Kathleen Savio's death #3

Discussion in 'Kathleen Savio' started by Tom'sGirl, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. Tom'sGirl

    Tom'sGirl Former Member

    Messages:
    11,332
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. thesleuther

    thesleuther New Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm glad you started this new thread as I've wanted to post something that may be of importance, but didn't want to post it on the thread that was getting long and would probably be closed soon.

    Anyway, Mark Jensen is on trial in Wisconsin for the murder of his wife Julie Jensen. What makes this compelling with reference to Kathleen Savio's murder is that the victim is being permitted to, in essence, testify from the grave, via a letter which she wrote stating her fears of her husband - that he was trying to kill her. She gave the letter to her neighbor and told her to give it to the police if anything happened to her.

    An excerpt: "I pray I'm wrong and nothing happens, but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors and fear for my early demise," the 40-year-old wrote."

    Her husband wasn't arrested for 3 years after her death, and then there were five years of legal maneuvering through the courts in Wisconsin - all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Supreme Court basically rewrote case law by permitting the letter to be entered into evidence.

    How does this affect the Kathleen Savio case?

    First, I want to state that I am not a lawyer nor am I employed in the legal community in any way. But, based on what I've read and seen on the news, this could possibly spread from state to state and that it could very well go the same route in Illinois as in Wisconsin - that is the same kind of legal maneuvering all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court.

    If Mr Jensen is convicted, it most likely will be a basis for appeal and who knows, it may end up in the United States Supreme Court. They could choose to hear it or not.

    Those on trial have a right to confront their accusers, and that's why we're constantly reminded that hearsay isn't admissible (although there are exceptions). This type of letter I think would normally fall under hearsay, but in Wisconsin it is going to be entered into evidence.

    The chilling writings of Kathleen Savio along with the change to homicide as cause of death, along with the windfall inheritance Drew Peterson received as a result of her death, along with testimony from those wives and ex-girlfriends to whom he reportedly told that he could kill and make it look like an accident, would in combination probably be quite compelling evidence presented to a jury.

    The link:

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4137889&page=1

    This murder happened in December 1998 so there are plenty of stories that can be found with a Google search.

    We still don't know where LE is going with the Stacy disappearance or what evidence they have, but it looks like Kathleen's death might have more evidence than Stacy's.

    I thought this might be interesting to ponder - I initially thought that lack of evidence might hinder Kathleen's investigation, but the possibility of her writings being admissible is somewhat tantalizing.
     
  4. SeriouslySearching

    SeriouslySearching New Member

    Messages:
    35,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought of Kathleen Savio when I read about Julie Jensen, too.

    To me, I was glad to see some Judge decided to allow the words confirmed to be those of the victim to be entered into the case. This is, imo, going forward in our legal system. It is time someone allowed the truth to come out in court for a change. This was Julie Jensen's truth as she knew it at the time and should be considered as evidence in her eventual murder.

    I hope Kathleen is given the same opportunity to allow her truth to be heard. I think it is essential to show further the abuse, fear, and betrayal of her life with DP. They are her words and it was her life as she knew it.
     
  5. i.b.nora

    i.b.nora I am polka dot

    Messages:
    8,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    ‘Exotic’ toxicology tests on Savio delay autopsy report: O’Neil

    "The results of toxicology tests being done on the body of Kathleen Savio are taking longer than normal because of the complexity of requested tests.

    “Following the autopsy conducted Nov. 13 on Kathleen Savio by independent pathologist Dr. Larry Blum, toxicology testing was requested on various samples,” said Patrick O’Neil, Will County coroner.

    About a month later, O’Neil said, Blum requested additional toxicology testing that O’Neil said were “exotic” and “very complicated.”

    The complexity of the testing, coupled with the December request, has pushed back the anticipated release of the full autopsy report, he said.

    O’Neil did not release the specifics of the second toxicology request other than to say “the tests were for some pretty exotic things, things I probably can’t even spell or pronounce.”"


    And, this is why undertakers really shouldn't be coroners.
     
  6. Pharlap

    Pharlap Former Member

    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry but that's Will County for you.
     
  7. DeltaDawn

    DeltaDawn Inactive

    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi thesleuther..I had commented about Julie Jensen case on the legal questions thread because I was hoping that in both Kathleen Savio's case and Stacy's case they would allow any letters they may have written or notes given to people to be used as testimony. I am still hoping that they have Stacy's journal that may contain some info of that sort too. You might want to check the legal questiona thread here for a few of the other's comments.
     
  8. DeltaDawn

    DeltaDawn Inactive

    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know the subject of the WILL has been beaten to death on the other thread but I just wanted to comment on some of my thoughts.
    First I do feel the will does point to a motive when looked at with Kathleen's financial state at her death and Drew's.

