Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.
“There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.
“We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”
We’ve all seen the complete inquest transcript now. Yes, there was no testimony or evidence presented to the jurors to indicate that foul play might be suspected. In fact, ISP Officer Herbert Hardy said otherwise. One panel member (Dennis Pratl) made it personal, and said Drew Peterson was a good guy. Yet, Jim Pretto wishes they had listened more to Kathleen’s family. The jurors did not hear about Savio asking for a restraining order against Peterson, and they were told by the ISP officer that there were no insurance policies involved. They did not hear about the police being called eighteen times to intervene in their disputes.
Several questions arise about these claims made by Pretto. Who exactly was responsible for making sure these important issues were presented to the jury panel? Or, in the alternative, who was responsible for making sure they were not presented to the jury panel? Oversight or out-of-sight. Which is it?
At the time of this juror’s interview, Anna Doman said: “I think we’re closer” to justice. “I just wish it was four years ago.”
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed:
<a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>