Drew Peterson Found Guilty

[JoeB131]

This is a big deal in Chicago.

This guy is an Exurban Cop from Bolingbrook, whose third wife died in a mysterious accident, and whose fourth wife disappeared after telling a bunch of her friends he killed Wife #3.

He got convicted of killing Wife #3 today after someone bothered to do an actual investigation.

Drew Peterson found guilty in Savio murder - Chicago Sun-Times

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good.

 

[Bigfoot]

Yeah, the jurors said that without "hearsay" there would not have been any evidence to convict the guy. ~shrug~

 

[Skull Pilot]

A conviction based on hearsay evidence only should not stand at appeal.

 

[martybegan]

A conviction based on hearsay evidence only should not stand at appeal.

Based on what I have read so far, its more circumstantial evidence, and that has held up in court on appeal plenty of times.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A conviction based on hearsay evidence only should not stand at appeal.

Based on what I have read so far, its more circumstantial evidence, and that has held up in court on appeal plenty of times.

I'd have a hard time convicting anyone with no hard evidence but that's just me I guess.

 

[martybegan]

A conviction based on hearsay evidence only should not stand at appeal.

Based on what I have read so far, its more circumstantial evidence, and that has held up in court on appeal plenty of times.

I'd have a hard time convicting anyone with no hard evidence but that's just me I guess.

If the legal system only convicted on hard evidence there would be alot more crimes committed without punishment. I did read the wiki article on it, and Illinois did modify its criminal procedure recently to allow heresay evidence, but only in cases where it appears the person was "gotten rid of" due to the possibility of them tesitifying in a criminal case.

While this is definitely a slippery slope issue, I do see it as a proper response when a person tries to get rid of witnesses against them.

 

[Katzndogz]

Based on what I have read so far, its more circumstantial evidence, and that has held up in court on appeal plenty of times.

I'd have a hard time convicting anyone with no hard evidence but that's just me I guess.

If the legal system only convicted on hard evidence there would be alot more crimes committed without punishment. I did read the wiki article on it, and Illinois did modify its criminal procedure recently to allow heresay evidence, but only in cases where it appears the person was "gotten rid of" due to the possibility of them tesitifying in a criminal case.

While this is definitely a slippery slope issue, I do see it as a proper response when a person tries to get rid of witnesses against them.

Exactly. You understand the law. A killer cannot murder the witness against them, then claim that the statements made by the victim are hearsay. Murdering witnesses is very common. The Mafia has used it for decades.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd have a hard time convicting anyone with no hard evidence but that's just me I guess.

If the legal system only convicted on hard evidence there would be alot more crimes committed without punishment. I did read the wiki article on it, and Illinois did modify its criminal procedure recently to allow heresay evidence, but only in cases where it appears the person was "gotten rid of" due to the possibility of them tesitifying in a criminal case.

While this is definitely a slippery slope issue, I do see it as a proper response when a person tries to get rid of witnesses against them.

Exactly. You understand the law. A killer cannot murder the witness against them, then claim that the statements made by the victim are hearsay. Murdering witnesses is very common. The Mafia has used it for decades.

Evidence is all I would need. He said she said is not evidence.

 

[martybegan]

If the legal system only convicted on hard evidence there would be alot more crimes committed without punishment. I did read the wiki article on it, and Illinois did modify its criminal procedure recently to allow heresay evidence, but only in cases where it appears the person was "gotten rid of" due to the possibility of them tesitifying in a criminal case.

While this is definitely a slippery slope issue, I do see it as a proper response when a person tries to get rid of witnesses against them.

Exactly. You understand the law. A killer cannot murder the witness against them, then claim that the statements made by the victim are hearsay. Murdering witnesses is very common. The Mafia has used it for decades.

Evidence is all I would need. He said she said is not evidence.

Sometimes that is all you got. An example would be a confrontation between two people that is unwitnessed. One guy claims the other guy attacked him, the other guy claims self defense. At that point all you have is the relative word of the two parties.

