TO ANONYMOUS - as a retired police sgt I always know when someone like makes satemenst like you do - there is no doubt you have an extensive police record. You
might think about not giving your self away, what you are doing here is a dead
give-a-way! I can tell you that my group - POLICEMEN are like anyother group, we have our good and bad, your group only has the bad - sorry about that, think about
get lost somewhere, that is your only hope!

Not Ken...

No, I was saying you told me to listen to what I wrote. You are suggesting I'm back peddling & gave posts where I wrote something...suggesting I go back & look what I wrote. If I meant you should think about it, I would say that. I actually say you have thought about it but not clearly.

I'm not surprised you would have no intention of taking a class. If you make assumptions about abused woman as you do then you are not thinking logically enough to think perhaps you do not understand everything & should learn first. I think it is sad you won't, but I'm not surprised.

If you understand enought that these women need some type of help (I'd argue the type you picked, but that is general knowledge & within the psychological community we would be more specific, I'm ok in general with it from you) then why would you say they should be held responsible for making the choices they have. You say they have this poor background they were raised in but then you blame them? You hold them responsible when that is what they learned growing up? You also do not suggest and Battered Syndrome though specifically as part of the cause and not just a consequence.

Again, I don't know why some of you do not realize all laws are created with someone in mind. Most are created with someone from the past in mind and to prevent it in the future. As I mentioend on the rape case I was a juror on, the law changed from the time he was charge to the time we went to court. If he was not charged right away but after the new law that would have made a difference. Rape laws were created why? Because finally society had enough & someone had to be the first to be charged with it & may have felt it was created just to prosecute them for something they felt was fine to do. Why were laws create for domestic abuse? The first charged with it may have thought it was unfair also. Why do we have laws named after some child who has been abducted, Adam Walsh etc. Because we say it is not right & someone has to be the first. Sometimes the crime is committed and someone is charge already but if this law was still created say after Drew was charged, then the first person charged would think it is not fair. I think someone has already posted that Drew was not the first on using this anyway.

Last Anonymous...I listen & it blows me away how some feel though again I'm not surprised. There are so many in society who feel prejudice and discrimination is perfectly fine. Some who believe it is perfect fine to force your wife to have sex or to beat or kill her. Listening is not the same as agreeing with someone's opinion.

Not Ken,

You are making a lot of sense.

OWVY should try to listen.

I suppose being the Professor he is, he is use to babbling all the time instead of listening.

It is time to listen, Professor.

OWVY: you write I should listen to what I actually wrote? I hate to assume what you meant but I should rather suspect it was; think about what I wrote. In any case, I have no intention of taking a class on of all things domestic violence. So you do not think I am totally unsympathetic to your suggestion, my experience with people who need this group mentality and connection to survive in the world is that they belong under clinical and many of them in residential psychiatric care. And I squarely believe Stacey was one of those weak, emotionally feeble people who had problems and should have sought psychiatric care to address them. These classes of weak people feeding on each others weakness accomplish nothing positive. They are meeting places for "birds of a feather to flock together". It is spreading the misery if you will. Stacey has one messed up family from the mother who disappeared from Blue Island in the 80's never to be seen again to all the rest of the collection of people AKA as her family, pierced relatives, tattooed friends, etc. The fact she was not under care and did not seek help allowed her to make bad decisions and select of all people DP to fall in love with. It MAY have been a fatal mistake for her. While she did not know it, of course she was not in love with DP. She merely needed him in a sick way and this fed his need as a predator. But it is wrong to railroad DP with questionable prosecution and create laws specifically against him to convict him because you cannot prove he murdered anyone. After DP, who is next? Who do you want to target with specific legislation? Who do you want to get next OWVY? Craig? That is wrong and yoru logical brain should agree with that premise. It is better to let 10 DP's walk free than to convict one it may turn out innocent DP.

Anonymous (maybe ken???)

I'm not back peddling. Just because I have a leaning towards one way on my opinion of DP, like many in this society though obviously not in agreement with you, does not mean I may not want an impartial judge or venue. Why is that back peddling. Do you think those who feel someone is guilty want the trial to be done wrong. Hell, then he would get off on an appeal and rightly so. Give me a break. My point is do not make assumptions! Ask first & find out what people think. When people make assumptions of you are they always right?

As for your part on women who go back to men who are not the finiest of men we have on this planet, it is clear you have no clue what you are talking about here. Try to to take a class on domestic violence, spend some time in a women's shelter for those abused or heck just start with Scholarly Google search on Battered Women Syndrome! You obviously do not know anything about this syndrome. I mean if you listen to what you actually wrote you could figure it out (well I would hope)Why would any women go back with a man that beats her? Something not quite right there don't you think?! Say that again...something not quite right there...logically...brain!

As for the families suing BPD etc...I would hope they have looked into if they did everything they should. If I was her family member I would sue IF they did anything wrong. And I would hope you know sometimes despite all efforts things still happen. Hindsight is 20/20 but you learn and grow. Hopefully after all this is settled they will do something in some way to help other women.

Has Drew Peterson collected on the Million dollar life insurance policy after Savio's death?

By Chris Magee, moderator on May 19, 2009 4:42 PM
To settle the long-running debate, reporter Joe Hosey who covers the Peterson case says Brodsky reiterated Monday that he is being paid to represent Peterson.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderator,

Keep in mind being paid a flat fee of 1000 dollars or 5000 dollars for a multi-million dollar defense is being "paid." Also he could have meant he is being paid indirectly by allowing him to keep appearance money obtained on behalf of his client.

I have been in 25 court battles in my life as I have stated before. A man making 6k in monthly pensions is in no position to afford 4 criminal defense attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys charge much more than civil liability attorneys on AVERAGE. Much more!

As I also said before DF has cost us nearly 2 million and his case never went to trial or even hearing status.

Many Chief Executive Officers are working for one penny or one dollar these days. They are being paid but are they REALLY being paid.

The answer is yes and no. If they give themselves millions of stock opitions while making one dollar a year and the stock goes up they were not really being "paid a salary" but hit the JACKPOT.

Don't be fooled by vague comments you hear on talk shows. T.B stated he was on a show where he ducked the issue. That should tell you something. Why would he duck it if it was so black and white?

We are dealing with a gray area and I don't believe the long-running debate has been settled yet. Let us be patient and the answers will eventually come out. Common sense indicates for certain he is not able to pay the true maket value of 4 criminal defense attorneys. Maybe he can pay 5% of the market value if he saved the proceeds from his bar sale. To the best my knowledge he owned a dive bar in a partnership and that is all he ever owned. That is not enough to pay for a "dream team" of criminal defense attorneys currently being assembled.

If you don't bellieve me, ask Margo Ely of the City of Naperville. She will know for sure as she has dealt with attorneys and their legal bills. She not only knows but knows very well.

Defendants try to influence the jury pool all the time. You don’t have to look any further than Blago’s media tour or Ryan’s emptying of death row when he knew his indictment was a matter of weeks away to see examples of what they can and will do.

DP may be trying to influence the jury pool, too, or he may just be a colossal jerk. Either way, there’s nothing illegal about DP’s conduct or language and he’s still entitled to a fair trial. If that means a change in venue, so be it. It’s better to have an acquittal in a fair trial than a conviction in a tainted trial (thus necessitating an expensive retrial).

As for the lawyers, Brodsky was on WLS-AM radio last week and he pretty much ducked the payment issue, but did state that DP has owned several businesses during the time he was also a cop (including, I think, a bar) and that he can afford his defense.

T.B.

