• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drew Peterson sentenced to 38 years for wife's death

Which is exactly what would have happened. When they let her walk, I lost all faith in the jury system.
 
OK - what other option would the law have, with regards to hearsay evidence? He killed two wives. Neither of them can testify against him, and being a cop, he was smart enough to make it look like an accident. If he hadn't killed Stacy, he would have gotten away with Kathleen. But seeing as how they are both dead, and can't testify against him, what other choice did they have? How else could they prosecute him when he is so good at covering up the evidence?

And, if we think about it, what's wrong with a friend or family member testifying that the "victim" told them that her husband was threatening her? The defense has plenty of opportunity to cross examine the witness to ensure he/she isn't making it up. The only real question then is was the victim delusional. Well, she did end up dead. Right?

We ought to think of it this way. How many of people out there have had wives die suspiciously? And, if they did, how many of those were telling their friends that that she thought her husband would kill her, that the husband even threatened to kill her? Who in their right mind thinks this information shouldn't be admitted into evidence at trial?
 
You are soooo sensitive, Ex... But you're completely right. I wouldn't make a good lawyer. It takes a person willing to use selective ethics to be an attorney.
It isn't sensitivity.
It is my way of showing when a person has made an uncalled for and inappropriate comment. Which is not needed in debate.
I throw it back in the persons face.


And as for selective ethics.
Not necessarily.

You do not have to violate your ethics to provide the best defense you can withing the confines of the law.
Or in other words; Make the State prove their case.
 
They could have had a Floriduh jury and he would have walked like Casey Anthony. ;)

She walked because the prosecutor did not do the job of presenting enough evidence to hammer her.

Juries can only make decisions based upon the evidence presented.
 
It isn't sensitivity.
It is my way of showing when a person has made an uncalled for and inappropriate comment. Which is not needed in debate.
I throw it back in the persons face.


And as for selective ethics.
Not necessarily.

You do not have to violate your ethics to provide the best defense you can withing the confines of the law.
Or in other words; Make the State prove their case.

Which part of my post was inappropriate? The part where I asked you if you believed Peterson was innocent? Or suggesting you would make a good criminal attorney...or both?
 
And, if we think about it, what's wrong with a friend or family member testifying that the "victim" told them that her husband was threatening her? The defense has plenty of opportunity to cross examine the witness to ensure he/she isn't making it up. The only real question then is was the victim delusional. Well, she did end up dead. Right?

We ought to think of it this way. How many of people out there have had wives die suspiciously? And, if they did, how many of those were telling their friends that that she thought her husband would kill her, that the husband even threatened to kill her? Who in their right mind thinks this information shouldn't be admitted into evidence at trial?

All that is required to refute this is a conspiracy of people against the accused, who is innocent, and the defendant loses unjustly.
 
All that is required to refute this is a conspiracy of people against the accused, who is innocent, and the defendant loses unjustly.

OJ walked. Right? Convictions do not just drop out of the sky. Juries are usually pretty skeptical.
 
Which part of my post was inappropriate? The part where I asked you if you believed Peterson was innocent? Or suggesting you would make a good criminal attorney...or both?
Didn't I just explain what I do?

I think If you look at what I threw back you should be able to tell.

Maybe I should throw back your exaggerational sensitivity comment too?
 
didn't i just explain what i do?

I think if you look at what i threw back you should be able to tell.

Maybe i should throw back your exaggerational sensitivity comment too?

ex...

This is an open thread "apology" for the "inappropriate posts" that i made to you!
 
OJ walked. Right? Convictions do not just drop out of the sky. Juries are usually pretty skeptical.

Yeah, I know.

I just figure that, God forbid, I am ever in front of a jury myself, that I get every advantage I can to prove my innocence.
 
Yeah, I know.

I just figure that, God forbid, I am ever in front of a jury myself, that I get every advantage I can to prove my innocence.

Well...I hear ya. I'm not a big fan of Law and Order prosecution teams myself. But...I think I hate those who beat their wives and kill them even more.
 
The O.J. Simpson trial was not typical at all, not from the seating of the jurors (or, rather, who was excluded from the jury) to the incompetence of the prosecution to the star-struck Judge Ito.

I strongly recommend this Bugliosi book: Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder: Vincent Bugliosi: 9780393330830: Amazon.com: Books
I blame the cops, starting with the lying, perjuring, racist. Mark what's his name, who found the glove. He's not on the case, OJ does life.
 
Well...I hear ya. I'm not a big fan of Law and Order prosecution teams myself. But...I think I hate those who beat their wives and kill them even more.

Cal (can I call you Cal?) I completely agree with you.

I have lost several friends due to domestic violence.

Having personal knowledge, I would have shot the estranged husbands myself if I had known that the last step would have been murder, but, alas, I did not know until it was too late.

I think Peterson is pure scum, but I still want the legal system to be as fair as possible, even knowing that a few dicks like Drew might slip through.

A local prosecutor told me years ago, when I was bitching about the rights of accused murders, that "I would want every break that I could get if I was ever wrongfully charged myself".

I never forgot his words, and he was a real hard-case DA.
 
