F.E.A.R. in Intimate Partner Violence Relationships

Over the past few weeks while on the road I assisted many involved in intimate partner violence relationships to prepare the "Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit and Video." Preparing this in your own words (similar to a last will and testament)whether police have ever responded to your home AFTER an incident of violence is important prior to you announcing or ending the relationship. An abuser has a plan of attack, a victim must be ten steps ahead and have a plan in place. Those I met and helped prepare the documents were married for over 25 years, others just barely a year. They all shared a common bond, fear.

Fear of what will happen to their safety if they leave. Fear of not being believed by friends and family that the person with whom they had chosen to spend their lives with is indeed violent, dangerous and unpredictable. Fear of loosing their children. Fear of the unknown.

If you are involved in a intimate partner violence or stalking relationship I would like you to think about the feeling of fear. It does not wear well on anyone, and that includes you. The unknown in our lives should be an opportunity to soar through the skies, a source of delight and wonderment; it should not be overshadowed by the threat and focus of someone else’s rage. No one should have to live in constant fear, always dreading the sound of the car pulling into the drive, or the key turning in the lock.

The time has come for you to take control of your fear, to be the “Facilitator Ending the Abusive Relationship.”

Facilitate _v. _1. to make easier _2. to hold firm _3. to control the room

Ending _{n. 1.} to stop or halt _2. to finish

Abusive _{a. 1.} to mistreat or cause pain _2. to use wrongly _3. to berate or control

Relationship _{n. 1.} connection with another person with whom you will disconnect

You are going to be the F.E.A.R catalyst of your future. By focusing your energy, and putting forth a commitment, you will find that over time, your attitude will begin to change. As you uncover your inner strength, you will be empowered to be a success survivor.

From this day forward, each time you hear the word fear, it will have a new meaning in your life. Now when you feel its presence chill your blood, you will no longer be paralyzed. Instead, you will be energized as its presence serves as a source of fuel that is necessary for the success of your mission: to stop the abuse, to survive.

A person who uses coercion, manipulation, threats, or force to gain control over another person is an abuser. An abuser can be a man or a woman, someone you have a current relationship with, or someone with whom you once shared a past.

The face of domestic abuse is hidden behind many disguises, but the abusers all share a common trait: they need to control.

An abuser thrives on control, and will use any means available to maintain and exercise that control, even violence.

Violence at any level is intentional. In simple terms, what this means it that the abuser makes a conscious choice to control your life by using threats, intimidation, isolation and even force. When violence happens, it does not mean that the abuser has lost control; it means that the abuser wants to maintain power, and increase control over you.

Intimate Partner abuse (domestic abuse), whether verbal, emotional, financial or physical, only gets worse over time. Unless you take action to stop the violence, it will not go away. There is no magic wand to wave that will make it disappear. There is only one person who can stop the abuse, and that person is you.

Once you are threatened, hit, stalked, questioned in a controlling way, a second chance to save your life, is no longer an option.

“If you are reading this and find yourself in a similar situation, know that there are measures you must take before announcing the end of your relationship. These safety precautions can be found in the book, "Time's Up: A Guide on How to Leave an Abusive and Stalking Relationship" by Susan Murphy Milano. Don't take things into your own hands without expert guidance.” (Mothers Are Vanishing)

I cannot stress enough, if you are in a relationship that has a history of violence, simply mustering up the courage to confront the person and say it is over, without the proper tools, can cost you, your life!

The book "Time's Up A Guide on How To Survive and Abusive and Stalking Relationship" is the prescription, if you will, that every person must obtain before they announce they are leaving. Below is an example from Chapter 4, one of many unique tools provided in the book. It is available on Amazon.com, or you can purchase via e-book or on a cd. If you have questions, the email address is: timesupforjustice@gmail.com

Before you decide that you have had enough and are ending the relationship create for yourself the "Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit" and video (shown below).

