Bout time this Monster is comvicted!

The world would be a better place if dreamsglore was his last wife. Since she thinks he didn't kill anyone.
Oh well, one less obama voter. acorn better recruit another one to take his place.

ghandi wrote:The world would be a better place if dreamsglore was his last wife. Since she thinks he didn't kill anyone.
Oh well, one less obama voter. acorn better recruit another one to take his place.

Please point out to me,harebrain where I think Peterson didn't kill anyone? Every comment you make gets dumber and dumber.

Dreamsglore wrote:

ghandi wrote:The world would be a better place if dreamsglore was his last wife. Since she thinks he didn't kill anyone.
Oh well, one less obama voter. acorn better recruit another one to take his place.

Please point out to me,harebrain where I think Peterson didn't kill anyone? Every comment you make gets dumber and dumber.

You just earned yourself another rock for your box of ricks that tou carry around as you alter identity. I can't tell the difference between the two of you. Are you twins?

-309 on the idiot scale. Dream of a higher number. Or a -lower one. You figure it out. Try not to hurt yourself while you're at it.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
Circumstantial cases are tried all the time and won especially w/o a body.

All this rhetoric about he said/she said is useless. Whatever happened to an accused Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment?

And yes I understand that people are tried and convicted quite often on circumstantial evidence, but you will not find a single prosecutor that enjoys taking a purely circumstantial case to trial. I don't have the time to look it up right now but I would be willing to bet that more circumstantial only cases are lost than won.

I don't know about how many are won but there are many that are convicted on circumstantial evidence-too many. The 6th amendment doesn't apply in all cases.

We aren't talking about all cases, we are talking about the Drew Peterson case. Since Stacy supposedly told someone this or that and this someone told someone else, then it becomes hearsay. Stacy submits a written affidavit under oath and then disappears the 6th Amendment does now most certainly apply. Like I said, I believe he is guilty as hell, but that does not mean we can fine tune the system to meet the State's goals of a conviction. Just for the record, I also though that OJ Simpson and Kacey Anthony both were also guilty, but according to a jury of their peers, obviously not(note sarcasm).

ghandi wrote:-309 on the idiot scale. Dream of a higher number. Or a -lower one. You figure it out. Try not to hurt yourself while you're at it.

You're just a troll,Ghandi who comes on threads to insult people who don't agree w/ your political views. You don't have anything intelligent to say ever or post anything other than to demean who you think are financially beneath you.Too bad your 20 years in the Navy never instilled any character in you.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
Circumstantial cases are tried all the time and won especially w/o a body.

All this rhetoric about he said/she said is useless. Whatever happened to an accused Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment?

And yes I understand that people are tried and convicted quite often on circumstantial evidence, but you will not find a single prosecutor that enjoys taking a purely circumstantial case to trial. I don't have the time to look it up right now but I would be willing to bet that more circumstantial only cases are lost than won.

I don't know about how many are won but there are many that are convicted on circumstantial evidence-too many. The 6th amendment doesn't apply in all cases.

We aren't talking about all cases, we are talking about the Drew Peterson case. Since Stacy supposedly told someone this or that and this someone told someone else, then it becomes hearsay. Stacy submits a written affidavit under oath and then disappears the 6th Amendment does now most certainly apply. Like I said, I believe he is guilty as hell, but that does not mean we can fine tune the system to meet the State's goals of a conviction. Just for the record, I also though that OJ Simpson and Kacey Anthony both were also guilty, but according to a jury of their peers, obviously not(note sarcasm).

The 6th amendment doesn't apply to exceptions in the heresay rule either. A dying declaration is an exception and is admissible under the heresay rule.People can just as easily lie as they can say what someone told them so I have a problem w/ the heresay rule anyway. For the record, I believe OJ was guilty but Casey Antony I believe was an accidental death they covered up.

Dreamsglore wrote: Casey Antony I believe was an accidental death they covered up.

OK let's leave Drew Peterson for a while and focus on Anthony. Even if it were an accident and a coverup don't you think that she should have had some sort of punishment along with her parents?

Don't even get me started on Casey Anthony, a trial I followed very closely just as I have Peterson. May the rest of her life be a living hell, and if someone popped her it wouldn't bother me one bit.

The new hearsay law that Illinois drafted in response to this case, "Drew's Law," very basically (I'm not a lawyer) says that if there's valid reason to believe that YOU, the defendant, murdered someone in order to prevent her/him from testifying against you, the victim's words can be admitted through a third party. Let the jury decide, as they so often have to, as to the credibility of the testimony. And apparently the law has been tested all the way up through the Illinois Supreme Court, which is why it took two years beyond the initial docket date for this thing to actually come to trial.

I found most interesting the following article from the Chicago Tribune online about the likelihood of an appeal's being successful -- and hope it is correct in presuming NOT:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-appeal-20120907,0,4196697.story

Peterson is a sociopathic, misogynist monster pure and simple. I am SO GLAD he was convicted, and can't wait for him to be charged in the death of wife #4, Stacy Peterson, 30 years his junior, who was pregnant when he disposed of her and called her "disappeared," (RIGHT), when every person who knew Stacy said she would never, ever leave her existing children and stepchildren that way.

Amazingly enough, last I knew Peterson was engaged to potential wife #5, whose father and other family members basically told her long before this conviction that she's a fool and that they wouldn't attend a wedding.

I just want to add that there is a large misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow less valid than direct evidence. NOT TRUE; it's every bit as valid, despite what our CSI-educated society would have you believe.

Seaoat, glad to see you're here, and glad this forum seems a lot less obnoxious than when first set up.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote: Casey Antony I believe was an accidental death they covered up.

OK let's leave Drew Peterson for a while and focus on Anthony. Even if it were an accident and a coverup don't you think that she should have had some sort of punishment along with her parents?

Yes, I do. It was reprehensible how she lied and acted after the child's death but the prosecutors messed it up when they charged her w/ murder. She would have been convicted of negligent homocide if they had charged her w/ something they could prove.

RealLindaL wrote:Don't even get me started on Casey Anthony, a trial I followed very closely just as I have Peterson. May the rest of her life be a living hell, and if someone popped her it wouldn't bother me one bit.

The new hearsay law that Illinois drafted in response to this case, "Drew's Law," very basically (I'm not a lawyer) says that if there's valid reason to believe that YOU, the defendant, murdered someone in order to prevent her/him from testifying against you, the victim's words can be admitted through a third party. Let the jury decide, as they so often have to, as to the credibility of the testimony. And apparently the law has been tested all the way up through the Illinois Supreme Court, which is why it took two years beyond the initial docket date for this thing to actually come to trial.

I found most interesting the following article from the Chicago Tribune online about the likelihood of an appeal's being successful -- and hope it is correct in presuming NOT:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-appeal-20120907,0,4196697.story

Peterson is a sociopathic, misogynist monster pure and simple. I am SO GLAD he was convicted, and can't wait for him to be charged in the death of wife #4, Stacy Peterson, 30 years his junior, who was pregnant when he disposed of her and called her "disappeared," (RIGHT), when every person who knew Stacy said she would never, ever leave her existing children and stepchildren that way.

Amazingly enough, last I knew Peterson was engaged to potential wife #5, whose father and other family members basically told her long before this conviction that she's a fool and that they wouldn't attend a wedding.

I just want to add that there is a large misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow less valid than direct evidence. NOT TRUE; it's every bit as valid, despite what our CSI-educated society would have you believe.

Seaoat, glad to see you're here, and glad this forum seems a lot less obnoxious than when first set up.

Sadly, Stacey paid an ultimate price for her covering up for Drew but you have to question why she did that.It wasn't until Drew started stalking her that she decided she had enough of the marriage and wanted to leave.Savio was dead at least 4 years and she knew her husband had killed her.

Back on topic, here is what one of the jurors in the Peterson case had to say after the trial.

"I'm uncomfortable with the Illinois law that allowed hearsay," Supalo, who briefly studied law. "They made the law just for Drew Peterson — applied it to him retroactively. If there was no hearsay in his case — Drew Peterson goes free."

This is what defense lawyers had to say about the evidence.

Defense lawyers have said the presentation of hearsay undercut Peterson's constitutional rights because he couldn't directly confront his accusers — namely, his third and fourth wives.

The article goes on to say some of the jurors believed Stacy's pastor's testimony solely because he is a man of God.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearsay-bothers-last-juror-peterson-guilty-093521112.html

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:Back on topic, here is what one of the jurors in the Peterson case had to say after the trial.

"I'm uncomfortable with the Illinois law that allowed hearsay," Supalo, who briefly studied law. "They made the law just for Drew Peterson — applied it to him retroactively. If there was no hearsay in his case — Drew Peterson goes free."

This is what defense lawyers had to say about the evidence.

Defense lawyers have said the presentation of hearsay undercut Peterson's constitutional rights because he couldn't directly confront his accusers — namely, his third and fourth wives.

The article goes on to say some of the jurors believed Stacy's pastor's testimony solely because he is a man of God.

http://news.yahoo.com/hearsay-bothers-last-juror-peterson-guilty-093521112.html

I disagree w/ that juror. There was enough evidence to show Peterson had motive,opportunity and knowledge once a murder was declared. By knowledge, I mean he knew she was alone and there was no breakin the house. Remember, the son's house key was missing.He copied the key.

it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

PkrBum wrote:it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

There was still heavy circumstantial evidence but I agree it is problematic when the heresay door is opened. I have mixed feelings on it but only so because I know he did it.

Dreamsglore wrote:

PkrBum wrote:it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

There was still heavy circumstantial evidence but I agree it is problematic when the heresay door is opened. I have mixed feelings on it but only so because I know he did it.

But if you read the whole article that I posted you will see that they relied more on the hearsay evidence than anything else i.e. the testimony of Stacey's pastor.

I agree 100% with Poker, I have an real problem with hearsay evidence specially when this law in Illinois was enacted because of Peterson and retroactively applied it to him. This is setting a very bad precedence. There are several states that do not allow hearsay evidence even to be presented.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PkrBum wrote:it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

There was still heavy circumstantial evidence but I agree it is problematic when the heresay door is opened. I have mixed feelings on it but only so because I know he did it.

But if you read the whole article that I posted you will see that they relied more on the hearsay evidence than anything else i.e. the testimony of Stacey's pastor.

I agree 100% with Poker, I have an real problem with hearsay evidence specially when this law in Illinois was enacted because of Peterson and retroactively applied it to him. This is setting a very bad precedence. There are several states that do not allow hearsay evidence even to be presented.

The thing is it depends on the jury. I think the heresay made it easy for the jury to convict him but they may have come to the same conclusion anyway. A case in point is the conviction of the two twin sisters in Al. charged w/ killing one sisters husband.They were tried separately w/ the exact same case.One was convicted and one was not.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PkrBum wrote:it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

There was still heavy circumstantial evidence but I agree it is problematic when the heresay door is opened. I have mixed feelings on it but only so because I know he did it.

But if you read the whole article that I posted you will see that they relied more on the hearsay evidence than anything else i.e. the testimony of Stacey's pastor.

I agree 100% with Poker, I have an real problem with hearsay evidence specially when this law in Illinois was enacted because of Peterson and retroactively applied it to him. This is setting a very bad precedence. There are several states that do not allow hearsay evidence even to be presented.

The thing is it depends on the jury. I think the heresay made it easy for the jury to convict him but they may have come to the same conclusion anyway. A case in point is the conviction of the two twin sisters in Al. charged w/ killing one sisters husband.They were tried separately w/ the exact same case.One was convicted and one was not.

Every trial's outcome always depends on the jury as they are the one that have the final say. Had the one juror that is against hearsay evidence had just held his ground and not given in this would have ended in a mistrial.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PkrBum wrote:it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

There was still heavy circumstantial evidence but I agree it is problematic when the heresay door is opened. I have mixed feelings on it but only so because I know he did it.

But if you read the whole article that I posted you will see that they relied more on the hearsay evidence than anything else i.e. the testimony of Stacey's pastor.

I agree 100% with Poker, I have an real problem with hearsay evidence specially when this law in Illinois was enacted because of Peterson and retroactively applied it to him. This is setting a very bad precedence. There are several states that do not allow hearsay evidence even to be presented.

The thing is it depends on the jury. I think the heresay made it easy for the jury to convict him but they may have come to the same conclusion anyway. A case in point is the conviction of the two twin sisters in Al. charged w/ killing one sisters husband.They were tried separately w/ the exact same case.One was convicted and one was not.

Every trial's outcome always depends on the jury as they are the one that have the final say. Had the one juror that is against hearsay evidence had just held his ground and not given in this would have ended in a mistrial.

Not a mistrial. A mistrial is when a mistake is made that jeopardizes a fair trial. It would have ended in a hung jury.

Dreamsglore wrote:
Not a mistrial. A mistrial is when a mistake is made that jeopardizes a fair trial. It would have ended in a hung jury.

A hung jury or deadlocked jury is a jury that cannot, by the required voting threshold, agree upon a verdict after an extended period of deliberation and is unable to change its votes. In the United States, the result is a mistrial, and the case may be retried.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:
Not a mistrial. A mistrial is when a mistake is made that jeopardizes a fair trial. It would have ended in a hung jury.

A hung jury or deadlocked jury is a jury that cannot, by the required voting threshold, agree upon a verdict after an extended period of deliberation and is unable to change its votes. In the United States, the result is a mistrial, and the case may be retried.

A mistrial is basically like Ghost_Rider said... and any trial that has no verdict. If an attorney screws up or if something is done wrong (procedurally), a judge can declare a mistrial so another trial (without the screw ups) can follow.

Sometimes, they decide that the case was weak and decide not to have another trial.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PkrBum wrote:it still bothers me that testimony without direct knowledge was the key factor...

but it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

There was still heavy circumstantial evidence but I agree it is problematic when the heresay door is opened. I have mixed feelings on it but only so because I know he did it.

But if you read the whole article that I posted you will see that they relied more on the hearsay evidence than anything else i.e. the testimony of Stacey's pastor.

I agree 100% with Poker, I have an real problem with hearsay evidence specially when this law in Illinois was enacted because of Peterson and retroactively applied it to him. This is setting a very bad precedence. There are several states that do not allow hearsay evidence even to be presented.

It's not going to get overturned because the defense called the Pastor as a witness to tell what Stacey told him. The Ill. Supreme Court changed the law on heresay and there is no more Drew's Law according to a judge who initially heard the case on Geraldo tonight.The law now is you can testify to what a witness said if they were killed because of it or something like that.

My understanding is that the legislature changed the law in 2008, and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the law. However, the appeal will certainly go beyond the Illinois Supreme Court. It will go to the United States Supreme Court, and just like the court not wanting to become judicial activist and overturn legislation in the health care bill.....they will be reluctant to overturn this decision, but this may have some fascinating written decisions, because some liberal judges are going to support this and some conservative judges are not......my personal opinion is that the Illinois Supreme Court is going to call for a new trial based on some errors the prosecution made which the defense called for a mistrial. By allowing a new trial on those errors, it buys time......but the defense attorneys will not sit by idle.....they will take the issue to the Supreme Court regardless because if they can win in the Supreme Court, the hearsay evidence will never see the light of day......and a guilty person will have a chance to beat the system.

Seaoat, the defense initially asked for a mistrial due to prosecution errors, but then Drew stood up and said no, he wanted THIS jury to decide his fate, and they withdrew the motion. In my mind that means they forfeited the right to claim they should've had a mistrial, though they might use it in some misguided attempt to show ineffective counsel.

Gotta wonder why Drew was so anxious to have "THIS jury" continue to hear the case. He was reportedly flirting and winking early on, so may've deluded himself that he'd snared the affection of a woman or two on the panel. Jerk!

Of, or course, he may simply have wanted it over with -- and was likely in pure denial of any likelihood of a guilty verdict, since he apparently considered himself invincible.

RealLindaL wrote:Seaoat, the defense initially asked for a mistrial due to prosecution errors, but then Drew stood up and said no, he wanted THIS jury to decide his fate, and they withdrew the motion. In my mind that means they forfeited the right to claim they should've had a mistrial, though they might use it in some misguided attempt to show ineffective counsel.

Gotta wonder why Drew was so anxious to have "THIS jury" continue to hear the case. He was reportedly flirting and winking early on, so may've deluded himself that he'd snared the affection of a woman or two on the panel. Jerk!

Of, or course, he may simply have wanted it over with -- and was likely in pure denial of any likelihood of a guilty verdict, since he apparently considered himself invincible.

I think you're right about Drew wanting it over with. He and his atty. had an appearance on the Today show booked the next morning w/ limousine and all according to Geraldo,however, they can't file an ineffective counsel on themselves.