This is a dangerous man I feel. Not one, but two murders I think. That makes him a serial killer, I believe.

I wonder if some of his "roomies" will want to show this ex cop a thing or two. He's big and bad with little females... how will
he do among men? Bet they will "test" him.

I am happy with the verdict. How many many injuries can one get from a fall in a small tub? Was it 14? Looks like she only fell
about 3-4 feet. She bounced 'round and around and around Drew making ALL those injuries?

I don't think she just "fell". Overkill Drew ... your downfall.

These arrogant type people ARE dangerous. Cindy, Casey, George, etc. Even to the point of killing, and covering up killings. Amoral.

Next? Stacy's trial - her sister said...?

I have never denied that DrewP is a bad man.

And I explained why he does NOT fit the definition of a "serial killer"

I think you miss my point, Joni.

The way this trial was conducted sets a precedent... the masses decided who was guilty and went as far as enacting legislation to let in evidence that otherwise would not have been admissible.

You may well think that is good.. anything to get DrewP locked away... but what about the next guy (or gal) that the mob decide is guilty? The mob can, and do get it wrong!

Also you hint at the usual... hope he gets beaten, brutalised, even killed in jail. Kathleen's brother said he would go to the jail and shake the hand of the guy who attacked Drew????

I assume that the guy attacking Drew would be some equally evil bastard who had brutalised, raped and/or murdered his victim(s)... and the Savio brother would shake his hand?? I wonder how the families of that guy's victims would feel about that.

I do wonder about people who long to see inmates meting out "justice" Who see them as allies? I guess brutal evil violence is OK provided it is against whoever the mob decree?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I didn't miss your point .. I am just furious with that arrogant punk!

Don't hope he "gets it" - but I think he will in prison. They form "families" in there, I read.
Watch your back - Drew.

Well my point is NOT about DrewP..... ?

DrewP is where the mob want him...

Except British (American) justice has always considered that convicting an innocent person is so abhorrent as to warrant letting a guilty person go free rather than risk convicting the innocent. Hearsay evidence has been deemed unsafe for a reason... because it is unsafe... I worry about future cases.

And I do find it distasteful that people welcome.. even pray for... "justice" meted out by prison inmates. It is tantamount to saying that the sort of evil violence is OK provided it is against someone you dislike? So if you attack, rape, murder someone the majority dislike.. that is OK? Praiseworthy even according to Savio's brother?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I don't have to stay after school then?

No... I will just put you in a class with all the rough types.. and they will sort you out!!!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

God help me! Just a musician ...

Thank you R. She could only have gotten ALL of those injuries if she kept **bouncing** around and around and around that little tub. I don't think sooo....

You would be a very fair Juror ... I think.
I would like you on my Jury, if I ever did anything wrong.

I don't expect to ... wasn't raised that way.

No I don't think so?

I DO NOT intend going over it all again now.

Who says she had "all those injuries".... one expert predisposed to find such evidence.. looking at a corpse after it had rotted for 3 years? Give me a break. And Baden.... lol

The PROPER expert Medical Examiner, who's credentials and diligence have not been questioned.. examined a fresh corpse and said "accident" ... I believe him.

Can you imagine the state of a three year buried (wet) corpse? No wonder they found extra discoloured spots (on the areas that still had any flesh)... I think it was more a case of finding what the hoped to find...

.....and... over what period did she get these alleged bruises? etc...

You need to look at the evidence.

But it's over.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The bruises were only discovered 3 years later then? Not by the original M.E.?

I do miss things because of my life-style, or lack thereof.

Hearsay evidence is fraught with danger.. that is why it is generally NOT allowed.

In order to allow in hearsay in this case, it had to be assumed that Drew had killed Kathleen and Stacy... ahead of the trial verdict in the case of Kathleen.. and ahead of even any conclusive evidence that Stacy was dead, let alone any charge that Drew murdered her.

The new law was justified as correcting the situation where the defendant could prevent the testimony from witnesses in person by killing them... so their testimony as reported by others (hearsay) would become valid..... sounds fair enough, except in order to invoke that reasoning you have to already assume the defendant is guilty.

That goes against the "golden thread" that runs through British (American) justice... "the presumption of innocence".

I know most people are happy with the verdict... DrewP guilty... but what of future cases?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Assuming Stacy is dead then before due process we have to accept that Drew killed her to prevent her testimony regarding this stupid law.

This law, the mandatory sentencing laws, and three-strike laws are terrible laws IMO.

