Drew Peterson murder-for-hire trial: Days 4/5

Illinois Assistant AG Steve Nate addresses the courtroom with  Antonio Smith on the stand.

Illinois Asst Atty General Steve Nate addresses the courtroom with Antonio Smith on the stand.

This afternoon, after calling three inmate witnesses to the stand the defense rested its case in the murder-for-hire trial of Drew Peterson.

Drew Peterson waived his right to testify and closing arguments will take place on Tuesday, the 31st. Jury deliberations should begin at about noon that day.

Drew Peterson’s attorney Lucas Leifer first called Jesus Padilla who testified in general about prison scams and snitching and said that he kept his distance from Antonio Smith after he learned that he was involved in some kind of scheme.


Albert Chavez was called next. He testified that he knew both Peterson and Smith and that he would “chow” with them but that he didn’t hang out with them when he realized they were “running a scam”.


Third called was Jacob Bohannon, who was Smith’s accomplice in the attempted murder and robbery that put them both in prison.


Bohannon testified that Smith was not truthful. “Sometimes he tells the truth, most of the time he wouldn’t.”

The prosecution had no questions for the three witnesses and after Peterson opted not to take the stand the defense rested.



On Thursday, the defense cross-examined the star witness, Antonio Smith.murder

Smith was questioned about his role as prison snitch at both Menard and Pontiac prisons. He admitted that he had referred to the the FBI and investigators as “bitches” and spoke about playing them in prison “kites” sent to former cellmate, Adrian Gabriel.adrian-gabriel

Smith also admitted that he had tried to negotiate for a reduced sentence and had promised the feds that he would do “anything” to get them a conviction (of Peterson).

When Smith reiterated that Peterson had told him he killed his fourth wife, Stacy, Peterson shook his head “no”.


Smith admitted that Peterson had never used the words “kill” or “murder” in regards to James Glasgow and that they had not talked about an exchange of money.

FBI Special Agent Brian Clark then testified about Smith’s involvement in the operation. He said that Smith was willing to wear recording device, and he understood the risks.

Prosecutor Steve Nate asked Clark, “Can someone ask someone to commit murder without using the word ‘murder’?” Smith answered, “Yes.”

More investigators were called to testify about how the investigation took place and then Court reporter Karen Moser was called to the stand.

Moser had been court reporter during Drew Peterson’s sentencing. A tape was played of Peterson’s rant from that day.


“Never forget my face. Never forget what you’ve done here.” Peterson said to States Attorney James Glasgow.

Read More:
Randolph County Herald
Chicago Tribune

Pete Spitler – @Editor_RCHT
Matt Walberg – @mattwalberg1
Joe Hosey – @joehosey
North County News – @NCNews_RedBud
Jon Seidel – @SeidelContent


5 thoughts on “Drew Peterson murder-for-hire trial: Days 4/5

  1. Not sure why it seems so critical that the words “murder” or “kill’ need to be used. It’s obvious from the tapes that both Smith and Peterson were discussing the demise of Glasgow. Peterson even talked about what a great Christmas gift it would be when Smith said the job could be done by Christmas.

    I understand that Smith seems to have a rep for lying, but there probably aren’t many people in jail who are sainted men.

    Denying that Peterson meant to have Glasgow murdered because the specific words weren’t used just seems to be denying the obvious. The words that were used clearly conveyed the intent.

  2. Yeah, Granny. To me it seems implicit that Drew was down with Smith’s Uncle killing Glasgow, but not explicit. I’m not sure what the degree of doubt is in a case like this.

    Also agree that the gift of deception is not really a negative when it comes to being a prison snitch. Isn’t that the whole point?

    I thought Pete Sitler’s observation was a good one: Why would Peterson be so spooked by the suspicion that the photo of Glasgow was staged, if he wasn’t involved in an actual plot to kill the man?

    Anyway, even if he’s not convicted on these charges he isn’t going anywhere soon.

  3. Isn’t the threshold “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Unless the jury is told they must hear the specific words “murder” or “kill,” it seems to me that there is enough chatter directly related to what they would do when Glasgow was gone that a jury would convict.

    BTW…..did I read that there was no discussion about how Smith would get paid? Didn’t one of the recordings talk about someone owing Peterson $10,000 and Peterson saying that when he got out, he’d collect that money and pay the uncle? Isn’t that a direct admission that he was setting up a hit?

  4. HI Granny, I’ve been on the road the lasts two days but did manage to read some of the transcripts of the recordings and there definitely is a time when Smith brings up the $10k and Peterson says something like, “Yes. Agreed”

    I was very struck with that as evidence.

Comments are closed.