Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[Wudge]

What's so amazing is how Drew has no problem slandering his wife, who of course could sue him since she's "still alive". You'd think a man who knows his wife is "still alive" wouldn't slander her and open himself up to a lawsuit.

Basis for divorce proceedings based on irreconcilable differences.

 

[robthomaseyes]

Basis for divorce proceedings based on irreconcilable differences.

yes, basis for her divorce case AND for slander. Speaking of the divorce case, when she comes back from her "vacation", won't she be wanting that 200,000 back since it came out of an account she jointly held? I sure hope Drew's son doesn't do anything with it. Of course, maybe Drew has reason to believe she won't be back to ask for her half of that money.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Of course, maybe Drew has reason to believe she won't be back to ask for her half of that money.

That possibility is being investigated.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

I have a question. It may have been answered before and I apoligize if so. How old is Stacy's sister Cassandra? She must be younger than 18 to have a guardian or is she handicapped in some way? No real reason for asking other than curious. Thanks.

Cassandra is 22 years old.

 

[panthera]

"Searching your house is like a major violation of your rights. So it's like, OK, I have nothing to hide, so it's like, come and look. But they did so under court order, and I didn't have no choice," Drew Peterson said.

Interesting comment for a 29 year veteran of law enforcement to make...that searching a house is a major violation of rights? How so, when there is a warrant? I'm sure in his 29 years he's done this to others plenty of times and had no problems with it. Why does he suddenly feel the job he's done all his life is a violation of rights?

Yes, it's very interesting! I guess it's ok for everyone but him.

 

[MysteryAddict]

OK Now I am feeling very shaky about posting anything on here anymore. I thought we were here to share our opinions, theories, and try to reach logical conclusions. I am quite confused at this point.

Are we only allowed to discuss things which are known facts about people? Can't we speculate on cases anymore? Maybe there is a thread which lines out what we can and cannot discuss and I have missed it?

Oh my, SS, that's what I had thought too. If it's no longer true then forget it!!

What happened? I missed it.

Mostly I come up with questions relating to rumors I've heard relating to cases, directed to those who are more knowledgeable than I.

Why ask a question if you already know the facts?

Oh well!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Unlike a thank you when money is slipped into a blind man's tin cup, I don't get (nor do I expect) the same for online nicities.

Be wise. Libel cases are flourishing, and lives are destroyed as a result. Defending yourself in a libel suit is very expensive. I know over twenty-five law students who attend the top law schools that are learning a hard lesson (courtesy of a defamation law suit) in what not to say on line.

MysteryAddict...This is what I am referring to. Are we are being threatened by lawsuits over what we post now?! I am very concerned and we all should be, if so. Since I am not a legal eagle or anything, I don't know the laws regarding libel, torts, and/or defamation.

Reviewing torts/libel/defamation would be prudent.

This case is shaping up to be another big winner for Lynn Wood.

 

[Taximom]

Maybe Wudge could start a libel/tort/defamation thread and teach everyone.

 

[SuziQ]

Just ignore the troll and continue on. If there was anything wrong with what we are saying, then the mods would let us know.

 

[Taximom]

I guess nobody caught my sarcasm. LOL

Has there been anymore on Drew's Disney trip? IIRC, the flight left the 21st.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

They will certainly have photogs all over both airports to catch a sighting of DP and the children. Of course, they could all wear little flag bandanas and wearing sunglasses to slip by the media crunch. : )

 

[Taximom]

Well, that's not till tomorrow. I just wondered if it had been confirmed. In a way, I hope the kids can enjoy some fun, if it's true.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Well, that's not till tomorrow. I just wondered if it had been confirmed. In a way, I hope the kids can enjoy some fun, if it's true.

LOL You are right. I have lost track of the days around here since the ice storm...maybe the frigid cold affected my brain. :doh:

 

[robthomaseyes]

MysteryAddict...This is what I am referring to. Are we are being threatened by lawsuits over what we post now?! I am very concerned and we all should be, if so. Since I am not a legal eagle or anything, I don't know the laws regarding libel, torts, and/or defamation.

