E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
M. Spencer Green / AP
Joel Brodsky, attorney for former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson, wipes his brow before entering court for jury instructions on Wednesday in Joliet, Ill.
A day after the prosecution and defense presented closing arguments, the jury in the first-degree murder trial of Drew Peterson began deliberations Wednesday.
Peterson, a former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant, is charged in the 2004 drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. The prosecution alleges that Peterson, 58, murdered Savio and staged her death to look like an accident. The defense on Tuesday argued that no one asked Peterson if he killed his wife because everyone could see it was an accident, NBCChicago.com reported.
Related: Prosecution hammers Drew Peterson in closing arguments
After hearing five weeks of evidence, the jury began deliberations at 10:37 a.m. ET Wednesday. Judge Edward Burmila read 15 minutes of instructions to the jurors, saying that they should start with the presumption that Peterson is innocent and only convict him if they find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, The Associated Press reported.
"The defendant is not required to prove his innocence," Burmila told jurors.
The jurors made several requests in the first few hours, NBCChicago.com reported. They requested Peterson’s phone records from the weekend Savio died and autopsy photos of Savio’s body. They also wanted a letter written by Savio that described her fear that Peterson would kill her, but the judge only allowed them access to a heavily-redacted version. The jurors’ request for a transcript of the testimony from Rev. Neil Schori and attorney Harry Smith was denied by the judge, and instead the transcript was read back to them by a court reporter.
The seven-man, five-woman jury is faced with considering a few propositions, according to NBCChicago.com: That the defendant performed the acts that caused the death of Savio, and that when the defendant did so, he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to Savio. Or they must consider whether Peterson knew that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Savio.
If any one of these propositions are found to be not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the judge said the jury should find Peterson not guilty.
Peterson could spend up to 60 years in prison, if convicted.
"He's emotionally and mentally prepared for whatever happens," his lead attorney, Joel Brodsy, told reporters after closing arguments Tuesday.
The Associated Press, as well as NBCChicago.com’s BJ Lutz, Glenn Marshall and Lisa Balde contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Cops: Man abducted at Dallas ATM, dumped in field
- Four Marines accused of beating gay man in possible hate crime
- Lawyer: Fla. mom accused of dumping baby 'severely mentally ill'
- Thousands of dead nutria pile up on Mississippi beaches after Isaac
- Sex-change surgery for prison inmate granted by judge
- Video: ‘No Easy Day’ hits shelves
Leave a Comment:
"He's emotionally and mentally prepared for whatever happens," his lead attorney, Joel Brodsy, told reporters after closing arguments Tuesday?????
How can a person be emotionally and mentally prepared...if found guilty..and they say they are innocent? An innocent person would be screaming their lungs out that they are innocent..not accept the verdict of guilty!
I say he did it...but I'm not on the jury.
His attorney Joel Brodsky should hang his head in shame to represent such a nasty person. He could have declined to represent him and kept his ethics. Glad neither of them are my son.
Jeanette, a defense attorney has a job and that is to defend his client, period. It is not his job to try and determine guilt or innocence.
However they can choose who they wish to have as a client. They can always decline a case.
I think he did it but you should not be able to find someone guilty with no evidence. If I ever get into a car accident I'll bring in 20 people to say he was driving the wrong way and get off even if it was my fault. Hearsay should not be allowed in court
Is it JUST ME?? OR does this guy look like that idiot Darrel on Storage Wars????
Who knew there could be two of them???
Everybody thinks he did it, but you CAN find someone guilty based upon overwhelming circumstantial evidence including the testimony under "Drews Law" now in Illinois. That testimony would normally be hearsay, but in this case, Stacy Peterson told their Pastor she had lied to police to create an alibi for Drew Peterson the night of Savio's death. The new law allows that Pastor's testimony regarding what Stacy told him. Peterson met the grounds for evidence on four factors, Means, Motive, Opportunity, and Violent History with subject, all under the federal rules of evidence 404(b)(2).
