JOLIET, Ill. » Jurors who convicted former Illinois police officer Drew Peterson of killing his third wife say they were split early in their deliberations and then later had one holdout who wasn’t fully convinced.
Several jurors spoke to reporters at a news conference in Joliet today.
Juror Tersesa Mathews says seven jurors voted guilty and four not guilty as they started their deliberations Wednesday. One was undecided.
But the 49-year-old says 11 favored convicting Peterson and just one still leaned toward not guilty heading into Thursday. They returned with a unanimous guilty verdict Thursday afternoon.
Jurors said that comments Stacy Peterson made before her 2007 disappearance played the decisive role in convincing them to convict her husband, former police officer Drew Peterson, of killing his ex-wife.
Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder after a six-week trial that was the first of its kind in Illinois history. Prosecutors based their case on normally barred hearsay, which was only allowed after the Legislature passed a law specifically tailored to Peterson’s case.
The strategy was risky and grew in large part from a lack of physical evidence collected in the case after investigators initially deemed Kathleen Savio’s death an accident. Prosecutors claimed the hearsay would allow Savio and Stacy Peterson — who is presumed dead — “to speak from their graves” through family and friends.
Jury foreman Eduardo Saldana, 22, said the women’s comments were “extremely critical” in deliberations and in his decision to convict Peterson. He said he was one of four jurors who initially had reservations give a lack of physical evidence tying the former police officer to Savio’s death. But Saldana said the more he thought about hearsay testimony from Stacy Peterson’s pastor, the more compelling he found it.
The Rev. Neil Schori testified that Stacy Peterson told him weeks before she went missing that her husband got up from bed and left the house about the time of Savio’s death and then returned to stuff women’s clothing in their washing machine. Peterson also coached his wife for hours on how to lie to police, Schori told jurors.
Defense lawyers have said the presentation of hearsay, or information reported by a witness that is not based on the witness’ direct knowledge, undercut Peterson’ constitutional rights because he couldn’t directly confront his accusers — namely, his third and fourth wives.
They tried to discredit Stacy Peterson by having attorney Harry Smith testify that she asked him if she could squeeze more money out of Peterson in a divorce if she threatened to tell police he killed Savio. But Saldana and other jurors said Smith only ended up stressing that Stacy Peterson knew her husband had, in fact, murdered his ex-wife.
As he realized Smith was starting to hurt Peterson’s case, the defense attorney questioning him, Joel Brodsky, began shouting at Smith, accusing him of lying. Juror Teresa Mathews, 49, said Friday that Smith had nothing to gain by making up testimony.
“We believed he was a credible witness,” she said.
Illinois has no death penalty, and Peterson faces a maximum 60-year prison term when sentenced Nov. 26 for Savio’s 2004 death.
Neighbors found the 40-year-old’s body in the bathtub of her suburban Chicago home — face down, her hair soaked with blood and a 2-inch gash on the back of her head. Investigators initially thought she drowned after slipping in the tub, but reopened the case after Stacy Peterson disappeared.
Peterson also is a suspect in that case, and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said Thursday that charges could be forthcoming.
Peterson’s personality had seemed to loom large over the trial, at least to outsiders.
Before his 2009 arrest, the glib, cocky Peterson seemed to taunt authorities, joking on talk shows and even suggesting a “Win a Date With Drew” contest. His behavior inspired a TV movie starring Rob Lowe.
But jurors said that Peterson’s crude and unsavory reputation didn’t factor into their deliberations.