I was not fully serious suggesting a change of venue means Iowa or Kansas. There are counties in Illinois where probably they do not know much more about this case than venues of Iowa or Kansas. And since it is a state captital case, it does have to be tried in Illinois. With that said, I find it peculiar that OWVY now back peddles on what she previously posted about what she thinks about Drew. In one her recent posts, she opines: How do you know how I would side on the judge idea? I would make the assumption based upon your collective posts above. You do not like DP. You think he is guilty of one murder for sure and you believe he is responsible for another. You have demonstrated you believe he is guilty of murder and a fair trial with an impartial judge are just so many words. I cannot help but wonder if your animosity towards DP is based not on the facts or law but for some other reason. I also wonder if women who have problems with their "pickers" should be the responsibility of society everytime they make the wrong choice in a man? I know of a young policeman who responded to a battery complaint. He and another officer took the report, photographed the evidence (injury) and prepared a warrant. A judge woke up at 0300, signed the warrant and it was served on the batterer and he was arrested. A couple weeks later, the woman was seen at a tavern by the officer and when it was communicated that she still had feelings for the man, she was reminded that the order of protection applies to her too-she has to stay away from him or she goes to jail. Two weeks later, they were together, an argument ensued and he shot her dead and then killed himself. So OWVY: If these women continue to pick losers like DP, how is it exactly that we should not question or support these women who make poor choices?

By Chris Magee, moderator on May 11, 2009 12:39 AM
I don't recall ever hearing that Drew's attorney was working pro bono. I'm not 100 percent sure you're wrong but I've never heard that and I've read just about every story on this case.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"In court, he was appropriate," said Brodsky, who was joined by attorneys Reem Odeh of Chicago and Andrew Abood, of East Lansing, Mich., in appearing for Peterson Monday. Brodsky promised a fourth lawyer, John Paul Carroll of Naperville, also would be coming aboard to defend Peterson."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Reading between the lines one has to conclude Peterson is being represented pro-bono. There is no way on 6000 dollars per month taxable police pension he could afford to hire 4 attorneys.

Many attorneys love the limelight of big cases. It gives them notoriety. It makes them famous. It gives them advertising. It allows them to write books in the future and collect signing bonuses plus life time royalties. Why would DP hire an attorney from E. Lansing, Michigan, the home of Michigan State University, and agree to pay his travel and lodging expenses? He wouldn't? Could he really not find Chicago or suburban attorneys. He did not hire this attorney. The attorney wants to work the case and possibly get national notoriety and a book deal. That is how it all works.

If you recall that prosecutor in the OJ case later wrote a book and made 8 million dollars. Of course she quit her job after the OJ case. Imagine how much this prosector would have made if she won the d$mn case instead of lost it. I am sure you all remember the infamous Prosecutor Marcia Clark. Notice States Attorney Glasgow want to demote himself to a trial attorney. Can anyone guess why?

He wants a book deal equal or better in value than Marcia Clark's so he can retire with a book deal in addition to a Big Fat Pension. He will easily get 10 million if he wins. It is 20 years later when money is thrown around like it is growing on trees. Look it how much atletes are making now compared to the OJ era.

You need to be famous or infamous to get a pro-bono "dream" team like the one DP is attempting to assemble with the help of JP. If you are not famous or infamous you need to find yourself a public defender who is carrying 50 other cases and if you are lucky will remember your name without looking at his notes.

A murder case of this nature requires thousands of hours at 300 dollars per hour or more. Each 1000 hours wil cost $300,000. Imagine the billed time 4 attorneys need just communicating with each other let alone trying the case before a judge and jury. If DP does not have 2 million to bail out he does not have a few million to pay his attorneys. No one sits in jail if he has money to bail out. Jail, especially if you are isolated is like being a caged animal who works for a circus. You are fed, allowed to perform and put right back in your tiny cage. DP is not even allowed to perform or entertain anymore.

Imagine the Dick Furstenau Case cost nearly 2 million dollars and it never went to trial. That should give you a hint as to what the DP case will cost. Keep in mind the DF case was a he said she said touching case. This is a serous potentially double murder case that is completely circumstantial with really no evidence of smoking gun. Expect hung jury after hung jury with no eyewitnesses or evidences. If Stacy is added to the case, there is not even a body. No one has been convicted in the State of Illinios without a body in over 150 years. Can Glassgow pull a rabbit out of a hat??? Tune in.....

Any reasonable person can conclude the attorneys are representing him pro bono and trying to make their money elsewhere. Imagine what the National Enquirer will pay them for inside scoops. Or even People Magazine. Larry King will not pay them but will promote their books 3 times per show on his nationally syndicated talk show. He will mention their law firms 3 times per show.

These attorneys just became more valuable since the media can no longer talk to the main "star" Drew Peterson. Now since he is out of the limelight(thank God) his attorneys will attempt to steal the limelight and extract a price in the process.(no thanks to God on this one)

Anyway, that is my humble opinion. I also can't recall reading that DP is being paid pro bono. I think it is a calculated assumption on my part that will eventually pan out. Let us see how it unravels.

Also there is a possibility that these attorneys at some point will file a motion asking the taxpayers to pay for his defense. They will claim his 6000 police pension can barely shelter, school and feed his 4 kids. They may succeed. Wasn't DP in uniform and wearing a police uniform when Savio was found drowned in a dry bath tub? If he was on duty when he alleged killed her maybe Bolingbrook will have to pay for his defense as he was an acting police officer. Maybe Savio's family should be civily suing the Bolingbrook Police Dept. instead of the dry cleaned DP. They did not protect Savio from one of their own. They brushed off her pleas for help. They should also sue the State Police for bungling the death investigation of Savio and concluding she drowned accidentally in a dry bathtub....lol!!! It not like they said she bumped her head while slipping in a dry bathtub. But then how do you slip in a DRY bathtub??? Lot of unanswered questions means book deals are in the pipeline!!!

I am only thankful that I live in Dupage and not Will County. I feel bad for the Will County residents. We got our tax licking during the Nicarico Nonsense. I think they are going to get yet another licking in the DP case after just getting one in the Kevin Fox case.

And whose fault is it that the jury has been influenced due to the media. No one is forcing Drew to get in front of a camera any chance he gets and act like he does! He knows how he should behave of all people!

Yo...what is the deal? How do you know how I would side on the judge idea?! Ask first or would you rather we assume things about you also!

And if you don't think this case is heard about in other states...do a google search & see what other state cities have this on their papers. They are all watching it! That is what Drew loves! It is like the women in FL! Everyone knows & has their own opinions.

This shows there can be no fair trial in this matter unless it is moved from Illinois to say Iowa, Nebraska or Kansas.

________________

Can a murder case being tried by a County DA be moved to another state? I have heard about a change in venue, but it always seems to be discussed in terms of moving it somewhere else in Illinois.

OWVY writes: Its more likely he killed Stacey to keep her mouth shut on Savio. Today the OWVY (except the constitutional rights of DP) prosecution lynch mob asked for a new judge, delaying the bond reduction hearing because they allege the sitting judge is predjudiced against the prosecution. Why you ask? He heard the previous Glasgow inspired B_ll S-it gun case and tossed it out of court. Predjudiced they claimed and he favors DP rather than of course he has a good grasp of the law Glasgow implies. This shows there can be no fair trial in this matter unless it is moved from Illinois to say Iowa, Nebraska or Kansas. You have to have a venue were people believe in justice of constitution, statute, evidence, not the emotional "social justice" favored by the politically correct and corrupted types such as OWVY.

Ken you are the one missing the point. When someone states they can't find it and they are not using the most logical means to go about finding it then they need help. They also are stating they are frustrated that they did not, otherwise you would not even state you searched at all. You are saying, perhaps indirectly but still, "Hey people I can't find anything so 'Show me the proof'" and I was saying follow the path if you want to find any proof.

How do you know what Savio was going to do? Are you an officer investigating that case? Do you have the inside scoop and know everything that the DA has not yet told us all yet? It is more likely he killed Stacy to keep her mouth shut on Savio. Or maybe it was going to be further on Savio with abuse charges? Was the custody part finalized?

The statement of Peterson hearing a scream & going to her was on tv. The day they broke in to tell us that he was arrested they showed the arrest & then showed some past coverage where they show the outside of his house with her and he is talking over this and making this statement. I don't know what channel I was watching but no CNN or Fox or the other 3 channels? I'll watch for it again & make note what channel & try to find a link to the footage this time. Also I've found various sites that said the divorce was not finalized yet. 4 days away.

This is interesting....

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/kathleen-savios-letter-to-states-attorney-documenting-petersons-abuse/

Ah reread my statement. I said you could tell what the judge's opinion was and that should not have been the case. The judge should have been neutral. I did NOT say I was influenced by it. In fact, many of us were initially opposed to it! Do not put word in my mouth. I did not say I WAS INFLUENCED or his opionion MADE ME BELIEVE or I did NOT put much effort into the case since the judge was a certain way. I said you could tell what he thought but I did not say that influenced me. I will not claim it did not influence others though.