I am torn on this issue. Sure, Peterson seems like a sociopathic scum bag, but convicting him on hearsay evidence? I have to say no to this, and for very good reason. About 15 years ago, I was taken in for questioning in regard to a robbery near where I live. Why? Because the car used in the robbery was the same color and make as mine. The police were not interested in the truth. They wanted to close the case, and tried very hard to get me to confess to something I never did. The main reason I was not charged was because, at the time of the robbery, I was about 60 miles away, playing in front of more than 200 people. While the police were threatening to beat my ass, I lost my temper and told one of them to go **** his mother. He was restrained from beating me by another cop, who then acted all nice, and told me to make it easy on myself and confess. I told him to charge me, and when this goes to court, I would make damn sure that every one of those 200 plus people who watched me play would take the stand, and tie the court up for months. I then told him to either check out my alibi and let me go, or charge me right now. I told him the interview was over, and I wanted a lawyer. He asked me what I had to hide. I told him the only thing I had to hide was my fear of being railroaded by a scum bag like him. I told him again to either charge me or check out my alibi, and that I wanted a lawyer. After about 5 hours of this kind of crap, they let me go. The next day, they got the guy that did the robbery. About a week later, I saw the same cop that had taken me in inside a convenience store, and he was staring at me - The freakin' nerve of him. I gave him the finger. He did not arrest me for it. The key here is, had I not been at a club 60 miles away, playing in front of more than 200 people who could witness in court my whereabouts at the time, I could very well have been convicted of something I never did.

From this experience, I can emphatically say that I do NOT trust our justice system to mete out justice in any way, shape, or form. I only trust them to do whatever it takes to close a case, even if their primary victim is innocent. Hearsay? Hell no!! I am sure this case will be thrown out on appeal. It's not that I support this wife-killing scumbag. It's that I support the Constitution of the United States of America. This is not Iran, although there are a few cops (not most of them, but enough of them) who wish this were a state where cases could be closed on the backs of the nearest people to their lazy no good asses, whether or not they did the crime.
 
Last edited:
Cal (can I call you Cal?) I completely agree with you.

I have lost several friends due to domestic violence.

Having personal knowledge, I would have shot the estranged husbands myself if I had known that the last step would have been murder, but, alas, I did not know until it was too late.

I think Peterson is pure scum, but I still want the legal system to be as fair as possible, even knowing that a few dicks like Drew might slip through.

A local prosecutor told me years ago, when I was bitching about the rights of accused murders, that "I would want every break that I could get if I was ever wrongfully charged myself".

I never forgot his words, and he was a real hard-case DA.
Agree. And. I'm usually on that page. But, for some reason, I see this guy's guilt much more clearly than I feel comfortable ignoring.

Maybe it's the two wives dying or disappearing mysteriously thing. Maybe it's the actual hearsay evidence and how it rings so true with what others have said before they too died at the hands of an abusive spouse. Maybe, it's just his scummy demeanor. I don't know.

It's too bad new law has to be made in order to convict this guy. It's possible that the maneuver doesn't hold up on appeal. But, until then, I've gotta cheer should this guy get shanked on the way back to his cell one day.
 
I am torn on this issue. Sure, Peterson seems like a sociopathic scum bag, but convicting him on hearsay evidence? I have to say no to this, and for very good reason. About 15 years ago, I was taken in for questioning in regard to a robbery near where I live. Why? Because the car used in the robbery was the same color and make as mine. The police were not interested in the truth. They wanted to close the case, and tried very hard to get me to confess to something I never did. The main reason I was not charged was because, at the time of the robbery, I was about 60 miles away, playing in front of more than 200 people. While the police were threatening to beat my ass, I lost my temper and told one of them to go **** his mother. He was restrained from beating me by another cop, who then acted all nice, and told me to make it easy on myself and confess. I told him to charge me, and when this goes to court, I would make damn sure that every one of those 200 plus people who watched me play would take the stand, and tie the court up for months. I then told him to either check out my alibi and let me go, or charge me right now. I told him the interview was over, and I wanted a lawyer. He asked me what I had to hide. I told him the only thing I had to hide was my fear of being railroaded by a scum bag like him. I told him again to either charge me or check out my alibi, and that I wanted a lawyer. After about 5 hours of this kind of crap, they let me go. The next day, they got the guy that did the robbery. About a week later, I saw the same cop that had taken me in inside a convenience store, and he was staring at me - The freakin' nerve of him. I gave him the finger. He did not arrest me for it. The key here is, had I not been at a club 60 miles away, playing in front of more than 200 people who could witness in court my whereabouts at the time, I could very well have been convicted of something I never did.

From this experience, I can emphatically say that I do NOT trust our justice system to mete out justice in any way, shape, or form. I only trust them to do whatever it takes to close a case, even if their primary victim is innocent. Hearsay? Hell no!! I am sure this case will be thrown out on appeal. It's not that I support this wife-killing scumbag. It's that I support the Constitution of the United States of America. This is not Iran, although there are a few cops (not most of them, but enough of them) who wish this were a state where cases could be closed on the backs of the nearest people to their lazy no good asses, whether or not they did the crime.

