• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Drew Petersen convicted of Murder

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
RossMAN said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dari said:
Those that are against the new hearsay law(s), what do you suggest the state do?
Click to expand...

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 said:
So, what do you suggest?
Click to expand...

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.
 
waggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Dari said:
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...
Click to expand...

you are one dense motherfucker.

/facepalm
 
Dari said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
waggy said:
you are one dense motherfucker.

/facepalm
Click to expand...

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

sdifox said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nah, I prefer the legal route. It makes it a shared effort.
 
boomerang said:
As long as we don't have to pay for a sex change operation for him, I'm good with it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dari said:
Nah, the public won't tolerate this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sdifox said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
Dari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Garet Jax said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) He was found guilty. Therefore, he was presumed innocent.
2) I don't remember that being in the Constitution...
 
Dari said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
gorcorps said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jeeebus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top