Cracks jokes

 

 

 

 

It'll be insteresting to see where the case is tried. I'm sure the defense will want to leave the Chicago area because everyone thinks he's guilty.

This guy is so snarky, he is crackin jokes even after they arrest him like he isnt even worried.

He's also going to appear on some HBO brothel documentary series too, IIRC

the sad thing is that even if Drew gets put away for this, he is the type of guy that would never reveal what he did with Staci.

Hopefully their case is air tight and this SOB never sees the light of day again.

Hopefully their case is air tight and this SOB never sees the light of day again.

 

they must have something, that bond the put on him is pretty big

they must have something, that bond the put on him is pretty big

 

I would think they are gonna have detectives that intially investigated the case to testify that there was foul play going on under the table.

he wont get convicted.. for either death.

he wont get convicted.. for either death.

 

To actually make an arrest, they have to have something big on him.

From the coverage down here

 

• The HBO producers deny he was ever even going to audition
• The prosecutor seems to be pinning their hopes on the new law that would allow her old letters into evidence.

Hearsay, hah. He will be out in no time. Anyone who actually believes he will get committed be prepared for disappointment, though i hope i'm wrong.

I would think they are gonna have detectives that intially investigated the case to testify that there was foul play going on under the table.

 

Doubtful unless they are all going to turn on their own guys. This comes down to the new law that will allow Savio's letters to be admissible in court which will help to establish intent.

I think one of the big things stopping this case from getting anywhere is that this isnt just a Drew Peterson trial. I think if Drew goes down, there are going to be some upper level guys getting dragged into this as well, which will further make Chicagoland police look bad.

 

Drew wasnt able to get off scott-free the first time on luck.

The more and more I think about it the more I think he is going to get off the hook on this. The motherf***er doesnt look a bit worried and never really has. He has been a consistent arrogant cocky prick even up unto the arrest. He knows what ever he did he did it right adn there isnt anything they could have got from her grave 20 YEARS LATER that could put a bullseye on Drew.

Im not saying i condone what he did, but i understand...

 

 

 

 

(been married 5 years)

 

 

 

Also, they dont have to have a lot of evidence to arrest him. The grand jury will indict anyone at anytime, its a fricken joke. They made the arrest because theyre rolling the dice. Theyre not gonna get anymore evidence in this case and drew's making them look like fools when he goes on talk shows everyday. At this point, what does the government have to lose? If they dont win this case then they get another shot with stacys murder.

Doubtful unless they are all going to turn on their own guys. This comes down to the new law that will allow Savio's letters to be admissible in court which will help to establish intent.

 

SOunds like the law might be unconstitutional, because it deprives Peterson of his right to confront his accuser, in this case, his dead wife.

SOunds like the law might be unconstitutional, because it deprives Peterson of his right to confront his accuser, in this case, his dead wife.

 

It will be a test for some (activist) judge.

SOunds like the law might be unconstitutional, because it deprives Peterson of his right to confront his accuser, in this case, his dead wife.

 

That's what all hearsay exceptions are. Hearsay is not permitted into evidence because there is no cross-examination, as you said. However, there are a whole bunch of hearsay exceptions including excited utterances, present sense impressions (usually used for 911 calls made by bystanders), business records (made in the regular course of business without knowledge of future litigation), among many others.

 

The letters would be admissible under the theory that the letters contain the actual language of the victim, and because she had no reason to say what she said without some reasoning for it. Essentially, there is a lesser degree of possible insincerity in the letters than in other hearsay statements. Furthermore, the legislature believes that the probative value of letters such as this (particularly in mob cases) outweighs the prejudicial effect. This is likely because the reader of the letters can be cross examined as to their impression of the sincerity of the letter. If, for example, Savios did nothing to try to help her, then the defense will claim that the letters were meaningless.

 

 

We don't know how the court will rule. I guarantee the defense will claim that the law is unconstitutional and drag it as high as they can to get it declared unconstitutional.

It would seem that having the law commonly referred to as the "Drew Peterson" law, will also work in his favor.

 

I appreciate living in a country where it is very rare for an innocent person to be convicted of any crime, especially one as serious as murder. However, it is maddening that wealth, fame, and access tends to warp the playing field or that the laws protect the guilty.

That's what all hearsay exceptions are. Hearsay is not permitted into evidence because there is no cross-examination, as you said. However, there are a whole bunch of hearsay exceptions including excited utterances, present sense impressions (usually used for 911 calls made by bystanders), business records (made in the regular course of business without knowledge of future litigation), among many others.

 

The letters would be admissible under the theory that the letters contain the actual language of the victim, and because she had no reason to say what she said without some reasoning for it. Essentially, there is a lesser degree of possible insincerity in the letters than in other hearsay statements. Furthermore, the legislature believes that the probative value of letters such as this (particularly in mob cases) outweighs the prejudicial effect. This is likely because the reader of the letters can be cross examined as to their impression of the sincerity of the letter. If, for example, Savios did nothing to try to help her, then the defense will claim that the letters were meaningless.

 

 

We don't know how the court will rule. I guarantee the defense will claim that the law is unconstitutional and drag it as high as they can to get it declared unconstitutional.

 

That's a good summary of the reasoning behind the hearsay exceptions. However, I question the application of such an exception here, because I think there could be potential insincerity in her letters, given the context of their reportedly contentious divorce. Those have been known to motivate people to say just about anything about their spouses in an attempt to gain leverage or the upper hand.

 

It would be one thing if this was like the Simpson case, where there was other external evidence of abuse, threats, etc., and thus an established, independent foundation supporting Nicole's statements to others that OJ was going to kill her (after their divorce was already final). I don't recall whether there's any of that here. Without that, I think the possible prejudical effect of such statements could seriously overwhelm their probative value, which is relatively nil.

 

 

That's a good summary of the reasoning behind the hearsay exceptions. However, I question the application of such an exception here, because I think there could be potential insincerity in her letters, given the context of their reportedly contentious divorce. Those have been known to motivate people to say just about anything about their spouses in an attempt to gain leverage or the upper hand.

 

It would be one thing if this was like the Simpson case, where there was other external evidence of abuse, threats, etc., and thus an established, independent foundation supporting Nicole's statements to others that OJ was going to kill her (after their divorce was already final). I don't recall whether there's any of that here. Without that, I think the possible prejudical effect of such statements could seriously overwhelm their probative value, which is relatively nil.

 

The letter from Savio to the States Attorney's office is located here. This is my first time reading it.

 

There are events described therein which can be independently corroborated. Specifically the wrist injury and what appears to be a psychological evaluation of one of the kids. Unfortunately, the kids are probably going to have to take the stand if this guy is going to go to prison.

 

 

 

The more and more I think about it the more I think he is going to get off the hook on this. The motherf***er doesnt look a bit worried and never really has. He has been a consistent arrogant cocky prick even up unto the arrest. He knows what ever he did he did it right adn there isnt anything they could have got from her grave 20 YEARS LATER that could put a bullseye on Drew.

Typical of most Chicago Cops unfortunately. Its been proven time and time again they can get off even when the crime is caught on tape.

he wont get convicted.. for either death.

 

I know a little about the case... it's pretty solid, that's why they took 18 months before making the arrest.

The letter from Savio to the States Attorney's office is located here. This is my first time reading it.

 

There are events described therein which can be independently corroborated. Specifically the wrist injury and what appears to be a psychological evaluation of one of the kids. Unfortunately, the kids are probably going to have to take the stand if this guy is going to go to prison.

 

Thanks for that link; that letter does seem to provide a verifiable context.