If you do nothing else, please take one important step that if something does happen to you, if you do vanish like Stacy Peterson, Vensus Stewart, Rachel Anderson, Susan Powell, Lisa Stebic,Kelly Rothwell or arefound murdered like Monica Beresford-Redmond, Franki Jacobson, Renee Pagel,Summer Inman, and others where the person responsible has gotten away with murder that your voice and record of the abuse will be captured and recorded. Do it for you friends, family and loved ones. Do it for your children. Do it for you!

Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit by Susan Murphy Milano from the Book "Time's Up" from Courage Network on Vimeo.

Susan Murphy Milano is with the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education. She is an expert on intimate partner violence and homicide crimes. For more information visit http://www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com/ She is also in partnership with Pamela Chapman and iAscend Programs. http://pamelachapmanl.biz

Susan is the author of "Time's Up A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships," available for purchase at the Institute, Amazon.com and wherever books are sold. Susan is the host of The Susan Murphy Milano Show, "Time's Up!" on Here Women Talkhttp://www.herewomentalk.com/and is a regular contributor to the nationally syndicated The Roth Show with Dr Laurie Roth. Susan is a survivor- the daughter of a police officer family intimate partner homicide by her father who murdered her mother before committing suicide.

Susan Filan Joins The Susan Murphy Milano Show, "Time's Up," Along with Anne Peterson and Cherry Simpson

The Susan Murphy Milano Show "Time's Up!"

Thursday, March 24

2pm-3pm:

Legal Analyst,Susan Filan

Filan began providing commentary on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, Court TV, ABC News, CBS News, and BBC News in 2005 on several high-profile cases including Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson. In May 2005, Filan resigned as a prosecutor to pursue a career in media when she was hired by NBC News and MSNBC to provide exclusive legal analysis of the Michael Jackson trial. She covered the trial fromSanta Maria, California. After Jackson’s acquittal on all charges, Filan returned home and began providing legal analysis for MSNBC and occasionally appeared on NBC. In 2006, she was promoted to MSNBC Senior Analyst.

In addition to appearing as an analyst on MSNBC’s daytime and primetime programs, Filan also has served as a guest host for “The Abrams Report.” Filan has been quoted in print media around the world.

www.susanfilan.com

3pm-4pm:

Anne Peterson

Anne Peterson is a Christian poet/speaker who has learned firsthand about God’s goodness. Having lost her mother, her father and having dealt with her sister’s disappearance, Anne has experienced pain at a young age, but God used each and every circumstance to draw her into a closer relationship with Him. While we can’t change many of our circumstances, what we do have control over is our responses to them.
www.annepeterson.com

Cherry Simpson

Cherry Simpson is a Victim's Advocate and Activist for Justice. Her daughter escaped a violent relationship which thrust Cherry into the system to keep her and her children safe from the abuser and keep him behind bars. Over the last few years she has make connections with some of the best advocates in the country. Cherry's niece, Lacey Gaines, was not so lucky, she was murdered as a result of intimate partner violence, and Cherry continues her quest for justice for Lacey. Author of the blog, Justice Activist and Contributing Writer for Time's Up, Cherry professionally speaks her mind in hopes of helping others.

http://justiceactivist.blogspot.com/

http://timesupblog.blogspot.com

Known as the “Jane Wayne of Justice,” Susan Murphy Milano always stands up as a voice for those who are silenced in a world of intimidation and violence within their homes and in courtrooms across the country.

Live from:

Hear Women Talk Network on Zeus Radio!





If you missed the shows, you can listen to the archive or download the podcast here:


Here Women Talk is a fresh, new spot for women to socialize, inspire and learn from each other. I know you will want to join in the interactive social network as well as listen to the radio broadcast each week. Join us in the chat room, socialize and ask questions!

http://herewomentalk.com
http://herewometalksocial.com

Susan Murphy Milano is with the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education. She is an expert on intimate partner violence and homicide crimes. For more information visit http://www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com/ She is also in partnership with Pamela Chapman and iAscend Programs.http://pamelachapmanl.biz

Susan is the author of "Time's Up A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships," available for purchase at the Institute, Amazon.com and wherever books are sold. Susan is the host of The Susan Murphy Milano Show, "Time's Up!" on Here Women Talk http://www.herewomentalk.com/ and is a regular contributor to the nationally syndicated The Roth Show with Dr Laurie Roth. Susan is a survivor- the daughter of a police officer family intimate partner homicide by her father who murdered her mother before committing suicide.

Special Series Part 3 "Is It Where They Wanna Be?"

Robert Dianovsky maintained that his wife Peggy left their home voluntarily and took a bag of clothing with her when she vanished in September of 1982. Peggy Dianovsky left her yellow Chevrolet Nova behind, and never picked up her last paycheck from her employer, Dominick's. Blood was found spattered at the top of the stairway in the Dianovsky home, but none of it was ever collected for analysis.

Robert took the boys and moved to Arizona sometime after 1982, he also filed for divorce claiming Peggy abondoned he and the children. He was charged with Peggy's murder in 2003. Their three sons went to the police in 2002 after tape-recording a conversation with Robert where he made suspicious statement about Peggy's disappearance. One of the Dianovsky children claims he witnessed his mother's murder, and all three of them say they saw Robert abuse and threaten Peggy. They claim they repressed the memories of the incidents but recovered them in therapy sessions as adults. One of Robert's friends also testified that Robert asked him for a gun in 1982 to "get rid of" Peggy. And Robert claimed his wife was having an affair.

In all, six hours of audio were taped when Dianovsky's three sons confronted him and accused him of their mother's murder. The sons contend their father killed Peggy Dianovsky on Sept. 12, 1982, in their Schaumburg, Ill., home during a brutal beating.

On the tapes, the accused man says, "I hit her pretty good." He also admits to previously saying his wife would never get out of the marriage alive. Dianovsky also said that he cut off his wife's tennis clothes in a jealous rage, and that his grown sons can tell their kids, "Your dad did something to her."

The trial took place in Cook County, Illinois before a judge rather than a jury. Judge Robert Porter acquitted Robert after an eight-day trial in November 2004. He stated that Peggy probably had in fact been murdered after her disappearance, but there was insufficient evidence to prove that Robert did it.

The relevance of the Robert Dianovsky case, in my opinion is important in the upcoming Drew Peterson trial as it pertains to evidence, also the State's burden to prove that Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio.

Drew Peterson is awaiting trial for the murder of Kathleen Savio, his third wife. The State in this case is working on the admittance of "hearsay testimony." Below is my explaination of hearsay as it would apply to the Peterson case.

Hearsay is an out of court statement "offered for the truth of the matter asserted" and not subject to cross-examination, typically because the declarant or speaker is unavailable. This applies to Stacy Peterson because she is not "available." Such statements are deemed unreliable because of the obvious fact that they can easily be fabricated and can not be tested through cross exaimination.

One basic way to get around hearsay is to seek admission, not for the truth of the statement itself, but for another highly relevant purpose. For example, let's say I am charged with intentionally shooting my daughter's boyfriend (which is not beyond realm of reason) while the two of them are harmlessly playing tie-up. Prior to bursting in the room and firing, I was told by her ex-boyfriend that the new guy was in the process of raping her. My defense is not intentional murder, but rather manslaughter because I believed the ex who has fled to Costa Rica and is unavailable at trial. Here I would offer his statement of rape, not because it was true, but because of the effect it had on my mental state, a very relevant fact in the case. Again, I am not offering it for its truth and therefore, whether it was fabricated is not in issue. Whether the statement was made and whether my response was reasonable (based upon my credibility) can all be determined by the trier of fact at trial because I, not the ex would be subject to cross.

In any event, statements can be admissible solely for their impact upon the listener (if relevant in a case) and not for the truth of the statement.

This approach should be very relevant to the statement Anna Domain (Kathleen Savio's sister) could testify to -"that Kathleen asked her to care for her kids."This is dynamite. Not offering it for the truth that Peterson said he wanted to kill her, but for the independent impact it had on her and her mental state to seek care for her children. Anna Domain could testify to her observations regarding Kathleen's credible belief that she needed to secure care for her kids because she was going to die soon. This really should have tremendous impact on the State's case assuming Anna Domain is well prepared on the stand. And fear is hearsay with no subsequent act reflecting impact on her mental state.

