Drew Peterson Could Lose Police Pension

Drew Peterson stands to lose $79,000 a year in retirement benefits after being found guilty of murder last week.

may lose $79,000 a year in retirement benefits after being found guilty of murder last week. 

Under state pension law, Peterson can lose his pension benefits if the pension board decides he used his "police powers or even his skills as a veteran officer" in murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, according to the Chicago Tribune

Peterson retired as a sargeant from the in 2007, just short of 30 years of service, according to the Trib


Typically the law targets those convicted of embezzling or taking a bribe, according to the Chicago Tribune. Proving the argument in Peterson's case will be more difficult, said Jeff Goodloe, a Libertyville attorney, in the Trib. 

"It's a heinous crime, but there didn't seem to be a connection to his service as a police officer," he said. 

However, it has been used in the case when someone's professional skills could be linked to a crime, such as a firefighter committing arson, Goodloe told the Trib

The police pension board cannot rule on the matter until after Peterson's sentencing on Nov. 26. 

Richard Reimer, the attorney for the pension board, told the Trib he had requested transcripts of the trial to prepare a report for the board. Peterson is also allowed to bring witnesses and evidence to support his side. 

Peterson's attorney Joel Brodsky told the Trib he doubted whether Peterson would lose his pension. 

"His pension is safe. ... That money goes to his kids now anyway, even though I'm sure (State's Attorney) Jim Glasgow would like to see them thrown out in the street," Brodsky said.

"It's not like the trial. You would have to present actual evidence to the pension board, and they don't have that."

Kristie March 11, 2013 at 01:39 AM
If you're an attorney, I would think that you should have heard "forfeiture by wrongdoing" exception. You should also know that Drew Peterson case was not allowed to use "Drew's Law". You said that there hasn't been a criminal case in over 200 years but what about the People v. Richter case? "Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness (a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant: (1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies; (2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so; (3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter; (4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or (5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure: (A) the declarant’s attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6); or (B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2), (3), or (4). " I am curious what law school you went to that you've never heard of this before now?
Patrick March 11, 2013 at 08:33 AM
Madame was this a divorce case you are referring to? I am referring to a capital 1 crime. Murder is a capital 1 crime. Name a murder case that hearsay was allowed? Not to be rude but Drew's Law was used during the trial. I should know I was there. Patrick is my brothers name. I won't tell you who I am, but food for thought, how about this scenario: Stacy killed Kathleen. Think about it. She knew how to gain access to the house. She hated Kathleen at the time. And she loved money. When she wanted out of the divorce she left her life because Drew knew what she had done. And helped her cover it up. Why did she take so long to tell anyone of the crime Drew did? I would've went to the states attorney the next day. Just thinking out loud. No crime in that.
Kristie March 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM
The case I referred to is a murder case. Now I understand why you don't want to tell us your real name. Business at your law firm would surely go down. Most lawyers know about Rule 804 and most know how to look up a law case. You can think out loud all that you wan but it has nothing to do with the possibility of Drew Peterson loosing his pension because of his conviction. While you're thinking, if Drew Peterson knew that Stacy killed Kathleen, as a police officer he had a duty to report that but he didn't.
Patrick March 11, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Mam this was a law that came from a civil case. I know this for a 100% certainty this law was in civil court cases. Not criminal court cases. Drew Peterson's case is the only criminal "murder" case to allow hearsay evidence. Does anyone here know the law? This is why the jury system is in shambles. We allow OJ walk, even though Ron Goldman's blood was in his jeep. However we convict a highly decorated police officer to the gallows on hearsay statements. What is wrong with you people? Don't you look at all of the evidence? No DNA evidence, Kathleen Savio had cervical vertigo (means prone to fall), her kids said Dad was with us, no signs of a break in, no signs of a struggle.
sherry edwards May 19, 2013 at 03:25 AM
Drew Peterson killed his wives and everybody knows it..he ought to b hung...to bad his wives lost their lives because of this shit head.. he ought to gt the death penalty..


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »