Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[mysteriew]

I wasn't sure of the exact meaning of the term inculpatory evidence so I looked it up.

Inculpatory evidence is a legal term used to describe evidence that shows, or tends to show, a person's involvement in an act, or evidence that can establish guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculpatory_evidence

And at this point we don't know what or how much "inculpatory evidence" the police have as they haven't talked about the case.

 

[Wudge]

It is my understanding that the appeals process only looks at the court procedure.

SNIP

Appellate Courts adjudge submitted issues. For example, an insufficient evidence issue.

 

[Wudge]

I wasn't sure of the exact meaning of the term inculpatory evidence so I looked it up.



And at this point we don't know what or how much "inculpatory evidence" the police have as they haven't talked about the case.

Thus, Drew should be held presumed innocent.

 

[Floh]

Thus, Drew should be held presumed innocent.

Is there such a legal phrase? "held presumed innocent"? :waitasec:

 

[mysteriew]

Thus, Drew should be held presumed innocent.

In a court of law that is true. However, this is not a court of law. And interested parties do have a right to form their own opinions and to discuss those opinions.

Wudge I respect and even appreciate your reasoning for the warnings about slander, libel and defamation and I actually try to use them when I discuss a case. I try to remember to make it clear when I am stating my own theories and opinions. But what you seem to be doing now is criticizing our justice system and the way it works. A system that has stood for hundreds of years. And while I will admit it isn't a perfect system, it is the best we have, and much better than many others I have seen. The judge was there to oversee the trial and had the right and responsibility to throw the case out if he did not feel the evidence to convict was there or if errors were made. The DA had the responsibility to make sure all the evidence against SP was presented. And the defense attorney was there to make sure that any evidence in SP's favor was presented. And the jury was there to independently make a decision on guilty or not guilty. They saw what they deemed to be "incupatory evidence" and the process was completed and SP was found guilty.

So unless the appeals court finds some error, then SP is guilty he is in prison and if the appeals court doesn't find grievous error then presumably in 10-20 years he will be put to death (if the death penalty is not overturned.)

In the meantime this is Stacy Peterson and Drew Peterson, not Scott and Laci.

 

[Wudge]

Is there such a legal phrase? "held presumed innocent"? :waitasec:

As regards criminal cases in America, "presumed innocent" is our statutory holding.

 

[Wudge]

In a court of law that is true. However, this is not a court of law. And interested parties do have a right to form their own opinions and to discuss those opinions.

Wudge I respect your reasoning for the warnings about slander, libel and defamation and I actually try to use them when I discuss a case. I try to remember to make it clear when I am stating my own theories and opinions. But what you seem to be doing now is criticizing our justice system and the way it works. A system that has stood for hundreds of years. And while I will admit it isn't a perfect system, it is the best we have, and much better than many others I have seen. The judge was there to oversee the trial and had the right and responsibility to throw the case out if he did not feel the evidence to convict was there or if errors were made. The DA had the responsibility to make sure all the evidence against SP was presented. And the defense attorney was there to make sure that any evidence in SP's favor was presented. And the jury was there to independently make a decision on guilty or not guilty. The process was completed and SP was found guilty.

So unless the appeals court finds some error, then SP is guilty he is in prison and if the appeals court doesn't find grievous error then presumably in 10-20 years he will be put to death (if the death penalty is not overturned.)

In the meantime this is Stacy Peterson and Drew Peterson, not Scott and Laci.

Our system certainly can be improved. And you are free to conclude Drew is guilty without either the evidence or due process that our imperfect legal process requires. However, most evidence deficient conclusions of guilt in high-profile cases are not supported in a subsequent trial.

As regards my posts today, some reference Scott's case only because it was brought up by another poster (and subsequently others), and there are strong comparatives to this case. As such, it represents a strong and relative comparison case and learning base.

As a getaway note, unless an Appellate Court affirms the jury's verdict (or his appeal is otherwise exhausted), Scott's alleged guilt is legally in limbo. Should Scott die tomorrow, the jury's verdict would almost assuredly be vacated, and Scott would be considered not guilty in the eyes of the law, forever.

HTH

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Well, I do agree our system needs improvement. The best improvement would be to stop creating new laws to protect the suspects! Victims should have all the cards geared towards them and not against them, especially the children. Men suspected of killing their wives should not be with their children and walking free while police are trying to gather such evidence, imo. Men suspected of murder or abuse of a spouse should also have to give up the children until the matter is resolved in court.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Victims should have all the cards geared towards them and not against them, especially the children. Men suspected of killing their wives should not be with their children and walking free while police are trying to gather such evidence, imo. Men suspected of murder or abuse of a spouse should also have to give up the children until the matter is resolved in court.

No cards for suspects. All cards for victims. Novel.

Another thought: You might want to consider guarding against sexism in 2008.

 

[TGIRecovered]

This thread is quickly descending in to and off-topic and very annoying war of words. We have a thread for this legal drivel (referring to the post,not attacking the poster).
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57642

I hope you will enjoy hashing it out in it's proper forum as much as I will enjoy returning to an interesting conversation relevant to Stacy Peterson.

Susan

 

[thesleuther]

How did Nancy do in the OLympic park bombing case (Richard Jewell)?

First, wouldn't know.

Second, irrelevent.

Third, you said that Nancy Grace holds a "doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups." That, of course, is untrue as I don't believe such a doctorate exists.

