Antonio Smith, a fellow inmate, testified in 2016 that Drew Peterson privately told him he had killed Stacy Peterson. But that allegation was not a recorded confession, Stacy’s body has never been found, and Peterson has never been charged in her disappearance. The evidence supports reporting Smith’s testimony as a significant allegation—not stating that Peterson was legally established to have killed Stacy.
What the inmate testified
On May 23, 2016, Antonio Smith testified during Drew Peterson’s trial for allegedly soliciting the murder of former Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow. Smith said Peterson offered $10,000 for the planned killing of Glasgow. He also testified that Peterson separately referred to Stacy as a “dead woman” and admitted that he had killed her.
Smith’s account was important because it purported to describe a private admission by the person most closely associated with Stacy’s disappearance. However, the alleged conversation about Stacy was not recorded. Smith did not testify that Peterson told him where Stacy’s body was, and the testimony did not result in a homicide charge against Peterson.
The careful, factually supportable wording is: Antonio Smith testified that Drew Peterson admitted killing Stacy Peterson. It is not accurate to call the allegation a confession caught on tape.
#1 Best Overall
The recordings did not contain the alleged Stacy confession
Recordings made during the murder-for-hire investigation were played for the jury. They concerned conversations between Smith and Peterson about the alleged plot against Glasgow. In one recorded statement, Peterson said that “Stacy’s still alive.”
That statement conflicts with Smith’s testimony that Peterson had previously admitted killing Stacy. The contradiction does not by itself prove which account was true, but it is essential context when assessing the allegation. Smith was a cooperating inmate involved in the investigation, the alleged admission was unrecorded, and no publicly established physical evidence located Stacy or confirmed how she died.
What happened to Stacy Peterson
Stacy Peterson was reported missing from Bolingbrook, Illinois, on October 28, 2007. Peterson told investigators that she had left because of marital problems. Her family and investigators regarded the circumstances as suspicious, particularly because evidence presented later indicated that Stacy was considering divorce.
Stacy’s disappearance also drew renewed attention to the death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. Stacy’s body has never been found. Peterson has never been charged in Stacy’s disappearance, and the case remains legally unresolved. Depending on the context, the most accurate descriptions are “missing,” “disappeared,” or “presumed dead”—not “murder victim” stated as an established fact.
Rank #2
- True Crime / Chicago murder / young wife killed, old husband suspected
How Kathleen Savio’s murder case is connected—and different
Peterson was convicted in 2012 of first-degree murder in the death of Kathleen Savio and received a 38-year sentence. Illinois Supreme Court records state that Savio was found in a bathtub in March 2004. Her death had initially been classified as an accidental drowning. After Stacy disappeared, Savio’s body was exhumed, and later forensic examinations concluded that Savio had been the victim of a homicide.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed Peterson’s conviction in 2017. Its opinion discussed evidence that Savio had serious concerns about Peterson. It also described testimony that Stacy had told pastor Neil Schori that Peterson admitted killing Savio and coached her to lie to police, as well as evidence that Stacy was considering divorce shortly before she disappeared.
Those facts explain why Stacy’s disappearance became central to the renewed investigation into Savio’s death. They do not, however, establish that Peterson killed Stacy. The Savio conviction is a legal finding about Savio’s murder; it is not a conviction or judicial determination in Stacy’s case.
| Question | What the record establishes |
|---|---|
| Was Peterson convicted of killing Kathleen Savio? | Yes. His first-degree-murder conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2017. |
| Was Peterson convicted of killing Stacy Peterson? | No. |
| Was Peterson charged in Stacy’s disappearance? | No charge has been filed against him in that matter. |
| Has Stacy been found? | No. Her body has not been found. |
| Was the alleged admission recorded? | No. Smith’s testimony concerned unrecorded conversations. |
| Is there a recorded statement about Stacy? | Yes. In a separate recorded conversation, Peterson said that “Stacy’s still alive.” |
How strong was Antonio Smith’s account?
Smith’s testimony had genuine evidentiary significance: it was given under oath in a criminal trial by a person who had direct contact with Peterson. But it also had important limitations.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
- No recording: The alleged admission was not captured on the recordings later played for the jury.
