DREW PETERSON TRIAL ‘IT’S GOING TO BE TOUGH
They have no eyewitnesses, no confession and no DNA to show ex-Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson killed Kathleen Savio — only disputed secondhand statements and conflicting autopsy reports.
That limited, sometimes contradictory, circumstantial evidence means Will County prosecutors are going to have a hard time convincing jurors the now 58-year-old Peterson murdered his third wife, legal experts say.
“I think it’s really going to be tough for the state,” said attorney Paul DeLuca, a former prosecutor in Cook and DuPage counties now in private practice.
“The prosecution is going to have an uphill fight,” agreed Sam Amirante, who defended serial killer John Wayne Gacy and later served as a Cook County judge.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle for prosecutors is that Savio’s 2004 bathtub drowning death — which occurred while she still was fighting with her ex-husband over their finances — initially was ruled an accident.
It was only after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, vanished in October 2007 that her death was re-examined and, after a new autopsy of her remains, labeled a homicide.
Just convincing jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the 40-year-old Savio was murdered could be a tough sell for prosecutors.
“Are not two causes of death reasonable doubt?” asked Richard Kling, a law professor at Chicago Kent College. “I think the prosecution has a hard burden to overcome just on the autopsies.”
While prosecutors can win convictions in circumstantial cases, typically that evidence includes specific, indisputable proof that a defendant was involved in a crime.
Often, that involves DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair or tissue samples.
There’s no indication prosecutors have collected any such evidence tying Peterson to Savio’s death.
That alone makes the case unique.
“There are no other cases I recall with conflicting causes (of death) and only hearsay statements,” said Kling, a lawyer for 40 years.