Drew Peterson Guilty of Murder: One juror held out until today

Today the jury in the Drew Peterson trial  for the murder of Kathleen Savio returned a verdict of guilty. They took three votes during their deliberations. The first was 7 :guilty, 4: not guilty, 1: undecided. By last night the vote was 11: guilty and 1: undecided.

By the end of deliberations last night, one juror was not convinced, but today he went back into the courthouse and asked the other 11 to convince him. They did.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

72 thoughts on “Drew Peterson Guilty of Murder: One juror held out until today

  1. I read on twitter the one juror was male and sat top right closest to the prosc.

    I also still think when they asked the question about unanimous they had all 12 votes…but were confused about the two counts.

    Wonder if Joey lopez was auditioning for Dancing with the Stairs?

  2. It would appear that he really took his duty as a juror seriously!

    I have to say, I have been out of the Chicago area for about 15 yrs, and Ron Magers still looks the same! 🙂

  3. Holy cow! I really was not sure what would really happen after the Casey Anthony verdict. Wonder how surprised that the Defense is that there were 11 voting guilty and had only one holdout for a short time. Thoughts are with the families of Kathleen and Stacy – their voices were heard today.

  4. And for some reason I keep hearing Brodsky’s voice in my head saying that it would just be one day for Drew to sit in the pokey when Brodsky missed his arraignment and was in NY instead.

  5. 6:20 p.m. Juror says verdict ‘was a tough decision’

    One juror said the verdict “was a tough decision. . .We had to do what we had to do, but I think it was just.”

    Asked about his opinion of Drew Peterson, the juror said: “He’s a good father and he had good defense attorneys but. . .I think the decision speaks for itself.”

    5:55 p.m. Media gathers in Peterson neighborhood

    Four TV vans lined the street in front of Peterson’s Bolingbrook home, but Peterson’s oldest son, Stephen, declined interview requests. He also declined comment when reached by phone.

    The refusal left the assembled camera crews to train their lenses on front of the house, tracking the silhouettes of those inside.


  6. If he is the one, I’m glad he was able to be convinced. Sounds like he was just plain lazy. Didn’t pay attention, so needed the rest of the jurors to get him up to speed when voting time came!

  7. 😆 A caller just asked if he will lose his pension now that he is convicted. NG asked Lopez… He said, “How would I know, I’m not a pension attorney!”

    Lopez is clearly not in a good mood! 🙂

    The real answer is that he most likely will lose it!

  8. Wow…just watched NG grinding on Lopez.

    Best bit was when he tried to defend the decision to put Smith on the stand…came over as an imbecile.

    He also allowed Nancy’s assertion that Stacy was dead to stand for several minutes before challenging her…which suggests he’s not the sharpest of knives…(maybe that’s why he specializes in closing arguments)

    Strikes me as small ugly man with Napoleonic tendencies. Bet it was the jury, and not the the Framers of the Constitution as he suggested, who were barfing after his closing.

  9. Seems all DP cares about is money. Let him keep his pension [for his kids] if he pleads quilty of killing Stacy and tell where he left her. That will prove how much he cares for his kids.

  10. I’m so glad that the jury studied this case thoroughly – 7 votes and 8 votes for guilty yesterday, that then 11 votes today with the one hold-out convinced by his fellow jurors. It shows that despite the prosecution not being allowed to submit all the evident they had and the defense’s constant objections, the jurors were still able to piece this case together and come up with the right and just verdict.

  11. Off topic, but on Nancy Grace, Beth Karas said she could now reveal information that’s never been revealed before about Pastor Neil Schori. Beth said that when Pastor Schori met with Stacy on August 31, 2007, a police cruiser circled the Starbucks where they met. Later, Drew called Pastor Schori and said he knew that Schori had met with his wife. He told Pastor Schori he had an airplane and asked if he would like to go up for a ride! Beth speculated that maybe the plan was to push Pastor Schori out of the plane.

  12. Yeah Molly, just imagine if the jurors in Florida had been bothered enough to do their job! 🙄

    Oxy, you kill me! I’ve been wanting to say for days that Lopez has Napoleon tendencies! Or small mans disease! Oh, and I so hate to be personal like that, but today, I just think it is ok! 🙂

  13. I thought if he gets a pention that , if he put the benifsiarys on there they would get it cause I remember doing that for my pention ,, for my son . so he would not get it but the kids would survival benifits i think it is, he nancy was going at it with lopez lol it was funny and am glad someone is

  14. so Facs…remind me what is the prize for correctly forecasting the deliberation time?…Here was my prediction as posted early yesterday

    “Personally, i was expecting something like a 8-4 opening vote for guilt, followed by a day and a half of detailed deliberation before unanimity is achieved. I am thrilled they are focusing on the Stacy testimony”.