I agree they should not. I never said they should. The point is it does and as attorneys and judges you should do everything to not let it happen. I never said this should not be idea but it is not a perfect world. Everything in life is influenced by our attitudes, perspectives etc. We are not DATA or Mr. Spock! Sorry! We are Humans!

Well I am tired of you stating I said things I never did either! You can disagree all you want but respect other people's opinion to disagree with you.

OWVY, it is pointless to debate you when you keep missing the point...or changing it altogether.

You stated I asked for help. I didn't.

You are still stating that Savio was going to testify against Peterson. She wasn't. She was claiming assets from a failed marriage. The divorce was complete except for dividing up the assets. I would imagine she was divorcing Peterson because he is a jerk that likes to chase very young women, but there was no need for additional testimony on that because the divorce was already final.

This law could be an integral part of a Stacy Peterson murder charge because she may have had incriminating testimony against Peterson, but since she alibied him for the Savio death, her testimony could easily be impeached. That would depend on a fair and impartial jury, and from what I've read here, that type of jury does not exist.

You've changed the Savio body discovery story. I have not read anywhere that Peterson claimed to hear a scream, just that she failed to answer the door when she should have been home.

You now claim that you didn't let the judge's attitude affect your deliberations, but as your very own statements made on 5/15 3:25 pm tell a different story. Let me refresh your memory:

"There is so many other pieces of evidence that is or is not allowed that also can signal to the jury which way the judge feels. Heck, with ours you could tell by the objectives he accepted and also his tired bored look and way he sat looking. Should not have been but was!"

While your students may have written excellent and truthful paper on what affects a juror's deliberations, those papers only point out the huge failing of the jury system. Once again, cases should be decided on the merits of the evidence, not misguided personal judgments based on the appearance of the judge or other people involved in the trial.

I am not really interested in continuing the tit for tat discussion here, especially as you keep changing your story and misrepresenting what I post. I'll give my final thoughts and let the jury here decide.

Bottom line is that I feel this is an unfair law aimed originally at one person, with the resulting fallout probably putting innocent people in jail on hearsay. Of course, that is only if the law passes higher court review, which seems kind of doubtful.

Yes you said...

"I would like to know which 12 states have hearsay laws similar to this law. I have googled every different way I can, and cannot find similar laws."

This states what you have done has not worked. You have not thus far found anything. So you were motivated to search with what you knew how to do...saying I got nothing. That does not mean it does not exists & if you are motivated to search then perhaps you should start searching with the person who claimed it. That would be my first logical path.

Just because you do not know what she was going to be testifying about does not mean others do not. Wow. I take it you just believe what is in the media? You don't think there was anything else Drew may have done that she may be able to testify on? I wonder why they were divorcing??? This is the point of the law. There would be no case if you get rid of the person who said it.

Water in tub...that could be if very thought out early. Now if you abused your wife and pushed her and she hit something nice way place to say it happened. Was the tub even wet when the Cops came? Why would you wait until the tub was empty? He said he got up there when she screamed & then called...water does not leak that fast.

Hello...reread what I said. I said those things do. I did not say I let it for me. If you doubt whether it does with people look up the research. Heck my students just had an exam on this research. This is why attorneys try to make sure those things work in their favor. Dressing up the accused so nice etc. I didn't say I liked it or that I desire or strive to be influenced from it. I said it does! It is human nature unfortunately.

OWVY, where did I ask how to use different search terms? I stated that I had used several different search terms and did not find the mythical 12 states that have a comparable law. That supposed fact is not my claim, and I did enough research to realize why the supposed 12 states were not listed. Talk about doing a better job of reading what people have written...

Speaking of doing a better job of reading, how can it be proven that Peterson murdered Savio to keep her from testifying? The case against Peterson supposedly is that he murdered her to keep his money. Which is it? And if there is no evidence on WHO did it, there is no case, either in the Savio death or your mom's hypothetical accident.

Speaking of evidence, water draining slowly from a stopped drain over a period of time is quite common. It used to really irritate me at my old house when we gave our children baths that we constantly had to add water because of a leaky drain stopper. If Peterson was counting on accidental drowning, don't you think he would have filled the tub with water, and made sure it was still full when Savio's body was discovered? The fact that the tub was empty of water gives me more reasonable doubt than less.

Sorry you feel differently, but the only thing you should consider as a juror is the evidence. The judge's demeanor, the demeanor and attitude of the prosecutor, defendant, and defendant's lawyer should not enter into your judgment. If you are going to send a person to prison or to their death, it should be based on the evidence, and nothing else. That's part of the problem with our judicial system; people who pass sentences or give monetary awards based on empathy instead of the facts.

Don't forget Naperville is a city that is trying to be #1 on not only DUIs but I'd think they would say underage drinking also. You apparently have not been outside of Naperville in a very long time. Hell there was a cop not too far from Naperville who was arrested/fired for smoking pot at a party with young people. All kinds of stuff goes on and you just can't play that niave. Ask those under 21 they will tell you. Heck, universities alone! Give me a break!

Hello, I said there could be evidence the car was involved perhaps but the point is hearsay & I'm saying you could not say what driver did it. You are not even talking about that point. You keep talking about other evidence. There may not be on WHO did it. Knowing it was done vs who did it are two different things!

How do you accidentally drown with no water? Talk about having evidence!

You know...I get you now. I NEVER said I judged the person on the judge's attitude. I said you could tell and that was bad. There was evidence & I posted previously on this talking about the bite mark.

No, you are the one saying there are not 12 states & stated you were trying to search on google. You asked about how to use different search terms etc. Do you not remember? I gave the suggestion of who you could look into. You said you were trying...omg.

How many other laws are unique to a few states. We all know states have different laws. That does not mean any one of them is definitely right or wrong. Oh boy...

Hello...are you reading what you wrote. "CAN BE PROVEN" so if he allows it, it can be proven so what is the problem. Otherwise if it can't be proven then the judge will not allow it. If he is allowing it because it can be proven then, then the person should go to jail. Basically it is saying, this is just one more piece of evidence, the cherry on the whip cream of the sundae!

You need to read better what people say. I'm not saying some people would not be swayed by a judges attitude but not all are. Some actually will make sure for that very reason. You have no idea how long we delibrated and what was said & who said what, so be careful. Besides it is not just the judge, but so many other things that can sway the decision. Many factors of the attorneys, victim and accused, etc.

OWVY, that was my post. I sometimes forget to enter my name as it used to stay in permanently, but doesn't any more.

You mentioned drinking age, not dui. I don't know of any priests that are under 21, so I think that is a moot point. I don't know of many cops who admit to letting underage drinkers off like they did in the good old days.

The 'mom' argument is the same as the drinking argument; you keep having to change the parameters to make it work. Even without the testimony of mom, now in a coma, there is forensic evidence such as skid marks, paint chips, etc., especially if mom is in a coma from the accident, or dead from another cause. The forensic evidence in the Peterson case showed accidental death in the first review, and murder when reviewed with a jaundiced eye. In an accident, the insurance companies would probably have settled out of court. You can't settle a murder case with out a trial, and that trial is supposed to be fair.

Nice to know that you judged a man based on your perceptions of a judges attitude. Weren't you supposed to judge the case on the merits of the evidence?

Your link is the same article that Bob linked to. I'm not the one claiming there are 12 other states with laws that have stood up to higher court review, so I don't intend to research it any more. I could not find those 12 states, and don't think the laws exist in the way they are portrayed. By the way, if 12 states found a way that hearsay could be allowed, don't you think that the other 38 would also enact similar laws?

Notice the article states that hearsay evidence is allowed when it can be proven that a witness was murdered to keep them from testifying. If the judge rules that hearsay is allowable, he is basically saying that he believes Peterson to be guilty. If the jury is filled with 12 people like you, Peterson will be pronounce guilty just because of the judge's attitude. Again, that does not seem to give the defendant his right to a fair and impartial jury trial.

