E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe pastor of Drew Peterson wife Stacy testifies that Peterson coached her to lie about his whereabouts on the night of ex-wife Kathleen Savio's death. WMAQ's Kim Vatis reports.
A pastor provided dramatic testimony in the Drew Peterson trial on Thursday, telling the court that the former Illinois police officer coached his fourth wife to lie about the death of his third wife.
Rev. Neil Schori testified that in a conversation in August 2007, Stacy Peterson told him what she saw the night Kathleen Savio died.
He said the former suburban Chicago police officer's fourth wife once tearfully recounted to him how her husband mysteriously disappeared from their home around the time of his third wife's death, then later coached her about how to lie to investigators.
"She was very scared," Schori said about Stacy Peterson.
He testified that the slender, blond 23-year-old pulled her legs up and hugged her knees nervously as she told him Drew Peterson warned her police would approach her to interview her and coached her for hours about how she should lie to them.
Related story: Man arrested after mouthing expletive to Peterson
See the original report | More from NBCChicago.com
She did lie to investigators, he said, after Savio's body was found in a dry bathtub at her home just blocks from the Petersons' house. Schori didn't go into detail about the lies, but they apparently involved Peterson's whereabouts.
Earlier in the trial, witnesses testified that investigators let Drew Peterson, of Bolingbrook, Ill., sit in on an interview with Stacy Peterson. He sat next to his visibly shaken wife, his arm around her shoulder and hand on her knee, and corrected at least one of her answers, according to those witnesses.
Defense attorney Joe Lopez blasted Schori for not coming forward sooner, or stopping Stacy from going home.
"She told you she lived with a murderer and you let her go back to the house?" Lopez said.
Prosecutors say they could be in a position to rest their case against Drew Peterson shortly after court resumes Friday morning.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
The announcement came Thursday afternoon following a decision to not call Kathleen Savio's divorce attorney and after Judge Edward Burmila barred testimony from a crime scene investigator.
Divorce attorney Harry Smith was expected to testify about conversations he had with Drew Peterson's ex-wife before her 2004 drowning death. But calling Smith was a big gamble the prosecution ultimately decided not to take.
Back in June, Burmila said Smith must testify about "inculpatory" statements, leading the defense to believe Savio lied under oath.
"This is a home run for us," attorney Joe Lopez said at the time. "If this pans out it looks to us like she lied under oath and if that's so we will be free to argue she is a perjurer and a liar."
Prosecutors wanted state's attorney investigator Dave Margliano to tell jurors about a pair of receipts found in Peterson's home they say show the defendant was seeking an alibi for the weekend Savio died. Burmila ultimately barred that testimony.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
Prosecutors have no physical evidence and are trying to build a compelling circumstantial case — one that will lead jurors to conclude Peterson must have killed Savio.
Her death was initially ruled an accident but was reclassified a homicide after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, went missing in 2007. Peterson is a suspect in her disappearance but hasn't been charged.
Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio's death. If convicted, he faces a maximum prison sentence of 60 years.
More content from NBCNews.com:
Leave a Comment:
Does the word "heresay" mean anything to you?
Isn't there something that lets you testify about "hearsay" evidence if that person is dead? I am not an attorney (obviously) but I thought I had heard something like that. Or maybe that is just in the movies and on Law and Order.
Prosecutors have changed that law to their wishes and now anything goes. How is this tetimony releveant to this case? It is not. You can say ok the guy is testifying because he actually heard what he says or he is testifying because he hates the person he is testifying against. How can you even begin to convict a person on evidence like this. Under the law of reasonable doubt you cannot. This is why there are so many people serving time that did not commit a crime. In California they convicted a person of murder without ever finding a body!
Well, we won't even need to get into spousal communications privilege or the privilege that should exist between an minister and his parishioners.
This whole case is based on rumor, innuendo, hearsay, half-truths, guesses, and lies that I would not be at all surprised if the judge just throws this out.
There simply are not any facts or evidence on which to base a conviction.
hearsay is not admissable in a court of law.. even if the witness is a cleric.. now about the cleric that info he heard is to be in the strictest confidence.. guess that doesn't count either.. all of that stuff is great grounds for a mistrial or an appeal
There are exceptions to the the hearsay rule that have been upheld by the US Supreme court for many years. Also, you can be convicted of murder even if there is no body if the prosecution can show beyond reasonable doubt that the person is dead. They have had cases where a person was convicted without a body and the body was found later. Further less than 1/10000th (0.0001) of a percent of people that are convicted are actually innocent of the crime. Getting off on a technicality doesn't mean they didn't do it. The media is too quick to sensationalize the innocent guy in jail when this is the exception and not the rule.