  15. Tired and media wary, the jurors who convicted former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson returned to their homes and offered only a few insights into their guilty verdict.

    Ron Supalo said he was the last of the 12 jurors to decide to vote guilty. He had gone home Wednesday night still thinking Peterson was not guilty.

    Jurors had taken three votes during their first day of deliberations on Wednesday: The first had seven voting guilty, four voting not guilty and one undecided. By the third vote, Supalo said, it was 11 voting guilty and he was the lone hold-out.

    Before going to court this morning, Supalo said he wrote down some questions in a notebook and then discussed them with the other jurors. He wouldn’t say what the questions were.

    “After talking with them, in my mind I reached (that he was guilty beyond) reasonable doubt,” Supalo said. “It was only the hearsay that convicted him. If the hearsay law hadn’t been passed, he wouldn’t have been found guilty.”

    Another juror, Scott Washington, had little to say about the trial. “It was a tough decision. We had to do what we had to do, but I think it was just.”

    Asked what he thought of Peterson, Washington said, “He’s a good father and he had good defense attorneys, but I think the decision speaks for itself.”

    Another juror reached by phone said: “We were cooped up for five weeks in trial. I understand people are interested. … But everybody just wants some time to regroup.”

    Eddie Saldana, the father of juror Eduardo Saldana, said his son did not wish to speak to the media. “He’s very tired,” the father said. “It’s been five very long weeks.”

    Asked if he thought his son was relieved the trial was over, Eddie Saldana said, “Actually he’s been very quiet for the last five weeks. He’s been extremely quiet. When he comes in we’ve had to turn the news off, but he’s a sports guy – football and baseball.”


  16. Lug, as of now I believe is signing his pension over to his son Steve for running the household and taking care of Drew’s kids.

    However he can lose that pension if it can be shown that he committed a crime while on the job.

  17. Before going to court this morning, Supalo said he wrote down some questions in a notebook and then discussed them with the other jurors. He wouldn’t say what the questions were.

    “After talking with them, in my mind I reached (that he was guilty beyond) reasonable doubt,” Supalo said. “It was only the hearsay that convicted him. If the hearsay law hadn’t been passed, he wouldn’t have been found guilty.”

    What a dumb comment…i respectfully submit this juror is not qualified to make the assertion that “If the hearsay law hadn’t been passed, he wouldn’t have been found guilty.”

    Given all the indications of guilt, its very likely that under existing law a lot of incriminating evidence could have been used without the need to change any law in Illinois.

  18. For a legal analysis why the claim from the hold-out juror (from the LOSING attorneys) about the change in law convicting Peterson is a RED HERRING, here’s a lengthy write-up from a Chicago Tribune legal blogger from BEFORE the trial


    In a nutshell…turned out that the new law was more restrictive than the old law on what types of hearsay can be admitted.

    That’s why that legal analyst was saying before the trial started that the new law could actually be the key to Drew obtaining an acquittal.

  19. Drew was served up a plateful of justice today. I am so happy with the verdict, but also realize this does not erase the sadness and emptiness two families have suffered at the hands of this man. -And then there are the children.

  20. Sorry to keep on ranting about the stupid comment by the hold-out juror…but you have to really wonder why on earth he would such a statement. We all know that the hearsay law is going to be one the primary bases of the forthcoming appeals…and the fact that the juror made this dumb and incorrect statement plays right into the hands of the Defense.

    You also have to wonder how he knew about the change in law. It was never specifically mentioned as a change in law during the trial…and i thought these guys were supposed to be blocking out all news about Drew.

    In fairness, the law was passed in 2008…the news embargo was in place from 2009…but given all the comments about the guy not paying attention during the trial…and the hesitant manner in which he answered the media questions…it strikes me a odd he was up-to-speed on the change of law.

    I also recognize that he could have got himself up to speed in the short period following the verdict and before the TV interview…but still why single out that one factor for the national media?

    Makes you wonder if “someone” put him up to it maybe after an attorney/jury debriefing.

  21. Thank God! A jury with some common sense! I wonder if Peterson’s liars…er…lawyers (sorry) know who Stacy Peterson is now? (“Stacy who?” ~ the defense’s reptilian response when journalists asked about Peterson’s fourth wife.)

