Kathleen Savio's death #2

[MaddyDecaf]

DP date of birth: 01-05-54 KS date of birth: 06-13-63

reasonable age difference, considering their ages at the time

 

[robthomaseyes]

Why did DP write he wanted to be cremated and buried next to Kathleen? Why did he think Kathleen would die first and how much younger than DP was she? Is this premeditation? Let's pray the jury thinks so! If I were making that will with my husband, my burial wishes would be there too.

In my opinion he wrote that to make the fake will more authentic. They were supposed to be "happily married" back in 1997, so to lend an air of credence, he put in that junk about being buried with her. Nice touch, but I'm stuck on the fact that "Kathleen's" initials throughout the document (both pages, top and bottom, left and or right) are not the same twice. And in none of the initials do her "Ks" match up with the signature "K". In fact, on page two, upper left hand side, her initials look larger and very clear...much different than any of the other ones. Her "r"s and "l"s, although slanted (nice touch, unless she was right-handed) in her signature look a lot like Drew's.

I wasn't buying this "handwritten" will from the minute it hit the press. Nobody with that many business ventures (did you see the list???) and insurance policies, especially someone in LE, handwrites a will, especially when they have children to think about.

 

[Pharlap]

Just on fox with a lawyer explaining this will.
If it is handwritten, both eye witnesses have to be present from the first word put on the paper to the last.
The 2 witnesses have to watch her write the whole will in front of them.

 

[mysteriew]

Just on fox with a lawyer explaining this will.
If it is handwritten, both eye witnesses have to be present from the first word put on the paper to the last.
The 2 witnesses have to watch her write the whole will in front of them.

Interesting. (Sorry, I haven't been reading the articles about the will) But didn't I read here that DrewP said he "wrote" what Kathleen dictated?

I do agree that anyone with children a business and any money to speak of would usually get an attorney to draft a will. There is also the fact that there was a blended family. Would a will be challenged?

By the time that Kathleen died, DrewP was remarried. Did he write another will with Stacy that listed another burial arrangement or did he leave it that he is to be buried next to Kathleen instead of Stacy?

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Coroner: ‘Exotic’ toxicology tests delay Savio autopsy reportPosted on January 16, 2008 by gatehousechicago By Don Grigasdgrigas@mysuburbanlife.comThe 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.http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/...-toxicology-tests-delay-savio-autopsy-report/

 

[Pharlap]

Interesting. (Sorry, I haven't been reading the articles about the will) But didn't I read here that DrewP said he "wrote" what Kathleen dictated?

I do agree that anyone with children a business and any money to speak of would usually get an attorney to draft a will. There is also the fact that there was a blended family. Would a will be challenged?

By the time that Kathleen died, DrewP was remarried. Did he write another will with Stacy that listed another burial arrangement or did he leave it that he is to be buried next to Kathleen instead of Stacy?

Haven't heard anything around here. All I know is the court date was today..
From what the lawyer said, then it's not a valid will....

 

[mysteriew]

I finally got around to reading the will. What struck me the most was no guardianship was named for the kids if both of them died at the same time. One of the first things that most parents think of.

And there were no personal bequests. If both died at the same time, everything was left to all four children- his children and both their children. Did Kathleen have jewelry? I would think she would want to leave jewelry or something for her kids to remember her by. The same if she died and DrewP lived, I would think she would make a point to leave something, some remembrance to her kids as a personal bequest.

Maybe it is just me, but the if I was writing a will the things that to me would be most important to be in there- aren't.

 

[Pharlap]

Something smells about the will, and you said Drew wrote it?
Bet she made a will during the divorce proceedings and slimeball found it and destroyed it.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

Something smells about the will, and you said Drew wrote it?
Bet she made a will during the divorce proceedings and slimeball found it and destroyed it.

If you read reports, her signature is on it -- and the validity of her signature has not been disputed.

What now? Her signature was forged? (... even though she signed it something like 10 years ago, when DP also signed it, wishing to be buried NEXT TO HIS WIFE?)

C'mon ... don't make something out of nothing. Please.
Why can't we just let the investigation happen and be at peace with facts instead of really "out there" speculation?

If you knew .. for a fact .. that DP murdered someone, I could totally see assuming other crimes. But, nobody knows he did a gosh dern thing... YET!
Don't hate me.
Pleeeeeeeeeease.
Just consider what we know and what we don't.

(And yah, ok ... it's fine to hate ... if you must -- if it's in you to do that. I won't respect it, though.)

 

[Pharlap]

If you read reports, her signature is on it -- and the validity of her signature has not been disputed.

What now?

Really....ok, however will it stand up in court?
The other thing is, even if it didn't stand up in court, would Drew have gotten the same outcome of the assets????????

 

[MaddyDecaf]

Really....ok, however will it stand up in court?
The other thing is, even if it didn't stand up in court, would Drew have gotten the same outcome of the assets????????

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?

 

[MaddyDecaf]

Really....ok, however will it stand up in court?
The other thing is, even if it didn't stand up in court, would Drew have gotten the same outcome of the assets????????

That will already stood up in court when KS died...... didn't it? The only thing being spectacularly blathered about in the media lately regarding it, is ..... that DP "benefitted" from her will. It's media hype -- and only because they have nothing else to blather about, in this missing persons case. THEIR children benefitted from it, as per KS' wishes. There's nothing to talk about. YET.