It seems to me, the pastor is testifying to his own conversation, he was part of that conversation.
Does the legal ruling of 'exception to hearsay' mean anything to you?
LOL I love all the legal experts chiming in here. Heresay is not admissable blah blah blah. If it wasn't admissable then the judge wouldn't allow it. Obviously there are exceptions. How about we let lawyers explain legal definitions.
the correct spelling of what u are trying to say is hear say. go back to school denver bill
Much of this pastor's testimony does seem to be hear say and it would not be the first time a judge allowed improper testimony or the testimony got in because the scope of the questions that were asked of the witness went beyond what was allowable. I am sure the defense object to the testimony so that it is on the record to support any appeal. I also laugh at how these religious types claim their communications with people are privileged when it suits their purpose but will blab endlessly when that suits their purpose. It is pretty obvious that this pastor wants to see Peterson convicted or he would not be sitting in court revealing confidential communications. There is no consistency in applying this confidentiality.
I sounds to me like the prosecution has absolutely no evidence to support the charges he filed and is trying to convict solely on innuendo and circumstance. It is hard to put any weight on the testimony about what Stacey Peterson told the pastor when she had lied before and because the pastor obviously has an agenda. What makes the pastor's testimony even less believable is that he did nothing to try and keep Stacey Peterson from going home after she supposedly told the pastor her husband was a murderer. If the pastor is telling the truth then why didn't he take her to the police instead of just allowing her to leave and go home to a murderer. I do not see how any reasonable jury is going to find Peterson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence that has been presented. He may very well be guilty, but I just do not see sufficient evidence of it to sustain a conviction.
"Does the word "heresay" mean anything to you?"
Um, no, it doesn't. I have no idea what "heresay" means.
JS in SD "If the pastor is telling the truth then why didn't he take her to the police instead of just allowing her to leave and go home to a murderer."
Do you mean the police who protected Drew Peterson so much that allowed him to get away with so much bad behavior in the first place? What would they have done -- turned Stacey & the pastor over the Drew?
Al-524682 stated," Further less than 1/10000th (0.0001) of a percent of people that are convicted are actually innocent of the crime."
Where did you get that percentage? Ridiculous...
Inuendo and heresay have no place in a court of law, just as junk science such as fiber evidence, bite marks and hair analysis have no place in a court of law.
Laws are in place to catch the smart bad people, problem is, smart good people makes these laws w/o bias. Smart bad people soil our good name in life throughout, and work both sides of the fence.
WTF-why there's filibuster.
I am sure you would rather rely on trial by combat, tying up the accused and throwing them in a lake if they drown they were innocent, or other tortures to all "that there hokum science stuff".
"just as junk science such as fiber evidence, bite marks and hair analysis have no place in a court of law."
Yeah sure it's "junk science". Far from it Sichuan, far from it. I have a friend who is a forensic expert, this "junk science" has saved many innocent people from a jail cell, and put many "almost got away with it's" in prison. Drew Peterson is an ego maniac, an arrogant jerk and a multiple murderer, end of story. He needs to be released into "general population" where he will receive his justice.
You have a preconcieved notion that someone is guilty of something and have no right to voice that because you do not know anything other than what you have read in the media about this case. You like all the other Nancy Grace crowd are opposite of what a justice system is supposed to be like. I do not like Drew Peterson any more than anyone else but if he is convicted I hope it is not by people like you.
Actually, JCB has every RIGHT to voice their opinion.
And who the hell is Nancy Grace? a TV personality? What does she have to do with this?
Justice system. HA! It's all a f'n funhouse game with smoke and mirrors. Total joke.
I'll continue the trend: nothing anyone says or observes has any place in a court of law or scientific study, and no police officer would ever lie to protect his own wrongdoings, since they are made of better stuff than you and I. And certainly nothing any religious figure says could put any doubt in my mind that anyone, anywhere is even capable of lying or killing. Not even if they were from the blameless Vatican!
Now, for the trolls, I'll spell it out. This is sarcasm and you just don't understand, so never mind and go back to your video games.