  22. My heart goes out to the Peterson children, and it’s clear from reading Tom’s Facebook page that some help is needed in that household immediately. Tom is finding it easier to blame everyone else for not stepping forward when his mom cried out for help, instead of pointing the finger at the very man who had her watched, and caused her to live in constant fear. You were there, Tom. And then there are two little ones, who also have lost their mom, Tom. Whose fault is it that Stacy is missing and presumed dead? Do you think these families wanted to lose their loved ones? If there is anyone to question it would be your father. As far as not having anyone left, Tom, there you are wrong. There is a great deal of love waiting for you, and when you’re ready, you’ll find yourself surrounded by healing and loving arms.

  23. I’m curious about Drew’s Pension as well.. I too am a goverment worker, and have just recieved my retirement papers. The options you have are basically this. You have 4 options. Option #1 pays you the most ONLY if you do not list any beneficiary .. The second option is a annuity option.. you get less money but can beneficiaries who would get the rest of your pension payments if you die before your scheduled payments are exhausted. (option 1 is for your lifetime) The other 2 options you have are for spouses only.. Which none of these pertain to Drew or myself for that matter.
    So if the Illinois Public employee retirement system (PERS) is anything like mine here in Oregon, NO ONE gets his pension until he dies.. and that all depends on what option he took.. Option #1 No one gets its it. and Option # 2 Annuity option, kids will have to wait till he dies. My question is, will he loose his pension altogether since he killed Kathy while a Policeman and a PERS member?

  24. This is still sinking in. Guilty! Justice! Hope for knowing what happened to Stacy Peterson! This could be the beginning of a greater justice for his victims.

    I just posted my diatribe and keep thinking about what Neil Schori has gone through and the Peterson children. I hope many, many prayers go their way.

  25. If you watch the video, Ellie, his name is there. He’s from Bolingbrook. I’m not sure which guy he from the two lists we’ve been referencing. I just know he was the guy who looked around a lot and did not take notes.

    And Oxymoran is exactly right about the juror being wrong about the “new hearsay law”. Ever since the appellate court overturned Judge White’s decision on the appeal, the new hearsay statute has not been at play in this trial.

    And please feel free to harp about this all you want. I wish more people took the time to research the case and see that Judge Burmila relied on the common law rules of evidence and forfeiture by wrongdoing exceptions to the right to confront.


  26. I just re-read Tom’s facebook comments , he knows it is true if you look at these words” Who do I have left? Who do my siblings have left? Oh yeah … the pastor, the lawyer, my aunts, and all of my mom’s friends who LISTENED to my mother’s pleas and DIDN’T do anything about it. Now she is dead! What he is saying is so obvious they heard her and took no action on both Kathy & Stacy! He is not saying it is not true but no one stopped it , The other statement about now not having any money! He is frightened and if we could walk in his shoes it must be a horribly scary time! Drew you are a horrible father , look what you have done to all the innocent kids ! So tragic!

  27. Ms. Teal, Drew has been receiving his pension since retirement. It is about $6k and he has been giving it (one way or another) to his son Steve, who is raising his half-siblings in Drew’s absence.

    As was stated above, the only way he could lose his pension is if he was convicted of a felony committed while working. I think they’ll be able to work it so that he loses the pension.

  28. Sad that Peterson has brainwashed all those children. Lord knows what all he told the two little ones about Stacy. Perhaps the reason the Savios had ‘nothing’ to do with them, before AND after Kathleen’s murder (by Tom’s father), was because Drew never let those boys have anything to do with the Savios…as well as Drew AND Steve won’t let any of Stacy’s family see the two youngest.

    If you have noticed, only Aunt Candice has been able to have contact with the little ones, and only because she muffled her ‘real feelings’ about DP and had to swallow her pride. That’s the only way he allowed any family to spend time with them. So sad.

  29. RF, When I saw Aunt Candace on In Session today all I could think of was the sacrifice and self-control she had to have all this time in order to be allowed to visit the children. I don’t think I could have done it.

  30. Me either, Facs! She has been one strong woman…Stacy would be so proud of her.

    On another note–how ironic is it that because of Stacy, Kathleen’s death was re-investigated…and because of Stacy’s words, DP was brought to his knees! I guess Karma is real! Now if only Karma hops on a plane and heads to Florida to continue her good works.

  31. From Tom’s comment above … he does not say that the abuse allegations are not true; his expresses anger at her friends and family who listened to his mom and did nothing. I think he is dealing with this as best he can.