I take it that one Anonymous was "Ken" since you are saying "I said..." and they were Ken's items?
*************
I know you said "equally enforced"! Doesn't matter to me. They are not equally enforced always! Give me a break. Where have you been? You really think there are & have been officers who do not ticket on say drinking. I can tell you I even know of someone recently who should have taken a breath test but was not given one!!! NO, it was not me! I know from officers even what they tell me what they do or don't do. Heck, that was on the officer post a while back that some do not ticket if they are a doctor, priest etc. So don't even try here!

(mom case) I was saying there may not be evidence and what if she could not go to court, Ugh...make me say it...she is in a coma or did die from something else even. Maybe she hit a parked car. No one saw it, no video cameras. They know maybe the car was involved but do not know who was driving it. Perhaps many drive that car and do not have other alibis etc.

Doesn't matter to me if you explore the accuser's motives. Go right ahead. You don't think the jury is going to wonder. When I was on that rape case, the woman's 5 yr old walked in the room and saw them...you don't think it was in our minds that maybe the woman thought "Oh no...he'll blab and so I'll cover up and say I was raped." And that was not hearsay that was her direct testimony we questioned her motives. People will and lawyers can point out the "possible motives" of hearsay just like they will look at possible motives for direct evidence and a for the crime itself from anyone. There is so many other pieces of evidence that is or is not allowed that also can signal to the jury which way the judge feels. Heck, with ours you could tell by the objectives he accepted and also his tired bored look and way he sat looking. Should not have been but was!

Again, if the hearsay is used alone I would not think that is very smart for a first time knowing it could be challenged and then get him off. I would wait and see.

Here is a link of who is saying there are 12 other states who have something similar. Perhaps you can google him or contact him?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/05/new_illinois_hearsay_law_to_sh.html

Just like OJ found out... you can only make a mockery of the law, the system, and simple justice for so long.

For DP his time is up as well. He has been playing everyone for the fool, laughing at what he was able to get away with, and playing both ends against the middle for way too long. All things must come to an end and for DP the time is now.

Maybe some will say justice in this case is perverted, but what better to befall someone who perverted the justice system himself so many times and for such an extended period of time?

OWVY, I am sure this misguided law will be used in other cases, and as Bob C. has pointed out, already has. That doesn't make it right. The case in Dupage has an idiot trying to represent himself, so they may get away with it.

Your examples are completely different from the Peterson case. There is evidence from your mother's accident and she can be questioned and challenged in court. Savio's written and supposedly oral statements to relatives cannot be challenged by the defense.

I said drinking charges are equally enforced, not equally prosecuted. Prosecution depends on who the defendant knows and how much money the defendant has to spend.

Bob C., here is part of the article you left out:

...but some say prosecutors could be on shaky legal ground if they plan to build their murder case around that testimony.

The process alone puts the law on shaky ground, according to Joseph Tacopina, a defence lawyer whose clients included a suspect in the 2005 disappearance of American teenager Natalee Holloway in Aruba.

Tacopina said the judge's decision to admit statements would indicate to a jury that the judge thinks the suspect is guilty.

Another little tidbit:

n criminal law, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Crawford gives enhanced protection to defendants when the hearsay offered against them is testimonial in nature. When a statement is deliberately accusatory, or when the declarant knows that the statement is likely to be used in the prosecution of the defendant for a crime, the need for face-to-face confrontation is at its highest. When statements are directly accusatory, the defense needs an opportunity to explore the accuser’s motives.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

I would like to know which 12 states have hearsay laws similar to this law. I have googled every different way I can, and cannot find similar laws. The way this law is set up, and as the article pointed out, the judge would be saying that Peterson killed Savio to allow the hearsay evidence. Doesn't sound to fair and impartial to me.

My "fair thinking" process tells me that the prosecution does not have any other evidence as they had to scramble to get the hearsay law passed before the grand jury term expired. I will admit that I am wrong if they have other proof; will you if Peterson is convicted on the hearsay evidence alone?

Bob, you have obviously missed this when you claim the Savio family will not benefit financially:

Second Note: Based primarily on November’s exhumation and autopsy of Drew Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio — which came about because of the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson — a judge has re-opened Savio’s estate. This means that Savio’s family can sue Peterson to recover the proceeds of her estate, which included a million-dollar insurance policy, all of which was awarded to Peterson when her May 2004 death was initially ruled an accident."

From here: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/drew-peterson-most-hated-man-america

The article is an interesting read as it brings up all the hearsay evidence and is completely slanted against Peterson, so you should enjoy it.

David Erickson, a former appellate court judge who teaches at Chicago-Kent College of Law, believed the law will stand up and said at least 12 other states have passed similar statutes

He also said the Illinois legislation and those of other states came in response to a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found the right of a defendant to confront his accusers has a key exception: if the defendant acted with the intent to prevent that person from testifying

"Think of mob cases where they kill guys to keep them from testifying," he said

12 other states he said.
Link: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w073980926
*****************************
As far as evidence Ken, why don't you wait for discovery before you form an opinion? Again, with all your "fair" thinking, why would you only listen to the accused defence attorney spew?
We don't know all they have. Just today as a matter of fact, 4 more witnesses were called to the grand jury, 3 of which never even testified until today, including a guy who wore a wire for LE.
The guy who Drew Peterson had go in to his house and discovered Kathleen Savio's body was also there.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/witness_testify_peterson
This accused murderer will be charged soon regarding Stacy Peterson. Bet on it!

********************
Also, the new "hearsay" law testimony was just invoked in a case yesterday pretty much the same as this case.
the prosecutors want to use Glover's oral and written statements to Warrenville police about the July 2005 battery case to claim at trial that Matthews had a motive to kill her

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-dead-woman-talking-15-may15,0,5987016.story

Ken, what gives you the impression that the family will gain financially from anything?? There is NO financial gain in this for the family - only justice.

Ken....

Also I would totally question the idea of "equally enforced" on drinking etc...think about that! Should be but is it?

Ken...

You are thinking that this law is ONLY going to be use for Drew. It will not be used for anyone else in the future? Why are you thinking that???

Now wait the definition says "Unverified" which does not mean if it was verified it would be true! That is NOT the same thing as saying it is NOT ACCURATE! My mom may tell my dad she was in an accident and show him the damage. He may tell me "Mom was in an accident & showed me the damage...blah..." That is hearsay for me but it does not mean it is not true. I would have to go verify it. Now, the question really should be what happens if you can't verify it because the person is dead. Now lets say my mom tells my dad she caused the accident but then something happens where she can't verify (I have no wood to knock & I'm not saying anything happening to my mom! Ha!) Does this now mean my mom did not cause the accident because she is not able to verify that she caused it. Now lets say it is not obvious to the police how the accident happened. Some can very much find out but we'll say it is similar to Kathleen where there could be another explanation but weaker. They can't prove that my mom was say digging in her purse at the time. It still does not mean she did not cause the accident.

I'll agree, say if my dad said, NOPE she didn't cause the accident you would wonder but again doesn't mean she didn't. How many women tell their family he is going to kill me. How many families have seen bruises on their daughters/sisters from the hand of their husbands and it is not stretching any imagination that the husband did it. The question is which is more of a reasonable doubt & who is the person you are hearing the hearsay from. Just like medicine, in justice you put all the pieces together. One symptom does not diagnose an illness/disorder. On piece of hearsay is not going to convict someone, many other factors have to also point in that direction.

Where are people hearing that the only evidence Glasgow has is hearsay???

OWVY, the laws you bring up to show bad laws working (drinking age, marrying age, etc.) have one thing in common. They are equally enforced no matter who breaks them. They have not been made to be able to charge one person, but to 'protect' a whole class of people.

Justice is not perfect, and that is why the guilty sometimes go free. I would rather see that than numerous laws enacted to get that person you just know is guilty. Hearsay is by its very definition all inaccurate because someone is attempting to relate what they heard someone else say. The definition:

hear⋅say
  /ˈhɪərˌseɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [heer-sey]
–noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

In my mind, any reasonable person would doubt the members of a family who think they have been wronged, especially when that family stands to gain financially from what they supposedly heard.

Hey Let Us Not...

Are you under the impression that the Judicial System has to be PERFECT to define it as "it works"? Who ever told you it was perfect? What in life is?

