Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Neighbors of Drew Peterson's third wife testify

Details

  • Description

    Legal panel weigh in on murder trial

  • Duration 5:33
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Latest US

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

It's a testimony now under -- the Drew Peterson murder trial Peterson is the former police officer charged with murdering his third wife.

He's also the prime suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife Stacy has not been charged in and she's not been found so far the jury.

Has heard testimony from -- its audio -- neighbors including.

The woman who discovered -- -- lifeless body in a dry bathtub back in 2004.

After Peterson's lawyer turned his attention on the victim calling Kathleen savvy -- angry bitter woman.

Let's bring in our legal panel Joseph Jackson is a former prosecutor.

Now I see you -- you both -- -- let me start with you because the testimony from the neighbors about that the state of the body in the bathtub they went upstairs.

The door have been locked in so Drew Peterson went to the neighbor's -- to get the key and they all went upstairs and found the body.

Together and then I -- Afterwards he was alone in the room with one of the neighbors who testified on the stand.

That Drew Peterson -- made a phone call after finding his wife and they were in the middle of the divorce after finding the body he makes a phone call.

And says to whoever is talking to people are gonna think that I did this.

Talk to me about that.

Well I don't think that we can really read anything either way I mean he his position all along and he's been very clear is that.

People we're gonna think he did -- -- gonna look to him and he's he's almost been a little bit cavalier about it but.

It's not gonna change the fact that the state has a very hard case first of all -- in the usual situation -- -- actually have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that -- -- was murdered so they've got to get around and over the original coroner's report which took place one day within one day of protests.

That ruled it an accident second of all there is no director physical evidence linking Peterson to her home on the day after death.

So they're gonna really have a much harder time in my mind and whether he called somebody and whether he thought that there -- gonna Lincoln to it or not.

I don't know it just doesn't sound right to me that if you find the body of a woman that you used to be married to the mother of your children that your first response or one of the first things you say Joey is people are gonna think that I was responsible for this does -- sound like.

And -- -- a guy talking on the phone.

-- absolutely not in the prosecution certainly Rick is -- to play that up as suggestive of someone who is far from innocent here.

Therefore things a prosecution is going to do here one of course is they have to show that it was a death.

As we all know.

The initial ruling was that it was an accident that is gong to be overcome by expert testimony gong to be overcome by doctor -- and -- the -- The other things are going to have to show that last three things as -- gonna show motive means and opportunity.

Motivation what would motivate him -- we all know they were in the middle of a very contentious divorce proceeding.

Yes the divorce it concluded however they were getting to -- asset portion of it he faced losing significant money.

Ownership in a bar the money that comes along with that his pension when we talked to about the other thing in terms of means he's a former police officer.

He's a guy who can stage a crime scene in knowing what the police will be looking for when they got there and finally when you look at the opportunity who knows the amber -- the modus operandi of his wife.

Better than him.

When she would be home he had the children how to gain access how the -- of that home is structured I think that the prosecution is going to focus on that.

Big time here and they are going to use evidence that you suggest -- a moment ago -- in terms of.

-- -- no problem the problem with all of that is it simply suspicion and you're right a lot of people think that his behavior was suspicious but suspicion doesn't get to the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecutors kicking this sleeping arms are -- -- eleven prosecutors are prosecutors get convictions all the time based on circumstantial case and so how big the deal is absolutely they can.

I agree with your actually they candidate makes -- much harder case is what I'm saying I don't think that anybody out there can say that this case of the slam dot.

-- -- you are powerful are absolutely right it's not a slam -- it all but circumstantially.

I think if things begin to mountain when you put one thing on top of the other and when you start focusing on the collect you know all the collective evidence it wasn't an accident I think they'll be experts here when they exhumed the body who tested -- world renowned experts who will suggest that it wasn't and if anybody was in a position to tell you saw it.

I think it's interesting it's interesting you mention that because this is what the defense is gonna shell they're gonna say that he was in a better position to determine the cause of death than the first pathology tests.

To examine her body within a day -- that.

Not three years after when the body had been exhumed if you read both autopsy reports the first one is actually much more complete and in the second autopsy doctor bad and acknowledges that the body was in poor condition so I think you're right it's gonna come down -- medical experts but we're gonna have opposing medical experts.

And a jury's gonna have to -- both of them.

One closer in time and won three years later -- -- Joey last word -- you're watching this he's on trial for killing his third wife his fourth wife is still missing.

And folks are thinking this guy might actually get off could that happen.

It it could I mean to be fair I know -- the prosecutor today but to be -- it could happen because what you look at -- at a CSI Miami type environment people want hard -- physical evidence they want to know what -- the crime -- show what you know could it have been in the crime scene are -- things they -- -- which would be suggested that he actually did it.

And if you only have circumstantial evidence a jury may.

-- a little bit and say I need more and so while I do believe circumstantial evidence is there that can have a jury convict it is a -- that -- Prosecution has to overcome to secure that conviction Joey Jackson -- are prince thank you both like to talk to you.

Thank you.

Load More