During a press conference today, a member of the Drew Peterson defense team said common sense will free his client and only emotion, due to lack of evidence, will result in him being jailed.
The question is, what common sense really says innocent?
Through this trial, we have heard statements against Drew’s word from a man of God and a man of the Law, testimony of a man who has spent his entire life doing autopsies stating Kathleen was murdered as well as words from Kathleen herself and the last wife stating that Drew had threatened to murder Savio and “Make it look like an accident”. This not only assists the fact that the first medical examiner and others see it as an accident as well as his “acceptance” of the accident toward his children and society.
Common sense for Drew?
It seems that the only common sense that the defense seems to have presented is an illness Savio had which created dizziness, (but Savio knew about the illness and was prepared when it came on), medical examiners that said it was an accident (which assists his threat “make it look like an accident”) and Drew? They told him not to testify, and he didn’t, which I am sure made a great deal of impact toward the team. Imagine having an innocent client yet refusing to put him on the stand. While they inadvertently said it was because of the words he used in the past, the lack of his testimony speaks volumes considering his proclaimed innocence was never heard by the most important audience: The Jury.
Staying on the aspect of evidence, Kathleen Savio’s sister declared that there was a stack of evidence declaring what really happened to her sibling in that bathroom. To me, that shows that there was prospectively legal common sense via the defense that withheld a great deal of evidence. Therefore, what surprises me the most, is it seems the case, is common sense seemed to be more dedicated to hindering the guilt of Peterson instead of declaring the supposed innocence of the former cop.