Count me in with LUNDTJSFDP. The judicial system did not work in our Naperville case. It is close to 30 years now that it has not worked for her or her family. A little girl was kidnapped from her home, murdered among other things and no one has been correctly held accountable for such an atrocity. So lets not kid ourselves, the judicial system did not work because wrongfully convicted were later vindicated. It has not worked because a little girl and her family have been denied justice. When you short shrift the process, the consequence is error. When you pass a law aimed to convict a certian suspect in a rush to judgement, you have not learned from history, you are merely repeating it. This DP law is not the same as a dying declaration as someone suggested, which is admissible under several facts that must be present-the main one being the person who makes the utterence must believe they are dying and in fact dying.

Anonymous One,

Maybe the American system of conscience and determination worked...but not the judicial system.

When the Appellant Courts and Supreme Courts repeatedly uphold wrongful convictions of lower courts and juries, the JUDICIAL SYSTEM can not said to have functioned properly.

The Media in addition to Northwestern University which finally decided to put the screws to the judges and prosecutors deserved full credit for releasing the Nicarico 3 from death row. But they were about 12 years late in putting the screws on the judicial system in Dupage.

Without the interference of the media and Northwestern in a big way, our judicial system would have carried out the executions.

Anyone ever see either of the 12 Angry Men movies?

I use it in my Social Psych course.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8879792408487708107&ei=r577SIa9Covs-wGq-4GJBA&q=12+angry+men&hl=en

Ken I never said that. In fact one could make an argument that any law or rule/procedure has its problems. Heck just age for drinking, marrying etc is not perfect but we still have them. Yes, there can be some cases that turn up wrong but that doesn't mean it happens for the majority. I know about the bite marks idea. I was a foreman of a jury where a gentleman was basically convicted for rape on the bitemark he received from the victim. Actually, that is what got rid of any doubt in his case. Ken where did you hear the only evidence the state has is hearsay? I think you should wait to see what evidence they actually have. Again, new laws have been made in the past and they still stand. In fact in the case I was in when the accused was arrested the laws for rape were different than when he went to court. That was very difficult to go by the law from when he was accused when you know it had changed.

You know perhaps you should all think about how their is accurate hearsay & inaccurate hearsay just like there may be other types of evidence which can may wrongly convict someone.

Also you are left to define "reasonable". By whose reason? First we are all human. Next, every human has different cognitive abilities and what is reasonable to one person is not to the other.

The system did not work for Rolando Cruz just to give an example.

That is why I wrote, "In a crazy convoluted way the "system" (whatever that is) actually worked in the cases cited above." And further in my posting I wrote, "Arguably the timing and notoriety stink for each of these people, but they are free today".

I wasn't commenting on the length of time in prison, only the fact that they are all free today.

My only point is that with the checks and balances, and appeals in place - people wrongfully convicted have an opportunity for vindication regardless of how it comes about. I agree that spending any time in jail for a crime you did not commit is horrible. I also will say again that in a "convoluted" way the system worked simply given the fact that they are not still in jail - or more importantly not in the graveyard.

I might remember things my deceased relative said too if I stood to gain several hundred thousand dollars from that memory.

Ken, very true. I'm assuming Petersons attorney will key in on this aspect. I haven't followed the case close enough to know if the heresay evidence is the only evidence in this case, or if the DA has other evidence more substantial.

Anonymous One,

The system did not work for Rolando Cruz just to give an example. He was convicted before a jury 3 times and it was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court twice. He was sentenced to die twice with the Supreme Court affirming the decision TWICE.

He spent 12 years in jail much of the time on death row. Can you imagine the mental anguish he went through? If you spent 12 years wrongfully convicted on death row, would you say the system worked because you were finally released. Who would replace your 12 years? Who would replace the time you lost with your kids that are now most likely adults?

What worked is the Northwestern group bringing publicity and embarrassment to our prosecutors in Dupage causing them to dismiss the case. Every person in the county knew Brian Dugan was the real killer EXCEPT for the egotistical proseuctors and judges who did not want to be exposed as the frauds they were in all the Nicarico Cases.

In the end they were all exposed as frauds who convicted an innocent man often and repeatedly. The publicity finally forced them to dismiss the case without a 4th trial. So the system did not vindicate him as there was no 4th trail where he was found innocent.

The massive publicity finally vindicated him. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribue was making a farce out of Dupage in his weekly columns. He was not going to stop until they released Cruz. He was turning the screw into the prosecutors. They dismissed the case when Northwestern and Eric Zorn turned the screw one notch too many.

Our Judicial System sucks. I could comment on all the other cases but I have already been a little too wordy.

BOWVY,

Hey! It was the Naperville Sun, not me, who decided they would "refocus" the content of the newspaper to be community centric. Let's face it the Sun was a day late and a dollar short with regional, national, and world news anyway.

In case you haven't checked this isn't a typical forum where we have the discretion to post what we want when we want. The Naperville Sun likes to act as our mother and tell us what topics we can discuss as it is. So if Mother Sun decides we should talk about the war or anything else outside of Naperville then I guess we will. Just sends a conflicting message... maybe one day the Sun will figure out what it wants to be...

Anyway Bolingbrook isn't Naperville. Thank goodness for that. Let them deal with their own problems.

OWVY, just because a bad law is successful in prosecuting several people does not make it a good law. Recently there have been several articles on accepted forensic evidence such as bite marks and burn patterns that have shown that evidence to be unreliable. There was a man put to death in Texas for murdering his family by supposedly burning his house down using previously accepted techniques that are now considered junk science. An "Oops, sorry about that" doesn't seem quite sufficient.

Reasonable doubt has let guilty people free just for that reason; there is reasonable doubt. The Peterson case is a perfect example. His son swears that Peterson never left them in the time frame that she died in. Unless the son can be discredited, and in spite of what her relatives claim, there is reasonable doubt.

Anonymous ONE, in all those cases where justice prevailed, no new laws were made to bring the case to court. That is my beef with the new law. If there is such a compelling case against Peterson, why did a new law have to be made to arrest him? With all the people that obviously hate Peterson for different reasons, can you really believe, without a reasonable doubt, the family members who stand to profit from testifying with hearsay evidence? I might remember things my deceased relative said too if I stood to gain several hundred thousand dollars from that memory.

One of the many anonymouses, a dying declaration is quite different than hearsay. Even such a statement would have to have evidence backing it up. From everything I've read, and all the legal expert's opinions I have heard, there is no such evidence that will convict Peterson for Savio's death.

Anonymous ONE I agree but again there are some who are in jail for life and we later find out with DNA they did not rape. And that may be directly from victim so....

Anonymous 11:29...so we should not talk about the war or anything else outside of Naperville since there is plenty of problems in Naperville? Ugh!

Glock,

Like DP is some kind of choir boy? Fine upstanding members of the community do not find themselves in these kinds of predicaments. Neither do gentlemen. Scum bags and low lifes do all the time.

With the change in the Naperville Sun supposedly becoming focused on Naperville as a community I'm not sure why we are wasting our time talking about any of the trash that lives outside our community? Goodness knows we still have enough trash that lives in Naperville and we should be spending our time discussing them.

In a crazy convoluted way the "system" (whatever that is) actually worked in the cases cited above. Gary Condit was not guilty, The Duke lacrosse players were not guilty, Kevin Fox and Rolondo Cruz all not guilty. Obviously in each case they were "assumed" guilty by the court of public opinion, but the justice system, or conviction of others, ultimately found them not guilty - ergo the system works!

Arguably the timing and notoriety stink for each of these people, but they are free today. And while it may have happened, I am not aware of anyone put to death who was later found to be innocent - I could be wrong, but I thought this came from the group at Northwestern who fight against wrongful convictions.

Drew Peterson may or may not be guilty, but since our current justice system is all we have I have to put at least some confidence in the system to weed through the details and present a case. Circumstantial, or heresay evidence can be compelling and legitimate - especially in cases where the accused has done something (disposed of) to the victim to prevent their testimony. Circumstantial doesn't mean fabricated or inaccurate, just that it is indirectly related to guilt - I'll wait to see what the evidence is before passing judgment.

