Kathleen Savio's death #2

[thesleuther]

True. He would be the only one to benefit from the sale of the marital home. I maintain that it's value wasn't enough to entice someone to murder another, let alone to entice DP to murder someone.

Doesn't everyone agree that he has always had plenty o' cash because of his alleged 'dirty cop' dealings? (I've been reading about these allegations here for quite some time.) Why would someone with so many other options, murder a soon-to-be-ex-wife (and put himself in the spotlight as the prime suspect for that murder) when it wasn't monetarily "necessary?"

There's motive ....... and then there's REAL motive.
I don't believe he had real motive.
I believe he didn't give a hoot about half that house and had already moved on.

Proof of that?
Here it is:

He had already purchased a new house, just a couple of blocks away, and was living in it with Stacy -- when KS died.

Whatcha think?
:innocent:

I think that assets of over $600,000 are motive for murder. Add in the fact that he didn't know that she had changed the will beneficiary (thought he was going to inherit another million). Add in the child support that he WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO A DEAD WOMAN.

The majority of people in the United States do not leave an estate valued at $600,000. Kathleen's was significant and is indeed a motive for murder.

 

[thesleuther]

Contrary to fantasy, I haven't made up any facts. I abhor made up "facts." Her will is the will THEY (DP and she) wrote together, before they were divorced, prior to her death. It's that simple -- and complicated. That will was honored. Who are you angry with? Why me? I'm talking about what actually happened -- not what most would PREFER happened. You can "assure" me all you want (and I would AGREE with you) that she likely would not want DP to have half of her estate. But, the FACT is, she didn't change or revoke her will prior to her death. She didn't plan on dying. And that's what happens when we're busy living life........
ya know?

YOU SAID THIS:


What if she had NO assets to leave to anyone in a will, explaining why she had to opt for a life insurance policy? This is what people (who are worth nothing monetarily) do; they take out a huge life insurance policy so that their heirs and people they care about, will be left with something and so that their death will be the antithesis of burden upon those people. This is what Kathleen did.

Those facts are made up. It is a matter of record that she left an estate of over $600,000 aside from the million dollar policy.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

I think that assets of over $600,000 are motive for murder. Add in the fact that he didn't know that she had changed the will beneficiary (thought he was going to inherit another million). Add in the child support that he WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO A DEAD WOMAN.

The majority of people in the United States do not leave an estate valued at $600,000. Kathleen's was significant and is indeed a motive for murder.

Cool. I respect your opinion ... and completely disagree with it. He'd already bought another house and was happy inside his pedophiliac r'ship with the Stacy child. (He didn't need that money to continue living his life beyond his divorce from Kathleen.)

And, paying child support is far LESS than it costs (overall) to have the children be inside your own home, in your own sole custody -- which is what happened when Kathleen died. Believe it or not, there are some people (men..... *gasp*) who believe that 'support' of children goes beyond a monthly check.

I guess you're 'hating' me now because I refuse to jump on the 'hating bandwagon' on this website. (How dare I?!) It's amazing to me how people become dragons while professing to be slaying one.

I am sad.
AND I THINK DP IS GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!
:crazy:

 

[thesleuther]

Cool. I respect your opinion ... and completely disagree with it. He'd already bought another house and was happy inside his pedophiliac r'ship with the Stacy child. (He didn't need that money to continue living his life beyond his divorce from Kathleen.)

And, paying child support is far LESS than it costs (overall) to have the children be inside your own home, in your own sole custody -- which is what happened when Kathleen died. Believe it or not, there are some people (men..... *gasp*) who believe that 'support' of children goes beyond a monthly check.

I guess you're 'hating' me now because I refuse to jump on the 'hating bandwagon' on this website. (How dare I?!) It's amazing to me how people become dragons while professing to be slaying one.

I am sad.
AND I THINK DP IS GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!
:crazy:

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I don't "Hate" you as I don't know you.

Your are saying things that aren't true. Drew was happy inside his new house? How do you know that? Do you know his financial situation?

He now has a plane, a motor home, Harley Davidson motorcycles, a pool, goes on expensive vacations, was able to do "repairs" such as a boob job (his disgusting words) on his new wife - in essence is living a lifestyle far beyond his policeman's salary. Laci Peterson was murdered for $250,000. People murder for $20 in someone's wallet or $35 from a cash register or they murder a pregnant woman so they don't have to pay child support for one child. Wake up. $600,000 IS MOTIVE FOR MURDER.

If not Drew, then who? Who could possibly have motive?

 

[thesleuther]

omg, what a waste of time......

Right on.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I don't "Hate" you as I don't know you.

Your are saying things that aren't true. Drew was happy inside his new house? How do you know that? Do you know his financial situation?

He now has a plane, a motor home, Harley Davidson motorcycles, a pool, goes on expensive vacations, was able to do "repairs" such as a boob job (his disgusting words) on his new wife - in essence is living a lifestyle far beyond his policeman's salary. Laci Peterson was murdered for $250,000. People murder for $20 in someone's wallet or $35 from a cash register or they murder a pregnant woman so they don't have to pay child support for one child. Wake up. $600,000 IS MOTIVE FOR MURDER.

If not Drew, then who? Who could possibly have motive?