If we believe that pastor that Stacy told him that then how do we really know we can believe Stacy.

I agree. Packy.

Critical parts of our judicial system involve.. seeing witnesses in person.. evaluating them to decide if you believe them or not, or at least how much weight to give their testimony during deliberations. Also of course, the defendant (through his lawyer) has the opportunity to cross examine and clarify the testimony of his accusers. All CRITICAL stuff.

With the example of Pastor Sori... by all accounts the jury found HIM credible, and so accepted his testimony as being truthful... fair enough I guess. But after all this time was he remembering the conversation with Stacy back then.. or just remembering all the times he had described it? His testimony may be accurate but, as you say, was Stacy telling him the truth? even if not lying, was she embellishing the story? Was she stating as fact, things she just thought might be true... etc Testimony NEEDS to be cross-examined.
Exactly what did she see? Drew bundling clothes into a washing machine.. how did she know they were women's clothes? What happened to them? etc... just a few things off the top of my head, but questions that needed to be asked.. but of course can't be with hearsay.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Any woman who is suspicious of a husband ... as Stacy must have been of Drew and especially his strange behavior that night ... no doubt checked to see what was in the washer when he left the area. If I didn't trust him, I would have.

I can tell you it is culture shock and maddening to think you married "one man" and find you really got "another". The pre-marriage Drew, vs the after-marriage Drew. Poor Stacy ... poor any female who finds herself in that situation. I know ...

THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE JONI!!!!!!!

You can't imagine or make up what happened!!!!

".... Stacy must have done this or that..." "...no doubt...." "I would have....."

I know it is common in some posts at "True Crime" forums!! But...........

It is gossip.... mere supposition........ and it has no place in a trial for sure.

(We are past discussing evidence details.. I merely raised that one example to show the limitations of Hearsay evidence.. I don't want to again debate the point of what Drew allegedly did that night.)

The point is... you can not KNOW what happened based on hearsay evidence because you CAN'T ask the witness for clarification.. not just in the example... but with hearsay evidence generally.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I do believe Stacy. I don't see how or why she had a real reason to lie to the pastor in front of Drew. Remember Pastor Schori said he was in their home and Stacy relayed abusive patterns of his to Schori with Drew sitting there. And I think Harry Smith puts the period on the exclamation point in all of it.

I believe her too, Tigress, but for the sake of argument how do we really know we can believe her or the pastor for sure. At least the pastor can be confronted, but she's not hear to cross and the many convincing statements come out to be less than originally stated after a cross. I just hate this law!
She could have been pist at Drew and decided to spout off some things, and as far he is concerned he seems to be the type that would just laugh at her while she said that stuff. He's such a strange bird. Not saying that's how it came down but it's possible.

Lawyer: New trial sought for Drew Peterson

By Joe Biesk jbiesk@southtownstar.com October 9, 2012 9:40PM

Excerpt

John Paul Carroll, of Naperville, said he filed the motion in Will County Court on Tuesday afternoon seeking a new trial for Peterson. Carroll said Peterson did not get adequate legal representation during the trial that led to his conviction for the March 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

http://www.suntimes.com/15665628-761...-peterson.html

I know a lot of people jumped for joy when the verdict came back guilty. Everybody THINKS he killed two wives. but......


IMO the evidence was not there in the Savio case... and NO CHARGES have been laid in Stacy case.

I think it is important to follow the judicial process, rather than engage in a trial by popular opinion. It smacks of "Lynch Mob" justice.

I hope Peterson does get a retrial...

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I think Drew did it....twice. Who would want or need to get rid of two of another man's wives? Okay, so I don't have any evidence. I just think Drew is a slick killer. He was a cop and prolly knew how to kill w/o getting caught. So new trial or not, it's all just so sick. Those two ladies sure died young.

But I agree with Rumpole about giving 'names' to one's actions. If you call someone psychopathic, it really does (sometimes) tend to get him off the hook (let him remain innocent). After all, aren't psychopaths "born that way"? Same with overly narcissistic folks, if they are, then they must have been born that way and can't help their evil behavior, right? So giving names to folks with perpetual evil behavior conveniently categorizes them but also tends toward justifying their evil behavior.

If a person is identified by one of these psychological terms, it really just means that this is one person who has allowed himself to perform habitual evil behavior just because he likes it, it gives him pleasure. It makes me sick to see these psychologists/psychiatrists say that someone is "born evil".

_________________
­
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Leviticus 19:15