There was also "intent" established in the case, with former police officer and friend Bill Green testifying that Green was approached by Peterson who asked him if he would kill Kathleen Savio for $25K. Green said he thought Peterson was just joking around and did not take him seriously.
And the apple obviously did not fall far from the tree in the Peterson gene pool, His oldest son was fired from the Oak Brook Police Dept. (only a few miles from Bollingbrook) after only being on the force for 6 yrs. His son was suspended 5 times in his 6 yr career (like father like son) and was eventually terminated for lying about hiding weapons for his father including an illegal AR-15 assault rifle Drew took to his son's home just before calling the police regarding his 4th wife Stacy being missing.
Public records reveal that the police were dispatched to the Peterson home 17 times in 2 years from 2002-2004 for domestic disputes and custody violations with Savio. The exhumation and second autopsy revealed Savio could not have fallen into the tub to sustain the open wound on the back of her head and the bruises on the front of her body indicated a struggle of some sort. The neighbors reported to police that when they first entered the bathroom and saw Savio, she was laying face first in the empty tub, by the time police responded, her body was moved and positioned inside the dry tub. Bollingbrook Police never followed up on their statements. There may not be actual physical evidence but when the burden of proof is "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" for a conviction....I think this jury will do the right thing.
Who knows? Twelve idiots turned a baby killer loose.
The evidence in that case was overwhelming compared to the Peterson case. I ask you, how do you convict a person solely on hearsay evidence? That new law that allowed all this hearsay evidence in is based on the "fact" that he killed the person who would normally be there to be cross examined? I thought you were innocent till proven guilty? Whats at stake here is A LOT MORE than justice for one person. Convicting on hearsay evidence is what you find in 3rd world countries. Do you really want to live in a banana republic? Each of those hearsay witnesses have huge problems with their stories.
12 idiots also turned Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, loose.
Okicize I sure hope it's not the same 12 idiots that let that baby killer loose. We all know he did it. This jury has to have enough common sense to look at the evidence the Prosecution has laid out for them and make the right decision. Pray for Justice for Kathleen and Stacy♥♥
......Because she's a young, attractive female. I predict they will convict Peterson, regardless of the lack of evidence.
Guess Peterson will know the verdict when the jury comes out wearing black. lol (Since they have been color coordinating their outfits during the trial).
He him Peterson has no desires.
How would ANYONE profess to know the "desires" of an evil, smug, ruthless murderer? Moreover...who gives a crap about him? He loves himself enough.....
There is just something wrong if a man is married what 4 times and they mysteriously either die or disappear for no reason. The cop thought he could get rid of them when he got tired of them. They are not trash just to be thrown away!!!! He is a piece of S H I T that needs to be put away for the rest of his life. So smug when he was confronted and taking pictures of the press while they were filming him. Guilty as hell!!!!!!!!!! Burn baby Burn!
hate to disappoint you Okie but he's going to be found NOT GUILTY,do to lack of evidence.Just because he had some bad luck with relationships doesn't make him a murderer.And i hope he sues the city for keeping him locked up for so long for trial that was B.S. charge they locked him up for in the first place.And the girl he has met with and probably marry when he gets out will probably die from an accident to.He should make his money back from the book he is already started.See you soon on the outside buddy
Drew Peterson had bad luck with relationships .... kinda like King Henry VIII had bad luck with relationships.
I think part of his punishment should be having to watch the 2012 RNC, constantly, the rest of his life.
Quiet One - seriously?! This article has nothing to do with politics but it didn't take you long to throw out the bait! Go to another article if you want to get into that argument.
WTF, I find it hard to take seriously someone who doesn't know the difference between "do" and "due" and "to" and "too".
Hey Okie I have to agree with you, he is actually a scumbag. I knew him when I was in Highschool, I lived in Bolingbrook and actually dated his partner Gary. Drew was quite and @!$%# I do remember meeting one of his wives it must have been maybe his first one because I was in High School Back in 79-83 so not sure when his marriages were. He didn't have much respect back then and it seems like it got worse.
W.T.F.101
Drew Peterson will be found guilty if the jury does their job and follows the instructions regarding "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" under federal rules of law. He had motive, intent, opportunity, means, and a history of documented violent behavior toward the victim, (as stated in my earlier post).
