Drew Petersen convicted of Murder

[brainhulk]

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-drew-peterson-3rd-wifes-death-194658507.html

 

[waggy]

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.

 

[Mixolydian]

Long overdue. It's unfortunate that there was very little evidence, but it was always quite obvious he killed both wives. Being a cop also makes it easier to cover up.

 

[DCal430]

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.

The man butchered his last two wives.

 

[Ns1]

they had no physical evidence tying peterson to savio's death and no witnesses placing him at the scene. They were forced to rely on typically barred hearsay — statements savio made to others before she died and that stacy peterson made before she vanished. in 2008, illinois passed a law tailored to peterson's case, dubbed "drew's law," permitting hearsay at trials in rare circumstances.

holy shit.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

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.

I very much agree. It's likely that he did it, don't get me wrong... But I am totally against all of the BS cases of late that are based PURELY on emotion and bias.. Add this one to the list.

 

[manimal]

whos gonna play drew petersen on lifetime?


billy baldwin>?

 

[brainhulk]

whos gonna play drew petersen on lifetime?


billy baldwin>?

Donald Sutherland

 

[waggy]

The man butchered his last two wives.

perhaps.but read this thread and understand why i say there is NO WAY he got a fair trial.

 

[waggy]

holy shit.

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


I find it sad and VERY scary.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

 

[Craig234]

I very much agree. It's likely that he did it, don't get me wrong... But I am totally against all of the BS cases of late that are based PURELY on emotion and bias.. Add this one to the list.

Except it wasn't.

 

[Mixolydian]

I very much agree. It's likely that he did it, don't get me wrong... But I am totally against all of the BS cases of late that are based PURELY on emotion and bias.. Add this one to the list.

4 marriages. 2 dead. One wife "drowned" in a dry bathtub, the other went missing without a trace. Hardly a coincidence. The guy is a psychopath, plain and simple.

 

[Ns1]

4 marriages. 2 dead. One wife "drowned" in a dry bathtub, the other went missing without a trace. Hardly a coincidence. The guy is a psychopath, plain and simple.

and all the proof we have is hearsay and circumstantial evidence there merely required changing the laws for the sole purpose of reaming this guy.

maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the fact that they did the above ^^ is ridiculous.

 

[SKORPI0]

no surprise. 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.

Not only that, a new "Drew's Law" was tailored for this case. Not sure how constitutional it is. :\

Hearsay is any information reported by a witness that is not based on the witness' direct knowledge. Its use at the trial could also be grounds for an appeal from Peterson.

 

[Jeffg010]

and all the proof we have is hearsay and circumstantial evidence there merely required changing the laws for the sole purpose of reaming this guy.

maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the fact that they did the above ^^ is ridiculous.

Ya what is this BS just make up new laws every time the government/enforcement wants to, not a road I want to head down.

 

[gorcorps]

Except it wasn't.

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.

All in all though, I won't lose any sleep because he still did it and deserves worse. Just because somebody deserves it doesn't mean we need to start inventing laws though... especially if they can be abused in later cases that aren't so obvious.

 

[waggy]

4 marriages. 2 dead. One wife "drowned" in a dry bathtub, the other went missing without a trace. Hardly a coincidence. The guy is a psychopath, plain and simple.

true. but they need something called evidence. what they have is just friends and family saying he did it.

they passed laws to nail him, they continually told the jury stuff they were barred from telling them (at least 5 times).

To say he got a fair trial is insane.

now do i think he killed them? yeah.

 

[Pacemaker]

Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

 

[Mixolydian]

true. but they need something called evidence. what they have is just friends and family saying he did it.

It's hard when there is no body and no eyewitnesses who saw him commit the crime.

 

[waggy]

It's hard when there is no body and no eyewitnesses who saw him commit the crime.

agreed. but then you have no case. you don't change laws to allow you to introduce evidence that should not be allowed. you do not give the jury evidence the judge barred minutes before (again 5 times).


no way do i beleive the guy got a fair trial.

 

[sixone]

true. but they need something called evidence. what they have is just friends and family saying he did it.

No, they have friends and family saying that the woman who knew him best was convinced that he did it. Big difference.

Hearsay has always been allowed, under certain circumstances. It'll be up to the appeals courts to decide whether it should be allowed in this case. That's how the system should work.

 

[SKORPI0]

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

 

[SpatiallyAware]

agreed. but then you have no case. you don't change laws to allow you to introduce evidence that should not be allowed. you do not give the jury evidence the judge barred minutes before (again 5 times).


no way do i beleive the guy got a fair trial.

It's been pretty clear that a large segment of society doesn't care about our justice system or the rules in place that must be adhered to.. If they "think he must be guilty" then he is guilty... period. Evidence be damned.

If enough people protest, involve the media, etc the justice system will bend. That's been made very clear over the last few years, and it's a very disgusting thing to see.

 

[ImpulsE69]

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