- A cooperating witness: Smith was involved in the murder-for-hire investigation and had an incentive to assist prosecutors.
- Contradictory recorded evidence: Peterson was recorded saying that Stacy was still alive.
- No publicly established location of remains: Smith did not provide a body location, and Stacy has not been found.
- No Stacy homicide charge: The allegation did not lead to a charge against Peterson for killing Stacy.
On that basis, Smith’s account can reasonably be described as a serious, firsthand allegation with medium evidentiary significance. It should not be presented as an uncontested confession or as proof that has resolved Stacy’s disappearance.
The later claim by Peterson’s former attorney
In 2022, Peterson’s former attorney, Joel Brodsky, publicly suggested that he knew what had happened to Stacy and might disclose it. An Illinois appellate opinion records that a trial court barred Brodsky from revealing information obtained during his representation. The ruling cited attorney-client privilege and the possible effect disclosure could have on Peterson’s post-conviction proceedings.
The court’s order documents the dispute over disclosure; it does not establish that Brodsky’s claim was true, identify Stacy’s whereabouts, or prove that Peterson killed her. That distinction matters because later statements by lawyers, witnesses, or investigators are not automatically findings of fact.
Why the headline needs the words “inmate says”
The headline is supportable when “inmate says” remains prominent and the article immediately explains that the claim came from Smith’s sworn testimony. Removing that attribution would change an allegation into an asserted fact.
Rank #4
A responsible summary would read:
A fellow inmate testified in 2016 that Drew Peterson privately admitted killing Stacy Peterson, but the alleged admission was not recorded, Peterson was never charged in Stacy’s disappearance, and Stacy has never been found.
That framing also avoids two common errors: saying Peterson confessed to Stacy’s killing on tape, and treating his conviction in Kathleen Savio’s death as proof of a separate offense involving Stacy.
Further reading about the case
Readers who want a longer narrative should understand the difference between a secondary true-crime account and a court record. Cold as Ice by Carlton Smith covers Peterson, Savio, and Stacy’s disappearance in book form; it is not a substitute for the trial transcripts or judicial opinions.
Disclosure: This is a reader recommendation, and availability may vary. Confirm the current edition and seller before purchasing. For primary legal context, the Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion affirming Peterson’s Savio conviction and the relevant Illinois appellate opinion about the later attorney-disclosure dispute are more authoritative than any commercial narrative.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsBottom line
Drew Peterson was legally convicted of Kathleen Savio’s murder, not Stacy Peterson’s. In 2016, Antonio Smith testified that Peterson admitted killing Stacy in an unrecorded conversation. That allegation remains one of the most consequential claims connected to Stacy’s disappearance, but it is contradicted by a recorded statement in which Peterson said Stacy was still alive, unsupported by a recovered body, and not the basis for a homicide charge. Stacy Peterson remains missing, and her disappearance has not been resolved in court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Drew Peterson confess to killing Stacy Peterson on tape?
No. Antonio Smith testified that Peterson made the alleged admission during an unrecorded conversation. Separate recordings played during the murder-for-hire trial included Peterson saying that “Stacy’s still alive.”
Was Drew Peterson charged with killing Stacy Peterson?
No. Peterson was never charged in Stacy’s disappearance. He was convicted of murdering Kathleen Savio, his third wife, in a separate case.
Has Stacy Peterson been found?
No. Stacy disappeared in Bolingbrook, Illinois, on October 28, 2007, and her body has not been found.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Who said Drew Peterson admitted killing Stacy?
Antonio Smith, a fellow inmate and cooperating witness, gave that testimony during Peterson’s 2016 trial for soliciting the murder of former State’s Attorney James Glasgow.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Antonio Smith testified under oath that Drew Peterson admitted killing Stacy Peterson, but the alleged admission was not recorded. Peterson has never been charged in Stacy’s disappearance, Stacy has never been found, and a separate recording included Peterson saying she was still alive. The allegation must therefore remain attributed testimony, not a judicially established confession.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
