer to the test, but I think your 1-year comment is wrong. Further, I remember reading about the condition of Kathleen's body and they were able to see the bruises and abrasions.

Further, skill of the embalmer is crucial. I remember seeing a photo of tiny child's body that had been embalmed in the early 1900s and it was if it was ready for viewing - can't remember why I read the article regarding that little girl, but the article did talk about the importance of the skill of the embalmer.

impatientredhead
08-04-2009, 11:53 AM
The type of embalming done in funeral homes is cosmetic and meant to get you through the funeral. The amount of time to become skeletal will vary greatly with how well the procedure was done and the conditions around the coffin. So it is possible she would have still be recognizable 5 years after the fact but very very unlikely. Exhumed remains are pulled to look for fractures, broken bones, and most commonly to test for poisoning that was not tested for before hand. That can be done with the bones and hair.

It does depend on environmental (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/109293#) conditions, but generally...

"Burial in a coffin slows the process

The whole process is generally slower in a coffin, and the body may remain identifiable for many months. Some tissues, such as tendons and ligaments, are more resistant to decomposition, while the uterus and prostate glands may last several months.

But within a year all that is usually left is the skeleton and teeth, with traces of the tissues on them - it takes 40 to 50 years for the bones to become dry and brittle in a coffin. In soil (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/109293#) of neutral acidity, bones may last for hundreds of years, while acid peaty soil gradually dissolves the bones."

This article was last medically reviewed by Dr Trisha Macnair in December 2005.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../...nafterdeath.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/decompostionafterdeath.shtml)



-How long does embalming preserve the remains?

A- This has got to be the most often asked question we receive, and the most lengthy to answer due to all
the factors that go in to determine it. We must understand that embalming is only a temporary hindrance to
decomposition. Decomposition is a natural and scientific process that begins immediately after death.
In order for decomposition to take place you need to have two elements present...air and water, which make
ideal hosts for aerobic & anaerobic bacteria.Logically, it would make sense that if we can stop these two elements from coming in contact with the remains,
then we can stop decomposition from taking place. The only way to retard decomposition 100% is to
vacuum seal the remains...logical and scientific, but not practical. Other factors that come into play are:

Mode of death- traumatic deaths do not embalm as well as a "natural cause" death, due to the
breakdown of circulation.
Weight of remains- The more weight, the more water the remains contain.
Type of casket & outer enclosure- a protective casket and vault will seal out more water and air
than a non-protective.
Soil & climate conditions- A dry, sandy soil cemetery is better than a wet, clay soil cemetery due
to water retention.
Skill and thoroughness of the embalmer. As in any other profession, shortcuts and inferior
materials will make for a shoddy job. If the funeral director takes pride in his work, then he will do a
more thorough embalming using only the highest quality materials available to him.

No funeral director should warrant to a family, that by embalming or buying certain merchandise, the remains
will last forever...this is NOT true. It may hinder the decomposition process for a short time.
..but nothing is forever.


http://www.caring.com/articles/embalming


More embalming considerations

If a body isn't embalmed

A body that isn't embalmed will decompose within days instead of weeks.


http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Decomposition

Embalming (http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Embalming) is the practice of delaying decomposition of human and animal remains. Embalming slows decomposition somewhat, but does not forestall it indefinitely. Embalmers typically pay great attention to parts of the body seen by mourners, such as the face and hands. The chemicals used in embalming repel most insects, and slow down bacterial putrefaction by "fixing" cellular proteins, which means that they cannot act as a nutrient for bacteria, and killing the bacteria themselves.

The time for an embalmed body to be reduced to a skeleton (http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Skeleton) varies greatly.

NOTE: contrary to popular idea, embalming does not provide perfect, perpetual preservation. It merely slows the decomposition process. All bodies will eventually decompose to some degree. Depending on conditions in the grounds, they may more mummify than decompose.