Drew Petersen convicted of Murder

[waggy]

So does it look like "common sense" not "evidence/beyond a reasonable doubt" took precedence here? :\

lol good way to put it. I don't think you will find anyone who does not think he killed one or both of his wives.

I am not thrilled at the way they got him though.

 

[Sonikku]

A man had his rights violated this day.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's the setting the precedence that bothers me. Sure I think he did it, but if you can just go changing the laws to suit the need at the time of the trial, they can just do that for anything. It's not something that "we the people" should be routing for.

 

[Brovane]

It's the setting the precedence that bothers me. Sure I think he did it, but if you can just go changing the laws to suit the need at the time of the trial, they can just do that for anything. It's not something that "we the people" should be routing for.

:thumbsup:

 

[SKORPI0]

lol good way to put it. I don't think you will find anyone who does not think he killed one or both of his wives.

I am not thrilled at the way they got him though.

That's the shocking part, question is was his constitutional rights violated? How legal is it to put up a new customized "law" to prosecute the person. Undoubtedly he killed both his wives and he knew the ins and out of this being a cop. One of the key evidence (Stacys body) was of course properly disposed off. In the long run, I think this was the only way they could have put him behind bars. The prosecution counted on the emotions/second hand stories (hearsay) of the loved ones left behind and "common sense".

Here's what disturbs me.

I was a jury in a murder case (wife kills husband at home) 2 years back. The judge told us only to consider only what physical "evidence" was presented in court. Not to use our emotions, not to speculate (what ifs), not the final arguments by both attorneys (not considered evidence). Had to look at video of suspect being interrogated by the police, forensics, police/detective findings on the site, pictures of body with 12 stab wounds, bloody bed sheet, 9" knife, etc. Took us 6 hours of deliberation and found her guilty of 2nd degree. Initial count was 8 2nd degree, 4 1st degree. We argued to no end that she killed him because he was beating her up (after a drinking session in the nearby bar) and grabbed a knife in the kitchen to kill him. Since there were no other witnesses, we had to look at all the physical evidence and come out with a verdict. We had to make do with what was available and presented.

 

[blackdogdeek]

clearly, the state believes the ends justify the means.

unfortunately, i disagree. i also find this very, very scary.

 

[7window]

I am happy this guy got 60 years but I dont know if we prove it overwhelmingly. I know he did it but there is that but.

 

[wirednuts]

Wow. So much for fair trial. Just wait till the next time you get busted downloading a movie.... (yea I just did that).

really dude? that was an awful analogy

 

[ImpulsE69]

really dude? that was an awful analogy

Not at all. It's law, it really doesn't matter WHAT the crime is. If they are going to just change the law to fit who they want prosecuted then no one is safe. (read my later post). Things are bad enough already with pretty much being guilty until proven innocent, we don't need to assist them.

Yes this is a bad crime, but giving them the ok to make changes as they see fit to get a conviction only opens the door to the same thing for anything else (yes..like downloading a movie).

 

[Ns1]

Not at all. It's law, it really doesn't matter WHAT the crime is. If they are going to just change the law to fit who they want prosecuted then no one is safe. (read my later post). Things are bad enough already with pretty much being guilty until proven innocent, we don't need to assist them.

Yes this is a bad crime, but giving them the ok to make changes as they see fit to get a conviction only opens the door to the same thing for anything else (yes..like downloading a movie).

yeah that "open wifi" defense goes right out the window.

 

[unokitty]

no suprise. the State introduced so much evidence that was barred that i'm not surprised. not to mention they changed laws to allow hearsay evidence.

This man did NOT get a fair trial.

While I don't disagree with you, I don't know that this is relevant.

From my perspective, once an issue gets into a Criminal Courtroom, none of the principles are concerned with fairness. The attorney's for both sides are only concerned with winning and loosing.

And in this case Drew Peterson lost.

Though, he didn't loose as much as his two dead wives.

Uno

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

With all the statements that were said but the judge said to toss out, I have a hard time believing his conviction will stick after appeal.

 

[boomerang]

As long as we don't have to pay for a sex change operation for him, I'm good with it.

 

[waggy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-final-holdout-juror-it-was-only-the-hearsay-that-convicted-him-20120906,0,4038517.story



he final juror to change his mind and decide that Drew Peterson was guilty of killing his third wife Kathleen Savio says he was persuaded by hearsay testimony.

“It was only the hearsay that convicted him," said Ron Supalo of Bolingbrook. "If the hearsay law hadn’t been passed, he wouldn’t have been found guilty."

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.



yeah i smell overturning on appeal

 

[lxskllr]

Not at all. It's law, it really doesn't matter WHAT the crime is. If they are going to just change the law to fit who they want prosecuted then no one is safe. (read my later post). Things are bad enough already with pretty much being guilty until proven innocent, we don't need to assist them.

Yes this is a bad crime, but giving them the ok to make changes as they see fit to get a conviction only opens the door to the same thing for anything else (yes..like downloading a movie).

Yea, that's called making shit up as you go. If you make up laws to fit the circumstance, you don't have laws at all. That's little different from government goon squads disappearing you at night. The only difference is you lack the show for the plebes.

 

[0roo0roo]

lol at wiki
Early life and military service

In 1972, Drew Peterson graduated from Willowbrook High School in Villa Park, Illinois, where he ran cross country and was raped numerous times by Jerry Sandusky in the locker rooms. After his high school graduation, Peterson joined the US Army. In 1974, he briefly attended the College of DuPage. Peterson then moved to Falls Church, Virginia, where he trained as a military police officer.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Peterson

 

[xaeniac]

whos gonna play drew petersen on lifetime?


billy baldwin>?

Rob Lowe (Google it)

 

[wirednuts]

i dont know... this is as serious crime as it gets. if he got off like oj everyone would be crying our justice system doesnt work and someone should just shoot him on site.

 

[RossMAN]

What the hell I didn't know his latest wife went missing, she knew about his past right?

http://jolenewipf.hubpages.com/hub/A-Closer-Look-At-Drew-Petersons-Four-Marriages

 

[BladeVenom]

Hopefully he's killed in prison before those hearsay laws are overturned. A win win.

 

[DCal430]

Hopefully he's killed in prison before those hearsay laws are overturned. A win win.

I agree, maybe the state can put a hit on him in prison.

 

[DCal430]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-final-holdout-juror-it-was-only-the-hearsay-that-convicted-him-20120906,0,4038517.story



he final juror to change his mind and decide that Drew Peterson was guilty of killing his third wife Kathleen Savio says he was persuaded by hearsay testimony.

“It was only the hearsay that convicted him," said Ron Supalo of Bolingbrook. "If the hearsay law hadn’t been passed, he wouldn’t have been found guilty."

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.



yeah i smell overturning on appeal

State needs to put a hit on him prison, before his conviction is overturned.

 

[DCal430]

Or maybe the state can stage an "accident", that leads to his removal from society forever.

 

[Dari]

yeah. since they couldn't find his 4th wife they railroaded him on this one.


I find it sad and VERY scary.

Sounds like you think it would be better if he'd just gotten away with it. This is why we have legislatures that updates laws that criminals try to get around.

 

[Dari]

Those that are against the new hearsay law(s), what do you suggest the state do?