FRY the pig! Let the state of Illinois smell like bacon!
Yes, it is time for this man to be put away! The 60 years mentioned should insure that he is no longer a menace to young naive women.
Did the article say "The police let her husband "the murderer" sit in with his arm around his fourth wife while they interrogated her about what she knew??? Interview is the new word for "police Interrogation" by the way. It sounds like the cops were more interested in saving their fellow cops butt than they were in finding out the truth of how his third wife died. Once she told the pastor, she should not have been allowed to return to the same premises. Her life was in danger as well. By the way most of the forensic science that is being used to convict people has no science to back it up. Even fingerprints can be made to lie and so can DNA. A man in California was convicted of robbing a bank even though he was 50 miles away from the bank at the exact time it was robbed and he also has several eyewitnesses to corroborate his whereabouts whwere he was at the time of the bank robbery. However, the judge "believed" the cop who "swore" (cops commit perjury on the witness day hundreds of times every business day in the US FYI) that the fingerprint he lifted from the tellers cage belonged to this man. The cop lied. He had found a fingerprint card from many years earlier when this man had been arrested as a juvenile and he zeroxed the fingerprint and enetered it as evidence that he lifted it from the tellers cage which was an absolute lie. This man spent ten years in prison for nothing. The dishonest cop retired and draws his pension. Dna evidence can also be fabricated. There are two kinds of DNA and cops will often try to get someone to confess by saying we found your dna at the crime scene. There are also some people (noone knows how many ) who have two different kinds of DNA in their bodies. Some organs have one kind of DNA and other organs have a separate kind of DNA. This does not speak of mitochondrial DNA which is the DNA found in the Mitochondria of an individual cell. So in reality a person can have two different kinds of DNA plus two different kinds of mitochrondrail DNA in their bodies. These people are known as "Chymeras". This is a not well known fact. As far as hair goes , you cannot say that a hair sample came from an individual unless it has flesh attached to it. A hair that has fallen out or been brushed out probably wont have a root attached to it. In New York State the New York State Troopers were exposed for planting fingerprints and falsifying evidence to convict innocent people. Several of their number ended up in New York State Prisons (Oops Correctional facilities which is the politically correct term nowadays).
This case has been flubbed up from minute one. Her husband should not have been allowed in the room while she was being questioned, for starters!
An interview is when the person is a witness or when a person voluntary comes in to the station to talk to the police. An interrogation is when you being detained or arrested as a suspect. There is a difference recognized by the courts. In an interview you don't have read a person their rights because they are free to go. If they make an admission of guilt it can be used against them. At that point, they are now a suspect and thier rights have to be read before taking any further statements. If a person is being held as a suspect & is not free to go, you must have given them their rights or anything they say cannot be used by the prosecution against them. However, if the defense (and it does happen), brings up the conversation, it is admissible.
The problem is beacuse of all the lies, coverups and F**K ups we will never know what really happened, there is doubt on everythin. Do I think he did it hell yes, but proof that is a bird of another color.
Just watched another CSI episode and another Law & Order episode, I now know he did it or did he? Gees guys just let the Justice system do the best they can.
It's sad that laws made to protect the 'innocent until proven guilty' actually is used more to protect the guilty and leaves the innocent with no protection.
i heard what this pastor said and it made me ask myself what would i do if i had been told a thing like that by someone i knew lightly. i know what i'd do--i'd do nothing! just wait for that person to disappear. i'm being sarcastic but regardless of hindsight being 20/20, etc., i KNOW i would have looked for a way to go to the police even if promising to tell no-one
the judge began drew's trial letting it be known heresay might be admissible. the prosecution took this possibility and is running the full legal football field with it, not so much as being slowed down by the fouls called
mr peterson means nothing to me and i'm all for seeing justice being served, but we maybe witnessing the dawn of what people say about you making things that can be proven take a distant back seat in the courtroom
Have you ever seen a murder trial based 100% on hearsay evidence??
I do not like the way criminal defense lawyers and the courts have messed up our legal system. i.e one mistake by the State or States' attorney and the accused goes free and the defense lawyer can do or say whatever they wish and at the worst its a petty little contempt charge. 4 wives and 4 dead or missing, that should tell everyone he has no conscience and is probably a murder. I live in Florida and I believe the Casey Anthony jurors were picked because they are cowards, I've been through the jury selection process several times.
