I’ll admit I haven’t been following this case very closely.
But it seems newsworthy that he was convicted in a circumstantial case (h/t creeper):
Retired Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson was found guilty Thursday of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, the verdict eliciting a gasp from a packed Will County courthouse and ending a case that for years has received salacious tabloid news coverage.
Peterson showed no emotion as the verdict was read. He was shackled, said “Good job” to his attorneys and was led off. Sentencing has been set for Nov. 26. Savio’s family and supporters hugged and cried along with witnesses who testified for the state….
The verdict came after five weeks of testimony at the courthouse in Joliet, where prosecutors tried to show circumstantial and hearsay evidence proved Peterson was guilty of killing Kathleen Savio. The defense team attempted to poke holes in the prosecution case and said Savio’s death wasn’t a murder at all, but a slip-and-fall accident.
Peterson’s attorneys pointed to the lack of physical evidence, the inability by prosecutors to place Peterson at the scene, and conflicting opinions from forensic pathologists about how Savio, 40, died.
Savio was found drowned on March 1, 2004, in her dry Bolingbrook bathtub, and her death was ruled an accident. But three years later, when Peterson’s 23-year-old fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared, Savio’s body was exhumed and her death was ruled a homicide.
Since I haven’t followed the case, I can’t opine on the verdict.
I can say, however, that it always worries me when a case lacks hard evidence, and the jury implicitly is asked to convict because the defendant is a bad person.