Hpw is this so different than the use of a dying person's declaration of their killer? Is that never used by police or introduced as evidence?

Ken...who said I was judging by emotion alone?

New laws for ONE case? You really believe it will only be used with Peterson & not many others. Hmmm home many other laws of our land over time were with one person in mind initially. All the changes in Police procedures and codes for Adam Walsh's son now benefit many. One may have a louder voice at a time that gets something passed but it is with the "ghosts" of many other prior who could have used the law and many unfortunately, future cases which will benefit. This is how our laws & ethical codes change over time. I value to protect those who are good. I value those who have placed their passion of their heart & mind to make the world a better place.

I NEVER said based on circumstantial alone. I was addressing past cases people were using where justice came up wrong. Yes, it is not perfect but you still use the justice system. The medical profession is not perfect but I do not totally eliminate it.

Why would "reasonable doubt" mean letting a guilty person go? A guilty person goes when someone has not done the work they should do to make sure that there is NO reasonable doubt! Or I will say there may be times where despite all the work, one may not be able to get all the evidence. That gets into the discussion of, is there actually something called a PERFECT crime. Ask some officers there are some that haunt them but what one may think they got away with it but later the evidence can be gathered. New technology such as DNA evidence now etc can change it for the future.

You know most of the posts, on almost any topic, seems to have people who are on one extreme side or the other. I'm just trying to say it may be both. It is the old Dr. Spock/Data vs Capt Kirk/Deanna Troi situation. Really you need both. Both do influence any decision we make. Sometimes that is good & sometimes not. Like Music just playing the notes (facts in order) does not make music. Life is like that also for human behavior. As much as we like to explain behavior in a nice orderly logical way, there is an art to it also. The sum of its parts idea! Dang, I have to go to sleep this is getting to deep even for me & I'll be thinking too much all night now! :P

One Who Values You, you are not living up to your name. Obviously, you do not value Peterson, and maybe for good reasons. Is that any reason to let our justice system be ruled by emotion and not fact? When you allow new laws to be passed for one case, where does it stop? Who do you decide to actually value?

You say one person unjustly convicted is one too many, but in the same breath state that justice is not perfect. You seem to be saying that as long as Peterson looks guilty based on circumstantial evidence, it is okay to convict him.

While you are willing to condemn a man to prison by saying justice is not perfect, I think our laws are set up to let the occasional guilty person go to protect the innocent. That is why a person is declared guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to protect all of us from the court of public opinion.

Gary Condit is the exact reason I will no longer rush to judgement. I too thought that guy was guilty as sin for the disappearence of Levy. I was in the crowd condemning him. He was hounded by the press, the police and EVERYONE else. And at the end of the day, ALL he was guilty of was having an affair with her. Of course before that truth came out, it was the Duke case. A prosecutor targeting individuals HE deemed guilty. They must be guilty he said. She identified them. Those wealthy white boys, lacross players, abusing a poor woman in their frat house. A black woman. A student, a mother just trying to earn a few extra dollars as an exotic dancer. A university professortariat chanting from their peanut gallery guilty, guilty, guilty. An english professor flunking a student (not even one involved in the case) solely because he was on the lacross team. The politically correct class chiming the same; guilty, guilty, guilty. Then, it turns out it was all BS! Don't pass some bogus law trying to create admissible evidence and aim it at DP. Do the investigation. Find the evidence. Make the case.

"Far too many"? How many is too many? ONE! But that does mean there are more convicted that should not have been than those convicted that should have been! Where is your data that states there are more? In EVERY case you have both sides who get to present their evidence. That is what justice is about. It is not about it being PERFECT. Did someone tell you it is a perfect system? So sorry but I never learned that. That does not mean you don't use the system still. It doesn't mean people will have their impressions. Heck, the attorneys take on a case with only their evidence pretty much. There ae also plenty of criminals out there that are not able to be convicted for lack of evidence to prove it don't forget! It is both ways!!!! Even if they did not have enough evidence to prove Drew did it, doesn't mean he did not do it!

Bob C,

I agree with most of Ken's arguments.

Far too many people who were innocent were convicted and put on death row....some even executed.

One case Ken forgot to mention is Kevin Fox. The guy who was accused of killing his daughter after police allegedly tortured him into confessing. I think he won a 20 million dollar judgemnt against Will County. Will County has had a very dismal record especially of late.

And Dupage County really screwed up the Jenine Nicario case for 26 years and counting. They threw the 3 innocents on death row and convicted them each 2 and 3 times while Brian Dugan, the confessed and probably real killer, has still not been convicted ONCE. What a judicial system? It is based on ego and upcoming elections. It is not about justice. It is about serving your time and collecting your Big Fat Pensions by getting as many people as possible convicted whether they are innocent or guilty. It is a shame to the taxpayers who pay for these corrupt judicial systems. Reform is needed. Ken is right!

Ken...You said "appearance of being based on sound investigation" so by the same token are you neutral on this then?

Besides other physical evidence they may or may not have, you have his psychological symptoms. My students just did a presentation on Serial Killers...they all saw the place Drew either is in or will be in the future based on his behaviors. Do we have him in a clinical setting no, so you can be wrong. Does the man have any sadness for either one of these women? NONE...even a general citicizen is more upset than he is. Quite frankly he is glad they are gone, other than the fact that he is being pointed at, though he seems to enjoy that more than be upset by it. I'd love to see what Glasgow does with having him psychologically evaluated. How many wives have to be missing or dead before someone says hey...what is going on here? Do you need a third? He just has wonderful luck that the wives he is not thrilled with he no longer has to deal with huh? He should go live in a country with a culture that it is acceptable I suppose to kill your wife if you are not happy & it is not even questioned. No, I'm not promoting it I'm being sarcastic.

Straight out my text, "Most (serial killers) are fascinated by police work (check) and the popular media (check) and follow their crimes closely in the news (check). A number of serial killers seem to display severe personality disorders (questioning but likely). Lack of conscience and an utter disregard for people and the rules of society - key features of antisocial personality disorder - are typical. (The man pulls ribbons from trees, uses the media for his use, and if he did it obvious lack of conscience. Talk to his fellow officers he worked with & see how he acted on the job also!!!) Narcissitic thinking is quite common as well (check,check!). Smooth talker (tries and somewhat), skillful manipulator (check) (Abnormal Psychology, Comer, 2007) Certainly a good start to warrant an eval! And while the first wife being exhumed could be questioned, certainly not surprising it could have been not in the coroner's perspective to be questioning anything other than accident at the time he did it and unfortunately made an error.

Now if they can't get him on Stacy now & they can on Kathleen why is that a problem? The only problem is if they had done it for Kathleen right away Stacy would still be around and that is very sad & hopefully all involved will learn from this & not make the mistake again.

Bob C., I am not listening to the media, most of whom seem to be in agreement with the new law. I have not heard one legal expert that has said this law has legal precedent that has stood up to higher court scrutiny. Maybe you can provide a link to the states that have such a law that has withstood such a challenge.

I will believe they have other evidence when I see it. The stuff that was 'stolen' from a state police car and leaked to the media is just police conjecture, not evidence. Even the second autopsy of Savio will be called into question because of the circumstances that led to it.

Bottom line is that the cops couldn't nail Peterson on Stacy's disappearance, so they are now pursuing a bad case against him on Savio's death. As I said before, it has all the appearances of vigilante justice, and none of the appearances of being based on sound investigation or legal principles.

Copy of the statute:

(725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 new)

Sec. 115-10.6. Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness.
(a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.
(b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.
(c) The murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered. If the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted.
(d) The proponent of the statements shall give the adverse party reasonable written notice of its intention to offer the statements and the substance of the particulars of each statement of the declarant. For purposes of this Section, identifying the location of the statements in tendered discovery shall be sufficient to satisfy the substance of the particulars of the statement.
(e) The admissibility of the statements shall be determined by the court at a pretrial hearing. At the hearing, the proponent of the statement bears the burden of establishing 3 criteria by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) first, that the adverse party murdered the declarant and that the murder was intended to cause the unavailability of the declarant as a witness;
(2) second, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide sufficient safeguards of reliability;
(3) third, the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
(f) The court shall make specific findings as to each of these criteria on the record before ruling on the admissibility of said statements.
(g) This Section in no way precludes or changes the application of the existing common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing.