 

[LAfrique]

This is a big deal in Chicago.

This guy is an Exurban Cop from Bolingbrook, whose third wife died in a mysterious accident, and whose fourth wife disappeared after telling a bunch of her friends he killed Wife #3.

He got convicted of killing Wife #3 today after someone bothered to do an actual investigation.

Drew Peterson found guilty in Savio murder - Chicago Sun-Times

Did you hear his words after he was informed sentencing maybe sooner than thought? (Sigh)

You would be surprised at how many crooks seek refuge in public offices, where they know they are less likely to be sought. Funny how the government often fails to check itself.

 

[Trajan]

A conviction based on hearsay evidence only should not stand at appeal.

I am wondering what the legal differences are in the hear say in the Casey Anthony case and this one

 

[Politico]

I am wondering what the legal differences are in the hear say in the Casey Anthony case and this one

The jurors did their job in that one.

I'd have a hard time convicting anyone with no hard evidence but that's just me I guess.

Hard evidence? They don't need any now. Ain't it wonderful?

 

[The Professor]

A conviction based on hearsay evidence only should not stand at appeal.

Based on what I have read so far, its more circumstantial evidence, and that has held up in court on appeal plenty of times.

Based on what I have read so far, its more circumstantial evidence, and that has held up in court on appeal plenty of times.[/QUOTE]

The jury did, in fact, rely on the hearsay evidence. According to the link provided by OP:

"It was the hearsay evidence against Peterson, the juror said, that convinced him and other jurors to convict Peterson of murder on Thursday in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio."

There are certain exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule however, none of them apply in the Drew Peterson case. The conviction will certainly be overturned on appeal.

What Stacy Peterson said about Drew Peterson's conversations with her would have been considered hearsay even if she had taken the witness stand to offer this evidence. However, When Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, testified what Stacy Peterson had told him of Drew Peterson's conversation, his testimony was hearsay on hearsay – double hearsay! Smith's account of what Stacy Peterson allegedly said she saw was simple hearsay, but hearsay nonetheless.

The United States Constitution (Amendment VI) gives each defendant the right to confront his accusers. By using hearsay evidence against him Drew Peterson was denied that right and the appellate court will not allow his conviction to stand.

Look, I am convinced that Drew Peterson is guilty, but the prosecution messed up big time. Even a first year law student knows the fundamentals of the hearsay evidence rule and a defendant's constitutional right to confront his accusers. The prosecution should never have called the witnesses they did, because even if the circumstantial evidence alone may have been sufficient to convict Peterson (and there is no way of knowing this), the fact that the jury ADMITTED to relying on the hearsay evidence will result in the verdict being overturned - count on it. The prosecution blew it … big time.

 

[JoeB131]

[
The jury did, in fact, rely on the hearsay evidence. According to the link provided by OP:

"It was the hearsay evidence against Peterson, the juror said, that convinced him and other jurors to convict Peterson of murder on Thursday in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio."

There are certain exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule however, none of them apply in the Drew Peterson case. The conviction will certainly be overturned on appeal.

What Stacy Peterson said about Drew Peterson's conversations with her would have been considered hearsay even if she had taken the witness stand to offer this evidence. However, When Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, testified what Stacy Peterson had told him of Drew Peterson's conversation, his testimony was hearsay on hearsay – double hearsay! Smith's account of what Stacy Peterson allegedly said she saw was simple hearsay, but hearsay nonetheless.

The United States Constitution (Amendment VI) gives each defendant the right to confront his accusers. By using hearsay evidence against him Drew Peterson was denied that right and the appellate court will not allow his conviction to stand.

