| DREW PETERSON CONVICTED | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2012, 03:32 PM (373 Views) | |
| Sydney Carton | Sep 6 2012, 03:32 PM Post #1 |
|
Detective Peterson must be one of the most abrasive defendants in the past ten years.But aside from that his conviction raises the most serious constitutional questions.He has been convicted under a new state law especially aimed at his case. It radically alters the rules regarding the admission of hearsay evidence which have been standard in every British and American court through several centuries.This conviction will certainly reach the Supreme Court and, if upheld at top federal level,will then automatically open up the other forty-nine states to a fait accompli. Well,It would certainly raise the conviction statistics in no time flat. Even the mass media seems to be somewhat disturbed at the possibilities which it itself has opened up in this case. http://news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-drew-peterson-3rd-wifes-death-194658507.html |
![]() |
|
| Toast | Sep 7 2012, 06:21 PM Post #2 |
|
A troubling case. As I am not a lawyer, I am not going to use the correct legal terms here but I hope I can get a couple of points across reasonably well. 1) I am always wary when a specific law is enacted or changed in order to go after a particular person. It goes against my perception of fairness. 2) If a crime is committed before the effective date of a new or amended law, it should not be allowed to be prosecuted under the new or revised terms of the law. An example would be when statute of limitations are changed, charges are not made against a person for crimes where the limitation had already expired. Or, if an act that was not defined as a crime, suddenly becomes legislated as a crime, if it wasn't a crime when it was done, how could it be prosecuted? 3) Hearsay! Conviction on circumstantial evidence is bad enough, but hearsay??? Hopefully, this conviction will be appealed and not stand. (Not giving my personal opinion on Peterson.) |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 7 2012, 06:37 PM Post #3 |
|
I have not read much more than headlines on this case. Peterson just struck me as a person I'd hate to defend even if is innocent. The guy seemed rather cocky and arrogant in the news, so I lost interest quickly. The cases just seemed like too much to explain away as pure bad luck that he was involved. It's a shame if they had to enact a law to get evidence introduced that was evidently necessary to convict him ...a law the people should regret. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 7 2012, 07:18 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Thank You, Jesus. What more can I say. What a scumbag and what hurt and pain he has caused so many in his path. Pull the lever, the sooner the better. |
|
|
| Sydney Carton | Sep 8 2012, 03:43 PM Post #5 |
|
Capital punishment is out in Illinois. There was a real scandal a few years back when DNA revealed the state had falsely condemned most of a dozen of the then inhabitants of their Death Row. |
![]() |
|
| Sydney Carton | Sep 10 2012, 11:28 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/337010/28/Peterson-Trial-Holdout-juror-speaks-out |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 10 2012, 01:56 PM Post #7 |
|
"Those two were the big ones, just like everybody else," he said. "I couldn't come up with any reason, in my mind, to not put Peterson at the scene beyond a reasonable doubt." That seems like a terribly odd way to describe it. To me, it reads like he found no evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that proved innocence. Am I reading this wrong? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






9:49 AM Jul 11