  32. Drew Peterson the Marlborough Man
    Brodsky also received a phone call from Peterson around 7 p.m. Thursday, hours after the verdict. “He wanted assurances his family was OK,” Brodsky said. “Believe it or not, he’s in good spirits … I’ve gotten to know him really well over the past few years, and he’s really doing all right. He’s like the Marlboro man in a way. He feels he can handle whatever comes his way,” Brodsky said.

    Source Chicago Sun-Times

    Yep i can see the similarities…research suggests the Marlboro Man was responsible for hundreds of thousands of lung cancer deaths….Drew Peterson was a cancer on the Bolingbroke community causing at least two deaths that we know about.

    But deaths apart…I”ve got to wonder why Brodsky is continuing to promote this ludicrous image of rugged invincibility for his convicted client?

    I always believed that Brodsky was simply a despicable defense attorney doing his best to provide a vigorous defense for his client… as required by the “ethics” of his profession….but now that he’s been convicted,surely there is no need to keep up the pretense. Makes you wonder if Brodsky is besotted by Drew Peterson and genuinely taken in by the conman.

    And whats all the BS about Peterson telling his attorneys they did “a good job”

    For heaven’s sake Drew, you went down…and your defense team made a major contribution to your demise.

    I suspect Drew is still in the “numb” stage…give him a few days and it will start to sink in…and then it will turn to rage.

    Let’s hope Brodsky is present to watch the rage surface…otherwise the poor lawyer may carry-on deluding himself that he did “a good job” and that his convicted client is a rugged American hero like the now disgraced cancer-bearing Marlboro Man.

  33. @ research..who wrote
    “Figures that Sneed stuck her nose in it again”

    i thought that Sneed was a man,,,,first name Michael…but i may be wrong, because as we discovered recently I’m not the best judge of gender identity!

  34. Facsmiley, I realize he got his pension just before he was arrested. But now that he is a convicted felon, and was a member of PERS when crime was commited, I’m just not sure he can keep the pension. And am wondering if he may have to pay back monies to PERS…If I remember correctly, he retired because he knew he was going to be fired and probably arrested and wanted to get pension in place before it all came down.

  35. OK ..the hold out juror has now given a second interview and seems to have reversed what he said originally

    BOLINGBROOK, Ill. (AP) — A member of the jury that convicted Drew Peterson of first-degree murder says he was convinced of the former police officer’s guilt by the number of witnesses lined up against him.
    Ron Supalo, in a telephone interview Thursday, said despite the hearsay and circumstantial nature of the evidence it was the volume of witnesses that swayed him.
    The 58-year-old Peterson sat stoically as the Will County judge read the jury’s guilty verdict in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
    Supalo said he had little difficulty deciding Savio’s death was a homicide and not an accident as Peterson’s attorneys contended and pathologists testified. He said defense attorneys were unsuccessful in explaining away the injuries the woman suffered.
    Supalo said Stacy Peterson’s disappearance wasn’t a factor in the deliberation

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Volume-of-evidence-led-to-Peterson-conviction-3846172.php#ixzz25kkxjHxK

  36. Who was the juror that sent the question to the judge during lunch without the other jurors being aware of the request for the definition of unanimous ? Was it Ron Supalo? IMO I feel like there is something unusual about this man’s actions , not that it matters now unless his actions will have a positive action on the appeal.

  37. @ Ellie…i’ve not read anywhere that Ron Supalo was the one who sent the “unauthorized” question to the judge. Very strange as all questions usually go thru the foreman.

    But i agree he certainly is an odd duck…he certainly dramatically changed his story…after his first interview the Chicago Trib led with the headline “New Hearsay Law convicted Peterson”. After the second interview the AP led with headline Volume of Witnesses convicted Peterson.

    Watching the video of him being interviewed in his car after the verdict…(the first interview) …triggered my BS detector . Sounded to me like the Defense team had got to him. After the second interview makes you wonder if someone else got to him to point out the error of his ways.

    I also thought your research about his possible contacts with dispatch centers was interesting.

  38. Qxymoran
    I so agree, he almost is acting like the DF team with his conflicting statements. Hopefully he did not make friends on the jury and one of the other ones may shed some light on this guy and what took place as days go by. I tried to get into his facebook page and for some reason I got blocked.

  39. Joel Brodsky at one stage said he did have two “golden” Jurors on the Jury.

    I always wondered what he meant by that ….

    Golden as in extra impartial or some other way ?

  40. That is one strange video, and one strange juror. Seems like he stutters and stumbles over some words and others, he just blurts out. Then, at first he doesn’t admit that he was the hold out, and then he says he was. What an oddball. I just don’t know what to think. Also, why is he the only juror in a hurry to give his story(ies)?