Therefore, there is also a question of motivation. Did the defendant kill the person so that she would not testify or did the defendant kill the person because he wanted to kill the person without regard to the statements? It would appear that the prosecution must show not only that the defendant killed the witness but that the defendant knew that she had made or would make the statements accorded to her. Did the defendant know of the alleged statements to the sister?

Ken, why do you believe the media when they call it "Drew's Law"?
Other states have similar laws, and have had for years.
Why do you listen to Joel Brodsky when he says this is all the evidence
they have?
There was no discovery yet. He knows nothing. If you have been following this case you know there is quite a bit of other evidence, plus what we don't even know everything they have.
Anyway if you read up on the "hearsay" law you will see there are many, many, stipulations and other evidence needed in order to use it.
The whole point of the law is to cut down on murders.
Since this is a blog, and not a court of law, my opinion is that Drew Peterson should serve a few years just for what he continues to do to his kids minds. There are going to be 4 more mentally unhealthy individuals walking around because of him.

Why is ignorant about my statement, Anonymous 2:33pm? Is it any more ignorant than enacting a law targeted at one specific person to get a conviction?

I gave specific examples of people who had to be guilty, yet were not. If the authorities cannot get enough evidence, or any evidence for that matter, under existing laws, why should they be able to enact a new law that lessens the impact of all the laws already on the books?

I also think Peterson is guilty. However, I think that the authorities should prove their case under existing laws, something they have not been able to do. I always look at it from the angle of what if it was me, and I knew I was innocent? I've dealt with cops, and there is no presumption of innocence from them, and that's why we have laws in place, to protect the innocent. If a guilty man slips through the cracks, that's the price we pay to protect the innocent.

Just because Peterson has made the cops look like fools is no reason to enact a new law so they can be vindicated, especially a law that has been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level.

What a delightfully ignorant statement, Ken. The reason that we have a justice system is so the court of public opinion does NOT get to pass judgment on a suspect.

Drew Peterson has done a wonderful job of tainting his own jury pool via incessant public appearances, interviews, and other media exposure. How many other murder suspects do you know that have their own publicist? It really does make one wonder...

One murdered wife, another missing under suspicious circumstances, another teenage bride already lined up for wife #5...police usually suspect the spouse first in cases like these, ordinary people do too.

I myself suspect that he is guilty, however, I'm neither judge nor jury, and what I think doesn't much matter. Now, if there turns out that there is evidence to the contrary, I'll happily eat my own hat.

From what the majority of people are saying here, I am wondering why we even have a justice system. Why have laws to protect the guilty scum? Make up laws that let the vigilante mob justice system prevail, as most here seem to be advocating.

Everyone knows that there are never mistakes made by the purveyors of public opinion; just ask Gary Condit. Everyone knew he murdered Chondra Levey; don't know why they didn't make a special law up to convict him.

Illinois also has a great track record for convicting obviously guilty scumbags. All those death row inmates that have since been let free were guilty of something; why not just kill them anyway? Rolando Cruz? Jim Ryan and Joe Birkett told us he was guilty just as the police and state's attorneys are telling us Drew Peterson is guilty.

Why even bother with a trial or the justice system as it is now. Let's just get a law passed that says if the court of public opinion finds you guilty, you get strung up from the nearest tree.

The Bar and Grill Joel Brodsky was using the murder suspect Drew Peterson's name to advertise for was not Tailgaters. It was Joel Brodsky's own bar that he owns with his wife. Randy Miller reads the actual e-mail from Joel Brodsky on WGN radio here....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGjywuCdZzA

“Yeah Drew will do it. It’s going to cost you some money.”

You can read more here.......
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/drew-and-joels-payola-radio-shakedown/

Mark F.

I have no doubt your reasons also entered into the equation of where to arrest DP.

But he could have had a gun next to him in the car and blown his head off if he wanted to when the police stopped him.

He could also have shot at the police.

But he was in no position to take hostages as the police made sure he had no passengers before stopping him. He had been under massive surveillance that day.

Having said all that, DP is not interested in suicide. He loves the limelight. He is going to enjoy his courtroom drama and is probably hoping more people watch it than watched the first OJ trial. He loved the helicopter hovering over his head photgraphing while he was in his red jumpsuit and shackles. He could not contain his smile.

I am sure win or lose he will be writing books about himself.

I feel for his kids and I still believe the State Police were sensitive to the them and entered the kids into the equation as to where, when and how to arrest him along with the other factors you mentioned.

By Anonymous on May 11, 2009 10:51 PM
One thing most people from the Chicago area never knew about Johnny Cochran is that he was just another dime a dozen TV attorney... the kind that advertises to various sundry losers and deadbeats on late night TV.

And he made a small fortune off of OJ.

.....ok he was a dime a dozen TV Attorney, he won didn't he? that's all that counts for attorneys. I don't get your point.

JQP –

While I normally agree with you, I can’t on this subject.

The hearsay law states something to the affect that the statements can be let in if the judge finds that by a preponderance of the evidence the witness is unavailable due to the defendant’s actions. It’s a chicken and egg issue as Experienced stated on May 10th. The judge has to find DP guilty by one standard of proof before the jury can find him guilty by another. This is ridiculous and I believe runs counter to the 6th Amendment right to confront the witnesses against you.

DP is not a likeable guy, in fact, he’s fairly reprehensible. But likeability, or the lack thereof, is no reason to throw our judicial system out the window. The Will County State’s Attorney is lying to us (and himself) every time he says the hearsay law wasn’t passed specifically with DP in mind. He should stop playing us all for fools.

T.B.

NEWS FLASH!!

Drew Peterson is getting married again! Less than a week in jail and he reportedly is already in love! I wonder if he is planning to wear white?

To Let us not- Although arresting Peterson on the street had the side benefit of looking like they were sympathetic toward the children, they did that so he would not have access to weapons and possibly create a hostage situation or suicide by cop, etc. (not just conjecture, I read a comment about this)

I feel the prosecutors were on the bubble as far as whether they had enough evidence to charge DP. I feel they would have liked more time to accumulate more evidence.

I think they decided it was time to charge him as he was packing to go to the Cat Whorehouse in Nevada to do a cable show. I really think the police and prosecutors do care about his kids and this was the perfect time to pull the plug on him.

Imagine his 16 year old son having to watch his Dad do a cable show with prostitutes at a brothel in Nevada. Imagine the embarrassment forthcoming in school to his son. He also has a 14 year older who knows what is going on. And the embarrassment to his older son who is an Oak Brook cop with responsibilities to take prostitutes down and imprison them.

The police spent the whole day trying to corner him away from his home for the sake of the kids. Therefore, I also believe they were trying to save his kids the humiliation of watching their Dad on a whore show. Kudos to the Illinois State Police. A job well done.

Moderator Chris,

I think we both agree JB is being paid but maybe not in the conventional way.

I don't think he is sending DP bills at 300 or 400 dollars an hour which is the conventional way and the way most people pay their attorneys if they can afford them. If they can't afford private attorneys, they use public defenders at the expense of the taxpayers.

DP succeeded in making himself an infamous celebrity of sorts. Shows will pay him to have him on and make a fool of himself. He is willing to make a fool of himself and even incriminate himself as long as he gets big bucks. JB is working out these deals and getting a piece of the action.

If he cared one iota about DB he would never let him utter a single word. I believe DP has said incriminating words during his interviews that have incriminated him. Once he referred to Stacy in the past tence. Anohter time he called her "it" as if it was no longer a human but a body. I believe prosecutors have kept track of his "slips of the tongue."

JB is not flying to New York to be DP's potted plant. He is getting attention, notoriety, and being paid in unconventional ways.

In my opinion if he is not getting paid by the client he is still considered pro bono. I could be wrong. Maybe Experienced who appears to be an attorney can tell us if he would still be considered pro bono since he is most likely getting money from a third party and not DP.

One thing most people from the Chicago area never knew about Johnny Cochran is that he was just another dime a dozen TV attorney... the kind that advertises to various sundry losers and deadbeats on late night TV.

And he made a small fortune off of OJ.

