This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
– 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [SNIP] HILL: Tonight as Drew Peterson sits in a jail awaiting trial charges he murdered his third wife Kathleen Savio, we’re learning his defense team has big plans on Monday, hoping to deliver a fatal blow to the prosecution’s case. Kathleen Savio, as you may recall, was found dead in her bathtub in 2004. Originally ruled an accidental drowning, her death was later classified as a homicide after her body was exhumed late 2007 and additional autopsies were performed. Savio allegedly believed Peterson wanted to kill her and reportedly made several comments stating that if anything happened to her, he was probably behind this. Before Peterson was arrested, 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 nothing because 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 is innocent of his third wife’s death. On Monday his attorneys will file a motion asking the court 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 speak with her in just a moment to get more on the details but first we want to speak with Anna Doman, 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 it doesn’t get easier no matter how much time passes and I know some of the evidence Drew Peterson and his attorneys would like to have thrown out and made inadmissible in court are things that you say your sister Kathleen said to you about Drew Peterson. What are those statement’ DOMAN: She told me that she would never live for the settlement, that Drew was going to kill her. She would never live and if anything did happen, he did it and to please take care of her children. HILL: And when she first told you those things, what did you first think, did you think, you know ‘Oh Kathleen calm down, you’re going through a divorce, obviously it’s a tough time..’ DOMAN: Yeah, I know, you really don’t believe someone would go as far as to kill them. I knew Drew was lethal, I mean I knew he had been physically abusing her and black eyes and all that but you never really believe someone would go so far for money. You know I tried to make 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 get their education, they’re happy, say it in those words.’ She wanted to hear it. She was very obsessed 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 go to them? DOMAN: She changed — yes, she had a very large million-dollar life insurance policy. There was more than on, but the one big one that Drew had been beneficiary on. And she told me at the time that she believed he did not know she changed the beneficiary. She made the boys 50/50 beneficiaries on that policy, where for the longest time Drew had been the beneficiary. But she changed it, and that’s when she told me, “I changed the beneficiaries. I want to make sure the kids get everything.” HILL: I know you haven’t been able to have much contact with your nephews, with her children. Take me back, though, to the statements, again, if you could. How — how many times 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. I mean, before the divorce — or before the divorce, you know, the divorce was filed for and Drew 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 will never let me have the children.” Over and over. Every time I saw her she would be terrified. She used to call me up on her phone — on her cell phone and go, “Anna, you’re going to think 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 to school or going to work or whatever. You know, and most people were thinking she was crazy. 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 this brief 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 the criminal trial doesn’t go the way that you and Anna would like it to, are you planning to try this case in civil court eventually? KELLY: Well, sure. That’s, you know, we’re cued up. And if for some reason the prosecution is not successful, we anticipate they will be. It will be another case like Simpson, that we tried 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 be the preponderance of the evidence. Be you don’t need an unanimous jury. And I think the most important thing in a civil case is, you know, I’d be able to depose Mr. Peterson, and he’d have to take the stand. He can’t avoid testifying, and you’d have the opportunity to cross-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 the Peterson 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 ruled inadmissible. 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-two constitutional punch on the biggest issue in the case, and that is whether Kathleen’s statements 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, changing the rules of evidence, allowing in what would normally be hearsay evidence from Kathleen Savio into the trial. The defense says this is an ex-post facto law, unconstitutional under the federal Constitution to target a particular case to change the rules of evidence in the middle 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 crossexamine 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 her and, 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 most people would like to see this kind of evidence come in at trial. But the U.S. Constitution is pretty 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 this brief yet. They may have some good arguments in response. But this is going to be the biggest legal battle in the case. And Erica, if the defense wins on this motion, I understand that the prosecution will immediately take it up on appeal. Drew Peterson would then be out of jail during the time of 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 the prosecution 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 this crime. There’s no forensic evidence.
And on the weekend that Kathleen Savio died, Drew Peterson has alibi witnesses, family members who say he was with them. Now, we don’t know what the prosecution’s theory of the case is. But we do know that Kathleen Savio drowned. How did Drew Peterson get in the house? How did he do it? There’s no sign of a struggle. I mean, this is a tough case for the prosecution, in my view, even with these statements from Kathleen Savio. HILL: Also — although, Lisa, there was… BLOOM: Without these statements it’s a real hard case. HILL: But in the autopsy, the private autopsy the family ordered from Michael Baden, he did say that some of the wounds did show signs of a struggle. Unfortunately, I have to leave it there. I’m being told we’re out of time. Lisa Bloom, always appreciate it. Thank you for sharing this with us tonight. Really good to have you here, especially before it’s filed on Monday morning. You can join the live chat, happening now at AC360.com. [SNIP] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/07/acd.01.html
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.