Drew Peterson Convicted Based On "hearsay" Evidence.

[jdmidwest]

Circumstantial evidence is one thing. First of all it is evidence. Bloody glove, a knife that matches ones in your drawer with blood on it, a bullet from a gun that you once had are all evidence that a jury can deliberate on.

But Hearsay. Second hand account of someone's idea is not really credible evidence.

Based on Hearsay, most on here would convict me as a member of the Tea Party based on some opinions. I have never been to a meeting, know any members, or associated myself in any way with them. But, just because some feel my beliefs follow the Tea Party, they assume I belong. I made a funny about abortion the other night and was accused of being Todd Akin.

It is not really that I care about Drew Peterson, don't know him and could really care less about his life story. It is the fact I care about the fundamental system of Justice, Values, and Law that the country was founded on getting tramped on every day that bothers me. They could not try him based on what was presently in place for over 200 years, they had to make a new law to get him.

[Chief Grey Bear]

You are a teabagger through and through!

[ness]

jd, that view just doesn't square with history. Circumstantial evidence has always been in the mix, (especially in civil trials: OJ). The other notorious Peterson (Scott) was convicted on circumstantial evidence, if I recall correctly. The legal precedent is well established.

What'll be interesting is whether the "Drew" statute holds up and is enacted in other states.

[Quillback]

Circumstantial evidence has put quite a few mobsters away. Those guys are good at making people disappear.

[Feathers and Fins]

I think it will be overturned on appeal. He appears to have been convicted by a law that was purely designed to convict him and a good attourney could easily argue he was denied a fair trial by politicians creating a law designed to convict him.

[Mitch f]

You knew his luck would run out. Kind of like Teflon Don.

[Wayne SW/MO]

While I suspect he's guilty a knew how to cover up, its still an opinion. They had no evidence that there was a crime!

[fishinwrench]

There's a somewhat similar case beginning here close to home, where a female attorney from KC has recently been arrested in connection with her wealthy father and his g/f's murder here at a lakehouse 2 years ago.

If she is guilty of it you know darn well that she covered her tracks quite well, and it'll be a case where heresay may be their only evidence. I'm not even sure what grounds they arrested her on.

[ness]

While I suspect he's guilty a knew how to cover up, its still an opinion. They had no evidence that there was a crime!

Sometimes it's not black and white. She had a nasty wound on the back of her head. Billy club or bathtub? I also vaguely recall there being some comments about the medical examiner questioning the sequence of events: fall-hit head-drown, or drown-hit head.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Beyond reasanable doubt. If the judge doesn't make that clear they'll overturn it. When you have to change a law in 2012 to have a trial, something ain't right.

A cop knows the ropes, but it should work against him.