As most already know, Drew Peterson was found guilty last week of murdering his third wife. For the prosecution to make its case fly, Illinois had to change some laws. Generally, "hearsay" was not admissible in court, so Illinois legislators just changed the law.
I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago of an archer facing a target and arrows on the ground all around the target. The caption was, "If you can't hit the target, move the target."
Why should the public be concerned? Because when the Big G (government) wants to do something against the law, then it just changes the law. If you don't have enough rope for a hanging, just go to the hardware store and get some more rope.
The media had convicted Peterson a long time before the jury came to a verdict. And a considerable portion of the public was persuaded that Peterson had done in Kathleen Savio.
Of course, I don't know whether Peterson did it. But I do believe in the presumption of innocence. And that seems to be disappearing in this country. And that should be a worry to everybody, because someday it might be you who gets scooped up and charged with a crime.
If that happens, you must know your rights. Someone said once, "If you don't know your rights, you don't have any." The cop is going to read your rights to you. Listen. Listen hard. Listen carefully. Then exercise your rights.
Sure, it's going to make the cop's job harder. Remember, it is not your job to make the cop's job easier.
Will the guilty verdict be overturned? My opinion? Very likely. Will Peterson be re-tried? Of course. Will he be convicted a second time, without the hearsay evidence?
"Give him a fair trial and string him up." It's a rule we can live without.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
7 comments:
Very good Gus. When people are convicted on hearsay which is the same as RUMORS we have a problem!!
So, I guess it's a good idea to murder witnesses so they can't be cross examined. Alrightey then.
Gus, remember the issue of hearsay when talking about the Bentley case. You can side in favor of Drew's presumed innocense, but you don't do the same when talking about things in Woodstock.
Gus, remember the topic of "hearsay" when posting about the Bentley case and other things in Woodstock. You have no problem defending presumed innocence when talking about this case, but not about things that happen close to home. Examples I can give are things about the Ridge boys, a "bad batch of heroin" or "what Jen knows" - those things are hearsay too.
Amanda, thanks for your comment.
Not sure where you got the "bad batch of heroin"; I've never written anything about heroin in connection with Beth's case. Do you know anything about Beth and heroin, good or bad batch?
I don't know what Jenn knows, but don't you think she knows more? Of course, she does. For example, she knows what route Beth and she drove to Mt. Vernon on May 20; knows what time they got there; where each slept; what they did on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And she knows what the plan was to re-connect on Monday.
And the Ridge brothers? They should know about Beth's movements from the time Beth and Jenn arrived in Mt. Vernon early on May 21 (if, indeed, they did), what they did on Sat. & Sun. and how Beth spent her time, and with whom, until the supposed departure for Centralia (if, indeed, that ever happened).
Hearsay can lead to evidence and proof. The difference is that Peterson was on trial. Woodstock PD claims they don't even have a "person-of-interest", much less a suspect.
Karen, of course it is not ok to murder witnesses to prevent them from testifying. In, I believe 2009 the legislature, passed a bill that was backed by the Will County State's Attorney that would allow hearsay evidence in first degree murder cases if the prosecution "could prove that the defendant killed the witness to prevent testimony". right out of the gate that would seem to present a serious problem for the prosecutor. If he in fact needed the hearsay entered at trial to prove that Savio was murdered by Peterson how could he, without the hearsay, prove that Peterson killed her to prevent her from testifying in order to get the hearsay admitted? Next in about July of 2010 the Will County State's Attorney goes to the appellate court to argue that the common law rule should control the hearsay rather than the new "Drew's Law" because the common law didn't have a reliability requirement placed on the hearsay evidence like the legislature put into "Drew's Law". The appellate court, for reasons that only they know (publicity I would imagine since they are elected) allowed the common law to be used so now the requirement for the hearsay to be reliable was out the window too. Finally, they allowed hearsay from Stacey to be used. Now I'm not a lawyer, but remember, the Drew's Law required that the State must prove that the defendant murdered the witness to prevent them from testifying. While Stacey is missing how would you prove that she is dead let alone murdered? Now maybe the State's Attorney needed the common law rule also because he didn't even need to show she was dead much less murdered at the hands of Drew Peterson. Now for the hearsay itself, it was actually double hearsay. For instance, Mary Parks testified that Savio told her what Peterson said. It was all like that, he said that she said that he said. The Will County States Attorney's office doesn't exactly have the best track record for being right in their prosecutorial decisions. Does the Fox case in Wilmington ring a bell or how about the "honeybee killer" case? There used to be a saying in this country, it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. That to me mean't stick to the law, if within it's framework you can convince a jury someone is guilty fine, but don't make up new rules as you go, change those when you find the ones you made up don't work the way you want them too, and railroad someone. Peterson may be guilty as sin but the rules should apply to him too. The ends never justify the means.
Thanks, Mike. Very well written.
Post a Comment