Wait—We Bought Whose House?

The couple who bought the house where Drew Peterson's third wife was slain was in for a rude awakening a few years later.

When Marleni and Rodolfo Hernandez bought Drew Peterson's house on Pheasant Chase Drive in May 2004, he told them he was just selling because his kids liked swimming in the pool at his house down the road, according to a story in the Sun-Times.

What Peterson neglected to mention, the story says, is that his third wife, Kathleen Savio, was found drowned in the old house's dry bathtub just a month or so before.

“I felt like, ‘Whoa.’ I was not in shock, but I didn’t know somebody was killed here,” Marleni said in the story. “We were surprised.”

Peterson is set to go on trial in eight days for allegedly murdering Savio. He is also suspected of having a hand in the mysterious disappearance of his next wife, Stacy Peterson. Stacy remains missing and Drew Peterson has yet to be charged with harming her.

Drew Peterson's son Stephen Peterson now lives in the Pheasant Chase Court home Drew and Stacy shared before she vanished. Stephen Peterson presumably is well aware of that house's history.

john bruno July 15, 2012 at 11:01 PM
I believe the people can rescind the entire transaction and get their money back for another home since the realtor and sellers both had a duty to disclose the notoriety of the house to the buyer. Don't know what the Statute of Limitations is on such action but they can do it if the SL hasn't passed.
Francis Regan July 16, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Realtor don't have to disclose a death! Just structural damage, leaks, flooding and other things related to the house integrity .
John Roberts July 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Would not of expected anything less from him..not because he is guilty or innocent..just arrogant....his whole demeanor as with a lot of cops is they do not care what you think or that they got over on you...Your an idiot to most of them...
John Roberts July 16, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Not from what I have seen.yeah there is a cop in Ridgewood that pulled over one of my family members.I got a call went a block over and asked if the vehicle was being towed and where to so I can go get it. I stayed over on the other side of the road would not interfere with his job.Know what his reply was.Get the F..k out of here there is nothing for you to see but get shot.What kind of reply is this.I know people that have gotten their faces get kicked in for asking of their going to jail.I have seen cops pull over people here in front of my house had a father outside of a van they were standing there talking man made no move cop grabbed him by the throat and threatened him.I got pulled over coming home coming down Richards street..stopped at a red light there at second st..truck doors flew open cousin was grabbed by the hair and jerked out of the truck then cop slammed him down by his neck chocking him then he asked for ID after people were pulled out by their hair and we are standing there hands on the truck a cop came and punched my cousin in the back of the head.and he still has not said a word to the cop.know why? cause some crack head was walking through the cross walk and he thought he was comming up to the truck.they found a crack pipe on the guy,they told him to get rid of it,after we got into the truck and was let go the guy picked his crack pipe back up and walked away.I know a guy that just got 250,000 for getting his face smashed in.I'm speaking from experience.
Watchful Eye July 16, 2012 at 03:34 PM
Well put. Cops don't always see people at their finest moments, and it is hard to convince an offender that cops are anything but trouble for them. In this case, Peterson's career had nothing to do with the fact that he listed and sold his ex-wife's house.
Ray July 16, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Thank you Joe for finally writing an article on somethign to do with the Petersons and not using the words "the disgraced former Bolingbrook Police Officer." Now how about going after Glasgow and the effects his hearsay law are going to have on us all moving forward.
Flora Dora July 16, 2012 at 07:18 PM
you have a way with words, Joe, and I always love your headlnes!
Watchful Eye July 16, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Hey Ray, I believe you are misinformed. Did you know that there is a hearsay law, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it's called Rule 804, Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable The Illinois Supreme Court ruled the hearsay in this case is admissible under that Rule. You might want to look it up. Can't blame Glasgow for that. Why not blame Peterson for misplacing his fourth wife, causing his third wife's body to be exhumed, re-examined, and her death declared a homicide? Why not blame the initial investigators, who admitted to botching up the investigation. That came out in testimony at the hearsay hearing. It's so easy to blame someone else for Peterson's plight, but I think you'll admit he had plenty to do with the mess he's in. If he's eventually acquitted, then it means the jury didn't take into consideration the hearsay you seem to be against being used at his trial. If it is helpful in convicting him, then the jury believed the statements were truthful and powerful. Kathleen Savio told more than a few people if she turned up dead, look to her ex-husband. She's dead. Do you think she was making it all up to be spiteful? The crime scene investigator that quickly ruled her on-sight death an accident is no longer allowed to process crime scenes in Will County. Maybe some of the blame can be put on him for neglecting to collect a shred of evidence. Should Peterson get off because of everyone else's blunders. That's a defense lawyer's dream.
Watchful Eye July 16, 2012 at 08:31 PM
I'm sorry -- I misspoke. I meant to say, the the Illinois Supreme Court sent the case back to the Appellate Court and told them to make a ruling regarding the hearsay. It was the Appellate Court that ruled in this case: "But the appeals court found that while Judge Stephen White correctly applied the new law, the statute itself was "manifestly erroneous" and superseded by existing — and much broader — Supreme Court rules of evidence. Although the eight excluded statements are barred under Glasgow's law, they are allowed under existing Illinois common law, which does not require safeguards for reliability, a three-judge panel of the Third District appellate court found." So, the hearsay law passed by the Illinois legislature had no bearing on certain statements being allowed into trial in this case. It is existing law that prevails here.
James Haselhorst July 17, 2012 at 12:56 AM
In regards to all cops abusing citizen I would like to say that has not been my experience. In all of my legal encounters with law enforcement I have always treated them with respect and courtesy and they have always treated me the same way. I do have friend that think like John and their experiences have not been pleasant. My observation is you get treated the way you treatment/expect them to treat you.
Watchful Eye July 17, 2012 at 05:41 AM
Francis Regan -- well, you don't care, that's obvious, and that's okay, but it's a very high profile case and this is what is going to happen for a while. It's very easy to not read what you don't feel is worth your time. Maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge if someone came along and said what you do at your job is worthless. Me? I think Drew Peterson's years of pandering to the media is worthless, and I hope it works against him if he's guilty. We all have our opinions, I guess.


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