Yay! I am so glad you are asking WHO?! I think your question is the most valid question of all -- of all posted on this or any other forum thus far.

WHO had motive for murdering either one of these women, providing they WERE murdered?

One is dead and her death hasn't been proven to be murder -- and one is missing, not shown to be murdered.

PS: $600k (divided by two, which would be $300k -- Drew's share) is not motive for murder when you earn a good living. My mom left me $300k last year when she passed away. I could never retire on that pittance of cash. I mean, it's LOVELY -- don't get me wrong -- but it's hardly motive for murder. That's just NUTS, for someone who makes a good living (like DP does/has.) If you are poverty stricken, I can see how you'd feel that amount is worth kiling and/or dying for. (.. I guess.) Everything's relative, I suppose.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I don't "Hate" you as I don't know you.

Your are saying things that aren't true. Drew was happy inside his new house? How do you know that? Do you know his financial situation?

He now has a plane, a motor home, Harley Davidson motorcycles, a pool, goes on expensive vacations, was able to do "repairs" such as a boob job (his disgusting words) on his new wife - in essence is living a lifestyle far beyond his policeman's salary. Laci Peterson was murdered for $250,000. People murder for $20 in someone's wallet or $35 from a cash register or they murder a pregnant woman so they don't have to pay child support for one child. Wake up. $600,000 IS MOTIVE FOR MURDER.

If not Drew, then who? Who could possibly have motive?

Ugh! I can't believe you are puking back my OPINIONS as though I'd stated them as fact. I stated my opinions AS OPINIONS. Therefore, you cannot say they "aren't true." Opinions are ..... opinions.

omg

 

[chicoliving]

There's enough puking going on. Move it forward or move on entirely.

 

[mysteriew]

Sure he would have received the same outcome of the assets. The outcome was that the $1,000,000 trust was for their children. They keyword is 'their'. The children were brought into this world by both parties. And, there had to be someone looking after the children, should KS pass on (which she did.)

I have to mention here that I feel that DP is *no way* a threat to his children, even if he's proven to be guilty of murder (one, two wives - whatever.) His abuse history is toward the women in his life; not his children. And, he has SIX of them to show he's no danger to children.

He's a total creep. (Did I mention that? I think he's a creep!)

Someone has to manage the assets KS left when she died. It makes sense it would be the father of their children. If he STEALS from that estate, he can be held accountable for it. Who's to say if what KS left for their children has been touched at all? As far as we know, DP gave $250k to his son to hold, in case of emergency. Thus, he obviously cannot touch the trust or we'd have heard about much more than a mere $250k being transferred for safe-keeping.

Make sense?

An abusive parent will often see their children as an extension of themselves. For an abusive person it is about control- they may be controlling with their children. If they decide to take their own lives- they will take the kids with them. If the children displease them and they have no one else to take it out on, then they may abuse the children. DrewP has talked quite a bit about what he has indicated was his wives shortcomings- his children are being brought up in that atmosphere and are remaining in that atmosphere. Kids learn about relationships from their parents. Frequently when children grow up in an abusive atmosphere it does something to their psych. Boys learn fear at home, they often become either too passive and fearful or too agressive- with their own relationships they become controlling. Girls too may become too agressive but more often too passive. When they marry they may be at risk of marrying a man who will abuse them. And if it happens, they are too fearful to leave.

 

[mysteriew]

Regarding your post #395, I mean no disrespect, but

People aren't forgetting he lived in the house at all. But, if she had a new will made AFTER THEY DIVORCED, then he would need to find it.You're making up facts.

She had assets valued at over $600,000 that Drew inherited. That's very significant. It doesn't make any difference at all that she also had a million dollar policy. A woman who lost her philandering husband to a teenager wouldn't want him to receive her $600,000 estate - try common sense. If she thought her children wouldn't need it, how about her siblings? I assure you, ANYBODY BUT DREW!

And who is Drew trying to fool? Everybody, especially the police, and for obvious reasons.

ROFL!!! Most women I know with cheating hubby's would rather see any assets go to charity before they would see it go to the ex. Most women with cheating and/or abusive hubby's would put any assets into an airtight trust for their children when they turned to a majority, rather than allow the ex hubby get a penny of it- esp. if they knew the hubby had resources to raise the children with.

Kathleen felt strongly enough about DrewP to write a letter to the attorney's office. She changed her beneficiary on some of her life ins. Now I will grant that she may have been waiting to change that will until after the property settlement that was going to happen that week. But I don't see her ever writing a will and not naming a guardian for her children if something would happen to both parents. After all, if there was no will- the other parent would most likely inherit. If the parents both died or the mother died after the divorce- the estate would go to the kids, most probably divided just the way it was divided with all 4 kids inheriting something. The only probable difference would be that it might have gone into trust for the minor children.

The only thing is, there is no guardian for the children- the will leaves the most important thing up to the court.

I agree that the only reason the will held up in court is because the death was ruled an accident. The attorney who started to probate her estate tried to object, but was overruled because of the existing will. But there is no indication that the will was ever examined, no testing done no challenge as to the validity of the will itself.

 

[CW]

Please continue here and also I'm moving chico's post on this new thread so that no one can say they didn't see chico's warning.

Yesterday, 11:28 PM
chicoliving
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 14,058

There's enough puking going on. Move it forward or move on entirely.