First of all, as I understand it, the person bringing a suit has to prove real and actual damages to him, whether to his reputation or economically. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comments being made on the internet about this case; it would have to be proved that any of our comments are not only false, but that we intended to damage him and that he was harmed financially (or socially). And it would have to meet the level of what a reasonable person would believe as fact. If you called DP "Satan", for instance, no reasonable person would believe he was, in fact, Lucifer.

Mr. Peterson has more problems with the damage he's done to his own reputation, IMO.

 

[Wudge]

First of all, as I understand it, the person bringing a suit has to prove real and actual damages to him, whether to his reputation or economically. There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comments being made on the internet about this case; it would have to be proved that any of our comments are not only false, but that we intended to damage him and that he was harmed financially (or socially). And it would have to meet the level of what a reasonable person would believe as fact. If you called DP "Satan", for instance, no reasonable person would believe he was, in fact, Lucifer.

Mr. Peterson has more problems with the damage he's done to his own reputation, IMO.

People who are sued for defamation will need to hire an attorney. If they decide to settle out of court, they will pay to settle plus pay the fee of their attorney.

If people decide to go to trial, their attorneys fees should be expected to be very high, for even simple trials are extremely costly. Plus, to say the least, they (and perhaps their family) will be worried sick thoughout the process

Setting yourself up for a potential defamation lawsuit is just plain dull.

 

[MysteryAddict]

Quoted from SS..

"MysteryAddict...This is what I am referring to. Are we are being threatened by lawsuits over what we post now?! I am very concerned and we all should be, if so. Since I am not a legal eagle or anything, I don't know the laws regarding libel, torts, and/or defamation."



"Legal Eagle"? Oh you've got to be kidding! But what happened to freedom of speech?

I think of us as a group of friends gathered together discussing subjects we are commonly interested in. Isn't that what we are?

Why should there be a problem with that? We do not pronounce anyone guilty of anything, we just speculate on possibilities and compare thoughts and ideas.

Since when is there a law against that?

Is this still America or not?

 

[Littledeer]

SS:

Freedom is speech is still alive! And it ALWAYS WILL BE. (God Bless the USA)

I, for one, am not worry about voicing my OPINIONS, that being the key word, about DP and Stacy.

Not once have I said anything as a FACT. So I have nothing to worry about.

And Neither do YOU.

Wudge might be referring to the "defaming of character" that a person could bring a suit against someone for. But, sorry, DP would have to bring that suit against THOUSANDS of people.

All of the above is in MHO.

 

[mysteriew]

IThey will certainly have photogs all over both airports to catch a sighting of DP and the children. Of course, they could all wear little flag bandanas and wearing sunglasses to slip by the media crunch. : )

ROFL, I just had a 'vision' of DrewP strolling through the airport wearing his bandana, sunglasses and ballcap and leading 4 kids with their heads covered ala Michael Jackson!

 

[Wudge]

So what you are saying is that boards like this one should not exist? We are no longer free to write our opinions and to participate without the law hanging us out to dry? I don't know where you are going with this. Please DO start a thread somewhere to explain it. I thought freedom of speech was still alive and well...but looks like I have a lot to learn.

Saying that you "suspect" represents opinion. Saying that you "feel" represents opinion. Saying that you "think" represents opinion. Saying that you "believe" represents opinion. Etc.

Defamation suits are not grounded in statements that represent opinion. Defamation statements are usually grounded in a statement or statements that portray a fact or facts that are deemed to be defaming to one or more parties -- where one of more of the alleged facts is claimed not to be true. Repeating false rumors can also lead to a defamation suit.

Gary Condit sued Dominic Dunne for defamation during a Larry King appearance. It took Dominic off the air for over a year, and Dominic admitted it was, to say the least, a very trying period for him. It cost him a ton of money in a number of ways. Moreover, he settled out of court as well.

Simply put, he was not maze bright (dull) while on Larry King that night, and it cost him dearly.

 

[Littledeer]

Wudge:

What about what I posted? Isn't that also true??