 

[thesleuther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thesleuther
I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.

Cite the inculpatory evidence?

I ask the same in this case.

In murder cases, please understand that corroborative evidence without inculpatory evidence is insufficient evidence.

First, this isn't a discussion on the Scott Peterson case.

Second, the jury spoke, I don't think I need to recap.

Third, if all crimes required eye-witness testimony and didn't permit circumstantial evidence, where would we be? Wudge World?

If this particular case ever goes to trial, it will be with circumstantial evidence since it appears that he murdered his wife in their bedroom while his little children were elsewhere in the house.

If you don't think there was overwhelming evidence in the Scott Peterson case, then I believe that you couldn't possibly be convinced of Drew Peterson's guilt in the murder of either wife. Yes, I know, we don't know for certain that Stacy Peterson was murdered, but common sense says she was.

We are all aware of the standard of guilt in a criminal case. But, we aren't the jury in this case. We're discussing possibilities in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. And while I'll certainly concede that there are some odd comments made at times, common sense says that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio and then continued the pattern of abuse that began years ago, and subsequently murdered Stacy Peterson.

 

[TGIRecovered]

Wudge wrote:

Nancy Grace holds a "doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups.

Oh my! Could this be... slander ?

Susan

 

[Wudge]

Wudge wrote:


Oh my! Could this be... slander ?

Susan

How did Nancy do on the Elizabeth Smart case?

 

[TKS2003]

How did Nancy do on the Elizabeth Smart case?

How did ANYONE do on the Elizabeth Smart case?
Who cares "how" Nancy does? She technically isnt "on" any case, she is broadcast personality now, she is no longer a prosecutor.
I am not particulary a big fan of Nancy Grace, but if I ever have a missing family member, and a suspect, I hope it gets her interest--she is a tenacious victims advocate, and in this case, Stacy is surely a victim.

 

[biggirl]

How did ANYONE do on the Elizabeth Smart case?
Who cares "how" Nancy does? She technically isnt "on" any case, she is broadcast personality now, she is no longer a prosecutor.
I am not particulary a big fan of Nancy Grace, but if I ever have a missing family member, and a suspect, I hope it gets her interest--she is a tenacious victims advocate, and in this case, Stacy is surely a victim.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

 

[Wudge]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thesleuther
I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.



First, this isn't a discussion on the Scott Peterson case.

Second, the jury spoke, I don't think I need to recap.

Third, if all crimes required eye-witness testimony and didn't permit circumstantial evidence, where would we be? Wudge World?

If this particular case ever goes to trial, it will be with circumstantial evidence since it appears that he murdered his wife in their bedroom while his little children were elsewhere in the house.

If you don't think there was overwhelming evidence in the Scott Peterson case, then I believe that you couldn't possibly be convinced of Drew Peterson's guilt in the murder of either wife. Yes, I know, we don't know for certain that Stacy Peterson was murdered, but common sense says she was.

We are all aware of the standard of guilt in a criminal case. But, we aren't the jury in this case. We're discussing possibilities in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. And while I'll certainly concede that there are some odd comments made at times, common sense says that Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio and then continued the pattern of abuse that began years ago, and subsequently murdered Stacy Peterson.

I've posted proof elsewhere that there was insufficient evidence to convict Scott. That will be one of many appeal issues as regards his case.

Sometimes defendants are wrongfully convicted. Sometimes Appellate Courts see that sufficient evidence was not presented during the course of a trial, and they reverse the verdict and attach jeopardy. Thus foreclosing on a second trial.

In another fairly recent trial (late 2005) that I had closely followed, that being the murder trial late in 2005 of Cynthia George, Cynthia was convicted of complicity to commit murder and sentenced to 23 years in prison. On appeal, an Appellate Court in Ohio reversed the verdict, which was a bench verdict set down by Judge Patricia Cosgrove. The Appellate Court also attached jeopardy. Cynthia is now free, forever.

Right now, there is nothing in the public domain that would support finding proof beyond a reasonable doubt in either a Stacy murder case or a Kathleen murder case.

 

[Wudge]

First, wouldn't know.

Second, irrelevent.

Third, you said that Nancy Grace holds a "doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups." That, of course, is untrue as I don't believe such a doctorate exists.

As regards a celebrity, hyperbole is not slander (nor is parody).

HTH

 

[DeltaDawn]

Okay Wudge...what do you think happened to Stacy..please give a timeline and a reasonable explanation of who, beside Drew, would want to harm her.. in the spirit of debate..which I can see you so enjoy. Let's get down to business here..if we aren't right ..then what is your explanation...it is easy to ridicule others..harder still to come up with the correct answer..so far I have heard of no theory or explanation for Stacy's disappearance from you.

So..what is your theory on what happened to Stacy...

PS ...Don't bring up the slander issue again..I come from a long line of lawyers... 90% of what you have to say is not specificaly revelant to this case..it belongs in the jury room or a political thread..we are not here to debate law with you.. we are here to find out the truth about Stacy's demise.

 

[Wudge]

Okay Wudge...what do you think happened to Stacy..please give a timeline and a reasonable explanation of who, beside Drew, would want to harm her.. in the spirit of debate..which I can see you so enjoy.

I assess timelines offered at trial for reasonableness and alternative considerations, best to wait.

I have no idea who might want to harm her. The husband and/or boyfriend is a suspect in most such cases. Did she have another friend on the side?