ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Drew Peterson’s Lawyers Challenge “Beyond the Grave” Testimony;Aired August 7, 2009 – 22:00 ETTHIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BEUPDATED.[SNIP]

HILL

: Tonight as Drew Peterson sits in a jail awaiting trial charges he murdered his thirdwife Kathleen Savio, we’re learning his defense team has big plans on Monday, hoping todeliver a fatal blow to the prosecution’s case. Kathleen Savio, as you may recall, was founddead in her bathtub in 2004. Originally ruled an accidental drowning, her death was laterclassified as a homicide after her body was exhumed late 2007 and additional autopsieswere performed.Savio allegedly believed Peterson wanted to kill her and reportedly made several commentsstating that if anything happened to her, he was probably behind this. Before Peterson wasarrested, the former Illinois cop really seemed to crave the attention, parading in front of the cameras, making jokes, clearly enjoying the spotlight.

PETERSON

: What do you get when you cross the media with the pig’ You get nothingbecause there are some things a pig won’t do.

HILL

: Peterson was also a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy claims he isinnocent of his third wife’s death. On Monday his attorneys will file a motion asking thecourt to throw out all the statements Kathleen Savio allegedly made implicating Peterson.And in an exclusive to 360 Lisa Bloom has seen a draft of that brief, we’re going to speakwith her in just a moment to get more on the details but first we want to speak with AnnaDoman, the sister of Kathleen Savio she joins us tonight with her attorney John Kelly (ph)good to have both of you with us.

HILL

: I appreciate you taking the time out to talk to us about this become I’m sure itdoesn’t get easier no matter how much time passes and I know some of the evidence DrewPeterson and his attorneys would like to have thrown out and made inadmissible in courtare things that you say your sister Kathleen said to you about Drew Peterson. What arethose statement’

DOMAN

: She told me that she would never live for the settlement, that Drew was going tokill her. She would never live and if anything did happen, he did it and to please take careof her children.

HILL

: And when she first told you those things, what did you first think, did you think, youknow ‘Oh Kathleen calm down, you’re going through a divorce, obviously it’s a toughtime..’

DOMAN

: Yeah, I know, you really don’t believe someone would go as far as to kill them. Iknew Drew was lethal, I mean I knew he had been physically abusing her and black eyes andall that but you never really believe someone would go so far for money. You know I tried tomake her feel better but she was very insistent that I say ‘ she’d say ‘Anna, say the words,tell me you will promise to take care of my children, make sure they’re healthy, they gettheir education, they’re happy, say it in those words.’ She wanted to hear it. She was veryobsessed and she knew when she said ‘Please make sure you take care of them first. No

matter what, make sure they get ‘ everything I have goes to them 50/50′

HILL

: And she had actually made sure that her life-insurance policy, as I understand, did goto them?

DOMAN

: She changed — yes, she had a very large million-dollar life insurance policy. Therewas more than on, but the one big one that Drew had been beneficiary on. And she told meat the time that she believed he did not know she changed the beneficiary. She made theboys 50/50 beneficiaries on that policy, where for the longest time Drew had been thebeneficiary.But she changed it, and that’s when she told me, “I changed the beneficiaries. I want tomake sure the kids get everything.”

HILL

: I know you haven’t been able to have much contact with your nephews, with herchildren. Take me back, though, to the statements, again, if you could. How — how manytimes did she say these things to you and over what period of time?

DOMAN

: All the time. Oh, all the time. Especially when the divorce — toward the end. Imean, before the divorce — or before the divorce, you know, the divorce was filed for andDrew had moved out. She was trying to save the marriage.After the divorce had — she kept telling me, she goes, “You know, Drew’s lethal.” She goes,“I’m terrified of him. He’s told me on many occasions that he’s going to kill me. He willnever let me have the children.” Over and over. Every time I saw her she would beterrified.She used to call me up on her phone — on her cell phone and go, “Anna, you’re going tothink I’m crazy, but somebody’s following me.”I’m like, “Who is it?”She goes, “I don’t know.”I said, “Is it Drew?”Like, “No, I don’t know.” And this — all the time this is what happened. She’d be going toschool or going to work or whatever. You know, and most people were thinking she wascrazy.I believed her, and I kept telling her, “Please move in with me.”

HILL

: It will be interesting to see what happens on Monday and how this goes once thisbrief is filed. Which I mentioned, we’re going to learn a little more on it from Lisa Bloom.John, a quick question for you. If for some reason this evidence is thrown out, if thecriminal trial doesn’t go the way that you and Anna would like it to, are you planning to trythis case in civil court eventually?

KELLY

: Well, sure. That’s, you know, we’re cued up. And if for some reason the prosecutionis not successful, we anticipate they will be. It will be another case like Simpson, that wetried the wrongful death action.

HILL

: Well, we will continue to follow it.

KELLY

: It would be a whole different ball game.

HILL

: As to whether or not the testimony would be admissible?

KELLY

: Oh, no, the whole thing. I mean, you have a lower burden of proof. It would just bethe preponderance of the evidence. Be you don’t need an unanimous jury. And I think themost important thing in a civil case is, you know, I’d be able to depose Mr. Peterson, andhe’d have to take the stand. He can’t avoid testifying, and you’d have the opportunity tocross-examine him at trial.

HILL

: A lot of things that will be coming up in the near future. We’ll continue to follow it.Anna Doman and John Kelly, thanks for being with us tonight.

DOMAN

: Thank you.

HILL

: We do want to talk a little bit about this major new legal development in thePeterson murder case. Because we told you the defense team will file a brief on Monday,claiming any so-called “beyond the grave” statements Kathleen Savio made be ruledinadmissible. Things like what her sister Anna just told us she said to her.CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom had an exclusive look at the preliminary draft of this motion.Lisa joins us now.Lisa, what did you see in that document?

LISA BLOOM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST

: Erica, this is a detailed, thorough, powerful, one-twoconstitutional punch on the biggest issue in the case, and that is whether Kathleen’sstatements should come in. The arguments are No. 1, that this is an ex-post facto law.Now, there was a law passed in 2008, just last year, that many called Drew’s Law, changingthe rules of evidence, allowing in what would normally be hearsay evidence from KathleenSavio into the trial. The defense says this is an ex-post facto law, unconstitutional underthe federal Constitution to target a particular case to change the rules of evidence in themiddle of the game.The second argument is, under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, that Drew Peterson, like everybody else, has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. Allowing in this kind of statement from somebody, even if she’s a murder victim and can’t come in and testify, means he can’t cross- examine herand, therefore, that would be unconstitutional.I have to tell you, I think it is a strong motion on a gut level, on a moral level. I think mostpeople would like to see this kind of evidence come in at trial. But the U.S. Constitution ispretty clear. And the case law to the Constitution is pretty clear.Now, we haven’t seen the prosecution’s response yet. The prosecution hasn’t even seen thisbrief yet. They may have some good arguments in response. But this is going to be thebiggest legal battle in the case.And Erica, if the defense wins on this motion, I understand that the prosecution willimmediately take it up on appeal. Drew Peterson would then be out of jail during the timeof that appeal. That would be a big win for him.

HILL

: Well, if for some reason this is ruled inadmissible, how much of a case does theprosecution have if they continue forward with this?

BLOOM

: In my opinion, this is the strongest evidence in the case. Kathleen’s statements, “If anything happens to me, he did it.” There’s no DNA evidence linking Drew Peterson to thiscrime. There’s no forensic evidence.