Drew Peterson, Sean Phillips: Justice Served?

[XLFD]

Drew Peterson, a former cop who found himself at the epicenter of national news a few years ago when his fourth wife Stacy Peterson turned up missing, was just recently convicted of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.  Savio was found in her bathtub back in 2004 supposedly the victim of an accidental drowning; the investigating officers closed the case without getting evidence, Drew wasn't with Savio at the time, although he lived with Stacy in the same neighborhood and was involved with divorce proceedings with Savio.

Shortly after Stacy came up missing in 2007 under even more suspicious circumstances, the Savio case was re-opened and re-dubbed a murder investigation.  The trial was the first of its kind in Illinois history, with prosecutors building their case largely on hearsay thanks to a new law, dubbed "Drew's Law," tailored to Peterson's case. That hearsay, prosecutors had said, would let his third and fourth wives "speak from their graves" through family and friends in order to convict Peterson.  Hearsay is indirect knowledge not personally witnessed by those testifying.

Witnesses told jurors that Savio told of being threatened by Peterson, that  she feared for her life and slept with a knife under her mattress out of  concerns that Peterson would follow through threats and kill her.  Witnesses testified about how Savio's body was discovered by a  neighbor March 1, 2004. She was face down in her dry bathtub, her thick, black  hair soaked in blood and a 2-inch gash on the back of her head.  Jurors heard that Peterson had divorced Savio a year before her death and, according to  prosecutors, killed her out of fear that a pending settlement, which included  their $300,000 home, a tavern they both owned and Peterson's police pension,  would wipe him out financially.
What jurors did not hear or see was any physical evidence tying Peterson to  Savio's death. Nor did they hear from any witnesses who placed Peterson at the  scene at the time of Savio's death, or even an exact time she died or how  Peterson might have drowned her.
Many people viscerally dislike Drew Peterson from his sometimes cocky attitude and believe he had a hand in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson in 2007, even though there seems to be only hearsay evidence against Drew in that case as well.  One would expect a cop to be able to pull off the 'perfect crime(s)' better than anyone.

But is this a reason to charge someone with a crime that will put him in prison for 20-60 years?  Do we need to create a special law allowing hearsay information, and then use it to convict someone who allegedly did the crime before the new law was passed?

According to  The Chicago Sun Times:  It was the hearsay evidence against Peterson, the juror said, that convinced him and other jurors to convict Peterson of murder on Thursday in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

“Without hearsay evidence would I have found him not guilty? Yes. A lot of the jurors said that, too,” said Ron Supalo, a juror from Bolingbrook. “They were either on the fence or they thought he was innocent. And then with those two hearsay witnesses (Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, and Stacy Peterson's pastor Rev. Neil Sciori) , bam.”

Attorney Joseph Lopez said jury members “were overwhelmed by the hearsay” statements presented at the trial, despite efforts by Peterson’s attorneys to bar much of that evidence as unreliable.

“It’s a dark day in America when you can convict someone on hearsay evidence. A very dark day,” Lopez said.

He and other Peterson attorneys also blamed the public and media attention Peterson himself courted in repeated interviews with national and local media outlets.

“The whole world wanted Drew to be convicted,” Lopez said.

 

This reminds me of our local issue with Baby Kate and the suspect involved in her disappearance, her father, Sean Phillips.  With the exception of Ariel Courtland, Kate's mother, nobody seen Sean with Kate on the day she went missing.  The physical evidence is weak at best, with the only leads being dirt and seeds found on shoes that may have been worn by Sean that day.  Sean is anything but cocky, however, he has not said anything since he was initially interrogated and claimed ignorance of having 'kidnapped' Kate, nor did he testify at the trial.  He has that right to do so, and it should not be held against him, just like it should not have been used against Drew.

But since the Prosecutor of Mason County failed to lay a strong groundwork for finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper, bent the laws just enough to allow for a conviction to take place, much like Illinois' legislature did for Drew.  And as with Drew's trial, we had plenty of hearsay information coming from many of the prosecutor's witnesses in Sean's trial and conjecture, but...

What jurors did not hear or see was any physical evidence tying Phillips to Baby Kate's disappearance/death, nor any witness (other than one who 'gave false information' under oath) who linked the two together that day she went missing.  Everyone wants justice for both Baby Kate Phillips and Grown-up Kate Savio, but do we need to bypass the Bill of Rights to blame convenient scapegoats who can't prove their innocence?

[XLFD]

Tactically, I don't think the defense attorney did the best job in this case, but she did challenge the note's admissibility outside of the trial court, albeit unsuccessfully.  Again, I feel it proved nothing other than to show Sean was capable of tactical maneuvering, which may have helped some jurors get rid of lingering reasonable doubts.

[Willy]

If the note was not written by Sean then why didn't the defense state that in court. Challenging the note outside of court did little to sway the jury that the note was not written by Sean. I think your correct about his attorney. If she couldn't keep Sean out of jail by showing how flimsy the prosecution's case was then whatever money he spent on her services was money wasted.

[XLFD]

Two possibilities come to mind:  1) they thought having the author of the note ambiguous may help their defense, and Smedley would bring it up in her closing statement  2) the note was written by someone else who they didn't want to be implicated with Sean.

One can agree in hindsight it may have been questionable strategy not to, but there are reasons for everything-- except having City Managers.