Look, I am convinced that Drew Peterson is guilty, but the prosecution messed up big time. Even a first year law student knows the fundamentals of the hearsay evidence rule and a defendant's constitutional right to confront his accusers. The prosecution should never have called the witnesses they did, because even if the circumstantial evidence alone may have been sufficient to convict Peterson (and there is no way of knowing this), the fact that the jury ADMITTED to relying on the hearsay evidence will result in the verdict being overturned - count on it. The prosecution blew it … big time.

Actually, the IL Legislature passed a law allowing that kind of testimony, and it held up on appeal.

Judges read polls. No judge in his right mind is going to let Drew Peterson back out on the street after killing two wives, because he killed one wife to keep her from ratting out that he killed the other one.

 

[JoeB131]

I am wondering what the legal differences are in the hear say in the Casey Anthony case and this one

The jurors did their job in that one.

I'd have a hard time convicting anyone with no hard evidence but that's just me I guess.

Hard evidence? They don't need any now. Ain't it wonderful?

Actually, the forensic evidence was pretty compelling this woman was killed, the only question was by whom.

All the so-called "hearsay" evidence did was prove the only person who had a motive.

 

[freedombecki]

[
The jury did, in fact, rely on the hearsay evidence. According to the link provided by OP:

"It was the hearsay evidence against Peterson, the juror said, that convinced him and other jurors to convict Peterson of murder on Thursday in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio."

There are certain exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule however, none of them apply in the Drew Peterson case. The conviction will certainly be overturned on appeal.

What Stacy Peterson said about Drew Peterson's conversations with her would have been considered hearsay even if she had taken the witness stand to offer this evidence. However, When Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, testified what Stacy Peterson had told him of Drew Peterson's conversation, his testimony was hearsay on hearsay – double hearsay! Smith's account of what Stacy Peterson allegedly said she saw was simple hearsay, but hearsay nonetheless.

The United States Constitution (Amendment VI) gives each defendant the right to confront his accusers. By using hearsay evidence against him Drew Peterson was denied that right and the appellate court will not allow his conviction to stand.

Look, I am convinced that Drew Peterson is guilty, but the prosecution messed up big time. Even a first year law student knows the fundamentals of the hearsay evidence rule and a defendant's constitutional right to confront his accusers. The prosecution should never have called the witnesses they did, because even if the circumstantial evidence alone may have been sufficient to convict Peterson (and there is no way of knowing this), the fact that the jury ADMITTED to relying on the hearsay evidence will result in the verdict being overturned - count on it. The prosecution blew it … big time.

Actually, the IL Legislature passed a law allowing that kind of testimony, and it held up on appeal.

Judges read polls. No judge in his right mind is going to let Drew Peterson back out on the street after killing two wives, because he killed one wife to keep her from ratting out that he killed the other one.

"he killed one wife to keep her from ratting out that he killed the other one."

Actually, knowledge of a murder and failure to turn it in is against the law. The killer eliminated a witness he created using his forensics knowledge to ensure he would not ever get the justice he deserves. He likely "confessed" in a manner that "if you do that, the same thing is going to happen to you as happened to my last wife that I killed." That should be a huge red flag to the warden to order that one someplace that is extra-restrained, where he can't endanger other prisoners and guards he doesn't like. I'm glad the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Just sayin'.

 

[JoeB131]

"he killed one wife to keep her from ratting out that he killed the other one."

Actually, knowledge of a murder and failure to turn it in is against the law. The killer eliminated a witness he created using his forensics knowledge to ensure he would not ever get the justice he deserves. He likely "confessed" in a manner that "if you do that, the same thing is going to happen to you as happened to my last wife that I killed." That should be a huge red flag to the warden to order that one someplace that is extra-restrained, where he can't endanger other prisoners and guards he doesn't like. I'm glad the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Just sayin'.

Given what happens to ex-cops in prison, I suspect they'll put him in protective custody...

 

[Duped]

Another dirty cop - imagine that, and from Chicago - imagine that?

 

[JoeB131]

Another dirty cop - imagine that, and from Chicago - imagine that?

Well, he's actually from Bolingbrook, which is Republican City.