Mr. Peterson will never be out of jail....thank goodness there will be no more victims for him.
I'll say that he will not be convicted or if he does, he will appeal and get off.
I'm perfectly happy to throw the switch if you can find the proof that he actually did it. Up to now there is no proof.
How much PROOF do you need? Familiarize yourself with the facts of this case, and then comment appropriately....How many women need to "disappear", or die mysteriously??? How would you feel if it was your family member??????
Clearly, Drew Peterson killed his wife and is responsible for the disappearance of his 4th wife. However, it is not what you know happened...it is only what you can prove happened. The Bolingbrook Police Department failed to collect any forensic evidence that may have proven foul play in his 3rd wife's death. Peterson obviously learned from his mistakes with his 3rd wife that he made sure there was no body to investigate during the disappearance of his 4th wife.
Kinda like OJ huh?
This kind of reminds me of the Casey Anthony case, it was obvious she did it but there just wasn't enough to prove it. I guess that happens sometimes, I'm sure it keeps more innocent people out of jail than it does guilty people...
It wasnt the Bollingbrook Police dept that failed to find the evidence, it was the state police that took this case over.
Scott Peterson was convicted from circumstantial evidence but they had a smart jury. I myself would have no problem convicting this pig on circumstatial evidence. It is so obvious that he killed both women.
Amen...This is a dangerous, evil, predatory monster. Since 2009, the women of Joliet, and Bollingbrook, have one less dirtball to contend with.
Listen up jury!!! DON'T do the same thing that those stupid jurors in the Casey Anthony case did!!! Do NOT let another murderer go free!!!!!!
sorry troy he is getting off they have way less more evidence than the Casey trial.hes going to be walking out of jail a free man by the weekend and start shacking up with the other dumn girl who wants to marry him too.She is going to deserve it also,and im not going to feel sorry for that girl even less.You think your mad now wait till he makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from his book deal.
I think this "WTF101" has a crush on Peterson.
W.T.F will you let him sleep in your house?
Every criminal has at least one crazy fan, right W.T.F.???
I sincerely hope that this man is convicted. It is clear that he murdered both wives :Kathleen and Stacey. The good-old-boy Bolingbrook Police Department kept him from being adequately investigated at the time and it seems that both Drew and this judge believe that he is above the law. May the jury prove that justice can be delivered in this case. Also, it was absurd to put his sons on the stand after he murdered both their mother and stepmother. Don't you think they would be afraid to testify against him?
Wonder who else at the Bolingbrook department is a corrupt liar and criminal. Sad that some police have no morals and ethics.
Throw the book at him!!
Which book would that be, the US Constitution. You know, where you have the right to confront your accuser ? Where you have the right to see actual evidence against you ?
In this case, we have wild speculation, innuendo, rumors and even lies acting as evidence.
The judge should have stopped this farce long ago.
@dirp,
That must be the same book that says it's okay to kill your wife and not go to prison because you are a cop and covered it up. I'm pretty sure it was written by a republican woman hater.
Does anybody think he looks like Darrell Sheets from storage wars?
Yeah....a little! Only without the evil smirk. Sorry Darrell...love you man! Could be a brother. Fortunately Darrel DIVORCED his wife and didn't kill her.
Yea I think he does a little as well. I can imagine him also saying I am going to make million dollar bill off this case...
Yes, and just as obnoxious
He had to have made some mistake with either his 3rd or 4th wife to prove that he killed them. Unfortunately, since they didn't think it was murder for Kathleen, they most likely didn't collect any evidence like hairs or fingerprints. Why would they? Although a dead woman in a dry tub seems quite questionable to me. If they don't get him for this one, and I truly hope they do, they better get him for Stacey. There had to be witnesses, something to go on. I just hate to see someone so guilty get away with murder.
