Drew Peterson convicted today of killing his 3rd wife.

I'm surprised at the verdict. I fully expected this to follow the same path as the Casey Anthony trial.

 

I'll be honest - I don't think that this conviction is going to stick. They retroactively changed the law to allow lots of hearsay testimony in order to get him. I have a hard time imagining that those laws are going to stand up in court. I'm not even 100% convinced he did it, although I obviously wasn't there in court. I feel pretty certain that he did kill his 4th wife and get rid of the body somewhere, but this verdict seems like a makeup for not being able to get any evidence that he killed that one. Maybe he did kill his 3rd wife too, but I'm just not convinced, and I don't think that the state played especially fair in how they did this.

 

Hello? Right of confrontation?

 

Agreed

 

The guy maybe a major douche. The man might be guilty as hell. Maybe he killed his wife. Maybe he killed a couple wives. Don't know for sure. I've kind of followed it. If you can call reading and watching press pieces on the case. I think he probably did kill two of his wives after reading and hearing all the news. But this "Drew's Law" does not sit well with me. It's basically "we can't get a conviction legally so lets change the law, then it will be legal." Evidence laws are not bound by ex post facto I assume (Kirstang?) Anytime you change the law it applies to everyone not just the douche bag they're currently trying to hang. What happens when some zealot DA decides to go after someone else? Some one who might just be innocent. I remember several years back some county DA in some mid-west state who was convinced a young couple killed their daughter. The kid went missing in the middle of the night. They found her body nearby dumped in a field. I think the father went to prison. In fact I'm pretty certain he did until his defense team basically proved he and his wife didn't have anything to do with it. Not certain but I think DNA on the girls body proved their innocence. even then the DA fought his release. Now they were targeted without "Drews Law." I'd bet if the DA had "Drews Law" at his/her disposal both husband and wife would likely have been convicted and would still be in prison.

When the government is given more power so they can "get" one person because they're more than likely a douche many people cheer because they think they got justice. To me that's more or less the opposite of justice.

 

you cannot change the law to catch a guy who you "know" did it but you cannot prove it.

cases like that should be dealt with "off the books"

_

There was a serial killer in the UK who literally got away with murder because the prosecution messed up the case. I think he lived out the rest of his life... but normally with that sort of thing the guy just has an accident.
--- merged: Sep 8, 2012 at 8:06 PM ---
John Bodkin Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you can not legally convict someone then the state should either keep trying to find evidence to prove their case legally or they should leave the person alone. Changing laws to "get" someone is a dangerous path. Street justice even more dangerous. Here in the US we used to have lynch mobs. Wasn't that great.
--- merged: Sep 9, 2012 2:07 PM ---

Yes, that's probably the case I'm thinking of. It's been a long time. Did I get the basic facts of the case correct? I really think they found out the guy (husband/father) had nothing to with it and even after proving he didn't do it the DA fought like hell to keep him in prison.

I've seen that happen before and many times it has to do with a combination of the DA not wanting to admit they were wrong and it's possible the person sue the state for the time they spent in prison. So the state maintains they are guilty.

 

I don't know this case at all, so I won't comment on whether he is/appears guilty... but the one thing that ran through my mind as I read Borla's first post was the above quote.

Though I did consider that the retroactive laws wouldn't be too big of an issue. Judges have ruled in favor of stranger things.

Also: Anyone who has watched The Practice gets a feel for the heresay rules (at least until 2003-ish). I believe only statements uttered in excitement or as dying declarations can be admitted via third persons?

 

Fox was never tried. He was charged but never tried. He couldn't make bail, so he stayed in jail for a couple of years waiting for the trial to start.

 

I think that the local politics can't be under-emphasized here. Illinois is historically a heavy-handed state, and there's lots of cases that seemed like obvious convictions that were later overturned when better evidence came to light. There's a history of torture by Chicago cops, prosecutorial misconduct by suburban DA's, and trial judges who fall asleep. Granted it's not as bad as Tennessee where the judge in the biggest criminal case in recent history (the torture and murder of an attractive white couple by some drug-dealing blacks) was known to be abusing pain killers and sat on the bench anyway while high.

 

This times a thousand. I know jack about Tenn. or Ill. but everywhere I worked their was always at least one D.A., Det. or Judge who was a piece of shit. Either a drunk, a druggie and would simply do whatever, legal or not, it took to get a conviction. Almost always these were known facts in the legal community but due to the local politics nothing was done. I've seen cases where senior officers tried to take down some dirt bag D.A. or Judge only to end their careers working the mid-night to 0700 shift chasing down stray dog and welfare check calls. Hell I know a D.A. who still works in Oregon, Eastern Oregon now- on the coast back in my day, who would be prosecuting marijuana cases and spent his lunch hour smoking bowls.