Now for the exceptions, which have literally swallowed up the general rule. Since the beginning of time, Courts have recognized certain fact patterns that contain such inherent elements of reliability so as to overcome the need for cross. All of this is based upon a notion of getting all relevant information to the jury subject to a prejudice to the defendant analysis -for the State this stuff is worth fighting over, it usually means "game over" for the defendant. Certain fact patterns below have crystallized into exceptions.

Dying Declaration- declarant unavailable says just before dying to witness "Mr. X shot me." Aadmissible based upon the notion that people who are dying do not typically have a motive to lie.Witness will testify as to demeanor of declarant.

Excited Utterrance-declarant screams "the plane is going to crash into the house" and witness doesn't see the plane. Here admission based on fact that when people are experiencing a startling event under stress they don't have time to fabricate.

Present sense Impression - same as above, except witness also experience the same event as the declarant and the declarant's statement is relevant.

The one used the most by prosecutor's and the one that is highly relevant for Peterson purposes is a "Statement Against Interest." For example if I told you that I did "dope and shit"the statment would be admissable based on the theory that people do not make up highly negative evidence against themselves, especially facts that would subject them to criminal prosecution.

This is highly relevant for Stacy's statements to Pastor Neil Schori and Mike Rossetto that she provided an alibi because it shows that she was willing to obstruct justice at Peterson's direction regarding Kathleen. Now maybe during the admissibility hearing the witnesses were weak on the statement or just did not have enough specifics and/or detail re:the circumstances of the meeting with Stacy to overcome the highly prejudicial impact of the statement.

The State's case has more twists and turns than a tornado. Will Drew Peterson be acquitted? Is the State's case strong enough? No one really knows what the outcome will be. What we do know is what Peterson said in interviews when Stacy vanished. And what Robert Dianovsky said 25 years earlier "it 's where she wants to be."

May each of these cowards rot in hell!

Remember to tune in every Monday evening at 9:00 PM EST with Former Atlanta Prosecutor turned defense attorney, Holly Hughes, Cold Case Institute Director, Sheryl McCull0m and Violence expert and author Susan Murphy Milano to "Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation", on Blogtalk radio. The show is interactive andd you can join in the case dicussions after each show by visiting our partner at Websleuths.com

Part Two of Series: "Is This Where They Wanna Be?

The children of Peggy Dianovsky were outside playing as their parents fought inside the house. Bobby, age 7 heard his mother sreaming for help, he ran in from outside up the stairs his mother was on the landing Robert held Peggy down as he beat her. Immediately, Bobby ran down the basement stairs with his hands covering his face trying to forget the images he had just seen.

A short time later, Bobby's father called all the children over to him, while according to the sons, their father was washing off his bloody hands. Robert announced "we are going for a bike ride." The father and the kids left. When they walked back into the house Robert said "your mother is sleeping, don't disturb her." It was September of 1982, the last time the boys would ever see their mother, alive.

The response to Peggy Dianovsky's disappearance was not as publicized as it would be for Stacy Peterson, 25 years later in 2007. And had Kathleen Savio's death been correctly investigated and ruled a homicide, there would likely be no need to keep this young woman's case in the public eye in hopes she can be brought home to her loved ones.

The Sunday morning Stacy was still in her home, so were the kids. Stacy Peterson's two biological children were too young to comprehend anything that happened. But, Kathleen Savio's boys, one or both of them likely heard something. Stacy was alive on October 27th when she tucked her children in bed the night before and Drew was still working his shift. And he returned home the morning of the 28th.

According to a Time line on the site a Candyrose.com:

Timeline of Sunday according to Bruce (Stacy's sister's boyfriend). - "Sunday morning [10/28/2007] around 10 AM, he [Bruce Zidarich] shared back and forth text messages with Stacy.