This is the exact point of hearsay. The LE could even pick up DNA from someplace one was at, where a crime was committed. Yet at the time one could be someplace else and in front of dozens of witnesses. One will be taken in questioned. Which means they will be picked up. Moreover they could be charged. Still have to go thru all the court BS. Even if found innocent.

Many of us like seeing Peterson get his just desserts. But not at the expense of braking down the Law just so the Prosecution can subvert the law to get a victory.

Moreover again.....he will not see the inside of a MAX Prison and where he is going getting shanked is a very very unlikely possibility.
 
She walked because the prosecutor did not do the job of presenting enough evidence to hammer her.

Juries can only make decisions based upon the evidence presented.

There was evidence presented to show coordinated plan of deceit (conspiracy?), a body dumped in a swampy area and the unreported (EVER) death of a child. Kids do not just "disappear" and then later multiple and conficting "stories" emerge. Those things cannot be legal even in Floriduh. It does not take a brilliant defense if you have morons for prosecutors and sitting in the jury box. I would have started small, as that does not preclude adding greater criminal charges when (if?) further evidence permits. That whole Anthony family should have been behind bars (except for possibly the brother).
 
Agree. And. I'm usually on that page. But, for some reason, I see this guy's guilt much more clearly than I feel comfortable ignoring.

Maybe it's the two wives dying or disappearing mysteriously thing. Maybe it's the actual hearsay evidence and how it rings so true with what others have said before they too died at the hands of an abusive spouse. Maybe, it's just his scummy demeanor. I don't know.

It's too bad new law has to be made in order to convict this guy. It's possible that the maneuver doesn't hold up on appeal. But, until then, I've gotta cheer should this guy get shanked on the way back to his cell one day.

Yeah, I know exactly what you feel, as I share the same opinion of him.

The issue is if a change to the law that might allow questionable or invalid evidence into the courtroom is worth the potential loss to an innocent defendant.

I am glad that this weasel was finally caught, but I fear the repercussions of bad evidence in future trials/
 
Yeah, I know exactly what you feel, as I share the same opinion of him.

The issue is if a change to the law that might allow questionable or invalid evidence into the courtroom is worth the potential loss to an innocent defendant.

I am glad that this weasel was finally caught, but I fear the repercussions of bad evidence in future trials/
Hearsay evidence, if the person saying it is not available for cross examination or wasn't under oath while saying it (as in a sworn affidavit), is questionable. I would hope the jury did not convict on that testimony alone.
 
I'm torn on this issue too. As much as I THINK he is guilty as hell, I wonder about the evidence presented.
 
I am torn on this issue. Sure, Peterson seems like a sociopathic scum bag, but convicting him on hearsay evidence? I have to say no to this, and for very good reason. About 15 years ago, I was taken in for questioning in regard to a robbery near where I live. Why? Because the car used in the robbery was the same color and make as mine. The police were not interested in the truth. They wanted to close the case, and tried very hard to get me to confess to something I never did. The main reason I was not charged was because, at the time of the robbery, I was about 60 miles away, playing in front of more than 200 people. While the police were threatening to beat my ass, I lost my temper and told one of them to go **** his mother. He was restrained from beating me by another cop, who then acted all nice, and told me to make it easy on myself and confess. I told him to charge me, and when this goes to court, I would make damn sure that every one of those 200 plus people who watched me play would take the stand, and tie the court up for months. I then told him to either check out my alibi and let me go, or charge me right now. I told him the interview was over, and I wanted a lawyer. He asked me what I had to hide. I told him the only thing I had to hide was my fear of being railroaded by a scum bag like him. I told him again to either charge me or check out my alibi, and that I wanted a lawyer. After about 5 hours of this kind of crap, they let me go. The next day, they got the guy that did the robbery. About a week later, I saw the same cop that had taken me in inside a convenience store, and he was staring at me - The freakin' nerve of him. I gave him the finger. He did not arrest me for it. The key here is, had I not been at a club 60 miles away, playing in front of more than 200 people who could witness in court my whereabouts at the time, I could very well have been convicted of something I never did.

From this experience, I can emphatically say that I do NOT trust our justice system to mete out justice in any way, shape, or form. I only trust them to do whatever it takes to close a case, even if their primary victim is innocent. Hearsay? Hell no!! I am sure this case will be thrown out on appeal. It's not that I support this wife-killing scumbag. It's that I support the Constitution of the United States of America. This is not Iran, although there are a few cops (not most of them, but enough of them) who wish this were a state where cases could be closed on the backs of the nearest people to their lazy no good asses, whether or not they did the crime.

That is a good point. You want the bad guy to be punished and prevent crime against future victims. You also want to prevent punishing innocent people.

Sometimes crimes are commited with very few bits of evidence so one just can't connect the dots. I think OJ Simpson's trial was of that nature. I was not there nor was I in the juror box but I believe a guilty person walked away with that trial. I hate to see Peterson walk away but I am unable to provide evidence that is 100% positive of his guily.
 
Back
Top Bottom