By Anonymous on May 11, 2009 8:53 AM

Take a good look at Brodsky and tell me if he looks like the charitable type who is in it to represent an innocent man pro bono?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brodsky does not look like the charitable guy to me, either.

But I believe he is representing DP pro bono and loves the attention. He is also in the process getting advertising for himself and his law firm.

Here how he does it.

He signs all kinds of deals for DP to blabber away. He splits the money from those deals with DP. The last deal was suppose to be some kind of TV specoal for a prostitute ranch in Nevada that was days from being signed.

When a local radio station refused to pay DP for an interview, JB would not let him do the interview. Later he called the radio station and told them if they plug Tailgaters Bar twice during the interview and twice the next day they would do the interview. He also asked the radio host to go to Tailgaters and taste the chicken wings so he can plug them also if possible.

Obviously JB and DP are getting advertising for Tailgaters which in return is probably throwing them some boners under the table.

This is how it works. That is why he is representing him pro bono. As I said earlier DP does not have enough left over money from his 6-7k pension to pay for such a massive defense with 4 kids and all the toys he has like his motorcycle and boat.

DP and JP were not going to New York to do interviews for fee. If the TV stations don't pay they give them a large travelling allownace to come which includes First Class flights and 200 dollar lunches and dinners. They fly regular class and each make a few thousand dollars on the trip.

Larry King does not pay. But he is always plugging the books of those he interviews. Those books than sell much better and the interviewee gets paid better than if Laryy King paid him. And Larry King can truthfully claim I never paid a human a penny for an interview....and he never did. That is how it all works!

I think that in cases like these, where incidents of domestic violence and family problems have been well-documented by police, family members, and doctors, not to mention various other community members associated with the victim, the so-called "hearsay law" should be applied without question.

This is precisely why the law was put into effect - so that the victims could not be "silenced" by murder.

There's no way Brodsky is working pro bono. Remember the short-lived Drew Peterson Legal Defense Fund web site that disappeared after public outcry? http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3992098

Remember the Menendez brothers in Beverly Hills? They were eventually convicted of murdering their parents. Initially though, their first trial ended in a deadlock when a number of jurors felt sorry for them because they were now orphans. Of course they were orphans....they murdered their parents!

It will be a fine line in the Peterson case, but Peterson should not benefit because he succeeded in killing off the witness / victim.

Let us not discredit the judicial system, you make an interesting point, but broad generalizations of the "Muslim World" caused some problems in the other blogs you wrote on. Countries that follow sharia law have those "eye for an eye" rules.

The pension is reported to be $6K a month. Rumor also has it that he collected $1MM life insurance on wife number 2 plus all of her other assets... house, business, etc. Not sure if or how much life insurance was on missing wife.

Take a good look at Brodsky and tell me if he looks like the charitable type who is in it to represent an innocent man pro bono? Brodsky will hang around only as long as there is still some money to siphon away and when it is all gone so will he. Then the citizens will be footing a bill for a public defender on top of all of the other costs of sordid mess.

I thought I recalled that Stacey also spoke with a minister. She shared her fear of Drew and didn't she also speak with him regarding Kathleen?

On Mother's Day, I couldn't help but think about the horrific mess this guy has left behind for his young children, all motherless.

I'm guessing his bond will be reduced and frankly, he is less a threat to the general population than he is to his own family (murder/suicide?)or the next officers taking him into custody. God forbid.

Regardless of what our judicial system can or can not do to such a heinous criminal there will still be a special place in hell waiting on the judgement day that matters most.

Chris,

I am not 100% either sure but that is what I recall from watching the morning TV shows. I could be wrong.

Maybe someone else has some recollection and can shed some light.

Many times attorneys take these high profile cases pro bono.

Just imagine what it does to their names. They become household names. No amount of advertising could ever get him the name recognition he and his firm are getting.

If he wins this case, rich people will hire him for millions of dollars when they are charged with murder.

I do recall DP putting out the word in public that he wanted an attorney to represent him. When you put out the word through the media, you are not really offering to pay for services. You are looking for a freebie and I think he got himself a freebie.

Even though DP collects a $7000 dollar pension, this in no way could come close to paying for his legal defense. Keep in mind he has 4 kids, a house, a motorcycle and 2 cars. He spends a lot of money at Tailgaters Bar trying to pick up the 20 something year old chicks and has had lots of success. These chicks are not going after him for his looks or his old age. They want some of his money and are getting it. They may also want to be in the limelight. Or they can simply be dumb brods. Your guess is as good as mine.

Do you think he has much left to pay for a legal defense?

Couldn't have said it better myself, Glock 22, so I won't even try.

Experienced wrote:

"If I were on the defense I believe that an argument could be made that the statement is not trustworthy given the hostility between the witness (sister) and the defendant."

So what is wrong with making that argument after the hearsay evidence is presented? It seems to me that the real issue is the degree of credibility of the person to whom the hearsay evidence was supposedly spoken. The defense can attempt to impugn his/her testimony, just as they would that of any other witness.

-JQP

Glock 22,

The attorney representing Drew Peterson is representing him free of charge. So Drew will not be sent to the poor house.

Drew had appealed for a free attorney a while back and this bozo showed up. He is representing Drew free of charge because he is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame especailly when this 15 minutes has seen many overtimes.

I think the States Attorney is aware that Drew is being represented free of charge. So I respectfully disagree this is the legal strategy.

The legal strategy is put him in jail for life or sentence him to death. I believe they think they can win. Also, any jury in Illinois is ready to convict Drew whether they have the evidence or don't have the evidence.

DP's attorney stated he will be asking for a change of venue and believes he will get it. I believe he will too. The trial will never take place in Will County unless they ship jurors from another distant county or state.

When the source of the hearsay evidence is the murder victim, and the evidence serves to incriminate the defendant, it should be allowed, in my opinion.

First, I'm not a Drew fan but an unprecedented $20 million dollar bond? Do you know that even Milton Johnson who killed about a dozen Will County people in the mid 80's including 2 Will County Sheriffs Deputies did not face a $20 million dollar bond? Did you know the possession of the illegal assault rifle charges were bogus from the start and did not stand the test of the law? And now a corrupt Illinois legislature passes a specific and pointed law, signed by an indicted Governor to expand the hearsay rule of evidence to target one particular defendent and you think this stinker is going to send Drew to prison for life? It is nothing more than a judicial lynching. The Will County States Atty is confident of his case. BS! The fact is they cannot send Drew to the jail house so they will send him to the poor house with legal fees. That is the legal strategy.

I believe that the defense will try to attack use of the evidence under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him". The Supreme Court has established a two part test to whether the prosecution can use extrajudicial statements. The first is necessity in which the prosecution must prove the unavailability of the witness. The second is that the statement is "marked with trustworthiness". Given that the first is proven, the question is whether the statement is marked with trustworthiness or is it reliable. It is my understanding that the statement in question was allegedly made by the deceased to her sister. If I were on the defense I believe that an argument could be made that the statement is not trustworthy given the hostility between the witness (sister) and the defendant.

Another question is the Illinois statute itself. The statute requires that the the prosecution show that the witness is not available due to the fault of the defendant. The argument in this case is that the witness is not available because the defendant allegedly killed her. But, isn't this a chicken and egg problem? Does the prosecution have to prove that the defendant killed the witness in order to admit evidence to show the defendant killed the witness? A vicious circle.

I think allowing hearsay evidence to hold up is setting a very dangerous precendent and destroying our judicial system.

Anyone can say someone told me so before he or she died. You can not cross examine the dead person and look him or her in the eyes to see if he or she in fact made such a statement.

In the Muslim world you can tell your wife she is divorced 3 times and she is divorced.

Are we going to lower our standards to those of the Muslim world...no offense intended to the Muslim world but they try and hang a defendent up to dry in one day sometimes.

They can chop your hand off if 2 witnesses state they saw you steal a candy bar.

I think Drew Peterson is a low-life and believe he is guilty. But let us not discredit our entire judicial system. We all know he is a bad guy but let us not lower ourseves to his despicable level.

There is an old saying that the only difference between a police officer and a criminal is that one carries a badge and the other does not. I simply can not think of a better true example of the validity of this statement.