She then called him at 10:15 a.m.

She said that she had been just lounging in bed for a couple of hours, and that she AND HER KIDS were going to go to the house to paint today.

Bruce was supposed to wait to hear from Stacy's sister Cassandra, and then call Stacey after Cassandra got in touch with them.

Then they were all to meet over there to paint. However, Cassandra had decided to go to her mother's house that day, and didn't call Bruce.

At 4PM Bruce sent Stacy a text message saying "Lets paint tomorrow". He received no reply. Greta asked him when he began to worry about Stacy. Bruce said that Cassandra called him around 7 PM and said she had not been able to reach Stacy all day. He relayed that he had not heard from her since 10 or so that morning, and that he didn't get a reply to the 4 PM text message he had sent her."

2007-10-28 findstacypeterson.com 10:09 AM ILL [findstacypeterson.com Timeline]: "Stacy calls Bruce [Zidarich], says she is laying in bed. (call lasts until 10:28)."

2007-10-28 chicagosuburbannews 10:00 AM ILL "Stacy’s sister, Cassandra Cales, said the last telephone contact she had with her sister was at about 10 a.m. Sunday. After that, all attempts to reach Stacy by cell phone were unsuccessful."

Was the morning routine of this family shaken by an argument? The kids were definately up that morning. Did anyone hear screams or loud sounding thumps as if someone was thrown down on a carpeted bedroom floor? When Drew came out of the bedroom what did he say to his two children Kristopher and Thomas? Did Peterson tell them Stacy was sleeping and to be quiet? Did he say Stacy has gone out for the day and he was calling Sharon the next door neighbor and they were going over there for a while because he had stuff to do? The boys would likely never question their father. Did the boys think it strange that they were not going to leave with Stacy to paint her brothers house as planned? Regardless, Drew Peterson a heavy handed and likely feared ruler of his domain would be able to have his own children second guess what they might have seen or heard because Drew Peterson in my opinion is a master manipulator. And all children from these types of environment instinctively understand "little children are to be see and not heard," or else they will pay the price.

Twenty-five years between each set of children each torn by fear, truth and loyalty , father's whom likely silenced both women for ending the relationship. The Dianovsky boys now adults, have already paid a high price well into their adult years. They literally are the keeper of destructive secrets, similar to a permanent tatoo that remains within them each day they are alive. The same could hold true for the Peterson boys. Could one the Kathleen's children suddenly remember, perhaps with the guidence of a therapist, what happened on October 28, 2007, 10, 20 or 30 years later? It is a strong possibility.

Drew Peterson's trial date has been postponed while the State is awaiting answers on appeal's for certain testimony to be allowed at trial. Can the State's Attorney place Drew Peterson at the crime scene of Kathleen Savio? Is the case based on circumstantial evidence? Is what the State has enough for a conviction?

Part 3: This is Where They Wanna Be?" continues with Robert Dianovsky's 2004, trial and Drew Peterson's impending trial.

Be sure to return for the next installment of this Special Series Saturday, August 28, 2010"Is it Where They Wanna Be?

Remember to tune in every Monday evening at 9:00 PM EST with Former Atlanta Prosecutor turned defense attorney, Holly Hughes, Cold Case Institute Director, Sheryl McCull0m and Violence expert and author Susan Murphy Milano to "Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation", on Blogtalk radio.

Special Series: Is It Where They Wanna Be?

In 1982, Peggy Dianovsky, who lived in Schaumburg, IL, and a mother of 3 young boys, was very close with her husband Robert to finalizing a settlement on their divorce after a 10-year violent and controlling marriage. Her husband stated when he was questioned by authorities said she just "yea she wanted to go and took off." For 28 years, Robert Dianvosky has repeated the same story "she left voluntarily, taking a few clothes, leaving behind her 3 boys, her car, and her last paycheck."

Although Peggy vanished so many years ago, her unsolved case, is relevant, today in 2010, for several reasons. Including how it weave's into the Stacy Peterson, and Kathleen Savio case(s) and other missing mothers it is a direct connection to intimate partner homicide.

