Drew Petersen convicted of Murder

[waggy]

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

that's what started the mess. his 4th wife went missing. they looked for her and think he did it. but again there is no evidence to say he did.

So they dug into his past. since his 2nd wife died they re-opened the case. they managed to find someone to say it was murder. Changed the laws to allow hear-say in and found a idiotic jury.

While i think he killed his 4th wife there is no evidence that he did anything to the 2nd. only "evidence" they have is a "she told me" witch the defense really can't cross examine. Not to mention the 5 times the state introduced evidence to the jury that the judge said not to (and a few times it was very damning evidence).

i think most who are not idiots can look at the case and while think he murdered him say there is no evidence and the guy did not get a fair trial.

 

[sdifox]

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

You don't fuck up the legal system just to get one guy. In this particular case, he would be out in the wild if it weren't for that hearsay law. We are not in the 15th century anymore.

A killer on the loose is better than 300 innocents convicted.

 

[Dari]

You don't fuck up the legal system just to get one guy. In this particular case, he would be out in the wild.

A killer on the loose is better than 300 innocents convicted.

So, what do you suggest?

 

[sdifox]

So, what do you suggest?

not have that law? There is such a thing as a perfect crime.

 

[waggy]

So, what do you suggest?

again its not real hard. IF you have to pass special laws to nail a person. then perhaps you don't have the evidence.

you don't do what the state did to convict a guy. I doubt you will find anyone that thinks he didn't kill his 2nd and 4th wife. but you will find many who think that he did not get a fair trial. This will be appealed and he will win. I suspect it can go very bad for the state also.

 

[Dari]

again its not real hard. IF you have to pass special laws to nail a person. then perhaps you don't have the evidence.

you don't do what the state did to convict a guy. I doubt you will find anyone that thinks he didn't kill his 2nd and 4th wife. but you will find many who think that he did not get a fair trial. This will be appealed and he will win. I suspect it can go very bad for the state also.

So, you have no suggestions. Got it.

If you cannot think of a better way to cage this animal then let others handle it and stfu. These women were somebody's daughters, sisters, aunts, etc...

 

[waggy]

So, you have no suggestions. Got it.

If you cannot think of a better way to cage this animal then let others handle it and stfu. These women were somebody's daughters, sisters, aunts, etc...

you are one dense motherfucker.

/facepalm

 

[sdifox]

So, you have no suggestions. Got it.

If you cannot think of a better way to cage this animal then let others handle it and stfu. These women were somebody's daughters, sisters, aunts, etc...

so you can go vigilante and kill him and the court system can then try you. You don't seem to understand what I am saying at all.

 

[Dari]

you are one dense motherfucker.

/facepalm

You're denser. If you have a better legal route I prefer to hear it, as is all of Illinois, genius...

so you can go vigilante and kill him and the court system can then try you. You don't seem to understand what I am saying at all.

Nah, I prefer the legal route. It makes it a shared effort.

 

[Mixolydian]

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

Yes, according to family members, she was convinced that he killed his previous wife - and she disappeared shortly after.

 

[Garet Jax]

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

I am not sure if your statement was 100% facesious or if only what was in front of the comma was a joke, but the government just changed the law to "allow" them to convict someone they were sure was guilty. Justice was supposed to be blind, but in this case the entire legal system focused on Mr. Petersen and did whatever they needed to do to "prove" it.

This is very, very scary since it allows them to do that to anyone - including you or your loved ones so I hope you are not "good with it". This is a huge travesty and a major miscarriage of justice.

 

[Garet Jax]

So, what do you suggest?

I suggest that we let him go if we can't prove that he is guilty using the existing set of rules.

 

[Dari]

I suggest that we let him go if we can't prove that he is guilty using the existing set of rules.

Nah, the public won't tolerate this.

 

[Garet Jax]

Nah, the public won't tolerate this.

So he was trully presumed guilty and needed to prove innocence. You don't care that two tenants of our legal system were violated:

1) Assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
2) It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to incarcerate 1 innocent man.

The government changed the rules to find this man guilty and if you don't understand the implications of this, then you really do need to sit down and reflect.

 

[Craig234]

You don't fuck up the legal system just to get one guy. In this particular case, he would be out in the wild if it weren't for that hearsay law. We are not in the 15th century anymore.

A killer on the loose is better than 300 innocents convicted.

First, even if one person causes a change to a rulel, that doesn't make the change wrong.
It might be good or bad. Second, you have that saying backwars about '300 innocents'.

 

[Craig234]

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

No shortage of ignorant bigots.

Hey, sex changes are fun, and wasting tax money is more fun, wheeeeeeeee!

 

[Jeffg010]

You're denser. If you have a better legal route I prefer to hear it, as is all of Illinois, genius...



Nah, I prefer the legal route. It makes it a shared effort.

So you are saying hearsay law is a justifiably then? I heard from your best friend that you have child porn see how it work now you need to be locked up.

 

[Dari]

So he was trully presumed guilty and needed to prove innocence. You don't care that two tenants of our legal system were violated:

1) Assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
2) It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to incarcerate 1 innocent man.

The government changed the rules to find this man guilty and if you don't understand the implications of this, then you really do need to sit down and reflect.

1) He was found guilty. Therefore, he was presumed innocent.
2) I don't remember that being in the Constitution...

 

[Jeeebus]

So, you have no suggestions. Got it.

If you cannot think of a better way to cage this animal then let others handle it and stfu. These women were somebody's daughters, sisters, aunts, etc...

I'm curious. Are you originally from the USA? If not, how long have you been here? As others have pointed out, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal principles this country is built on.

Did I think Casey Anthony killed her daughter? You're damn right I did. Did I think the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. Does it suck that she's free when my emotions tell me she should be behind bars? Sure.

Does that mean I would applaud if the government suddenly changed the rules to allow her to be convicted easier? Certainly not.

 

[Craig234]

They used the testimony of the family and friends of the victims for their evidence. If you don't consider them biased and emotional then something in your grey matter isn't firing.

Let's try to explain this.

The statement I responded to was that the case was PURELY bias and emotion. It wasn't.

You responded saying that PART of the evidence in the trial was bias and emotion.

Let's say you're right - you may or may not be - the trial included biased and emotional testimoney.

The case was not based "PURELY" on that. Do you understand now?

 

[Dari]

So you are saying hearsay law is a justifiably then? I heard from your best friend that you have child porn see how it work now you need to be locked up.

There is no history, suspicion, or pattern of me having child porn...

 

[Jeffg010]

There is no history, suspicion, or pattern of me having child porn...

But I heard your best friend say you did you need to be locked up.

 

[Jeeebus]

But I heard your best friend say you did you need to be locked up.

I heard the same thing. Seems we have a quorum.

 

[waggy]

There is no history, suspicion, or pattern of me having child porn...

I heard you did. people are saying you keep it.

 

[Dari]

I'm curious. Are you originally from the USA? If not, how long have you been here? As others have pointed out, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal principles this country is built on.

Did I think Casey Anthony killed her daughter? You're damn right I did. Did I think the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. Does it suck that she's free when my emotions tell me she should be behind bars? Sure.

Does that mean I would applaud if the government suddenly changed the rules to allow her to be convicted easier? Certainly not.

I'm from Texas. Personally, I care more about vengeance. If it goes together with the law, perfect. If it doesn't...

Also, I have no problem with the prosecution working extra hard to find this guy guilty. But this beautiful being rubbed it in our face every chance he got. Every chance he got. He never let us forget that he thought he was smarter than everyone else and that he'd gotten away with killing all these women. So, yeah, he does deserve this special treatment.