 

[thesleuther]

In the video I linked last night, Brodsky said that a will didn't need to be notarized. However, as we know, Brodsky went to the bar on the way to take the bar. So who knows?

From what we think we know, Drew had lock-picking tools and the skills to use them. Kathleen, I believe in one of her hand-written letters, stated that she found Drew in her house as she was bringing laundry down the stairs. If he murdered her on the night that we think (when Stacy supposedly couldn't reach him), then it's reasonable to assume he spent a lot of time in Kathleen's house.

Now, since Kathleen remembered to change the beneficiaries in her life insurance policy (the million dollar one), it seems unlikely that she wouldn't have changed her will. What if she made a new will and Drew was able to locate it during his "visits" to the house while she was still alive? On the night of her murder, it would have been very easy and certainly beneficial to him to destroy the new will.

I watched the video and the guy has an answer for everything, but he doesn't fool me.

If she had a new will or a paper declaring the other will now invalid, you can bet Drew destroyed it or both of them.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

From what we think we know, Drew had lock-picking tools and the skills to use them. Kathleen, I believe in one of her hand-written letters, stated that she found Drew in her house as she was bringing laundry down the stairs. If he murdered her on the night that we think (when Stacy supposedly couldn't reach him), then it's reasonable to assume he spent a lot of time in Kathleen's house.

Actually, he lived in that house during their marriage; it was THE marital house. Of course he knew the house inside-out. It seems like people have forgotten this fact and are trying make another 'something of nothing at all' regarding it.


Now, since Kathleen remembered to change the beneficiaries in her life insurance policy (the million dollar one), it seems unlikely that she wouldn't have changed her will. What if she made a new will and Drew was able to locate it during his "visits" to the house while she was still alive? On the night of her murder, it would have been very easy and certainly beneficial to him to destroy the new will.

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. And yes, she did it in conjunction with her husband-at-the-time, DP. When they got divorced, she changed the beneficiaries of her life ins policy to be solely the children. This makes perfect sense to me. POINT? She never needed a will. The life insurance policy FAR exceeded any monetary assets she and DP had.

I watched the video and the guy has an answer for everything, but he doesn't fool me.

Who do you think he's trying to fool and for what purpose? I'm thinking the only question here is: Did he commit murder or not?

If she had a new will or a paper declaring the other will now invalid, you can bet Drew destroyed it or both of them.


Ugh. Blech. Phooey.
IMO.
Respectfully.
:crazy:

Apologies for posting my responses inside the quote box. I wanted to address each statement.

 

[thesleuther]

That will already stood up in court when KS died...... didn't it? The only thing being spectacularly blathered about in the media lately regarding it, is ..... that DP "benefitted" from her will. It's media hype -- and only because they have nothing else to blather about, in this missing persons case. THEIR children benefitted from it, as per KS' wishes. There's nothing to talk about. YET.

I think you're missing the key reason it stood up in court initially, and that is that Kathleen's death was originally ruled accidental. There didn't appear to be a reason to scrutinize the will.

It now looks as if her death is going to be ruled a homicide and if that's the case, then everything needs to be reexamined - ESPECIALLY a will in which her EX-HUSBAND is the key beneficiary....doesn't make sense. It would have made far more sense to take care of her children - like she did when she changed the million dollar life insurance beneficiary from Drew to her children. How likely is it that she changed one and not the other....ESPECIALLY since she told others and stated in her own writing that Drew (I'll paraphrase) wanted her dead.

In homicide investigations, they look for motive, means, and opportunity to key in on suspects. An ex-wife's estate valued at over $600,000 is certainly a motive. Drew also had the means and opportunity and those reasons are precisely why he being looked at. When you add all the other things in that have been discussed on this thread, it makes him the perfect PRIME SUSPECT.

Who - other than Drew Peterson - would benefit from killing a clean-living, divorced, suburban, accountant living alone raising her two children?

 

[MaddyDecaf]

I think you're missing the key reason it stood up in court initially, and that is that Kathleen's death was originally ruled accidental. There didn't appear to be a reason to scrutinize the will.

It now looks as if her death is going to be ruled a homicide and if that's the case, then everything needs to be reexamined - ESPECIALLY a will in which her EX-HUSBAND is the key beneficiary....doesn't make sense. It would have made far more sense to take care of her children - like she did when she changed the million dollar life insurance beneficiary from Drew to her children. How likely is it that she changed one and not the other....ESPECIALLY since she told others and stated in her own writing that Drew (I'll paraphrase) wanted her dead.

In homicide investigations, they look for motive, means, and opportunity to key in on suspects. An ex-wife's estate valued at over $600,000 is certainly a motive. Drew also had the means and opportunity and those reasons are precisely why he being looked at. When you add all the other things in that have been discussed on this thread, it makes him the perfect PRIME SUSPECT.

Who - other than Drew Peterson - would benefit from killing a clean-living, divorced, suburban, accountant living alone raising her two children?

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:

 

[Pharlap]

That will already stood up in court when KS died...... didn't it? The only thing being spectacularly blathered about in the media lately regarding it, is ..... that DP "benefitted" from her will. It's media hype -- and only because they have nothing else to blather about, in this missing persons case. THEIR children benefitted from it, as per KS' wishes. There's nothing to talk about. YET.

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

 

[MaddyDecaf]

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

and which topic ISN'T, in your opinion?
:crazy:

 

[thesleuther]

Apologies for posting my responses inside the quote box. I wanted to address each statement.

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.

 

[MaddyDecaf]

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.

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?