Peggy’s brother Gus, not her husband Robert reported Peggy missing 5 days after the night of the couple's last fight. Similar to Drew Peterson, it was Stacy's sister Cassandra Cales whom reported her missing. In a large number of mothers who vanish, the husband is rarely the person to contact the police and make a report. Drew Peterson also claimed "Stacy just took off and she is where she wants to be."

After their mother disappeared the boys" Andrew, Bobby and John, were never allowed to talk about Peggy after she was gone, an unspoken rule from Robert Dianovsky, their father. Similar to Drew Peterson, although now behind bars awaiting trial for the alleged murder of Kathleen Savio, the unspoken rule also applied to his children, especially in my opinion after Stacy disappeared. Not surprising the relatives of Peggy Dianovsky were immediately cut-off from any further contact with the children. And the same applied to the Peterson kids. Both members of the Savio and Cales [Stacy's family] have also been prohibited from any contact with all 4 of the children from both marriages. Sadly using their own words both men made the same remarks when asked where their loved ones are in reference to their wives vanishing-"they are where they wanna be." This phrase is key and it speaks volumes to each man whose then wife or girlfriend wanted to end the relationship. In the mind of a violent man, when they have had all they are going to take from a wife or a girlfriend, the rage inside of them can explode at anytime. Some will kill their entire family; while others kill and then commit suicide; and then their are individuals able to plan and carry out the crime, taking the chance they have covered their tracks the victim may never be found and they will not be convicted of the murder because there is no body.

At age 31 Andrew was a middle school teacher, and apparently started remembering things from the night of September 12, 1982. After intense therapy he was able to recall a violent fight that night, seeing his father holding a butcher knife to his mother's throat. This was a mere 24 hours before Peggy Dianovsky would disappear for good.

In 2003, now living on Arizona, Robert Dianovsky was arrested for Peggy's murder after his 3 sons urged authorities to re-open the case, feeling safe that they could now share their most secret memories. There was no body and no other physical evidence, this was a circumstantial case that went to trial in Cook County, IL, in 2004. [more about the trial in part 3 on 8/28/2010]

Be sure to return for the next installment of this Special Series Friday, August 27, 2010"Is it Where They Wanna Be?

Remember to tune in every Monday evening at 9:00 PM EST with Former Atlanta Prosecutor turned defense attorney, Holly Hughes, Cold Case Institute Director, Sheryl McCull0m and Violence expert and author Susan Murphy Milano to "Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation", on Blogtalk radio.

Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation: Join Hosts Sheryl McCollum, Holly Hughes, Susan Murphy Milano :Monday 9:00 PM EST

By Sheryl McCollum, Holly Hughes, Susan Murphy Milano

Tonight IPHI and Websleuths.com features the cold case Peggy Dianovsky

Peggy Dianovsky disappeared on September 12, 1982. Early reports suggest she left after an argument with her estranged husband, taking only a few things in a plastic bag and walked out on her 3 sons, her home, and her job. She was about to divorce Robert Dianovsky, stood to get approximately $20,000 from the sale of their home, and according to a quote from her brother, Gus Gollias, “She was about to get everything she wanted.” Her elderly father in law was also stated as being puzzled as to why she would leave everything.

Peggy Dianovsky has never been found, foul play is suspected in her disappearance.

Your hosts Holly Hughes former Atlanta Prosecutor turned defense attorney, Sheryl McCollum, Director of Cold Case Investigative Research Institute and Susan Murphy-Milano, Violence Expert and Author of the new book "Time's Up" have joined forces to bring new eyes to cases of intimate partner homicide. Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation gives these cases a front and center seat instead of a back door crime occurring behind closed doors.

The show is sponsored by the interactive crime and news site Websleuths.com

To listen to the show live for Monday August 23, 2010, and participate in the chat room, the direct link for the show is HERE

We will take your calls live. The number to call in with questions or comments is:

The number is 347-326-9337