There was another person involved with dumping Stacey's body. No one will fess up. The Peterson men need to burn in he** for their misdeeds.
wow no one sees the "trend" here, this is not the first wife he has tangled with, this is so Familiar to me, my dad was offed by his 3rd wife (Black Widow) however we were introduced to a LAZY detective who decided ALL the evidence did not warrant pursuing, his partner Did however they did NOTHING.. REALLY!?!?!?! so the Guilty have MORE RIGHTS and go FREE, they have their rewards "here" AMEN!!!
The wives dissapeared never to be found and he kept smiling on television, ummmmmmm ?
He didn't just 'smile' and joke around after Stacy 'went missing'-he even wanted to find someone to date on a radio show just 3 months later! That was shot down, quickly. He was even going to ask the most misogynistic and crude questions and he just didn't care.
There is NO PHYSICAL evidence, I "feel" he did it, but that is NOT enough for a guilty verdict. If he is found guilty it is an INJUSTICE, and I hate to say that but it is true.
guiltyas charged, hanged him till death case closed
No one knows exactly how Scott Peterson's wife (and child) died-but he is sitting on Death Row-hopefully not for too long, either. Many murderers are found guilty on a lot less evidence. Anyone can see Drew is just as guilty as any of those other NPDs (Narcissistic Personality Disorders -and Drew is one to the Nth degree) and wife abusers who kill their spouses and/or exes.
Wrong Peterson - You are thinking of Scott.
I don't think he was thinking of the wrong one... he/she was saying that Scott Peterson's wife and child died under mysterious circumstances too and we don't know exactly what happened but Scott is sitting on death row. Drew isn't accused of killing his child, nor is he on death row.
No evidence in Scott Peterson's case either. Now a days anyone can be railroaded. Did you see where they are letting a convicted murderer out 27 years after he was supposed to have killed his wife? It was hearsay evidence that got him convicted. DNA proved he didnt do it. Thats what you get with hearsay. The media is constantly telling us that we cant trust eye witness testimony, but its a heck of a lot better than this.
If you never convict people based on circumstantial evidence, you would have a lot of murderers running around. Circumstantial evidence can pile up and show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you read anything about the Scott Peterson trial, you would know that.
Many men can kill their wives and cover it up. If you are waiting for a smoking gun, you are never going to find it.
Drew Peterson learned from killing his 3rd wife, that leaving a body causes problems. So what did he do with Stacy? He got rid of her and figured no body, no problem this time. He also knew that if he killed her after the 3rd wifes death ( murder), he would be looked at as responsible. And he is responsible for her disaperance! He claims she ran off with another man right? Well who is this man and where did he come from and who saw them together that wasnt or isnt a friend for Peterson? He killed Savio and he killed Stacy and got rid of her so it wouldnt come back to him because she seemed more vocal on how he treated her so he knew that if he killed her it would come back to him because who do they look at when a mans wife ends up dead? The husband first to rule him out right? well, Savio was a wife they just happened to be going through a divorce and he thought that it was time before the settlement phase of that divorce was to be settled. He just didnt figure on it comming back to bite him in the backside when Stacy ended up missing or as he says ran off...
Peterson is guilty in more ways than one and he knows it. Now a jury will decide just how guilty or innocent he is. A jury of his peers! I wonder how that sits with the so called cop of perfection? Im sure he does not look at them as peers as he sees everyone as his to control. Thats part of the long term effect of being a cop.... Hang Him!!! dont just hide him in a cell in protective custody, let him feel death creep up on him like he did by mentally torturing these women.
No Darlin....DON'T HANG HIM!! He would probably LIKE it. My wish for him, is to live forever in a cell with an even more callous and evil creature than himself. one that assures him daily of the terror that can be inflicted upon him at the hands of someone more evil than himself....live in terror, as did his victims.. That is justice.
So sad for the women who loved him and trusted him.