Ok they stated this witness testimony is not being used to convict Drew Peterson but instead to debunk the testimony made by his 4th wife during her police interview.
All this is being used for it a Credible Witness was told something and is reporting it when the women said something else to the courts.
Hmm, why did he leave his first wife, and the two after that? Where's Stacy? What kind of Police Officer was he? The sum is a circumstancial postulate.
WTF-why there's fear
Give this FREAK the electric chair already -- It's obvious he killed more than one of his wives and was laughing all the way to jail -- how much "evidence" does one need on this psychopath??!!
Good idea, except the maximum he can get in Illinois is 60 years, as reported. That should keep him out of circulation for an adequate period of time. He is definitely a FREAK to have that many wives die under suspicious circumstances!
Cops protect their own. This is a classic case of that for sure, because other wise he would have never been allowed in the room while she was being questioned. The defense team will no doubt try to get a mistrial, or an appeal if convicted based on so much hearsay. I for one am glad the judge is allowing some of it, the dead can't speak for themselves, but then I worry that is it fair? I'm very torn here. People can say anything, doesn't mean it's true, but he was a cop and I wonder just how much help did he receive from his fellow cop friends to cover all this up so there was no evidence. Drew Peterson, I have no doubt, will get his just dessert, whether it be in a court of law, I don't know, but he will pay.
Natale Wood X 4 = serial killer. What you mistakenly call heresay, is actually a chain of evidence.
WTF-why there's foundation
Too bad it is not possible to convict the investigators of misconduct or criminal behavior of some kind for allowing Peterson in the room with Stacy when she was interrogated. An internal affairs investigation should be launched against them to take away their pensions. Smells like a cover up. You don't allow the accused in the interrogation room when you are questioning witnesses unless you already know what conclusion you are going to come to, do you?
Looks like you are using common sense and pure logic! It was great numbers of false convictions, perpetrated by Chicago area police, that caused the state to revoke the dearth penalty. Crooked police have the power to free the guilty and imprison the innocent! Might money or friendships be involved?
So what was the ministers reply when they asked him "and you let her go back to the house?"
It might be heresay, but you know what? It's hearsay from a minister which means it's highly truth and the jury will realize he wouldn't lie.
I agree. I think his testimony will carry a lot of weight because he is a pastor. I find it comical that the defense thinks this is a big score for them because now they can prove she's a liar and commited perjury, but I think that will fall on deaf ears because people will believe the pastor.
Here is an interesting article on values:
jp2love.com/ interviews,8,Stanislaw-Ciosek-bring-back-the-values. html
If this is the type of "evidence" the prosecutors can present, I'm afraid old Drew will skate. With his police training and his guile (and assistance from third parties), he appears to have been able to hide the body of his last wife and also to cover up the murder of this wife. I'm too close to this story, but I do believe he is guilty; nevertheless, his guilt must be proven for conviction.
What do you mean by you're to close to this story?
Hmm,, she pulled her knees up to her chest in front of the preacher man,, Wonder if he tapped that?
This just goes to show, don't trust yourself to lay-counselors.
She is dead, What difference does it make now?
By 'she', do you mean Stacy Peterson? I mean, I assume so, too, but of course her body hasn't been found.
If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck....you know the rest. This guy is guilty as sin!
No doubt, cooky. He was convicted of killing one wife (Lacy, who was carrying his child), is on trial for killing a another wife who was found dead in the bathtub, and a yet another wife (number 4 wife) disappeared never to be heard from again. Lacy must have been wife number five. So out of 5 wives something "mysterious" happens to 3 of them and he expects people to believe he had nothing to do with any of it. Wow.
Sorry I got my Petersons mixed up. It was a Scott Peterson who was convicted of killing Lacy Peterson so this Drew guy was married 4 times and something happened to 2 of them. Still agree with the duck thing though.
what's with all the people apparently defending that scum Drew Peterson? You can't possibly believe the man is innocent in either death can you? Are you all his drinking buddies or what?
Cops are good liars, It's a learn on the job thing. How many people went to jail for nothing just because a cop didn't like them or for no good reason. Its coming out more and more that cops are not the good guys that people think they are. There a do as there told kind, And most of them are made for the job, Real good at a lie to save ones own but.
And who'd know better how to lie to the cops than another cop.