    If you read the letter she wrote to the Staes Attorney about fearing for her life in that letter I beleive is where she also states that she is in dire financial straits (If it's a differnet letter I apologize) Her homeownership and taxes were previously tied up with Drew's. When he left and bought a new house he left her high and dry. He did not pay any of the back taxes owed, he did not help with mortgage payments and he did not pay her child support. She was not even able to make ends meet.
    Drew, had she lived, would have been paying her over $2000 a month in
    child support alone. I read that figure on another stricle, don't ask me where this was long ago. I am sure the court would have split any profits from the sale of the businesses and would have docked him for one half of the taxes due atleast, as well as a portion of his retirement, 401K and any other money they, he had while they were married. He thought the life insurance policy that existed was in his name..he wasn't aware that had changed. So if she lived he stood to loose alot of money. If she died before the money angle was settled he stood to gain, not only all the profits from the sale of the businesses, but the sale of the house, her jewelry and furs. Surprisingly he also gained by not having to pay child support. His uncle did away with other lawyers appointed to take care of the children's interest in the settlement of her estate, whereby Drew received control of their interest..which should not have happened since they were divorced. A third party is usually given control of the children's finances in a death following a divorce. So Drew gained in profit $600,000 clear in cash, access to the children's $1 MILLION whenever he or Stacy wanted, and he did not have to split any of this with anyone else.

    So I would say there was a huge motive to be done with Kathleen..he had moved on and left her in horrible debt..and he knew the court would have wanted him to make restitution for the taxes etc and the child support he left hanging.
     
  9. thesleuther

    thesleuther New Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well said, DeltaDawn, here here :clap:

    There was a huge advantage for Drew with Kathleen being out of the way. Those poor kids.......
     
  10. thesleuther

    thesleuther New Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DeltaDawn, I hadn't been aware of your comments. I usually check in for news and hadn't seen them.
     
  11. DeltaDawn

    DeltaDawn Inactive

    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh that's okay, no problem..just wanted to let you know that others had legal comments on that thread about this same discussion and I thought you would enjoy reading the diversity in them.
     
  12. dee10134

    dee10134 I'm BAAAAACK!

    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's that supposed to mean?
     
  13. Littledeer

    Littledeer Former Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :clap:

    For all the great posts here!!!!!!!
     
  14. DeltaDawn

    DeltaDawn Inactive

    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Question about Kathleen's life insurance policy..was it a policy that paid double indeminity if the death was ruled accidental..most do..so does that mean the policy was for $500,000 but paid $1 Million or was it for $ 1 Million and it actually paid out $2 Million..$1 Million for each of her boys?
     
  15. Tom'sGirl

    Tom'sGirl Former Member

    Messages:
    11,332
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm, good question DD, however, I for one dunno :)
     
  16. Littledeer

    Littledeer Former Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought that somewhere we had that information?? Maybe it's in one of the earlier threads...........
     
  17. DeltaDawn

    DeltaDawn Inactive

    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mary P is supposed to be testifying tomorrow 1/24/08 before the GJ..I have a feeling her testimony will be a key in putting Drew away for good. As Kathleen's neighbor and best friend she would know and have seen what really went on in that marriage before and after the divorce. If she saw certain things with her own eyes then that would not be heresay. I am thinking maybe that Steve never made it there till after Mary herself arrived and started screaming. Otherwise wouldn't Kathleen's family have known that Steve was at the scene at the moment Kathleen's body was found?
     
  18. swa

    swa New Member

    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both of these cases have the same theme . . . you threaten to leave Drew . . . you die.
     
  19. DeltaDawn

    DeltaDawn Inactive

    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Link to story about GJ hearing today and who testified. It does not mention Mary P.

    SNIP/
    Drew Peterson's former friend, Ric Mims, appeared again before a special grand jury Thursday, this time to testify about how he and Peterson used to follow Peterson's third wife around before their divorce was settled.

    Stacy Peterson's sister, Cassandra Cales, and their friend Bruce Zidarich also appeared before the grand jury Thursday. They wore Find Stacy Peterson T-shirts and buttons, and left after about three hours in the grand jury room.
    /SNIP

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-peterson_25_webjan25,0,4946478.story
     
  20. Leila

    Leila New Member

    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ric Mims was interviewed on Greta tonight in regards to following Kathleen Savio. He said that in December 2003 or January 2004 DP asked Ric to help him follow Kathleen to work twice. DP told Ric he wanted to see what Kathleen's route to work was, and if she was staying with a boyfriend. DP told Ric Mims if Kathleen was staying with her boyfriend, it would affect his child support.

    Ric said that during the same time, DP asked Ric to stay in the parking lot of Kathleen's place of work, while DP went to Kathleen's house to "get some things." Ric was to call DP if Kathleen left work. Greta asked Ric if DP told him if he had a key to Kathleen's house? Ric said he didn't know.

    Ric said he was before the grand jury today for 45 minutes to an hour.

    Greta asked Ric if he could return tomorrow night, saying there was a lot more to talk about.

    Edited to add: I just remembered that Greta asked about the grand jury, and Ric Mims said the grand jury will be meeting for another 4 months on this case!
     
  21. cheko1

    cheko1 New Member

    Messages:
    4,983
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Leila, did you catch what Rick m. said DP would do to the 2nd wife?
    My phone rang.......out of all times. grrrrrr

    Then he also stated DP had a GPS tracker put on Stacy's cellphone so he knew where she was at all of the time. So DP knew every move she made!!!!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice