Bout time this Monster is comvicted!

Drew Peterson, the swaggering former suburban Chicago police officer who generated a media storm after his much-younger fourth wife vanished in 2007, was convicted Thursday of murdering his third wife in a case based mainly on secondhand hearsay statements from the two women.

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

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:Drew Peterson, the swaggering former suburban Chicago police officer who generated a media storm after his much-younger fourth wife vanished in 2007, was convicted Thursday of murdering his third wife in a case based mainly on secondhand hearsay statements from the two women.

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

That's the part that I never knew...that he was a former Chicago policeman. That really brings the thing into focus, dontcha think? I had a friend here back in the 80's who was married to a Houston cop and left him. She really was in fear for her life.

He had his buddies convinced that she drowned in a bathtub. But there wasn't any evidence that there was a bathtub ring and it appeared that everything was carefully staged around the tub perimeter.

hallmarkgrad wrote:It is all beyond me how you could kill someone, most of all, your wife. Then lie and make up bull shit for years on end spending money to "defend" your self. Not just him but any son of a Bitch that can do such a deed. Killing is a hard burden to bear but to stand there and lie over and over about what you know you really did is just something I can not comprehend.

Someone without even a tad bit of conscience.

Yes, a purely evil person.

What length sentence is he looking at?

Gunz wrote:What length sentence is he looking at?

Gunz, he is facing a maximum of 60 years in prison for this conviction. Of course if he is ever indicted and convicted in the disappearance of his 4th wife Stacey, that will probably change dramatically.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

hallmarkgrad wrote:It is all beyond me how you could kill someone, most of all, your wife. Then lie and make up bull shit for years on end spending money to "defend" your self. Not just him but any son of a Bitch that can do such a deed. Killing is a hard burden to bear but to stand there and lie over and over about what you know you really did is just something I can not comprehend.

Someone without even a tad bit of conscience.

A psychopath.

He will win on appeal. The Illinois legislature passed the Drew law which allowed hearsay into evidence. The guy is guilty, but when you start allowing hearsay to provide the evidence to convict....you are going down a slippery slope.

I know a great deal more about this case than I can share, but this guy is a monster and he was guilty. I was under the impression that they never thought they were going to get him on this trial.....this was the throw away, and they were going to nail him on Stacy.....but they won this one, and the Supreme court in a few years from now will be calling for a new trial.....bet on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPfLnviokiw

This is an excellent interview. Take the time to listen. I will only say that Harry is not telling the radio interviewer everything. The defense foolishly called Harry to the stand. Drew will remain in jail because of that testimony. There were only 500 view of this Utube, and I had posted on the PNJ two years ago, inside information on this case......Drew Peterson is guilty as hell.........and if you want to listen to an honest lawyer......listen to Harry......a birdy told me Nancy Grace offered him 100k for a video.......I know what was in that video......he turned the money down. This man put Drew in Jail.

Peterson was 6 weeks away from a property settlement w/ his ex-wife,Savio and tried to intimidate her by breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat. He told her she would never get half his pension or kids. He actually cut a hole in the drywall in the garage and crawled through into the house. He got everything and went to her home on the day of her funeral and emptied it out. He would have gotten away w/ it if he hadn't told his current wife he did it.

Dreamsglore wrote:Peterson was 6 weeks away from a property settlement w/ his ex-wife,Savio and tried to intimidate her by breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat. He told her she would never get half his pension or kids. He actually cut a hole in the drywall in the garage and crawled through into the house. He got everything and went to her home on the day of her funeral and emptied it out. He would have gotten away w/ it if he hadn't told his current wife he did it.

But there again, that is hearsay evidence and like seaoat, I agree that a new trial is in the future for this case. I hope not because he is obviously a monster, but to be convicted on hearsay alone is ludicrous.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Peterson was 6 weeks away from a property settlement w/ his ex-wife,Savio and tried to intimidate her by breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat. He told her she would never get half his pension or kids. He actually cut a hole in the drywall in the garage and crawled through into the house. He got everything and went to her home on the day of her funeral and emptied it out. He would have gotten away w/ it if he hadn't told his current wife he did it.

But there again, that is hearsay evidence and like seaoat, I agree that a new trial is in the future for this case. I hope not because he is obviously a monster, but to be convicted on hearsay alone is ludicrous.

sadly... i agree.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Peterson was 6 weeks away from a property settlement w/ his ex-wife,Savio and tried to intimidate her by breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat. He told her she would never get half his pension or kids. He actually cut a hole in the drywall in the garage and crawled through into the house. He got everything and went to her home on the day of her funeral and emptied it out. He would have gotten away w/ it if he hadn't told his current wife he did it.

But there again, that is hearsay evidence and like seaoat, I agree that a new trial is in the future for this case. I hope not because he is obviously a monster, but to be convicted on hearsay alone is ludicrous.

It was not heresay alone.The testimony from Harry Smith the atty. is not heresay concerning Stacey contacting him for divorce. They have letters from Savio herself saying Drew was trying to kill her--written testimony to the State Attys. office.

It was not heresay alone.The testimony from Harry Smith the atty. is not heresay concerning Stacey contacting him for divorce. They have letters from Savio herself saying Drew was trying to kill her--written testimony to the State Attys. office.

I agree that it was not hearsay alone, but an appeals court is going to have to figure this mess out. First, I am not trying to start a fight with you, but you need to understand what hearsay is......your statement that the letters are written testimony is almost always hearsay, unless you can get the person who wrote the letter to testify, or cross examine. As a general rule an out of court statement to prove something is not allowed with well defined exceptions. The letter you reference is generally hearsay and is not admissible.

