1 of 1
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Jury convicts Drew Peterson
I'm stunned at this result. But I guess it goes to prove that juries tend to reach their decisions based on likeability of the parties and their lawyers. This guy has come across as a complete dick from the moment his 4th wife disappeared. My guess, karma jumped up and bit him in the ass.
Having said that, I'll be curious to see if this verdict, and the new law on which it's based, survives an appeal.
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Jury convicts Drew Peterson
I assume by new law you are speaking of the hearsay stuff that was allowed in?
I am alittle stunned as well. I think that he was guilty but from what I could tell there wasnt alot of proof or really any. I havent read about the verdict yet. I did watch alot of the coverage on TV and thought the case was very weak. I dont know how much of Stacy Peterson's disappearance was let into court. At one time I thought none was going to be let in then I beleive the defense brought her up for some reason. I dont know if the jury convicted him because they thought it highly unlikely that he didnt have something to do it or if it was based off of the case before them. What is the likelyhood that a guy who has had 4 young wives in his life, one is dead, another is unaccounted for and he didnt killed the last two? Zero if you ask me. I also wonder if this being a high profile case like Casey Anthony's didnt lead to the jury want to keep from recieving the same criticism that the Anthony jury got. Olny the 12 know but I think they did a fine job.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Jury convicts Drew Peterson
APIAD wrote:
I assume by new law you are speaking of the hearsay stuff that was allowed in?
Correct. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to confront/cross examine your accusers. Allowing hearsay denies one that right. However, there are many accepted exceptions to the Hearsay Rule and there was other evidence. Still, without the hearsay testimony you have to wonder if the prosecutors even try this case.
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Jury convicts Drew Peterson
I assume by new law you are speaking of the hearsay stuff that was allowed in?
Correct. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to confront/cross examine your accusers. Allowing hearsay denies one that right. However, there are many accepted exceptions to the Hearsay Rule and there was other evidence. Still, without the hearsay testimony you have to wonder if the prosecutors even try this case.
I doubt it they could have.
""Drew's Law," tailored to Peterson's case. That hearsay, prosecutors had said, would let his third and fourth wives "speak from their graves" through family and friends"
So basicly doesnt that mean anytime it is a murder cases hearsay could be let into court? On one hand it isnt fair that because he killed Savio her statement are meaningless. On the other it isnt fair that family be allowed to say whatever they want to get him convicted.
From what I could tell from the coverage the olny damning information that was hearsay was the guy offered to killer her for money. Her being found dead in the bathtub was kind of a wash and the experts just offset eachother.