  41. @ Hen…yep i remember the golden comments….well it seems he didn’t get a very good return on his investment!

    @ Hen.. Two months delay in sentencing for a capital murder doesn’t strike me a particularly long…need time to do all the psych reports/corrections officer and police reports..need to fit it into the schedule of the judge/attorneys and give time for victims families to make arrangement to speak, as well as character witnesses. Also got to allow time for loads of legal paperwork.

  42. He keeps restating hearsay evidence , which i think is very unusual for a laymen juror, he said he reviewed his notes but folks said he did not take notes during the trial, I agree he is strange, his story is strange and my gut tells me he is not acting alone. We all know the DF would stoop pretty low to get the verdict they wanted. 2 plus 2 is not 4 with this guy.

  43. @ Research and Ellie … i am gobsmacked by this guy.

    When he started to say things like i need to do some research….i thought omg he’s going to refer to research outside the jury-room…and then he quickly said he had to research by spending 90 mins this morning going thru his notes.

    This is somewhat concerning. There are firms that specialize in post-trial interviews for appellate purposes. I’m sure they are going to love this guy.

    At this point the rest are sticking to traditional jury platitudes. which is good.

  44. I know Oxy! About his ‘need to do some research’…I thought the same thing. And I thought this guy was the one juror who DIDN’T take any notes. Was he researching on blank pages? Hmmm. Something is not kosher here, fer sure!

  45. The guy just strikes me as having a couple of tics. I don’t detect anything odd beyond that. I also don’t see any reason to suspect anything weird or nefarious about him. He voted “guilty” along with the rest and he helped convict Drew Peterson.

    What more do you want?

  46. What a day this has been! I’m still letting it all sink in. I agree that there’s something a bit strange with this juror. I hope other jurors will come forward, and preferably a group interview………like the one they had in the Scott Peterson case. That one was very informative and gave a lot of insights into the jury’s thinking.

    I’m really looking forward to the sentencing hearing! From what I gather, now that Drew is convicted, Stacy’s disappearance is no longer an issue to be skirted.

    We know that Kathleen’s family will testify to their loss. I’m wondering if Stacy’s family will be allowed any input? On the defense side, asking for a lenient sentence, will be Drew’s adult sons. I wonder if his mother, brother, and sisters will be there?

  47. One of the things that’s unusual about this creepy juror is that in criminal trials people do not want to be identified as the person who made the final decision.

    While it may appear attractive to get immediate media attention…which he is obviously enjoying…most people like to hide among the unanimous verdict for reasons of personal safety.

    In other words who would want to have a murderer sitting in prison thinking about them being the ONE person who put the final nail in his coffin?

    Can any of you think of any other juror who has gone public as being the final vote needed for a verdict in a murder trial?

    Bizarre to say the least…and I pray this has nothing to do with why Brodsky seems so chirpy this evening.

  48. IMO, Mr. Supalo is the hero of the day.

    He was not convinced of Drew Peterson’s guilt. Twice he did not vote guilty. The third time, after reading his notes, sleeping on it, asking for clarification and listening to his fellow jurors, he changed his mind and went with a guilty verdict.

    Where would we be now if he had refused to budge?

    I don’t give a rat’s ass if he’s a little odd in his mannerisms and I will not be speculating about who he knows, or what he does. He was the final juror to vote guilty and convict Drew Peterson of murder and I am grateful to him.

  49. OK …Facs…you’ve stopped me worrying.

    Certainly today was a fantastic day for the Savio family and for that we should be truly grateful. We should also be appreciative for the efforts of all 15 of our fellow citizens for their service, and to the 12 sitting jurors for their courage and wisdom.

    No more Sleepless in Seattle for me…tonight I will sleep like a new born baby! Good night all

  50. I made a promise to myself that I was not going to allow any stalking or trashing of jurors here on the blog in the case of an acquittal.

    It didn’t even occur to me that it might happen with a guilty verdict.

    I like to dig and pry as much as the next person, but I just don’t want that done here. Sorry, just a personal call.

    I agree that we need to be grateful for the service that these people gave. They were chosen from a large pool of potential jurors and agreed upon by both prosecution and defense. I’m not going to jump on any of this group. Especially, when they delivered the verdict that we were all hoping for.

    I apologize for not stepping in earlier in the thread to say this. We do have rules about speculation and backing up your assertions with links to a source. Please reread them if you need a refresher.

    See you in the morning!

Comments are closed.