Not by a long shot.What a weird story. Glad it's over and he'll be staying in jail. Maybe he'll let people know about his 4th wife.
True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
Christo...can this verdict be thrown out based on the stupidity of the jury?Not by a long shot.What a weird story. Glad it's over and he'll be staying in jail. Maybe he'll let people know about his 4th wife.
If that were the standard most verdicts would be thrown out.Christo...can this verdict be thrown out based on the stupidity of the jury?Not by a long shot.What a weird story. Glad it's over and he'll be staying in jail. Maybe he'll let people know about his 4th wife.
Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.'Pipes said:True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.'NCCommish said:I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
It isn't.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.'Pipes said:True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.'NCCommish said:I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
I'm surprised this was the basis for the appeal. Isn't this really hard to prove? I mean I have read of cases of lawyers sleeping through murder trials and ineffective counsel appeals failed.New attorneys filed motion for new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-ineffective-counsel-motion-20121009,0,4232078.htmlpage
It's not an appeal. It's a post-trial motion before the trial court. The time for appeal is tolled until the trial court rules on this motion.I'm surprised this was the basis for the appeal. Isn't this really hard to prove? I mean I have read of cases of lawyers sleeping through murder trials and ineffective counsel appeals failed.New attorneys filed motion for new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-ineffective-counsel-motion-20121009,0,4232078.htmlpage
Ok I was thinking this was part of the appeal process thanks for the explanation. But it's still kind of hard to win isn't it?It's not an appeal. It's a post-trial motion before the trial court. The time for appeal is tolled until the trial court rules on this motion.I'm surprised this was the basis for the appeal. Isn't this really hard to prove? I mean I have read of cases of lawyers sleeping through murder trials and ineffective counsel appeals failed.New attorneys filed motion for new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-ineffective-counsel-motion-20121009,0,4232078.htmlpage
YesOk I was thinking this was part of the appeal process thanks for the explanation. But it's still kind of hard to win isn't it?It's not an appeal. It's a post-trial motion before the trial court. The time for appeal is tolled until the trial court rules on this motion.I'm surprised this was the basis for the appeal. Isn't this really hard to prove? I mean I have read of cases of lawyers sleeping through murder trials and ineffective counsel appeals failed.New attorneys filed motion for new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-ineffective-counsel-motion-20121009,0,4232078.htmlpage
Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
:whoosh:Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
Does the law probably being used in the future to admit evidence that makes it more likely for innocent people to be wrongly convicted matter? It certainly does in my view and using criteria as lenient as "third, the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence." is a huge problem.Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
Really? Ever said anything about anyone in front of anyone that could be construed as a threat? If so you to could be found guilty of their murder. That's all the evidence they had. Yeah Drew seems like scum. But this isn't the way to prosecute people.Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
I think you may be exagerrating just a bit there. If you use common sense you know this guy did it. Hell, he killed his 4th wife too. How many people does this guy have to kill before we put him behind bars?Really? Ever said anything about anyone in front of anyone that could be construed as a threat? If so you to could be found guilty of their murder. That's all the evidence they had. Yeah Drew seems like scum. But this isn't the way to prosecute people.Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
All this shows is that you do not understand what you are talking about. They changed the rules for Drew. But by doing that they changed the rules for everyone. Rules of evidence are there to protect everyone. This is not good policy.I think you may be exagerrating just a bit there. If you use common sense you know this guy did it. Hell, he killed his 4th wife too. How many people does this guy have to kill before we put him behind bars?Really? Ever said anything about anyone in front of anyone that could be construed as a threat? If so you to could be found guilty of their murder. That's all the evidence they had. Yeah Drew seems like scum. But this isn't the way to prosecute people.Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
You are probably correct. I'm just tired of hearing about the rights and justice for the accused. What about the victims? It seems once they are dead, nobody cares about their rights or justice for them. At least not in the judicial system.'Christo said:All this shows is that you do not understand what you are talking about. They changed the rules for Drew. But by doing that they changed the rules for everyone. Rules of evidence are there to protect everyone. This is not good policy.'Johnnymac said:I think you may be exagerrating just a bit there. If you use common sense you know this guy did it. Hell, he killed his 4th wife too. How many people does this guy have to kill before we put him behind bars?Really? Ever said anything about anyone in front of anyone that could be construed as a threat? If so you to could be found guilty of their murder. That's all the evidence they had. Yeah Drew seems like scum. But this isn't the way to prosecute people.Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
Yeah, no one's looking out for the victims.You are probably correct. I'm just tired of hearing about the rights and justice for the accused. What about the victims? It seems once they are dead, nobody cares about their rights or justice for them. At least not in the judicial system.'Christo said:All this shows is that you do not understand what you are talking about. They changed the rules for Drew. But by doing that they changed the rules for everyone. Rules of evidence are there to protect everyone. This is not good policy.'Johnnymac said:I think you may be exagerrating just a bit there. If you use common sense you know this guy did it. Hell, he killed his 4th wife too. How many people does this guy have to kill before we put him behind bars?Really? Ever said anything about anyone in front of anyone that could be construed as a threat? If so you to could be found guilty of their murder. That's all the evidence they had. Yeah Drew seems like scum. But this isn't the way to prosecute people.Yes, when the accused is obviously guilty. I think that qualifies here.Yeah he may be a scumbag but if hearsay evidence becomes the standard it isn't going to be good. And essentially they wrote their hearsay law specifically to convict this guy. Is that really what we want the state doing? I mean they call it Drew's law after all. Do we really want states writing laws tailored to convict certain people they couldn't otherwise prosecute legally? I don't think that sounds like a good thing at all.True but the appeal process will take some time and this scumbag will be in prison until that happens. Better than letting him walk today.I don't know how this stands up in appeal. The evidence was pretty much just hearsay statements by two women who had no direct knowledge of the crime. The prosecution admitted their case was full of holes. I wouldn't celebrate much yet.
It isn't about not caring about the victim. It is caring about the next accused. Who maybe isn't the same kind of person as Drew. Maybe they are even falsely accused. Maybe it is one of us. It happens. So yes it would suck for this guy to get away with anything but it sucks more for someone else, or multiple people, to do time on bad charges.You are probably correct. I'm just tired of hearing about the rights and justice for the accused. What about the victims? It seems once they are dead, nobody cares about their rights or justice for them. At least not in the judicial system.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-sentence-20130221,0,1883440.story38 years
What a jag.Peterson, who did not testify at this trial, began by telling the judge, "Good day, my name is Drew Peterson. I hope I don't aggravate the situation here, but I have a lot of things to be said." Then he screamed, "I did not kill Kathleen!"
"Yes, you did," a woman said.
"Ma'am, I'd like you to leave the courtroom," Burmila said. "And Mr. Peterson, don't make any outbursts that are designed to aggravate people."
"I'm sorry, your honor. I must have been woozy," Peterson said.
...or until death do us part.38 years
death by hearsay....or until death do us part.38 years
So I heard.death by hearsay....or until death do us part.38 years
Nah, it's the sleazy ex cop who killed multiple wives or exwives.Was this the guy who dumped his pretty wife in the ocean and claimed he had gone fishing? That guy?