Drew Peterson (few ex wives disappeared)

[kiryan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/ ... 3224.shtml

So he is apparently on trial for the death of his 3rd wife... it was originally ruled suicide, then after his 4th wife disappeared reopened and ruled homicide.

My problem with this is it is a witch hunt. The guy is probably guilty... but the investigators screwed the pooch on the 3rd wife and collected no evidence treated it as a suicide. I believe that if they convict him, it'll be so flimsy it won't hold up to appeal because they are using so much herse as evidence (law was apparently changed in this state to make herse submissible). So basically its just harassment or a witch hunt. They got nothing on the 4th wife so they wave a magic wand and go for a hail mary. This is either hopeless or will be a travesty of justice.

The guy was a cop... He knows how to avoid getting caught. Not to say no cop ever gets caught, but its a lot harder obviously when the criminal knows what you are going to do. They can't find jack crap about the disappearance of his 4th wife... but they think they might be able to get a conviction on the 3rd wife? Really? With intense scruitiny you couldn't find enough to charge him with anything, but you think that after a bungled investigation you might get a conviction on the 3rd wife?

I also love the "blue barrel". Peterson's step brother helped him move a blue barrel which he know wonders if it contained stacy's body. From everything I've seen, drew is a pretty tall guy, moderately muscular. Why would he need someone's help moving a dead body. Why would he involve someone else in moving a dead body. It sounds like he probably did kill his ex-wives, but I bet the blue barrel is misdirection.

good luck.

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16/al ... latestnews

that college professor who shot up a bunch of her colleagues after being denied tenure... and apparently had "accidently: shot and killed her brother 20 years earlier. Is no one else offended that they can just reopen an old case and rule it something completely different supposedly based solely on the original facts. For some reason it just strikes me as wrong for cops to be able to do this. Future actions are essentially being used as evidence to prove past crimes and it strikes me as being very circumstantial and political.

prove and evidence are too strong of words... but its being used and it seems wrong.

[Ragorn]

It's socialism... the redistribution of guilty verdicts from BP executives to the college elite! I, for one, blame liberal politics.

[Corth]

Peterson:

If they have enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers then what is the issue? If they don't then he is acquitted, right?

Loony college professor:

The subsequent shooting is not being used as evidence. It simply provided motivation to reopen the old case. It can not even be mentioned at trial. There is no statute of limitations on murder. If the DA finds out you murdered someone 50 years ago, and can prove it, they have a responsibility to prosecute you. How they find out is irrelevent.

[kiryan]

If the facts of the case don't change, then what is the new decision based upon?

I agree that if you killed someone 50 years ago and then you tell someone you killed them, or they find the weapon/body, thats legitimate. What I'm talking about is this practice of basically reopening and declaring a previously closed case a crime and prosecuting you. In peterson's case... because they don't have enough evidence on the 4th wife to even try...

There is something not right about what they probably got away with (and the professor chick too, I mean accidental discharge of a shotgun does not usually involve multiple blasts one of which hits your brother), but we let murderers walk for police mistakes. These reopening, charging actions seem like gaming or politically/public opinion driven, not good police work.