Friday, February 5, 2010

Hearsay evidence - okay?

The jury is still out at my place on the propriety of allowing hearsay evidence in a trial. If you have been following the Saga of Drew Peterson, you know what I'm talking about.

But the information that is surfacing is more than interesting, whether or not it is allowed in court.

The 2004 investigation techniques of a retired Illinois State Police trooper seem questionable to me. He apparently didn't think that finding a body in a dry bathtub smelled a little suspicious. And then he interviewed Peterson and Stacy Peterson together, rather than individually and privately; that is, separately. And at the Bolingbrook P.D., where Peterson requested that the questioning take place.

Now comes Master Sgt. Bryan Falat, who says he told the lead investigator, Sgt. Patrick Collins (retired), that he suspected a homicide, not the accident that Collins was leaning toward.

According to today's Associated Press article (www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-drew-peterson,0,5537426.story), Falat considered that there were holes in their stories and that there had been "evasive answers."

According to Falat, "'In my opinion it was obvious Stacy was hiding something. (And) she was not telling the truth.'"

"He added that their accounts seemed 'eerily similar' and 'the two stories seemed like they were scripted.'"

If you compare the longer AP story in the Chicago Tribune with the condensed version in the Northwest Herald, you'll get a stronger feeling about the suspicions of M/Sgt. Falat. And, for some reason, the NWH version leaves out the name of lead investigator Collins. The headline in the Tribune article says that Falat was "disgusted" with the investigation into Savio's bathrub death. That's pretty strong!

My hat is off to M/Sgt. Falat for speaking plainly and directly.

No comments: