http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/06/13708473-ex-cop-drew-peterson-found-guilty-of-murdering-wife-kathleen-savio?lite


G-U-I-L-T-Y, guilty guilty guilty, hooray!

I was so happy to read that earlier! I was honestly getting a bit afraid of a hung jury.

I haven't followed this trial much and I would often get this mixed up with the Scott Peterson trial but from reading the excerpts of it and the basic facts.....I see that they basically convicted him the same way that convicted Scott Peterson. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay. And emotion. And apparently because of this case, there is some kind of law that would allow "hearsay" evidence admissible in court! Or at least make it a strong factor in such a case. This is a bad precedent. Says a lot about the American justice system when you can go to jail without being PROVEN guilty. In any case, whatever. He prob. did kill her.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I haven't followed this trial much and I would often get this mixed up with the Scott Peterson trial but from reading the excerpts of it and the basic facts.....I see that they basically convicted him the same way that convicted Scott Peterson. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay. And emotion. And apparently because of this case, there is some kind of law that would allow "hearsay" evidence admissible in court! Or at least make it a strong factor in such a case. This is a bad precedent. Says a lot about the American justice system when you can go to jail without being PROVEN guilty. In any case, whatever. He prob. did kill her.

They had a body to go on, a body that drowned in a tub that had no water in it. That's not circumstantial, it's a fact that you can't drown in a dry tub. Besides, circumstantial evidence and hearsay make up most of any and all evidence that is EVER presented in a trial; very rarely is the prosecutor going to be able to supply a videotape showing the defendant killing their victim.

Nystyle709 wrote:

They don't have to supply a videotape of him killing her....any kind of physical proof....prints, blood, hair, etc...that proves he was at the scene of the crime or if it was present on her body would've been enough to prove that he did it. They dug up that woman's body, what...six yrs later? Figured that she must've been murdered, then gonna say her husband probably murdered her because her sister heard him threatened her before? Sorry. That doesn't cut the mustard. If common sense told you that a person cannot drown in a waterless bathtub, he should've been investigated then. Not some odd years later when the burden of proof would be that much more difficult. Not that it matters anyway. The family got what they wanted.

Yeah there SHOULD have been an investigation from the start because any idiot can tell you people don't drown in empty tubs so no coroner who EVER spent one day in medical school could ever arrive at the opposite conclusion either. But they didn't, meaning that somebody decided it was a matter not worth looking into, that coincides VERY nicely with the 'hearsay' that Drew told his wife he could kill her and make it look like an accident. There's no better suspect for that line of work THAN a cop. However, initial investigation or not, there is no statute of limitations on murder so I say regardless of what state the body was in when she was dug up, they still proved she didn't drown in an empty tub, and there was never presented a second likely candidate who would want her dead or had any reason to, and I'm not going to buy she killed herself to frame him either.

Now, it's also all circumstantial, but he really hanged himself by laughing and joking when he was arrested and EVERY time he appeared at court he was so full of himself, your wife is dead, they think you did it, and you think it's funny and you're going to get off. Of course it's all circumstantial, but no innocent person is ever that cocky.