Now if Drew Peterson wrote a letter and in the letter made an admission against his interest, it might meet an exception to hearsay, but how can you have justice if a bitter wife who hates him begins writing letters saying her ex husband had told her he was going to drown her......and after 20 letters she takes some pills in a full bathtub with a leaky drain and drowns. How can justice be accomplished if the defendant cannot cross examine the person as to the truth of the statements. Just because it is written down does not necessarily make it admissible in a court of law.

Here is a good example of some of the statements which will be considered by the Appeals courts.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIJrz_UbvqiQt_sg6DV0gkKMdJdw?docId=32ad082fe62f4b55b665a7eb7cdede52

2seaoat wrote:It was not heresay alone.The testimony from Harry Smith the atty. is not heresay concerning Stacey contacting him for divorce. They have letters from Savio herself saying Drew was trying to kill her--written testimony to the State Attys. office.

I agree that it was not hearsay alone, but an appeals court is going to have to figure this mess out. First, I am not trying to start a fight with you, but you need to understand what hearsay is......your statement that the letters are written testimony is almost always hearsay, unless you can get the person who wrote the letter to testify, or cross examine. As a general rule an out of court statement to prove something is not allowed with well defined exceptions. The letter you reference is generally hearsay and is not admissible.

Now if Drew Peterson wrote a letter and in the letter made an admission against his interest, it might meet an exception to hearsay, but how can you have justice if a bitter wife who hates him begins writing letters saying her ex husband had told her he was going to drown her......and after 20 letters she takes some pills in a full bathtub with a leaky drain and drowns. How can justice be accomplished if the defendant cannot cross examine the person as to the truth of the statements. Just because it is written down does not necessarily make it admissible in a court of law.

Here is a good example of some of the statements which will be considered by the Appeals courts.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIJrz_UbvqiQt_sg6DV0gkKMdJdw?docId=32ad082fe62f4b55b665a7eb7cdede52

I know what heresay is.She got an order of protection which was sworn under oath.There are exceptions to the heresay rules.

The jurors when polled said it was the hearsay testimony which brought the conviction.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-jurors-relied-hearsay-testimony/story?id=17184916#.UEqZbKO6ghA


The man killed his wife, but it becomes very dangerous when we bend the rules to get one SOB.......many innocent people are going to suffer if this is upheld or not qualified.

2seaoat wrote:The jurors when polled said it was the hearsay testimony which brought the conviction.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-jurors-relied-hearsay-testimony/story?id=17184916#.UEqZbKO6ghA


The man killed his wife, but it becomes very dangerous when we bend the rules to get one SOB.......many innocent people are going to suffer if this is upheld or not qualified.

It will be interesting to see what the court says. The defense called Harry Smith as a witness. I don't see how they will overturn it on that.

Smith and the minister's statements were powerful hearsay statements which cooked his goose. Nancy Grace want to get a hold of the video Smith has in his possession which shows Drew pulling up to Kathleen's house for a visit with young Stacey sitting in the front seat. Kathleen goes ballistic and starts hitting Stacy.....while lo and behold Drew has brought a video camera and is taking the whole thing down on film. All I can say is that there are not too many ambulance chasers who would walk away from 100k to turn over a video to Nancy Grace......but the man has integrity and he made an excellent witness. Listen to the radio spot and you can get a flavor of this former prosecutors integrity. The defense should never have called smith.....it was a huge error.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Peterson was 6 weeks away from a property settlement w/ his ex-wife,Savio and tried to intimidate her by breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat. He told her she would never get half his pension or kids. He actually cut a hole in the drywall in the garage and crawled through into the house. He got everything and went to her home on the day of her funeral and emptied it out. He would have gotten away w/ it if he hadn't told his current wife he did it.

But there again, that is hearsay evidence and like seaoat, I agree that a new trial is in the future for this case. I hope not because he is obviously a monster, but to be convicted on hearsay alone is ludicrous.

It was not heresay alone.The testimony from Harry Smith the atty. is not heresay concerning Stacey contacting him for divorce. They have letters from Savio herself saying Drew was trying to kill her--written testimony to the State Attys. office.

True that part may not be hearsay, but it certainly is circumstantial at best.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:Peterson was 6 weeks away from a property settlement w/ his ex-wife,Savio and tried to intimidate her by breaking into her house and holding a knife to her throat. He told her she would never get half his pension or kids. He actually cut a hole in the drywall in the garage and crawled through into the house. He got everything and went to her home on the day of her funeral and emptied it out. He would have gotten away w/ it if he hadn't told his current wife he did it.

But there again, that is hearsay evidence and like seaoat, I agree that a new trial is in the future for this case. I hope not because he is obviously a monster, but to be convicted on hearsay alone is ludicrous.

It was not heresay alone.The testimony from Harry Smith the atty. is not heresay concerning Stacey contacting him for divorce. They have letters from Savio herself saying Drew was trying to kill her--written testimony to the State Attys. office.

True that part may not be hearsay, but it certainly is circumstantial at best.

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

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.

We are giving incredible latitude to prosecutors to abuse the system. We all know Drew did it....but I agree that circumstantial evidence combined with hearsay allows the rationalization that it is circumstantial....but when these two are combined, we are going to see the Salem witch trials if we are not careful.

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.