Drew Peterson guilty or innocent of murder? The Drew Peterson trial is nearing it’s completion. After a trial that lasted 5 weeks, both sides have rested their cases and closing arguments are expected to begin Tuesday.
Peterson stands accused of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
The trial itself was wrought with drama from numerous calls for a mistrial to repeated instances of what might be considered prosecutorial misconduct due to the continued blunders they made.
Nevertheless, the trial made it to fruition.
The prosecution team had their turn first, calling over 30 witnesses to the stand in their quest to prove that the former Bolingbrook Police Sergeant staged the death scene to make it look like an accident.
Although only circumstantial in nature, since there is not one single shred of physical evidence, the prosecution did a fairly good job of painting a picture of a man who had threatened his third wife’s life and had made her so fearful that she was, at a point, under a doctors care.
We heard from friends who relayed what Savio told them – that she was afraid of her ex-husband and fearful for her life.
We even heard some testimony from a reported hit man that Peterson spoke to about murdering his wife.
Kathleen Savio was a woman who made her own sister promise her over and over again that she would take care of her kids if something happened to her.
Officers involved in the investigation came across as either inexperienced since it was one’s first homicide, or seemed indifferent, which could lead many to the conclusion that Peterson was somehow given preferential treatment due to his position in the police department.
Although many involved with the initial investigation indicated on the stand that they may have thought some things was amiss, no one really stood up to take it any further and crucial evidence was simply not collected from the death scene.
Peterson’s fourth and current wife Stacy Peterson, although officially missing, played a large role in the prosecutions case against Drew Peterson.
Although Stacy Peterson is missing and presumed dead by many, some “hearsay” evidence, in essence testimony from the grave, was allowed. Stacy Peterson for example, told her Pastor and a divorce attorney that she was consulting with, that her husband had killed Kathleen Savio and made it look like an accident and that she was fearful of her husband.
The attorney involved, Harry Smith, was actually a defense witness however his testimony was so beneficial to the prosecution that he was officially treated as a hostile witness.
And his testimony might have a large part in the jury’s decision in finding Drew Peterson guilty or innocent of murder.
The medical opinions provided by the prosecution’s witnesses who were actually involved in the investigation indicate that Savio’s death was the result of a homicide from the many deep “to the bone” bruises found on her body which her boyfriend says he did not see on her only days before, to the the cuts on the back of her head, to the the position her body was found in, as well as the angle of her toes.
These appear to be clear cut indicators that Savio did not simply fall, lose consciousness and accidentally drown.
Drew Peterson’s defense team has come across as pompous and arrogant even before the trial began. Who could forget the trio of lawyers joking about Stacy Peterson being on the witness list. But the jury didn’t see that.
There was plenty the jury did not get to really know about – from Peterson’s mistress who they heard testify but were not permitted to know she was his mistress as well as Mr. Pontarelli, Savio’s neighbor who’s testimony about being left a bullet in his driveway as a message from Peterson that they were instructed to disregard.
It seems that in order to provide a defendant with what our legal system had determined to be a “”fair” trial, it actually results in the defendant being almost protected from having the truth about them being opening presented.
Peterson’s defense team brought forth the expected expert witnesses who vehemently disagreed and refuted testimony made by forensic pathologists who were actually involved in the case and contend that Savio simply fell and drowned. Period.
Putting Harry Smith on the stand was a decision that the defense team loudly fought over. They had hoped to prove that Stacy Peterson was trying to extort money from her husband if she were to divorce him and it completely backfired. That testimony alone may have cost them the trial.
Will the jury be swayed by this expert testimony and will it be able to overshadow the mounds of circumstantial evidence?
The defense team thinks that jury deliberations will take a long time. Will they?
The jury seems to be awful “chummy” with one another wearing color coordinated clothing and in essence providing a unified front and showing that they obviously get along.
What will that mean when the jury retires to deliberate Drew Peterson’s guilt or innocence?
Will they be so agreeable and so in sync that they will quickly render a verdict? Will this closeness impede their ability to stand up for what they truly believe and be swayed by majority opinion?
How will the lack of physical evidence figure in determining the verdict?
I caught the tail end of Justice with Judge Jeanine the other night where she summed up the Drew Peterson case.
One of the panelists gave a great example between physical and circumstantial evidence.
He said that if you see snow falling, you know it’s snowing (physical) but if you go to sleep and wake up and find your lawn covered with snow you still know it’s snowing (circumstantial) – – even though you did not see it.
Closing arguments will begin on Tuesday. At the conclusion of closing arguments, final instructions will be given to the jury and deliberations will begin.