ShareThis Page
Drew Peterson heads to trial in third wife’s death |

Drew Peterson heads to trial in third wife’s death

The Associated Press
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 5:34 p.m
FILE - In this May 8, 2009 file photo, former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant Drew Peterson yells to reporters as he arrives at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Ill., for his arraignment on charges of first-degree murder in the 2004 death of his former wife Kathleen Savio, who was found in an empty bathtub at home. Jury selection in his trial begins Monday, July 23, 2012. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

CHICAGO — For a man whose fourth wife had just disappeared, Drew Peterson did not sound the least bit worried. He seemed almost gleeful, suggesting that she had run off with another man and that all her threats of divorce coincided with her menstrual cycle.

Authorities investigating that disappearance back in 2007 soon started wondering if Peterson might have been involved with the earlier drowning death of his third wife. But that did not faze him. He joked about a “Win a Date With Drew” contest and discussed appearing on a reality TV show about a Nevada brothel.

The crass swagger continued, even after the former suburban Chicago police officer was arrested in the drowning, which had originally been ruled an accident. Peterson called a radio show — collect, from jail — to joke about a “Win a Conjugal Visit With Drew” game.

Five years after he became an object of national scorn, Peterson is about to go on trial on charges that he murdered Kathleen Savio in 2004. His fourth wife, Stacy, has never been found.

Observers say Peterson may benefit from the three years he has been behind bars and out of the public eye.

“He really was becoming one of the more hated individuals in America,” said Joe Tacopina, a prominent defense attorney in New York. “Because he was in jail, he took himself off the front page, and that can only help him with a jury pool.”

Peterson’s attorney agreed.

“Nobody’s going to deny that Drew’s relatively goofy behavior rubbed people the wrong way,” said Joel Brodsky, who explained Peterson’s actions as both the byproduct of a sometimes grim job and his way of moving on after his wife left him.

“The fact that he hasn’t been at that for a period of years certainly helps some of his past antics fade from memory.”

The case, which begins on Monday with jury selection, is sure to rekindle memories of the media frenzy that engulfed Peterson before his arrest, when he often joked with an army of news crews camped outside his house and even invited Geraldo Rivera into his kitchen.

Reporters from across the country and maybe from as far away as Japan will descend on a courthouse in Joliet, Ill., to watch the latest chapter of a story that has spawned a couple of books and a cable TV movie starring Rob Lowe as Peterson.

The frenetic coverage “absolutely has the possibility of reigniting,” said Mark Geragos, a prominent California defense attorney who has been at the center of comparable firestorms, including when he represented Scott Peterson (no relation), a California man convicted of murdering his young wife and unborn child.

Prosecutors expect to tell a relatively simple story: Drew Peterson killed his ex-wife to keep her from making off with much of his money in a contentious divorce. Sometime around Feb. 29, 2004, according to the indictment, Peterson went to Savio’s house and in the bathroom caused her “to inhale fluid,” killing her.

That simple story is complicated by what happened after Savio’s body was discovered by a friend of Peterson’s. Peterson had called the friend to the house to look for Savio, saying he was worried.

The investigation unfolded nothing like the ones jurors may have seen on television programs such as “CSI” and “Law & Order.”

Detectives are expected to testify, as they did at a hearing in 2010, that nobody collected a single fingerprint or hair fiber at the house. They will likely acknowledge that Savio’s relatives, who could have told investigators about the couple’s ongoing battles, were never interviewed.

Jurors may also hear, as a judge did at the 2010 hearing, that Peterson was allowed to sit in on a police interview with Stacy Peterson as a “professional courtesy.” This happened while officers were trying to confirm Peterson’s whereabouts on the weekend Savio died.

They may hear from another detective who has testified that he was “disgusted” by the investigation, that he thought Stacy Peterson was “hiding something,” and that he strongly suspected Savio’s death was not an accident.

When it does come up, it will be prosecutors who ask about it.

“You have to bring out all your failures, all the flaws of the case yourself,” said Marcia Clark, the former Los Angeles deputy district attorney who led the unsuccessful prosecution of O.J. Simpson.

The two sides will also argue over something that is rarely an issue in a murder trial: whether a murder was actually committed.

Because Savio’s death was originally ruled an accidental drowning, prosecutors will present pathologists to explain that an examination of Savio’s body after it was exhumed revealed she had been killed.

Brodsky said he has three pathologists ready to testify that Savio’s death was, as originally determined, an accident.

The defense is bound to use the disputed findings to put forth its own theory about why Peterson was charged — “because of heat from law enforcement,” Geragos said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.