If a defense attorney won't take his case, then they won't take yours as well. Remember, although this is a highly publisized trial, what is argued in that court, are the same arguements that would be argued in your case if you should ever be accused of a crime. So to those who say he is a bad man because he is doing his job as a defense attorney, please remember you will want that bad man to help you if you were accused of a crime. The only thing I am ashamed of is if he is acquitted then, how is he repaid for the years he has spent in jail for this, or the loss of his job or anything else. What would be fair if an accusation kept you locked up for years, then they said oops, we were wrong, have a nice day?
we knew he guilty of killing all the wives but is there any evident to convict him? or even with evident, his attorney still can challenge. I don't like lawyers. Anyway, do you remember OJ Simpson? everybody knew he murdered his wife and her boyfriend and there were tons of evident but his attorneys were able to prove and jurors found him not guilty. He walked out free.
Even worse, Ron Goldman was just returning Nicole's mother's sunglasses to her house because they were accidentally left at the restaurant he waited tables at earlier that day. He knew Nicole Brown but as far as their friends knew, there was no romantic relationship between them... he was just a nice guy who stopped by after work to drop off the sunglasses. Talk about the wrong place at the wrong time!
There is no such thing as being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless your trespassing etc. Goldman had every right to be there. It was a racist jury that set Simpson free. Not too many media moguls would say that but its true.
just one more "comment" b4 I go LOL, whatever Happened to the old adage "IF it Looks like a duck, walks n talks like a duck...ITS A DUCK!?!?!?!!
The problem with the duck theory is that there are a whole lot of different breeds of duck.
What does recognizing a duck have to do with a fair trial? (Maybe you are referring to your "Quack?")
That saying is right up there with "having all your ducks in a row". Everyone is presumed innocent till proven guilty. There is no proof that he did it. Thats our system, like it or not, its the best in the world regardless of the few that beat the system. He will get whats coming to him. If not in this world, the next. We still dont know if they have enough evidence to charge him with Stacy's death. Like I said, Id rather let this one go than change our justice system to that of a 3rd world country.
As we all know with a previous court case - all that matter is - did the glove fit?
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
i will never understand why prosecutors insist on going for the top charges when they have crappy evidence...they could have added a whole slew of other charges and hoped for something to stick....just like casey anthony's prosecutors..they got too greedy....go for something lesser and hope the jury is smart enough to make something stick...better than nothing and better than a double jeopardy issue....fry in hell peterson, you sick sorry loser!
@josie,
Ego! Given the lack of any real evidence for murder 1, they probably would have stood a good chance of manslaughter (accident), get him in jail and pursue wife #4 muder indicment. Give the jury something to hang their hat on.
theres always going to be someone willing to give the creep the benefit of the doubt but seriously he just has bad luck? um....really? so did henry the eighth and Bluebeard I guess. but he sure does look like a sociopath with his smug little smirk doesnt he? I hope someone in prison makes him his special friend. just saying.
have we all not learned anything, when you want to get rid of your spouse you smile and say how about a Trip to Aruba!!! weather he killed her or not we cannot convict without proof which comes in the form of substantial evidence not hearsay or he cheated on her or threaten her, if we are going to convict people on hearsay and lack of substantial evidence we are all doomed,remember innocent until proven quilty?
I would love to be a fly in that deliberation room! Is it good or bad they are still out at 4:07pm ?!?!?!
I think he will be found not guilty, too, but maybe he will go and marry Casey Anthony and then we'll get rid of one or the other of them when they get tired of each other. (well, it was a good thought).
The prosecution did not prove their case. Now, you might think on circumstantial evidence that he would be guilty. But to put a man away for murder you need a smoking gun, something that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He should be found not guilty with the mess the prosecution made. Their mistakes were glaring. The judge let them get by with it. With what they had it surprises me they tried him.
Ladyjag,
You are incorrect. People are convicted for murder on circumstantial evidence-remember Scott Peterson? He is on death row right now based on circumstantial evidence that he killed Lacy and their unborn child. The standard in any criminal case, no matter the punishment, is "reasonable doubt" not "beyond the shadow of a doubt" as you said. What is reasonable to explain how it happened, if Drew is guilty, etc, based on the totality of the circumstances they are presented with by both sides. What you have proposed is what court systems fear that people have the CSI effect where they expect there to be direct, physical evidence such as DNA in all crime scenes, but there isn't!
You don't need a smoking gun. Google Scott Peterson.